| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2003 06:31:34 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Hello T.O. |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:40:14 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians,
Constance Vigilant ("Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com>) said, directing the reply to
free.christians
alt.atheism added for my convenience.
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c743abb.0312151359.6f95c9d8@posting.google.com...
Louann Miller <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:<5u3stvcp7lmga4eg6j9lu1eaeovfsu28h7@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:51:42 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
<noway@jose.com> wrote:
Like I said before, I could care less what you want to believe. The
problem, as I stated before, starts when scientific illiterates >presume to
tell those that do understand science that they are "wrong" and some
religious belief, for some reason, is supposed to of any consequence.
So the real religion is, like, science, then?
Religion is religion. Science is science. Two separate things. I'm not
sure why this is a hard concept.
It's only a hard concept to people who'd like to confuse the two
in order to make the usual suspect arguments. And there are
several of *those* participating in this thread, of course.
Of course.
Naturally.
Indubitably.
Well, that's fair enough, as far as it goes, but by the same token
many allegedly religious propositions, particularly those that
originate from a fairly small section of US Christians make claims
that fall within the domain of science.
So, if for instance, if the claim is made that vegetation appeared on
the earth before the formation of the sun and moon and stars, then
this claim ought to be evaluated in terms of what we can know of these
things through purely scientific methods. If the religious claim
varies from what we can know through other means, which position
should we accept and why?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
| User: "Constance Vigilant" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
17 Dec 2003 08:28:49 AM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:fih0uv83tesrjvsn75fl67pb6ro17lbo5c@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:40:14 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians,
Constance Vigilant ("Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com>) said, directing the reply to
free.christians
alt.atheism added for my convenience.
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c743abb.0312151359.6f95c9d8@posting.google.com...
Louann Miller <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:<5u3stvcp7lmga4eg6j9lu1eaeovfsu28h7@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:51:42 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
<noway@jose.com> wrote:
Like I said before, I could care less what you want to believe.
The
problem, as I stated before, starts when scientific illiterates
presume to
tell those that do understand science that they are "wrong" and
some
religious belief, for some reason, is supposed to of any
consequence.
So the real religion is, like, science, then?
Religion is religion. Science is science. Two separate things. I'm
not
sure why this is a hard concept.
It's only a hard concept to people who'd like to confuse the two
in order to make the usual suspect arguments. And there are
several of *those* participating in this thread, of course.
Of course.
Naturally.
Indubitably.
Well, that's fair enough, as far as it goes, but by the same token
many allegedly religious propositions, particularly those that
originate from a fairly small section of US Christians make claims
that fall within the domain of science.
So, if for instance, if the claim is made that vegetation appeared on
the earth before the formation of the sun and moon and stars, then
this claim ought to be evaluated in terms of what we can know of these
things through purely scientific methods. If the religious claim
varies from what we can know through other means, which position
should we accept and why?
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
18 Dec 2003 12:41:00 PM |
|
|
And so upon Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:28:49 +0000 didst Constance Vigilant speak
thusly:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:fih0uv83tesrjvsn75fl67pb6ro17lbo5c@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:40:14 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians,
Constance Vigilant ("Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com>) said, directing the reply to
free.christians
alt.atheism added for my convenience.
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c743abb.0312151359.6f95c9d8@posting.google.com...
Louann Miller <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:<5u3stvcp7lmga4eg6j9lu1eaeovfsu28h7@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:51:42 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
<noway@jose.com> wrote:
Like I said before, I could care less what you want to believe.
The
problem, as I stated before, starts when scientific illiterates
presume to
tell those that do understand science that they are "wrong" and
some
religious belief, for some reason, is supposed to of any
consequence.
So the real religion is, like, science, then?
Religion is religion. Science is science. Two separate things. I'm
not
sure why this is a hard concept.
It's only a hard concept to people who'd like to confuse the two
in order to make the usual suspect arguments. And there are
several of *those* participating in this thread, of course.
Of course.
Naturally.
Indubitably.
Well, that's fair enough, as far as it goes, but by the same token
many allegedly religious propositions, particularly those that
originate from a fairly small section of US Christians make claims
that fall within the domain of science.
So, if for instance, if the claim is made that vegetation appeared on
the earth before the formation of the sun and moon and stars, then
this claim ought to be evaluated in terms of what we can know of these
things through purely scientific methods. If the religious claim
varies from what we can know through other means, which position
should we accept and why?
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
First, prove you exist.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sven Silow" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
17 Dec 2003 09:28:05 PM |
|
|
Insait long talk.origins, "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> em i bin raitim dispela tingting:
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Huh? The star closest to the Earth is "only" a little more than four
light years away. This means that the light take *four* years (well,
4.22 years) to reach us. *No* single star that you can see with your
naked eye is even close to a million ly away (within just 1000 ly
there is over a million stars) The most distant object you can see
without aid is the Andromeda galaxy, about two million ly from here;
you can't however dissolve the single stars and to the naked eye it
looks like a hazy patch of light.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Well, or just 4.22 years that never existed. (BTW how old are you?)
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
Ask us again after your fifth birthday.
Sven
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
17 Dec 2003 09:42:47 PM |
|
|
"Sven Silow" <poisoned@sdd.dart.se> wrote in message
news:3fe11ae8.22941920@news.algonet.se...
Insait long talk.origins, "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> em i bin raitim dispela tingting:
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Huh? The star closest to the Earth is "only" a little more than four
light years away.
Nit-pic: The closest star to the earth is only eight light minutes away.
:}
This means that the light take *four* years (well,
4.22 years) to reach us. *No* single star that you can see with your
naked eye is even close to a million ly away (within just 1000 ly
there is over a million stars) The most distant object you can see
without aid is the Andromeda galaxy, about two million ly from here;
you can't however dissolve the single stars and to the naked eye it
looks like a hazy patch of light.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Well, or just 4.22 years that never existed. (BTW how old are you?)
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
Ask us again after your fifth birthday.
The "light created in transit" argument is one of the more strange
creationist claims, since that also means creating light from supernova for
stars that never existed. Not only that, but when you take into account
that those supernova are many time more distant that 6000 LY distant, that
begs the question, what logical reason would a creator have to pull that
kind of deception?
Boikat
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
17 Dec 2003 11:05:37 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:28:49 +0000 (UTC),
Constance Vigilant <anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:fih0uv83tesrjvsn75fl67pb6ro17lbo5c@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:40:14 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians,
Constance Vigilant ("Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com>) said, directing the reply to
free.christians
alt.atheism added for my convenience.
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c743abb.0312151359.6f95c9d8@posting.google.com...
Louann Miller <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:<5u3stvcp7lmga4eg6j9lu1eaeovfsu28h7@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:51:42 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
<noway@jose.com> wrote:
Like I said before, I could care less what you want to believe.
The
problem, as I stated before, starts when scientific illiterates
presume to
tell those that do understand science that they are "wrong" and
some
religious belief, for some reason, is supposed to of any
consequence.
So the real religion is, like, science, then?
Religion is religion. Science is science. Two separate things. I'm
not
sure why this is a hard concept.
It's only a hard concept to people who'd like to confuse the two
in order to make the usual suspect arguments. And there are
several of *those* participating in this thread, of course.
Of course.
Naturally.
Indubitably.
Well, that's fair enough, as far as it goes, but by the same token
many allegedly religious propositions, particularly those that
originate from a fairly small section of US Christians make claims
that fall within the domain of science.
So, if for instance, if the claim is made that vegetation appeared on
the earth before the formation of the sun and moon and stars, then
this claim ought to be evaluated in terms of what we can know of these
things through purely scientific methods. If the religious claim
varies from what we can know through other means, which position
should we accept and why?
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
This is pure babble. What educational institution so thoroughly warped your
mind?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Louann Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
17 Dec 2003 10:08:15 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:28:49 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
(scratching head) so when your senses tell you something, like "look,
a star" your default hypothesis is that God is lying to you?
Louann
.
|
|
|
| User: "Constance Vigilant" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
17 Dec 2003 01:11:27 PM |
|
|
"Louann Miller" <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:9rv0uvk6b8t8l5p8958r85urh3stafk9bk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:28:49 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
(scratching head) so when your senses tell you something, like "look,
a star" your default hypothesis is that God is lying to you?
Louann
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
Even by your own notions, the stars whose light is now hitting earth are
some of them now already depreciated.
So is your science lying to you, because your senses see light only, but the
science talks about a ball of gas?
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
18 Dec 2003 12:41:43 PM |
|
|
And so upon Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:27 +0000 didst Constance Vigilant speak
thusly:
"Louann Miller" <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:9rv0uvk6b8t8l5p8958r85urh3stafk9bk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:28:49 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
(scratching head) so when your senses tell you something, like "look,
a star" your default hypothesis is that God is lying to you?
Louann
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
Even by your own notions, the stars whose light is now hitting earth are
some of them now already depreciated.
Depreciated?
Cash based accounting?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Constance Vigilant" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
20 Dec 2003 03:04:41 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.18.18.47.34.797187@sig.below...
And so upon Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:27 +0000 didst Constance Vigilant speak
thusly:
"Louann Miller" <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:9rv0uvk6b8t8l5p8958r85urh3stafk9bk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:28:49 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
(scratching head) so when your senses tell you something, like "look,
a star" your default hypothesis is that God is lying to you?
Louann
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I
am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
Even by your own notions, the stars whose light is now hitting earth are
some of them now already depreciated.
Depreciated?
Cash based accounting?
Sorry, I was getting interferentia from romaneste.
These things happen to people who spend time talking English to Romanians
all day. You pick up their habits.
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
18 Dec 2003 11:03:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:41:43 +0000 (UTC), "Mark K. Bilbo"
<see.blog@sig.below> wrote:
And so upon Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:27 +0000 didst Constance Vigilant speak
thusly:
"Louann Miller" <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:9rv0uvk6b8t8l5p8958r85urh3stafk9bk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:28:49 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
(scratching head) so when your senses tell you something, like "look,
a star" your default hypothesis is that God is lying to you?
Louann
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
Even by your own notions, the stars whose light is now hitting earth are
some of them now already depreciated.
Depreciated?
Cash based accounting?
Perhaps it is like the oil depreciation allowance.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
19 Dec 2003 08:55:19 AM |
|
|
And so upon Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:03:13 +0000 didst tonyofbexarremovethis
speak thusly:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:41:43 +0000 (UTC), "Mark K. Bilbo"
<see.blog@sig.below> wrote:
And so upon Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:27 +0000 didst Constance Vigilant speak
thusly:
"Louann Miller" <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:9rv0uvk6b8t8l5p8958r85urh3stafk9bk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:28:49 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
(scratching head) so when your senses tell you something, like "look,
a star" your default hypothesis is that God is lying to you?
Louann
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
Even by your own notions, the stars whose light is now hitting earth are
some of them now already depreciated.
Depreciated?
Cash based accounting?
Perhaps it is like the oil depreciation allowance.
What I thought I read at first was "deprecated." But, then, I've been
reading a lot of programming docs lately...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
18 Dec 2003 11:33:43 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, wrote in
<2k15uvolra3b6rlpk845o7ddu7kbic7p90@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:41:43 +0000 (UTC), "Mark K. Bilbo"
<see.blog@sig.below> wrote:
And so upon Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:27 +0000 didst Constance Vigilant speak
thusly:
....
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
Even by your own notions, the stars whose light is now hitting earth are
some of them now already depreciated.
Depreciated?
Cash based accounting?
Perhaps it is like the oil depreciation allowance.
That is practically the same as depletion, I guess.
Some of the stars are depleted.
The IRC gives an oil depletion allowance.
Hardly worth quibbling about.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Homer, Marge, mini-golf, air balloon, stadium.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
19 Dec 2003 08:56:04 AM |
|
|
And so upon Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:33:43 +0000 didst David Jensen speak
thusly:
In talk.origins, wrote in
<2k15uvolra3b6rlpk845o7ddu7kbic7p90@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:41:43 +0000 (UTC), "Mark K. Bilbo"
<see.blog@sig.below> wrote:
And so upon Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:27 +0000 didst Constance Vigilant speak
thusly:
...
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
Even by your own notions, the stars whose light is now hitting earth are
some of them now already depreciated.
Depreciated?
Cash based accounting?
Perhaps it is like the oil depreciation allowance.
That is practically the same as depletion, I guess.
Some of the stars are depleted.
The IRC gives an oil depletion allowance.
Hardly worth quibbling about.
Is this anything to do with that "slow light" thing?
Dunno, though. I didn't know god was an accountant...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
19 Dec 2003 06:02:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:33:43 +0000 (UTC), David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, wrote in
<2k15uvolra3b6rlpk845o7ddu7kbic7p90@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:41:43 +0000 (UTC), "Mark K. Bilbo"
<see.blog@sig.below> wrote:
And so upon Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:27 +0000 didst Constance Vigilant speak
thusly:
...
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
Even by your own notions, the stars whose light is now hitting earth are
some of them now already depreciated.
Depreciated?
Cash based accounting?
Perhaps it is like the oil depreciation allowance.
That is practically the same as depletion, I guess.
Some of the stars are depleted.
They are? What does that mean, and what happens to the other stars?
The IRC gives an oil depletion allowance.
Hardly worth quibbling about.
Since it doesn't seem to have any meaning at all, there is nothing to
quibble about.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
17 Dec 2003 04:43:35 PM |
|
|
Constance Vigilant wrote:
"Louann Miller" <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:9rv0uvk6b8t8l5p8958r85urh3stafk9bk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:28:49 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
(scratching head) so when your senses tell you something, like "look,
a star" your default hypothesis is that God is lying to you?
Louann
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
Even by your own notions, the stars whose light is now hitting earth are
some of them now already depreciated.
So is your science lying to you, because your senses see light only, but the
science talks about a ball of gas?
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
God made two 'great lights'. One (the sun) to rule the day;
and the other (the moon) to rule the night.
We have been to the moon (never mind the vast scientific
literature about the moon from earth-bound and orbital
observers). It turns out that it is really there, and is almost
exactly what we thought it would be before we went.
We have observed the sun in great detail, from earth, from
orbit and from probes diving directly into the sun. It turns
out it is really there, and is almost exactly what we thought it
would be before we went. It is a ball of gas.
The stars we've studied, although differing from the sun in
some respects, turn out to show all the basic characteristics
of balls of gas. Big, massive, hot balls of gas.
And, of course, we have observed all this with instuments that
include wavelengths of light we can't see, and with non-visual
instuments.
Unless you think we didn't go to the moon, and unless you think
that the other stars aren't balls of gas similar to the sun, I
don't see how you can conclude anything other than:
1. The stars are what astronomy and cosmology think they are;
OR
2. God is lying to us.
Of course, this is over your pretty little head; that, or
you'll laugh it off in order to maintain your belief system.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
17 Dec 2003 04:43:53 PM |
|
|
Constance Vigilant wrote:
"Louann Miller" <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:9rv0uvk6b8t8l5p8958r85urh3stafk9bk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:28:49 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
(scratching head) so when your senses tell you something, like "look,
a star" your default hypothesis is that God is lying to you?
Louann
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
Even by your own notions, the stars whose light is now hitting earth are
some of them now already depreciated.
So is your science lying to you, because your senses see light only, but the
science talks about a ball of gas?
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
God made two 'great lights'. One (the sun) to rule the day;
and the other (the moon) to rule the night.
We have been to the moon (never mind the vast scientific
literature about the moon from earth-bound and orbital
observers). It turns out that it is really there, and is almost
exactly what we thought it would be before we went.
We have observed the sun in great detail, from earth, from
orbit and from probes diving directly into the sun. It turns
out it is really there, and is almost exactly what we thought it
would be before we went. It is a ball of gas.
The stars we've studied, although differing from the sun in
some respects, turn out to show all the basic characteristics
of balls of gas. Big, massive, hot balls of gas.
And, of course, we have observed all this with instuments that
include wavelengths of light we can't see, and with non-visual
instuments.
Unless you think we didn't go to the moon, and unless you think
that the other stars aren't balls of gas similar to the sun, I
don't see how you can conclude anything other than:
1. The stars are what astronomy and cosmology think they are;
OR
2. God is lying to us.
Of course, this is over your pretty little head; that, or
you'll laugh it off in order to maintain your belief system.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
17 Dec 2003 04:46:11 PM |
|
|
Constance Vigilant wrote:
"Louann Miller" <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:9rv0uvk6b8t8l5p8958r85urh3stafk9bk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:28:49 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
(scratching head) so when your senses tell you something, like "look,
a star" your default hypothesis is that God is lying to you?
Louann
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
Even by your own notions, the stars whose light is now hitting earth are
some of them now already depreciated.
So is your science lying to you, because your senses see light only, but the
science talks about a ball of gas?
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
God made two 'great lights'. One (the sun) to rule the day;
and the other (the moon) to rule the night.
We have been to the moon (never mind the vast scientific
literature about the moon from earth-bound and orbital
observers). It turns out that it is really there, and is almost
exactly what we thought it would be before we went.
We have observed the sun in great detail, from earth, from
orbit and from probes diving directly into the sun. It turns
out it is really there, and is almost exactly what we thought it
would be before we went. It is a ball of gas.
The stars we've studied, although differing from the sun in
some respects, turn out to show all the basic characteristics
of balls of gas. Big, massive, hot balls of gas.
And, of course, we have observed all this with instuments that
include wavelengths of light we can't see, and with non-visual
instuments.
Unless you think we didn't go to the moon, and unless you think
that the other stars aren't balls of gas similar to the sun, I
don't see how you can conclude anything other than:
1. The stars are what astronomy and cosmology think they are;
OR
2. God is lying to us.
Of course, this is over your pretty little head; that, or
you'll laugh it off in order to maintain your belief system.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
17 Dec 2003 04:47:12 PM |
|
|
Constance Vigilant wrote:
"Louann Miller" <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:9rv0uvk6b8t8l5p8958r85urh3stafk9bk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:28:49 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
We don't know the stars are there, by the way.
We don't see stars, we only see the light from them.
Light which must of took millions of years to get here.
Millions of years which never necessarily existed.
Now please scientists prove those years definitely existed.
(scratching head) so when your senses tell you something, like "look,
a star" your default hypothesis is that God is lying to you?
Louann
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
Even by your own notions, the stars whose light is now hitting earth are
some of them now already depreciated.
So is your science lying to you, because your senses see light only, but the
science talks about a ball of gas?
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
God made two 'great lights'. One (the sun) to rule the day;
and the other (the moon) to rule the night.
We have been to the moon (never mind the vast scientific
literature about the moon from earth-bound and orbital
observers). It turns out that it is really there, and is almost
exactly what we thought it would be before we went.
We have observed the sun in great detail, from earth, from
orbit and from probes diving directly into the sun. It turns
out it is really there, and is almost exactly what we thought it
would be before we went. It is a ball of gas.
The stars we've studied, although differing from the sun in
some respects, turn out to show all the basic characteristics
of balls of gas. Big, massive, hot balls of gas.
And, of course, we have observed all this with instuments that
include wavelengths of light we can't see, and with non-visual
instuments.
Unless you think we didn't go to the moon, and unless you think
that the other stars aren't balls of gas similar to the sun, I
don't see how you can conclude anything other than:
1. The stars are what astronomy and cosmology think they are;
OR
2. God is lying to us.
Of course, this is over your pretty little head; that, or
you'll laugh it off in order to maintain your belief system.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louann Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
17 Dec 2003 05:15:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:47:12 +0000 (UTC), Tom McDonald
<tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote:
Unless you think we didn't go to the moon, and unless you think
that the other stars aren't balls of gas similar to the sun, I
don't see how you can conclude anything other than:
1. The stars are what astronomy and cosmology think they are;
OR
2. God is lying to us.
Of course, this is over your pretty little head; that, or
you'll laugh it off in order to maintain your belief system.
Side note: I saw 4 identical copies of this on my server.
I bet with you that she isn't interested in the data.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Constance Vigilant" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
20 Dec 2003 03:00:35 PM |
|
|
"Louann Miller" <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:pto1uvom30fr8miecklhculeddp9ksh6pe@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:47:12 +0000 (UTC), Tom McDonald
<tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote:
Unless you think we didn't go to the moon, and unless you think
that the other stars aren't balls of gas similar to the sun, I
don't see how you can conclude anything other than:
1. The stars are what astronomy and cosmology think they are;
OR
2. God is lying to us.
Of course, this is over your pretty little head; that, or
you'll laugh it off in order to maintain your belief system.
Side note: I saw 4 identical copies of this on my server.
I bet with you that she isn't interested in the data.
You just lost your bet. Fascinated I am, but it's not conclusive.
Near lights have to be from something.
And other wavelengths are all on the electromagnetic spectrum and therefore
count as light as far as I'm concerned.
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
17 Dec 2003 09:15:20 PM |
|
|
Louann Miller wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:47:12 +0000 (UTC), Tom McDonald
<tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote:
Unless you think we didn't go to the moon, and unless you think
that the other stars aren't balls of gas similar to the sun, I
don't see how you can conclude anything other than:
1. The stars are what astronomy and cosmology think they are;
OR
2. God is lying to us.
Of course, this is over your pretty little head; that, or
you'll laugh it off in order to maintain your belief system.
Side note: I saw 4 identical copies of this on my server.
I bet with you that she isn't interested in the data.
Louann,
Yes, sorry about that. I'd like to blame it on the very real computer
and ISP problems I've been having; but the truth is I loused up.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pip R. Lagenta" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
17 Dec 2003 09:36:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:27 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
[snip]
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
[snip]
The lie is in the difference between The Hand of God, as explored with
Science (i.e. evidence), and what *you* want to believe. God is said
to lie only because *you* say your belief is based on God, and *your*
belief does not match God's Own Reality.
Here, I have it in other words:
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/CHRIST.html>
HTH
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Constance Vigilant" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
20 Dec 2003 03:02:28 PM |
|
|
"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiusatwork@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fg82uv8r6gb68m9umvt4t9gc2ov1i2t7kr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:27 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
[snip]
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I
am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
[snip]
The lie is in the difference between The Hand of God, as explored with
Science (i.e. evidence), and what *you* want to believe. God is said
to lie only because *you* say your belief is based on God, and *your*
belief does not match God's Own Reality.
Here, I have it in other words:
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/CHRIST.html>
HTH
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Have you accepted Christ as your personal saviour?
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
23 Dec 2003 10:42:25 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:02:28 +0000 didst Constance Vigilant speak
thusly:
"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiusatwork@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fg82uv8r6gb68m9umvt4t9gc2ov1i2t7kr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:27 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
[snip]
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I
am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
[snip]
The lie is in the difference between The Hand of God, as explored with
Science (i.e. evidence), and what *you* want to believe. God is said
to lie only because *you* say your belief is based on God, and *your*
belief does not match God's Own Reality.
Here, I have it in other words:
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/CHRIST.html>
HTH
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Have you accepted Christ as your personal saviour?
Christ who?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
20 Dec 2003 04:24:40 PM |
|
|
Constance Vigilant wrote:
"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiusatwork@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fg82uv8r6gb68m9umvt4t9gc2ov1i2t7kr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:27 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
[snip]
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I
am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
[snip]
The lie is in the difference between The Hand of God, as explored with
Science (i.e. evidence), and what *you* want to believe. God is said
to lie only because *you* say your belief is based on God, and *your*
belief does not match God's Own Reality.
Here, I have it in other words:
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/CHRIST.html>
HTH
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Have you accepted Christ as your personal saviour?
I'm not an atheist. <shrug>
But I notice that you have not answered my simple question yet:
What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly
makes your (or ANY person's) religious opinions more (or less) valid
than anyone else's. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my
religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of
my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza
last night. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any
more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesn't seem
to be any potential source of such knowledge that isn't equally
available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I
read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to
church and listen to the pastor. So what is it, exactly, that makes
your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone else's.
(I should perhaps note that I am not referring to "you" as in any
particular individual; I mean "anybody, anybody at all". I should
also perhaps point out that I am NOT, repeat NOT, N-O-T, an atheist,
nor am I "attacking religion" in any way shape or form.)
I am very interested in getting answers to these questions,
particularly from you as our resident "True Christian <tm> (c)".
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pip R. Lagenta" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
20 Dec 2003 04:30:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:02:28 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiusatwork@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fg82uv8r6gb68m9umvt4t9gc2ov1i2t7kr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:27 +0000 (UTC), "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
[snip]
We see light from the star, and Genesis one calls them lights, and so I
am
not entirely sure where the lie is supposed to be.
[snip]
The lie is in the difference between The Hand of God, as explored with
Science (i.e. evidence), and what *you* want to believe. God is said
to lie only because *you* say your belief is based on God, and *your*
belief does not match God's Own Reality.
Here, I have it in other words:
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/CHRIST.html>
HTH
[snip]
Have you accepted Christ as your personal saviour?
Non sequitur noted.
If you are asking whether I accept God as a liar, then the answer is
no. I reject utterly the concept that God is in *any* way attempting
to deceive me.
I have a personal relationship with God, and it is one of trust. I
trust God not to pull any fast ones in any of His works. In return,
God can trust me with knowledge about any of His works. Science is
the tool by which I come to understand God's Universe. In fact, with
science, I can see *how* God works, limited only by my human
understanding, and other personal human limitations.
Your goofy interpretation of Genesis, and The Bible in general, is
nothing less than a belittlement, and ridicule of God Himself.
Shame on you!
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Louann Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Hello T.O. |
17 Dec 2003 09:35:56 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:31:34 +0000 (UTC), Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:40:14 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians,
Constance Vigilant ("Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com>) said, directing the reply to
free.christians
alt.atheism added for my convenience.
You may not get any thanks for that. I gather from posts on
free.christians that they just recently got rid of him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
