Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"

Religions > Bible > Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 31 of 57

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Jd"
Date:	30 Jun 2007 06:07:36 PM
Object:	Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"

Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ... billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible, even chance combinations of random chemicals to form the stunning complexities
of reproducing life."
"Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into confusion virtually all of the
accepted temporal paradigms of 20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the
billions of years necessary for evolution. Further, it raises the distinct possibility that
scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis.
Goodbye Scopes trial."
"The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as we've been taught since
the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of time."
"Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John
Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat
of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it
is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a
predetermined. answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
worldview.)"
Jd
.

User: "L. Raymond"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	28 Sep 2007 01:32:11 AM

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Al Klein wrote in

Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.

So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but nothing
else? In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence objective.
You have less than half as much evidence for that as I've given for the
other side.

As an atheist, Mr. Klein doesn't reject your god. Like the rest of us,
he has seen no evidence to suggest it actually exists, so the only
honest thing to do is to not think it exists. If a believer could
actually provide genuine evidence of a god's existence, then there would
be no atheists.
--
L. Raymond
.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	30 Sep 2007 06:30:00 PM

"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1bwzh03sxkzdk.3nzlw8cbcqxb$.dlg@40tude.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Al Klein wrote in

Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.

So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but
nothing else? In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence
objective. You have less than half as much evidence for that as I've
given for the other side.

As an atheist, Mr. Klein doesn't reject your god. Like the rest of

Actually, most of the militant atheists who attack me are opposed to the
very EXISTENCE of theists.

us, he has seen no evidence to suggest it actually exists, so the only
honest thing to do is to not think it exists. If a believer could
actually provide genuine evidence of a god's existence, then there
would be no atheists.

And, that's fine with me, as long as you don't start calling me a liar
just for being a theist. I'm really tired of all the crap the
fundamentalist atheists throw at me, though. It's just as nasty as the
crap I get from fundamentalist theists. And just as basely motivated.
Most atheists are not fundamentalists (just as most theists aren't). But
usenet seems to collect them.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.

User: "L. Raymond"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	30 Sep 2007 09:11:35 PM

Dave Oldridge wrote:

"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1bwzh03sxkzdk.3nzlw8cbcqxb$.dlg@40tude.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Al Klein wrote in

Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.

So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but
nothing else? In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence
objective. You have less than half as much evidence for that as I've
given for the other side.

As an atheist, Mr. Klein doesn't reject your god. Like the rest of

Actually, most of the militant atheists who attack me are opposed to the
very EXISTENCE of theists.

A lot of people claim that, when in fact it it's not theists in general
who are being attacked, just the poster himself. Mind you, there are is
at least one a.a. regular who really does attack all theists just for
being theist, but it's not Mr. Klein.

And, that's fine with me, as long as you don't start calling me a liar
just for being a theist.

Calling someone a liar tends to follow a claim that there is evidence
for a god, or claims that all atheists hate the theist's god. In this
case, you did make the statement to Al Klein saying that "[y]ou have
less than half as much evidence for that as I've given for the other
side," when referring to the existence of your god, and you have
displayed ignorance of what "objective" means, so it's not a great
surprise someone might say you're lying. Especially if you brand every
atheist who disagrees with you as a fundamentalist; that right there is
a lie since there is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. There
is no such thing as an atheist doctrine, no dogma, no list of rules or
principles, no way in which an atheist can be a fundamentalist.
--
L. Raymond
.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	01 Oct 2007 10:25:31 PM

"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:197f7lhughk8z$.1tx6h3ti43ui5$.dlg@40tude.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1bwzh03sxkzdk.3nzlw8cbcqxb$.dlg@40tude.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Al Klein wrote in

Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.

So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but
nothing else? In that case, why is your rejection of God's
existence objective. You have less than half as much evidence for
that as I've given for the other side.

As an atheist, Mr. Klein doesn't reject your god. Like the rest of

Actually, most of the militant atheists who attack me are opposed to
the very EXISTENCE of theists.

A lot of people claim that, when in fact it it's not theists in
general who are being attacked, just the poster himself. Mind you,
there are is at least one a.a. regular who really does attack all
theists just for being theist, but it's not Mr. Klein.

It's not. But Lee does it. At least he's done it every time I've seen
his posts. Keep in mind, though, that I only see what gets crossposted
to alt.bible. I don't subscribe to alt.atheism.

us, he has seen no evidence to suggest it actually exists, so the
only honest thing to do is to not think it exists. If a believer
could actually provide genuine evidence of a god's existence, then
there would be no atheists.

And, that's fine with me, as long as you don't start calling me a
liar just for being a theist.

Calling someone a liar tends to follow a claim that there is evidence
for a god, or claims that all atheists hate the theist's god. In this
case, you did make the statement to Al Klein saying that "[y]ou have
less than half as much evidence for that as I've given for the other
side," when referring to the existence of your god, and you have
displayed ignorance of what "objective" means, so it's not a great
surprise someone might say you're lying. Especially if you brand
every atheist who disagrees with you as a fundamentalist; that right
there is a lie since there is no such thing as a fundamentalist
atheist. There is no such thing as an atheist doctrine, no dogma, no
list of rules or principles, no way in which an atheist can be a
fundamentalist.

Yes, once the mudslinging starts, then all bets are off. Why should THEY
be the only ones making specious attacks?
And not every atheist who disagrees with me is a fundy. Fundies are
people who cannot tolerate any other point of view but their own. They
are pathologically incapable of it. And this is what I encounter every
time I take THEOLOGICAL issue with some theist fundy who posts garbage
about evolution to alt.atheism and alt.bible. Apparently the FUNDY
atheists would rather attack my character than the lies about evolution,
which don't seem to bother them nearly as much as my mere existence!
Sure, if atheism became the only belief held by anyone, then the problem
with creationism would evaporate. But neither of those two things is
likely to happen within the lifetime of any living human.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.

User: "L. Raymond"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	02 Oct 2007 01:42:55 PM

Dave Oldridge wrote:

"L. Raymond" wrote

Dave Oldridge wrote:

And, that's fine with me, as long as you don't start calling me a
liar just for being a theist.

Calling someone a liar tends to follow a claim that there is evidence
for a god, or claims that all atheists hate the theist's god. In this
case, you did make the statement to Al Klein saying that "[y]ou have
less than half as much evidence for that as I've given for the other
side," when referring to the existence of your god, and you have
displayed ignorance of what "objective" means, so it's not a great
surprise someone might say you're lying. Especially if you brand
every atheist who disagrees with you as a fundamentalist; that right
there is a lie since there is no such thing as a fundamentalist
atheist. There is no such thing as an atheist doctrine, no dogma, no
list of rules or principles, no way in which an atheist can be a
fundamentalist.

Yes, once the mudslinging starts, then all bets are off. Why should THEY
be the only ones making specious attacks?

What is this, pre-school? You think someone is acting childish, so you
think the proper thing is to act just as, if not more, childish? The
mystery as to why you annoy people is nearing a solution.

And not every atheist who disagrees with me is a fundy. Fundies are
people who cannot tolerate any other point of view but their own.

In other words, you've redefined fundamentalist to suit yourself. I
consider that carelessness, but people who are sticklers for honesty
would be justified in calling it a lie.

atheists would rather attack my character than the lies
about evolution, which don't seem to bother them nearly as much as my
mere existence!

Such hyperbole. We deal with lies about various theories of evolution
constantly, almost endlessly. It takes a massive ego to suggest just
because you, personally, have annoyed people you are somehow more
important than discussions about science. If you think correcting the
misperceptions that ignorant people have about evolution is so
important, then by all means subscribe to alt.atheism; we're deluged
with such folks and deal with them on a daily basis.

Sure, if atheism became the only belief held by anyone, then the problem
with creationism would evaporate. But neither of those two things is
likely to happen within the lifetime of any living human.

Atheism isn't a belief system. Being familiar with Messers. Klein and
Lee, I strongly suspect you've been told that before, which would mean
you feel the need to lie about atheism. In any case, it is an ignorant
statement that could not possibly have been made by anyone who knows
what being atheist means.
--
L. Raymond
.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	04 Oct 2007 02:51:30 AM

"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:d94xhx9mlhov.4nl0yhun1qo6$.dlg@40tude.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

"L. Raymond" wrote

Dave Oldridge wrote:

And, that's fine with me, as long as you don't start calling me a
liar just for being a theist.

Calling someone a liar tends to follow a claim that there is
evidence for a god, or claims that all atheists hate the theist's
god. In this case, you did make the statement to Al Klein saying
that "[y]ou have less than half as much evidence for that as I've
given for the other side," when referring to the existence of your
god, and you have displayed ignorance of what "objective" means, so
it's not a great surprise someone might say you're lying.
Especially if you brand every atheist who disagrees with you as a
fundamentalist; that right there is a lie since there is no such
thing as a fundamentalist atheist. There is no such thing as an
atheist doctrine, no dogma, no list of rules or principles, no way
in which an atheist can be a fundamentalist.

Yes, once the mudslinging starts, then all bets are off. Why should
THEY be the only ones making specious attacks?

What is this, pre-school? You think someone is acting childish, so
you think the proper thing is to act just as, if not more, childish?
The mystery as to why you annoy people is nearing a solution.

I annoy people because I don't bow down to their false gods. It's really
that simple. When it comes to narcissists, I'm as atheistic as they
come!

And not every atheist who disagrees with me is a fundy. Fundies are
people who cannot tolerate any other point of view but their own.

In other words, you've redefined fundamentalist to suit yourself. I
consider that carelessness, but people who are sticklers for honesty
would be justified in calling it a lie.

No, I haven't. I've just noticed all the similarities between what I
call fundy atheists and fundy theists. They are the same in a great many
ways, some of which they find rather discomforting to hear. And some of
which are surprising.

atheists would rather attack my character than the lies
about evolution, which don't seem to bother them nearly as much as my
mere existence!

But when I deal with them, if I even MENTION that the theist is sinning
by his own lights and mine, then I'm attacked, simply for being a theist.
Look, if y'all want your own private little atheist circle-jerk, do what
the fundies do. Go on Yahoo or MSN and set up a moderated group and only
let fellow circle-jerk members in there. I promise not to show up unless
specifically invited.

Sure, if atheism became the only belief held by anyone, then the
problem with creationism would evaporate. But neither of those two
things is likely to happen within the lifetime of any living human.

Atheism isn't a belief system. Being familiar with Messers. Klein and

Actually, when it is held to be the only rational, sane belief system,
then it is.

Lee, I strongly suspect you've been told that before, which would mean
you feel the need to lie about atheism. In any case, it is an

You mean they've lied to me about their dogmatism before, in the very
midst of revealing it.

ignorant statement that could not possibly have been made by anyone
who knows what being atheist means.

Do THEY know what being atheist means? They SEEM to think it means
attacking any theist who comes in sight. Apparently my very existence
paralyzes them to the point where they simply cannot put me in their
killfile and forget.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.

User: "L. Raymond"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	04 Oct 2007 03:27:20 AM

Dave Oldridge wrote:

"L. Raymond" wrote:

Yes, once the mudslinging starts, then all bets are off. Why should
THEY be the only ones making specious attacks?

What is this, pre-school? You think someone is acting childish, so
you think the proper thing is to act just as, if not more, childish?
The mystery as to why you annoy people is nearing a solution.

I annoy people because I don't bow down to their false gods. It's really
that simple. When it comes to narcissists, I'm as atheistic as they
come!

And false gods have exactly what to do with anyone in alt.atheism?
Besides, Narcissus was never considered a god.

And not every atheist who disagrees with me is a fundy. Fundies are
people who cannot tolerate any other point of view but their own.

In other words, you've redefined fundamentalist to suit yourself. I
consider that carelessness, but people who are sticklers for honesty
would be justified in calling it a lie.

So you've noticed something which you have chosen to call fundamentalism
despite the fact that's not what the word means, i.e. you've redefined
fundamentalist to suit yourself. If it embarrasses you to have this
pointed out, then you should stop doing it.

atheists would rather attack my character than the lies
about evolution, which don't seem to bother them nearly as much as my
mere existence!

But when I deal with them, if I even MENTION that the theist is sinning
by his own lights and mine, then I'm attacked, simply for being a theist.

Look, if y'all want your own private little atheist circle-jerk, do what
the fundies do. Go on Yahoo or MSN and set up a moderated group and only
let fellow circle-jerk members in there. I promise not to show up unless
specifically invited.

What has that to do with what I wrote? If your criticisms of
creationists or people who are anti-science are valid, then clearly it's
your attitude that is causing problems because there are regular
contributors to alt.atheism who are theists and whose input is welcome.
Circle jerk? That's something boys do, right? What is it, exactly? I
connect it with something in gym class, but don't know the details.

Sure, if atheism became the only belief held by anyone, then the
problem with creationism would evaporate. But neither of those two
things is likely to happen within the lifetime of any living human.

Atheism isn't a belief system. Being familiar with Messers. Klein and

Actually, when it is held to be the only rational, sane belief system,
then it is.

Atheism isn't a belief system. That you need so desperately to say it
is despite being informed it isn't is simply a way for you to be
insulting, disrespectful and childish while at the same time lying.
Atheism is the lack of a single belief. That's it. There is no system,
no dogma, no anything; it's just not believing in a god.

Lee, I strongly suspect you've been told that before, which would mean
you feel the need to lie about atheism. In any case, it is an

You mean they've lied to me about their dogmatism before, in the very
midst of revealing it.

Again, you've been told there is no such thing as atheist dogma, so if
they're being dogmatic about something, it's something other than
atheism. Probably they're really annoyed at your insulting, preschool
manner of labeling something incorrectly, just to get a rise of them.
Most folk have outgrown that need once they reach adulthood.
--
L. Raymond
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	02 Oct 2007 07:49:53 AM

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:25:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Yes, once the mudslinging starts, then all bets are off. Why should THEY
be the only ones making specious attacks?

Because of how the internet works. Your attacks in alt.atheism are a
violation of your provider's AUP. Our posts to alt.bible aren't.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	04 Oct 2007 02:45:43 AM

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:phf4g3llh3j894tv09q816qcfmdh52q218@4ax.com:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:25:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Yes, once the mudslinging starts, then all bets are off. Why should
THEY be the only ones making specious attacks?

Because of how the internet works. Your attacks in alt.atheism are a
violation of your provider's AUP. Our posts to alt.bible aren't.

I've never attacked ATHEISM in alt.atheism. I've attacked fundamentalist
anti-Christian dogma. I've attacked creationism. But not ATHEISM. Not
that I'm an atheist. I just don't care if anyone is or not. It's not
nearly as important to me as having actual science taught in the schools
instead of creationist tripe.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	04 Oct 2007 07:52:04 AM

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:45:43 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:phf4g3llh3j894tv09q816qcfmdh52q218@4ax.com:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:25:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Yes, once the mudslinging starts, then all bets are off. Why should
THEY be the only ones making specious attacks?

Because of how the internet works. Your attacks in alt.atheism are a
violation of your provider's AUP. Our posts to alt.bible aren't.

I've never attacked ATHEISM in alt.atheism. I've attacked fundamentalist
anti-Christian dogma.

No difference - YOUR attacks aren't wanted here, regardless of what
you attack, which is why YOU'RE being attacked.

I've attacked creationism. But not ATHEISM. Not
that I'm an atheist. I just don't care if anyone is or not. It's not
nearly as important to me as having actual science taught in the schools
instead of creationist tripe.

Your posts here have nothing to do with cretinism being taught in the
schools. If it did, no one here would argue, since we feel the same
way.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	05 Oct 2007 02:39:13 AM

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:obo9g3dlvg4qo243nif32r3qe4pmkkj3v9@4ax.com:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:45:43 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:phf4g3llh3j894tv09q816qcfmdh52q218@4ax.com:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:25:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Yes, once the mudslinging starts, then all bets are off. Why should
THEY be the only ones making specious attacks?

Because of how the internet works. Your attacks in alt.atheism are
a violation of your provider's AUP. Our posts to alt.bible aren't.

I've never attacked ATHEISM in alt.atheism. I've attacked
fundamentalist anti-Christian dogma.

No difference - YOUR attacks aren't wanted here, regardless of what
you attack, which is why YOU'RE being attacked.

Well, BOO BLOODY HOO!

Your posts here have nothing to do with cretinism being taught in the
schools. If it did, no one here would argue, since we feel the same
way.

That's because YOU GUYS changed the subject of the thread.
Hypocrites and liars, just like all the other fundies.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.

User: "Martin Phipps"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	05 Oct 2007 08:33:17 AM

On Oct 5, 3:39 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote innews:obo9g3dlvg4qo243nif32r3qe4pmkkj3v9@4ax.com:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:45:43 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:phf4g3llh3j894tv09q816qcfmdh52q218@4ax.com:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:25:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Yes, once the mudslinging starts, then all bets are off. Why should
THEY be the only ones making specious attacks?

Because of how the internet works. Your attacks in alt.atheism are
a violation of your provider's AUP. Our posts to alt.bible aren't.

I've never attacked ATHEISM in alt.atheism. I've attacked
fundamentalist anti-Christian dogma.

No difference - YOUR attacks aren't wanted here, regardless of what
you attack, which is why YOU'RE being attacked.

Well, BOO BLOODY HOO!

Your posts here have nothing to do with cretinism being taught in the
schools. If it did, no one here would argue, since we feel the same
way.

That's because YOU GUYS changed the subject of the thread.

We didn't change the subject of the thread, liar: you did.
Creationist morons believe their god created the universe but their
god doesn't even exist. They are deluded morons. And so are you!

Hypocrites and liars, just like all the other fundies.

As I've said before, you have more in common with the fundies than we
do.
Martin
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	04 Oct 2007 09:09:51 AM

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:52:04 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:45:43 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:phf4g3llh3j894tv09q816qcfmdh52q218@4ax.com:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:25:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Yes, once the mudslinging starts, then all bets are off. Why should
THEY be the only ones making specious attacks?

Because of how the internet works. Your attacks in alt.atheism are a
violation of your provider's AUP. Our posts to alt.bible aren't.

I've never attacked ATHEISM in alt.atheism. I've attacked fundamentalist
anti-Christian dogma.

Which is his own paranoid lie.
He keeps pretending the reaction to his question-begging, stupidity
and rudeness is "fundamentalist anti-Christian dogma" - three lies in
one short phrase.
He pretends this reaction is out of the blue because his self-image is
that of the good guy.
He can't understand that talking about his god where it is neither
wanted nor needed is rude, or that begging the question where it is
not granted is even more disrespectful as well as stupid because after
all who is he talking to, himself? Or people he knows don't believe it
because they are part of the rest of the world outside his religion?
Unfortunately this sort of behaviour is extremely common among the
fundamentalist/charismatic/etc wing of Christians. Who expect a free
ride, especially the priests who expect the everybody to treat them
with deference and respect undeserved outside the religion.
But respect is a two way thing, and when they haven't shown others the
respect they expect for themselves, they have no reason to whine when
they are treated just as disrespectfully.

Which Oldridge (and others) do in spades. And then escalate because
being sociopaths they are incapable of grasping how their behaviour is
seen at the receiving end.

No difference - YOUR attacks aren't wanted here, regardless of what
you attack, which is why YOU'RE being attacked.

Responded to.

Your posts here have nothing to do with cretinism being taught in the
schools. If it did, no one here would argue, since we feel the same
way.

He is being just plain stupid.
Nobody has attacked him for that, but for his personal nastiness that
he himself escalated because the reaction didn't fit his self-image.
He knows this.
But he can't admit it.

.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	05 Oct 2007 02:41:38 AM

Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:h9s9g31fvu3uv1og503otv219uo3h8aqca@4ax.com:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:52:04 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:45:43 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:phf4g3llh3j894tv09q816qcfmdh52q218@4ax.com:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:25:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Yes, once the mudslinging starts, then all bets are off. Why
should THEY be the only ones making specious attacks?

Because of how the internet works. Your attacks in alt.atheism are
a violation of your provider's AUP. Our posts to alt.bible aren't.

I've never attacked ATHEISM in alt.atheism. I've attacked
fundamentalist anti-Christian dogma.

Which is his own paranoid lie.

He keeps pretending the reaction to his question-begging, stupidity
and rudeness is "fundamentalist anti-Christian dogma" - three lies in
one short phrase.

He pretends this reaction is out of the blue because his self-image is
that of the good guy.

He can't understand that talking about his god where it is neither
wanted nor needed is rude, or that begging the question where it is
not granted is even more disrespectful as well as stupid because after
all who is he talking to, himself? Or people he knows don't believe it
because they are part of the rest of the world outside his religion?

Unfortunately this sort of behaviour is extremely common among the
fundamentalist/charismatic/etc wing of Christians. Who expect a free
ride, especially the priests who expect the everybody to treat them
with deference and respect undeserved outside the religion.

But respect is a two way thing, and when they haven't shown others the
respect they expect for themselves, they have no reason to whine when
they are treated just as disrespectfully.

Which Oldridge (and others) do in spades. And then escalate because
being sociopaths they are incapable of grasping how their behaviour is
seen at the receiving end.

No difference - YOUR attacks aren't wanted here, regardless of what
you attack, which is why YOU'RE being attacked.

Responded to.

I've attacked creationism. But not ATHEISM. Not
that I'm an atheist. I just don't care if anyone is or not. It's
not nearly as important to me as having actual science taught in the
schools instead of creationist tripe.

Your posts here have nothing to do with cretinism being taught in the
schools. If it did, no one here would argue, since we feel the same
way.

He is being just plain stupid.

Nobody has attacked him for that, but for his personal nastiness that
he himself escalated because the reaction didn't fit his self-image.
He knows this.

Sod off, you lying excrement of a pillock!
You just can't and won't admit that every time this gets started it's
some ATHEIST who changes the subject because his fundamentalist dogma has
been somewhat mildly brought into question in a thread that's crossposted
from another list.
But then you're one of the sorriest excuses for a human being that I've
ever encountered. I'm surprised that you claim to have friends. I
actually doubt it. You're way too stupidly dogmatic to have friends.
You might get a couple of your fellow fundies to be sycophants but
sycophants aren't friends.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	30 Sep 2007 08:06:40 PM

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:30:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1bwzh03sxkzdk.3nzlw8cbcqxb$.dlg@40tude.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Al Klein wrote in

Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.

So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but
nothing else? In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence
objective. You have less than half as much evidence for that as I've
given for the other side.

As an atheist, Mr. Klein doesn't reject your god. Like the rest of

Actually, most of the militant atheists who attack me are opposed to the
very EXISTENCE of theists.

I couldn't care less what you believe in. If you just believed in it,
and didn't post all about it to alt.atheism, I wouldn't even be aware
of your existence.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	01 Oct 2007 10:20:29 PM

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:luh0g3dr8tpk1eh9r38hlb6g5d3atoj4cr@4ax.com:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:30:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1bwzh03sxkzdk.3nzlw8cbcqxb$.dlg@40tude.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Al Klein wrote in

Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.

So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but
nothing else? In that case, why is your rejection of God's

existence

objective. You have less than half as much evidence for that as

I've

given for the other side.

As an atheist, Mr. Klein doesn't reject your god. Like the rest of

Actually, most of the militant atheists who attack me are opposed to

the

very EXISTENCE of theists.

I couldn't care less what you believe in. If you just believed in it,
and didn't post all about it to alt.atheism, I wouldn't even be aware
of your existence.

And if you didn't post your whining about it to alt.bible, I wouldn't be
aware of that.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.

User: "Martin Phipps"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	02 Oct 2007 03:46:52 AM

On Oct 2, 11:20 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:

Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote innews:luh0g3dr8tpk1eh9r38hlb6g5d3atoj4cr@4ax.com:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:30:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

"L. Raymond" <badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1bwzh03sxkzdk.3nzlw8cbcqxb$.dlg@40tude.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Al Klein wrote in

Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.

So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but
nothing else? In that case, why is your rejection of God's

existence

objective. You have less than half as much evidence for that as

I've

given for the other side.

As an atheist, Mr. Klein doesn't reject your god. Like the rest of

Actually, most of the militant atheists who attack me are opposed to

the

very EXISTENCE of theists.

I couldn't care less what you believe in. If you just believed in it,
and didn't post all about it to alt.atheism, I wouldn't even be aware
of your existence.

And if you didn't post your whining about it to alt.bible, I wouldn't be
aware of that.

Lucky for you then we posted there. May you one day get over your
delusions and ignorance.
Martin
.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	04 Oct 2007 02:44:12 AM

Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191314812.777864.295560@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 2, 11:20 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:

Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:luh0g3dr8tpk1eh9r38hlb6g5d3atoj4cr@4ax.com:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:30:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

"L. Raymond" <badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1bwzh03sxkzdk.3nzlw8cbcqxb$.dlg@40tude.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Al Klein wrote in

Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.

So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but
nothing else? In that case, why is your rejection of God's

existence

objective. You have less than half as much evidence for that as

I've

given for the other side.

As an atheist, Mr. Klein doesn't reject your god. Like the rest
of

Actually, most of the militant atheists who attack me are opposed
to

the

very EXISTENCE of theists.

I couldn't care less what you believe in. If you just believed in
it, and didn't post all about it to alt.atheism, I wouldn't even be
aware of your existence.

And if you didn't post your whining about it to alt.bible, I wouldn't
be aware of that.

Lucky for you then we posted there. May you one day get over your
delusions and ignorance.

Got over mine a while back. You should work on your own. That's a lot
easier than working on imaginary delusions of others.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.

User: "Martin Phipps"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	04 Oct 2007 10:01:45 AM

On Oct 4, 3:44 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191314812.777864.295560@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 2, 11:20 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:

Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:luh0g3dr8tpk1eh9r38hlb6g5d3atoj4cr@4ax.com:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:30:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

"L. Raymond" <badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1bwzh03sxkzdk.3nzlw8cbcqxb$.dlg@40tude.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Al Klein wrote in

Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.

So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but
nothing else? In that case, why is your rejection of God's

existence

objective. You have less than half as much evidence for that as

I've

given for the other side.

As an atheist, Mr. Klein doesn't reject your god. Like the rest
of

Actually, most of the militant atheists who attack me are opposed
to

the

very EXISTENCE of theists.

I couldn't care less what you believe in. If you just believed in
it, and didn't post all about it to alt.atheism, I wouldn't even be
aware of your existence.

And if you didn't post your whining about it to alt.bible, I wouldn't
be aware of that.

Lucky for you then we posted there. May you one day get over your
delusions and ignorance.

Got over mine a while back.

Apparently not.
Martin
.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	05 Oct 2007 02:38:05 AM

Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191510105.140139.43800@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 4, 3:44 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191314812.777864.295560@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 2, 11:20 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:

Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:luh0g3dr8tpk1eh9r38hlb6g5d3atoj4cr@4ax.com:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:30:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

"L. Raymond" <badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1bwzh03sxkzdk.3nzlw8cbcqxb$.dlg@40tude.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Al Klein wrote in

Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.

So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head
but nothing else? In that case, why is your rejection of
God's

existence

objective. You have less than half as much evidence for that
as

I've

given for the other side.

As an atheist, Mr. Klein doesn't reject your god. Like the
rest of

Actually, most of the militant atheists who attack me are
opposed to

the

very EXISTENCE of theists.

I couldn't care less what you believe in. If you just believed
in it, and didn't post all about it to alt.atheism, I wouldn't
even be aware of your existence.

And if you didn't post your whining about it to alt.bible, I
wouldn't be aware of that.

Lucky for you then we posted there. May you one day get over your
delusions and ignorance.

Got over mine a while back.

Apparently not.

Appearances can be deceiving. Especially when you look through glasses
you painted pictures on yourself.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.

User: "Martin Phipps"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	05 Oct 2007 08:27:26 AM

On Oct 5, 3:38 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1191510105.140139.43800@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 4, 3:44 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191314812.777864.295560@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 2, 11:20 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:

Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:luh0g3dr8tpk1eh9r38hlb6g5d3atoj4cr@4ax.com:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:30:00 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

"L. Raymond" <badaddr...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1bwzh03sxkzdk.3nzlw8cbcqxb$.dlg@40tude.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Al Klein wrote in

Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.

So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head
but nothing else? In that case, why is your rejection of
God's

existence

objective. You have less than half as much evidence for that
as

I've

given for the other side.

As an atheist, Mr. Klein doesn't reject your god. Like the
rest of

Actually, most of the militant atheists who attack me are
opposed to

the

very EXISTENCE of theists.

I couldn't care less what you believe in. If you just believed
in it, and didn't post all about it to alt.atheism, I wouldn't
even be aware of your existence.

And if you didn't post your whining about it to alt.bible, I
wouldn't be aware of that.

Lucky for you then we posted there. May you one day get over your
delusions and ignorance.

Got over mine a while back.

Apparently not.

Appearances can be deceiving. Especially when you look through glasses
you painted pictures on yourself.

Is this your excuse then?
Martin
.

User: "JessHC"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	28 Sep 2007 10:06:01 AM

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:h99nf31hdlgd7sel5oia0r5e84kgmgs6us@4ax.com:

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:45:58 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:9oslf35fti5j1ta1je0bj3ha1oi4ekm7c2@4ax.com:

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:28:54 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:0q7ef3db9pfrqhraj3jefuhb76gcq6akve@4ax.com:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:21:26 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

However, MY objective evidence is not yours.

Your evidence is subjective, not objective.

Well, some of it WAS objective at the time, but cannot now be repeated.

Does it exist? If it does - and it's not subjective - post it.

Well, it DID exist. But I doubt I can find the witnesses

Witnesses? That makes it SUBJECTIVE.

at the moment.
Some of them are dead. But I was a witness to my own healing from a
very severe burn once.

My brother did that once. Very bad second, and slight third, degree
burns. No medical treatment. Healed completely in a couple of days.

But, then, he's practiced mental control of his body since he was a
teen. No religion - he did it himself. Not objective evidence of a
god at all.

Well, good for him. But 45 minutes?

Same with some of the other events, I've witnessed.

"Witnessed" - more subjective "evidence".

If it doesn't it's not evidence, or anything else.

It's not evidence to you.

Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.

So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but nothing
else? In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence objective.

It isn't objective, it's rational.

You have less than half as much evidence for that as I've given for the
other side.

We aren't the ones required to provide evidence, since we aren't the
ones making a claim.

But then I doubt the angel Gabriel shouting in your ear would be evidence to you.

It would be objective evidence that someone was shouting in my ear, not objective evidence of a god.

Probably not. The only objective evidence you'll accept is waking up in hell.

Nope. But since no theist has ever produced any objective, verifiable
evidence, we may never know.

So be it. I'm not one to interfere with someone else's religion.

Hey, look, another theist insisting lack of belief in deities is a
religion. Who would have guessed?

Just do me a favour and don't interfere with mine.

Is someone interfering with yours?

Which, to be honest, atheists rarely do.

Thank you.

I have much more trouble from creationists trying to
sneak heresies into my church through the backdoor of the public school system.

You'd probably just call him an imposter and then claim the whole thing was a hoax.

Someone making a claim - no matter who the person is - is NOT objective evidence.

In other words, science cannot work because scientific papers that you
don't have the resources to check yourself are just "claims."

Nope.

So where is your evidence for the CLAIM that God does not exist.

Observed reality. There is no objective, verifiable evidence for the
existence of any deities. Until there is

Note, that I'm not claiming to have evidence that God exists and I'm only
saying that I believe it on faith, not as science. But I've been called
a hypocrite for that because I won't (not can't) produce physical
evidence.

So you're claiming you COULD produce physical evidence, you just don't
want to?
.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	30 Sep 2007 06:47:59 PM

JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1190991961.189852.121470@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:h99nf31hdlgd7sel5oia0r5e84kgmgs6us@4ax.com:

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:45:58 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:9oslf35fti5j1ta1je0bj3ha1oi4ekm7c2@4ax.com:

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:28:54 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:0q7ef3db9pfrqhraj3jefuhb76gcq6akve@4ax.com:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:21:26 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

However, MY objective evidence is not yours.

Your evidence is subjective, not objective.

Well, some of it WAS objective at the time, but cannot now be
repeated.

Does it exist? If it does - and it's not subjective - post it.

Well, it DID exist. But I doubt I can find the witnesses

Witnesses? That makes it SUBJECTIVE.

at the moment.
Some of them are dead. But I was a witness to my own healing from
a very severe burn once.

My brother did that once. Very bad second, and slight third,
degree burns. No medical treatment. Healed completely in a couple
of days.

But, then, he's practiced mental control of his body since he was a
teen. No religion - he did it himself. Not objective evidence of
a god at all.

Well, good for him. But 45 minutes?

Same with some of the other events, I've witnessed.

"Witnessed" - more subjective "evidence".

If it doesn't it's not evidence, or anything else.

It's not evidence to you.

Assertions aren't objective. Testimony isn't objective.

So what's objective is the club that hits you over the head but
nothing else? In that case, why is your rejection of God's existence
objective.

It isn't objective, it's rational.

You have less than half as much evidence for that as I've given for
the other side.

We aren't the ones required to provide evidence, since we aren't the
ones making a claim.

Actually, you are....or at least that's how this always starts. I brace a
theist fundy on his hypocrisy using a theological point and a pack of
desperate atheists descends on me and tries to libel me into converting
to atheism. Very paranoid people.

But then I doubt the angel Gabriel shouting in your ear would be
evidence to you.

It would be objective evidence that someone was shouting in my ear,
not objective evidence of a god.

Probably not. The only objective evidence you'll accept is waking up
in hell.

Nope. But since no theist has ever produced any objective, verifiable
evidence, we may never know.

Oh, I think you will. How you react to it will determine what happens
next.

So be it. I'm not one to interfere with someone else's religion.

Hey, look, another theist insisting lack of belief in deities is a
religion. Who would have guessed?

When you insist on it as a dogma, pouncing on anyone who even intimates
not accepting it and then become abusive to them, then yes, it's a
religion. A perverse and silly one at that.

Just do me a favour and don't interfere with mine.

Is someone interfering with yours?

Well, yes, to a degree. I get pounced on by a pack of fundy atheists for
even BEING a theist in their august presence.

Which, to be honest, atheists rarely do.

Thank you.

I have much more trouble from creationists trying to
sneak heresies into my church through the backdoor of the public
school system.

You'd probably just call him an imposter and then claim the whole
thing was a hoax.

Someone making a claim - no matter who the person is - is NOT
objective evidence.

In other words, science cannot work because scientific papers that
you don't have the resources to check yourself are just "claims."

Nope.

But that's all science is. Scientists making claims about what they have
observed.

So where is your evidence for the CLAIM that God does not exist.

Observed reality. There is no objective, verifiable evidence for the
existence of any deities. Until there is

That is NOT evidence of God's non-existence. Moreover, y'all have
rejected any claims from people who have actually had encounters with
Him, ancient or modern.

Note, that I'm not claiming to have evidence that God exists and I'm
only saying that I believe it on faith, not as science. But I've
been called a hypocrite for that because I won't (not can't) produce
physical evidence.

So you're claiming you COULD produce physical evidence, you just don't
want to?

Actually, I'm not totally without resources in that respect, though it's
not up to ME to produce such evidence. It's up to God Himself to decide
such matters. All I can tell you is that *I* have seen what I accept as
such evidence. I cannot guarantee that He will show YOU, though I
believe that if you approached the matter in the correct manner, He is
quite likely to do so.
Religion is not like the fundies paint it. On some level we each have to
wrestle our own angel.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	28 Sep 2007 10:11:57 AM

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:06:01 -0700, JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com>
wrote:

Dave Oldridge wrote:

So you're claiming you COULD produce physical evidence, you just don't
want to?

No, in this post he's claiming that his god is only subjectively real.
In OTHER posts he makes the implied (and once, explicit) claim for its
objective reality.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.