Religions > Bible > Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"
| 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: "Danwood" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
09 Oct 2007 07:40:54 PM |
|
|
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191818919.076685.172080@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 8, 6:42 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote
innews:1191703628.911344.263160@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191599134.197749.63200@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Hey, maybe on some level they're pretty much all very real. Ever
think of that?
If they're real, they're objectively detectable, and can be
verified. Why haven't they been?
They have been.
Unless you can provide some sort of objective, verifiable evidence,
or even a legitimate cite, the only conclusion I can draw is that
you're deliberately lying.
In other words, you'd rather call me a liar than accept my account of
my own experiences.
Your experiences are not "objective evidence", moron.
Uh, actually, they were QUITE objective at the time. MORON.
And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not quite
objective at the time? Only as an article of your unfaith.
I find it interesting that some people demand objective proof of God's
existence before they are willing to look at the evidence of his
existence. IOW they want proof independent of evidence. I've used the
beaver dam as an analogy. The dam cannot be seen as evidence, until
there is proof of the beavers existence.
As a child visiting my grand parents, one summer, in the South, my
Grandfather had a large pond that began drying up as the creek stopped
flowing.
We went back following the course of the creek until we came upon a dam,
the obvious work of beavers. My Grandfather would not accept this as
beaver's work because no one had ever seen a beaver in this part
of the state. There had to be another explanation.
And when Grandpa saw the beaver on the shore dragging a branch to the
water to add to its dam, Grandpa realized he had been wrong and changed
his point of view.
This, as far as I know, he _never_ saw. Yet he could not accept the dam
as evidence of beavers. He needed proof of beavers in his part of
the state first.
I would like to see a theist to the same with a god, any god, I don't
care which god, they can pick it.
IOW you must see proof of God independent of any and all evidence. An
impossible scenario.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
09 Oct 2007 08:16:54 PM |
|
|
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191818919.076685.172080@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 8, 6:42 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote
innews:1191703628.911344.263160@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191599134.197749.63200@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Hey, maybe on some level they're pretty much all very real. Ever
think of that?
If they're real, they're objectively detectable, and can be
verified. Why haven't they been?
They have been.
Unless you can provide some sort of objective, verifiable evidence,
or even a legitimate cite, the only conclusion I can draw is that
you're deliberately lying.
In other words, you'd rather call me a liar than accept my account of
my own experiences.
Your experiences are not "objective evidence", moron.
Uh, actually, they were QUITE objective at the time. MORON.
And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not quite
objective at the time? Only as an article of your unfaith.
I find it interesting that some people demand objective proof of God's
existence before they are willing to look at the evidence of his
existence. IOW they want proof independent of evidence. I've used the
beaver dam as an analogy. The dam cannot be seen as evidence, until
there is proof of the beavers existence.
As a child visiting my grand parents, one summer, in the South, my
Grandfather had a large pond that began drying up as the creek stopped
flowing.
We went back following the course of the creek until we came upon a dam,
the obvious work of beavers. My Grandfather would not accept this as
beaver's work because no one had ever seen a beaver in this part
of the state. There had to be another explanation.
And when Grandpa saw the beaver on the shore dragging a branch to the
water to add to its dam, Grandpa realized he had been wrong and changed
his point of view.
This, as far as I know, he _never_ saw. Yet he could not accept the dam
as evidence of beavers. He needed proof of beavers in his part of
the state first.
Your story is ludicrous and with out merit. Try again.
I would like to see a theist to the same with a god, any god, I don't
care which god, they can pick it.
IOW you must see proof of God independent of any and all evidence. An
impossible scenario.
Wrong. I have yet to see any, ANY evidence of a god or gods from the
believers. Do so and you will have my attention, make it testable and I
will test it, make it falsifiable and I will work with it, develop a
theory to explain it and I will read it.
Short of that, it is a fanciful tale and not worth much in the real world.
PS: Don't e-mail me. I get enough stuff there to last a couple of life
times.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danwood" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
09 Oct 2007 10:03:02 PM |
|
|
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191818919.076685.172080@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 8, 6:42 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote
innews:1191703628.911344.263160@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191599134.197749.63200@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Hey, maybe on some level they're pretty much all very real. Ever
think of that?
If they're real, they're objectively detectable, and can be
verified. Why haven't they been?
They have been.
Unless you can provide some sort of objective, verifiable evidence,
or even a legitimate cite, the only conclusion I can draw is that
you're deliberately lying.
In other words, you'd rather call me a liar than accept my account of
my own experiences.
Your experiences are not "objective evidence", moron.
Uh, actually, they were QUITE objective at the time. MORON.
And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not quite
objective at the time? Only as an article of your unfaith.
I find it interesting that some people demand objective proof of God's
existence before they are willing to look at the evidence of his
existence. IOW they want proof independent of evidence. I've used the
beaver dam as an analogy. The dam cannot be seen as evidence, until
there is proof of the beavers existence.
As a child visiting my grand parents, one summer, in the South, my
Grandfather had a large pond that began drying up as the creek stopped
flowing.
We went back following the course of the creek until we came upon a dam,
the obvious work of beavers. My Grandfather would not accept this as
beaver's work because no one had ever seen a beaver in this part
of the state. There had to be another explanation.
And when Grandpa saw the beaver on the shore dragging a branch to the
water to add to its dam, Grandpa realized he had been wrong and changed
his point of view.
This, as far as I know, he _never_ saw. Yet he could not accept the dam
as evidence of beavers. He needed proof of beavers in his part of
the state first.
Your story is ludicrous and with out merit. Try again.
It was an analogy. I made the point I desired.
I would like to see a theist to the same with a god, any god, I don't
care which god, they can pick it.
IOW you must see proof of God independent of any and all evidence. An
impossible scenario.
Wrong. I have yet to see any, ANY evidence of a god or gods from the
believers. Do so and you will have my attention, make it testable and I
will test it, make it falsifiable and I will work with it, develop a
theory to explain it and I will read it.
What exactly do you want? To observe, to put some physical part of the
Deity under a microscope, observe him through a telescope or witness
the creation 14^9 years ago. These are impossible demands.
Short of that, it is a fanciful tale and not worth much in the real world.
PS: Don't e-mail me. I get enough stuff there to last a couple of life
I will not alter the the header. If you don't want email just remove
your email address from the header. ( IN fact I usually dont check the
header just the messagee.
Dan Wood, DDS
times.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
10 Oct 2007 06:42:06 AM |
|
|
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191818919.076685.172080@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 8, 6:42 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote
innews:1191703628.911344.263160@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191599134.197749.63200@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Hey, maybe on some level they're pretty much all very real.
Ever
think of that?
If they're real, they're objectively detectable, and can be
verified. Why haven't they been?
They have been.
Unless you can provide some sort of objective, verifiable
evidence,
or even a legitimate cite, the only conclusion I can draw is that
you're deliberately lying.
In other words, you'd rather call me a liar than accept my
account of
my own experiences.
Your experiences are not "objective evidence", moron.
Uh, actually, they were QUITE objective at the time. MORON.
And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not
quite
objective at the time? Only as an article of your unfaith.
I find it interesting that some people demand objective proof of God's
existence before they are willing to look at the evidence of his
existence. IOW they want proof independent of evidence. I've used the
beaver dam as an analogy. The dam cannot be seen as evidence, until
there is proof of the beavers existence.
As a child visiting my grand parents, one summer, in the South, my
Grandfather had a large pond that began drying up as the creek stopped
flowing.
We went back following the course of the creek until we came upon a
dam,
the obvious work of beavers. My Grandfather would not accept this as
beaver's work because no one had ever seen a beaver in this part
of the state. There had to be another explanation.
And when Grandpa saw the beaver on the shore dragging a branch to the
water to add to its dam, Grandpa realized he had been wrong and changed
his point of view.
This, as far as I know, he _never_ saw. Yet he could not accept the dam
as evidence of beavers. He needed proof of beavers in his part of
the state first.
Your story is ludicrous and with out merit. Try again.
It was an analogy. I made the point I desired.
No, you didn't. I was bogus and not helpful to the conversation or
requests.
I would like to see a theist to the same with a god, any god, I don't
care which god, they can pick it.
IOW you must see proof of God independent of any and all evidence. An
impossible scenario.
Wrong. I have yet to see any, ANY evidence of a god or gods from the
believers. Do so and you will have my attention, make it testable and I
will test it, make it falsifiable and I will work with it, develop a
theory to explain it and I will read it.
What exactly do you want? To observe, to put some physical part of the
Deity under a microscope, observe him through a telescope or witness
the creation 14^9 years ago. These are impossible demands.
Something claimed for the gods by just about every religion out there.
Something that was done is still claimed as factual today yet has no
objective evidence to support it. I want to see one headline in every
newspaper around the world on the same day. It's the story of the hour,
the event of the century and can not be ignored.
"Children's Hospitals around the world closing their doors due to lack
of patients"
Lets see a god pull that off. I see that headline, suddenly and
unasked, I'll believe there is a god. Then we can discuss which god it is.
Short of that, it is a fanciful tale and not worth much in the real
world.
PS: Don't e-mail me. I get enough stuff there to last a couple of life
I will not alter the the header. If you don't want email just remove
your email address from the header. ( IN fact I usually dont check the
header just the messagee.
Heheheheh, good luck with that.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danwood" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
10 Oct 2007 09:03:48 AM |
|
|
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191818919.076685.172080@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 8, 6:42 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote
innews:1191703628.911344.263160@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191599134.197749.63200@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Hey, maybe on some level they're pretty much all very real.
Ever
think of that?
If they're real, they're objectively detectable, and can be
verified. Why haven't they been?
They have been.
Unless you can provide some sort of objective, verifiable
evidence,
or even a legitimate cite, the only conclusion I can draw is that
you're deliberately lying.
In other words, you'd rather call me a liar than accept my
account of
my own experiences.
Your experiences are not "objective evidence", moron.
Uh, actually, they were QUITE objective at the time. MORON.
And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not
quite
objective at the time? Only as an article of your unfaith.
I find it interesting that some people demand objective proof of God's
existence before they are willing to look at the evidence of his
existence. IOW they want proof independent of evidence. I've used the
beaver dam as an analogy. The dam cannot be seen as evidence, until
there is proof of the beavers existence.
As a child visiting my grand parents, one summer, in the South, my
Grandfather had a large pond that began drying up as the creek stopped
flowing.
We went back following the course of the creek until we came upon a
dam,
the obvious work of beavers. My Grandfather would not accept this as
beaver's work because no one had ever seen a beaver in this part
of the state. There had to be another explanation.
And when Grandpa saw the beaver on the shore dragging a branch to the
water to add to its dam, Grandpa realized he had been wrong and changed
his point of view.
This, as far as I know, he _never_ saw. Yet he could not accept the dam
as evidence of beavers. He needed proof of beavers in his part of
the state first.
Your story is ludicrous and with out merit. Try again.
It was an analogy. I made the point I desired.
No, you didn't. I was bogus and not helpful to the conversation or
requests.
I would like to see a theist to the same with a god, any god, I don't
care which god, they can pick it.
IOW you must see proof of God independent of any and all evidence. An
impossible scenario.
Wrong. I have yet to see any, ANY evidence of a god or gods from the
believers. Do so and you will have my attention, make it testable and I
will test it, make it falsifiable and I will work with it, develop a
theory to explain it and I will read it.
What exactly do you want? To observe, to put some physical part of the
Deity under a microscope, observe him through a telescope or witness
the creation 14^9 years ago. These are impossible demands.
Something claimed for the gods by just about every religion out there.
Something that was done is still claimed as factual today yet has no
objective evidence to support it. I want to see one headline in every
newspaper around the world on the same day. It's the story of the hour,
the event of the century and can not be ignored.
First, Jews and Christians maintain that religion is based upon _faith_
not empirical fact.
Secondly, one does not put demands upon the deity. Unless one can
enforce failure to comply.
"Children's Hospitals around the world closing their doors due to lack
of patients"
You have the same concept of Deity you learned in kindergarten. Your
concept of Deity hasn't matured as you yourself matured. The Deity
does _not_ micro manage. Reproduction for example, is accomplished
by animals, plants single cell organisms as a result of "built in"
facilities, not by direct involvement of Deity. Perhaps the deity
has other more pressing interest.
Lets see a god pull that off. I see that headline, suddenly and
unasked, I'll believe there is a god. Then we can discuss which god it is.
I cannot put demands on my wife much less the deity.
Dan Wood, DDS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
10 Oct 2007 10:10:05 AM |
|
|
Danwood <noreply@noreply.com> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191818919.076685.172080@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 8, 6:42 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote
innews:1191703628.911344.263160@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191599134.197749.63200@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Hey, maybe on some level they're pretty much all very real.
Ever
think of that?
If they're real, they're objectively detectable, and can be
verified. Why haven't they been?
They have been.
Unless you can provide some sort of objective, verifiable
evidence,
or even a legitimate cite, the only conclusion I can draw is that
you're deliberately lying.
In other words, you'd rather call me a liar than accept my
account of
my own experiences.
Your experiences are not "objective evidence", moron.
Uh, actually, they were QUITE objective at the time. MORON.
And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not
quite
objective at the time? Only as an article of your unfaith.
I find it interesting that some people demand objective proof of God's
existence before they are willing to look at the evidence of his
existence. IOW they want proof independent of evidence. I've used the
beaver dam as an analogy. The dam cannot be seen as evidence, until
there is proof of the beavers existence.
As a child visiting my grand parents, one summer, in the South, my
Grandfather had a large pond that began drying up as the creek stopped
flowing.
We went back following the course of the creek until we came upon a
dam,
the obvious work of beavers. My Grandfather would not accept this as
beaver's work because no one had ever seen a beaver in this part
of the state. There had to be another explanation.
And when Grandpa saw the beaver on the shore dragging a branch to the
water to add to its dam, Grandpa realized he had been wrong and changed
his point of view.
This, as far as I know, he _never_ saw. Yet he could not accept the dam
as evidence of beavers. He needed proof of beavers in his part of
the state first.
Your story is ludicrous and with out merit. Try again.
It was an analogy. I made the point I desired.
No, you didn't. I was bogus and not helpful to the conversation or
requests.
I would like to see a theist to the same with a god, any god, I don't
care which god, they can pick it.
IOW you must see proof of God independent of any and all evidence. An
impossible scenario.
Wrong. I have yet to see any, ANY evidence of a god or gods from the
believers. Do so and you will have my attention, make it testable and I
will test it, make it falsifiable and I will work with it, develop a
theory to explain it and I will read it.
What exactly do you want? To observe, to put some physical part of the
Deity under a microscope, observe him through a telescope or witness
the creation 14^9 years ago. These are impossible demands.
Something claimed for the gods by just about every religion out there.
Something that was done is still claimed as factual today yet has no
objective evidence to support it. I want to see one headline in every
newspaper around the world on the same day. It's the story of the hour,
the event of the century and can not be ignored.
First, Jews and Christians maintain that religion is based upon _faith_
not empirical fact.
Secondly, one does not put demands upon the deity. Unless one can
enforce failure to comply.
And yet, they keep claiming that they have empirical evidence. Funny how that
works out.
Secondly, sure you can. People do it all the time, and they thank the deity
when their magical requests are answered their way. They also never fault
the deity when they don't get what they want. Again, funny how that works
out.
"Children's Hospitals around the world closing their doors due to lack
of patients"
You have the same concept of Deity you learned in kindergarten. Your
concept of Deity hasn't matured as you yourself matured. The Deity
does _not_ micro manage. Reproduction for example, is accomplished
by animals, plants single cell organisms as a result of "built in"
facilities, not by direct involvement of Deity. Perhaps the deity
has other more pressing interest.
Don't get out much do you? Don't read sacred text much do you?
My request is something that the destroyer of the world, creator
of the universe, should do not because it can, but because it's
the right thing to do.
Strange how it does not happen. Nice to see you also making excuses
for something you obviously believe is real and factual.
To bad you can't support that belief.
Lets see a god pull that off. I see that headline, suddenly and
unasked, I'll believe there is a god. Then we can discuss which god it is.
I cannot put demands on my wife much less the deity.
So that'd be a big no then would it?
Kind of figured it would be.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danwood" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
10 Oct 2007 04:42:17 PM |
|
|
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood <noreply@noreply.com> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191818919.076685.172080@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 8, 6:42 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote
innews:1191703628.911344.263160@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191599134.197749.63200@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Hey, maybe on some level they're pretty much all very real.
Ever
think of that?
If they're real, they're objectively detectable, and can be
verified. Why haven't they been?
They have been.
Unless you can provide some sort of objective, verifiable
evidence,
or even a legitimate cite, the only conclusion I can draw is that
you're deliberately lying.
In other words, you'd rather call me a liar than accept my
account of
my own experiences.
Your experiences are not "objective evidence", moron.
Uh, actually, they were QUITE objective at the time. MORON.
And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not
quite
objective at the time? Only as an article of your unfaith.
I find it interesting that some people demand objective proof of God's
existence before they are willing to look at the evidence of his
existence. IOW they want proof independent of evidence. I've used the
beaver dam as an analogy. The dam cannot be seen as evidence, until
there is proof of the beavers existence.
As a child visiting my grand parents, one summer, in the South, my
Grandfather had a large pond that began drying up as the creek stopped
flowing.
We went back following the course of the creek until we came upon a
dam,
the obvious work of beavers. My Grandfather would not accept this as
beaver's work because no one had ever seen a beaver in this part
of the state. There had to be another explanation.
And when Grandpa saw the beaver on the shore dragging a branch to the
water to add to its dam, Grandpa realized he had been wrong and changed
his point of view.
This, as far as I know, he _never_ saw. Yet he could not accept the dam
as evidence of beavers. He needed proof of beavers in his part of
the state first.
Your story is ludicrous and with out merit. Try again.
It was an analogy. I made the point I desired.
No, you didn't. I was bogus and not helpful to the conversation or
requests.
I would like to see a theist to the same with a god, any god, I don't
care which god, they can pick it.
IOW you must see proof of God independent of any and all evidence. An
impossible scenario.
Wrong. I have yet to see any, ANY evidence of a god or gods from the
believers. Do so and you will have my attention, make it testable and I
will test it, make it falsifiable and I will work with it, develop a
theory to explain it and I will read it.
What exactly do you want? To observe, to put some physical part of the
Deity under a microscope, observe him through a telescope or witness
the creation 14^9 years ago. These are impossible demands.
Something claimed for the gods by just about every religion out there.
Something that was done is still claimed as factual today yet has no
objective evidence to support it. I want to see one headline in every
newspaper around the world on the same day. It's the story of the hour,
the event of the century and can not be ignored.
First, Jews and Christians maintain that religion is based upon _faith_
not empirical fact.
Secondly, one does not put demands upon the deity. Unless one can
enforce failure to comply.
And yet, they keep claiming that they have empirical evidence. Funny how that
works out.
Secondly, sure you can. People do it all the time, and they thank the deity
when their magical requests are answered their way. They also never fault
the deity when they don't get what they want. Again, funny how that works
out.
"Children's Hospitals around the world closing their doors due to lack
of patients"
You have the same concept of Deity you learned in kindergarten. Your
concept of Deity hasn't matured as you yourself matured. The Deity
does _not_ micro manage. Reproduction for example, is accomplished
by animals, plants single cell organisms as a result of "built in"
facilities, not by direct involvement of Deity. Perhaps the deity
has other more pressing interest.
Don't get out much do you? Don't read sacred text much do you?
You speak where you know nothing.
My request is something that the destroyer of the world, creator
of the universe, should do not because it can, but because it's
the right thing to do.
Really, according to whose opinion?
Strange how it does not happen. Nice to see you also making excuses
for something you obviously believe is real and factual.
Factual? There is only two things anyone can know for an absolute fact:
death and taxes.
To bad you can't support that belief.
Lets see a god pull that off. I see that headline, suddenly and
unasked, I'll believe there is a god. Then we can discuss which god it is.
I cannot put demands on my wife much less the deity.
So that'd be a big no then would it?
kind of figured it would be.
You have yet to explain what you would accept as evidence.
Obviously, there were no observers, so no observation;
creation was past events. therefore creation is _not_
repeatable; it was a historical event, but there were
no historians. any evidence ie evidence of design,
to paraphrase Richard Dawkings, any design we see is
"apparent design". So this effectively is a catch 22
situation.
Dana
Dana
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
10 Oct 2007 10:33:21 PM |
|
|
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood <noreply@noreply.com> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
As a child visiting my grand parents, one summer, in the South, my
Grandfather had a large pond that began drying up as the creek
stopped
flowing.
We went back following the course of the creek until we came
upon a
dam,
the obvious work of beavers. My Grandfather would not accept
this as
beaver's work because no one had ever seen a beaver in this part
of the state. There had to be another explanation.
And when Grandpa saw the beaver on the shore dragging a branch
to the
water to add to its dam, Grandpa realized he had been wrong and
changed
his point of view.
This, as far as I know, he _never_ saw. Yet he could not accept
the dam
as evidence of beavers. He needed proof of beavers in his part of
the state first.
Your story is ludicrous and with out merit. Try again.
It was an analogy. I made the point I desired.
No, you didn't. I was bogus and not helpful to the conversation or
requests.
I would like to see a theist to the same with a god, any god, I
don't
care which god, they can pick it.
IOW you must see proof of God independent of any and all
evidence. An
impossible scenario.
Wrong. I have yet to see any, ANY evidence of a god or gods from the
believers. Do so and you will have my attention, make it testable
and I
will test it, make it falsifiable and I will work with it, develop a
theory to explain it and I will read it.
What exactly do you want? To observe, to put some physical part of the
Deity under a microscope, observe him through a telescope or witness
the creation 14^9 years ago. These are impossible demands.
Something claimed for the gods by just about every religion out there.
Something that was done is still claimed as factual today yet has no
objective evidence to support it. I want to see one headline in every
newspaper around the world on the same day. It's the story of the
hour,
the event of the century and can not be ignored.
First, Jews and Christians maintain that religion is based upon
_faith_ not empirical fact.
Secondly, one does not put demands upon the deity. Unless one can
enforce failure to comply.
And yet, they keep claiming that they have empirical evidence. Funny
how that
works out.
Secondly, sure you can. People do it all the time, and they thank the
deity
when their magical requests are answered their way. They also never
fault the deity when they don't get what they want. Again, funny how
that works
out.
"Children's Hospitals around the world closing their doors due to lack
of patients"
You have the same concept of Deity you learned in kindergarten. Your
concept of Deity hasn't matured as you yourself matured. The Deity
does _not_ micro manage. Reproduction for example, is accomplished
by animals, plants single cell organisms as a result of "built in"
facilities, not by direct involvement of Deity. Perhaps the deity
has other more pressing interest.
Don't get out much do you? Don't read sacred text much do you?
You speak where you know nothing.
Reread what you wrote that I responded too. Your silly assertion tells
me that YOU do not know of what you speak.
My request is something that the destroyer of the world, creator
of the universe, should do not because it can, but because it's the
right thing to do.
Really, according to whose opinion?
According to all those sorry, deluded sods that believe that divine
healing and cures, that's who.
Strange how it does not happen. Nice to see you also making excuses
for something you obviously believe is real and factual.
Factual? There is only two things anyone can know for an absolute fact:
death and taxes.
Not even taxes, only death.
To bad you can't support that belief.
Lets see a god pull that off. I see that headline, suddenly and
unasked, I'll believe there is a god. Then we can discuss which god
it is.
I cannot put demands on my wife much less the deity.
So that'd be a big no then would it?
kind of figured it would be.
You have yet to explain what you would accept as evidence.
Obviously, there were no observers, so no observation;
creation was past events. therefore creation is _not_
repeatable; it was a historical event, but there were
no historians. any evidence ie evidence of design,
to paraphrase Richard Dawkings, any design we see is
"apparent design". So this effectively is a catch 22
situation.
You obviously can not read. Go back up on this post and read the
headline that I'm looking for.
It's a simple request, but one that will never happen. Kind of like,
why can't god heal amputees?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danwood" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
11 Oct 2007 12:11:04 AM |
|
|
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood <noreply@noreply.com> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
As a child visiting my grand parents, one summer, in the South, my
Grandfather had a large pond that began drying up as the creek
stopped
flowing.
We went back following the course of the creek until we came
upon a
dam,
the obvious work of beavers. My Grandfather would not accept
this as
beaver's work because no one had ever seen a beaver in this part
of the state. There had to be another explanation.
And when Grandpa saw the beaver on the shore dragging a branch
to the
water to add to its dam, Grandpa realized he had been wrong and
changed
his point of view.
This, as far as I know, he _never_ saw. Yet he could not accept
the dam
as evidence of beavers. He needed proof of beavers in his part of
the state first.
Your story is ludicrous and with out merit. Try again.
It was an analogy. I made the point I desired.
No, you didn't. I was bogus and not helpful to the conversation or
requests.
I would like to see a theist to the same with a god, any god, I
don't
care which god, they can pick it.
IOW you must see proof of God independent of any and all
evidence. An
impossible scenario.
Wrong. I have yet to see any, ANY evidence of a god or gods from the
believers. Do so and you will have my attention, make it testable
and I
will test it, make it falsifiable and I will work with it, develop a
theory to explain it and I will read it.
What exactly do you want? To observe, to put some physical part of the
Deity under a microscope, observe him through a telescope or witness
the creation 14^9 years ago. These are impossible demands.
Something claimed for the gods by just about every religion out there.
Something that was done is still claimed as factual today yet has no
objective evidence to support it. I want to see one headline in every
newspaper around the world on the same day. It's the story of the
hour,
the event of the century and can not be ignored.
First, Jews and Christians maintain that religion is based upon
_faith_ not empirical fact.
Secondly, one does not put demands upon the deity. Unless one can
enforce failure to comply.
And yet, they keep claiming that they have empirical evidence. Funny
how that
works out.
Secondly, sure you can. People do it all the time, and they thank the
deity
when their magical requests are answered their way. They also never
fault the deity when they don't get what they want. Again, funny how
that works
out.
"Children's Hospitals around the world closing their doors due to lack
of patients"
You have the same concept of Deity you learned in kindergarten. Your
concept of Deity hasn't matured as you yourself matured. The Deity
does _not_ micro manage. Reproduction for example, is accomplished
by animals, plants single cell organisms as a result of "built in"
facilities, not by direct involvement of Deity. Perhaps the deity
has other more pressing interest.
Don't get out much do you? Don't read sacred text much do you?
You speak where you know nothing.
Reread what you wrote that I responded too. Your silly assertion tells
me that YOU do not know of what you speak.
My request is something that the destroyer of the world, creator
of the universe, should do not because it can, but because it's the
right thing to do.
Really, according to whose opinion?
According to all those sorry, deluded sods that believe that divine
healing and cures, that's who.
Strange how it does not happen. Nice to see you also making excuses
for something you obviously believe is real and factual.
Factual? There is only two things anyone can know for an absolute fact:
death and taxes.
Not even taxes, only death.
To bad you can't support that belief.
Lets see a god pull that off. I see that headline, suddenly and
unasked, I'll believe there is a god. Then we can discuss which god
it is.
I cannot put demands on my wife much less the deity.
So that'd be a big no then would it?
kind of figured it would be.
You have yet to explain what you would accept as evidence.
Obviously, there were no observers, so no observation;
creation was past events. therefore creation is _not_
repeatable; it was a historical event, but there were
no historians. any evidence ie evidence of design,
to paraphrase Richard Dawkings, any design we see is
"apparent design". So this effectively is a catch 22
situation.
You obviously can not read. Go back up on this post and read the
headline that I'm looking for.
It's a simple request, but one that will never happen. Kind of like,
why can't god heal amputees?
So you think God should micro-manage everything. Just grow up!
Leave this kindergarten notion behind.
What kind of "rev" are you anyway?
Dana
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
11 Oct 2007 06:24:31 AM |
|
|
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood <noreply@noreply.com> wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
As a child visiting my grand parents, one summer, in the
South, my
Grandfather had a large pond that began drying up as the creek
stopped
flowing.
We went back following the course of the creek until we came
upon a
dam,
the obvious work of beavers. My Grandfather would not accept
this as
beaver's work because no one had ever seen a beaver in this part
of the state. There had to be another explanation.
And when Grandpa saw the beaver on the shore dragging a branch
to the
water to add to its dam, Grandpa realized he had been wrong and
changed
his point of view.
This, as far as I know, he _never_ saw. Yet he could not accept
the dam
as evidence of beavers. He needed proof of beavers in his part of
the state first.
Your story is ludicrous and with out merit. Try again.
It was an analogy. I made the point I desired.
No, you didn't. I was bogus and not helpful to the conversation or
requests.
I would like to see a theist to the same with a god, any god, I
don't
care which god, they can pick it.
IOW you must see proof of God independent of any and all
evidence. An
impossible scenario.
Wrong. I have yet to see any, ANY evidence of a god or gods
from the
believers. Do so and you will have my attention, make it testable
and I
will test it, make it falsifiable and I will work with it,
develop a
theory to explain it and I will read it.
What exactly do you want? To observe, to put some physical part
of the
Deity under a microscope, observe him through a telescope or witness
the creation 14^9 years ago. These are impossible demands.
Something claimed for the gods by just about every religion out
there.
Something that was done is still claimed as factual today yet has no
objective evidence to support it. I want to see one headline in
every
newspaper around the world on the same day. It's the story of the
hour,
the event of the century and can not be ignored.
First, Jews and Christians maintain that religion is based upon
_faith_ not empirical fact.
Secondly, one does not put demands upon the deity. Unless one can
enforce failure to comply.
And yet, they keep claiming that they have empirical evidence. Funny
how that
works out.
Secondly, sure you can. People do it all the time, and they thank the
deity
when their magical requests are answered their way. They also never
fault the deity when they don't get what they want. Again, funny how
that works
out.
"Children's Hospitals around the world closing their doors due to
lack
of patients"
You have the same concept of Deity you learned in kindergarten. Your
concept of Deity hasn't matured as you yourself matured. The Deity
does _not_ micro manage. Reproduction for example, is accomplished
by animals, plants single cell organisms as a result of "built in"
facilities, not by direct involvement of Deity. Perhaps the deity
has other more pressing interest.
Don't get out much do you? Don't read sacred text much do you?
You speak where you know nothing.
Reread what you wrote that I responded too. Your silly assertion tells
me that YOU do not know of what you speak.
My request is something that the destroyer of the world, creator
of the universe, should do not because it can, but because it's the
right thing to do.
Really, according to whose opinion?
According to all those sorry, deluded sods that believe that divine
healing and cures, that's who.
Strange how it does not happen. Nice to see you also making excuses
for something you obviously believe is real and factual.
Factual? There is only two things anyone can know for an absolute fact:
death and taxes.
Not even taxes, only death.
To bad you can't support that belief.
Lets see a god pull that off. I see that headline, suddenly and
unasked, I'll believe there is a god. Then we can discuss which god
it is.
I cannot put demands on my wife much less the deity.
So that'd be a big no then would it?
kind of figured it would be.
You have yet to explain what you would accept as evidence.
Obviously, there were no observers, so no observation;
creation was past events. therefore creation is _not_
repeatable; it was a historical event, but there were
no historians. any evidence ie evidence of design,
to paraphrase Richard Dawkings, any design we see is
"apparent design". So this effectively is a catch 22
situation.
You obviously can not read. Go back up on this post and read the
headline that I'm looking for.
It's a simple request, but one that will never happen. Kind of like,
why can't god heal amputees?
So you think God should micro-manage everything. Just grow up!
Leave this kindergarten notion behind.
How is it micro managing? Do you even know what that term means?
Grow up? Bub, I've been grown up for a long time. See, I left the
childish notions behind when I stopped believing in Santa Claus, the
Easter Bunny and gods. I have no need of security blankets, there are
no monsters under my bed, heaven and hell are just illusions used to
control weak minded sods, and I don't believe anything a theist has to
say with out objective evidence.
What kind of "rev" are you anyway?
The best kind, humanist.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
11 Oct 2007 12:03:11 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:11:04 -0400, Danwood wrote:
It's a simple request, but one that will never happen. Kind of like,
why can't god heal amputees?
So you think God should micro-manage everything. Just grow up!
Leave this kindergarten notion behind.
The believers - many of 'em, at any rate - assert that God answers
prayers, performs miracles. Some go so far as to claim God heals. Heck,
there's even a few well-known sideshows where this sort of thing goes on.
Oddly, despite God's supposed powers to heal, he seems incapable of
healing something such as an amputation, which, let's face it, would be
child's play for a critter who can supposedly create entire universes.
Why is that? I mean, it makes sense if the critter simply didn't exist,
but no, according to them, he does - so why is his power suddenly so
drastically limited he can't pull off something which should be, for
something of his supposed power, so trivial?
--
Never fold with an inside straight line like that. -- Marty Leipzig
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
11 Oct 2007 01:00:43 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:03:11 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:11:04 -0400, Danwood wrote:
It's a simple request, but one that will never happen. Kind of like,
why can't god heal amputees?
So you think God should micro-manage everything. Just grow up!
Leave this kindergarten notion behind.
The believers - many of 'em, at any rate - assert that God answers
prayers, performs miracles. Some go so far as to claim God heals. Heck,
there's even a few well-known sideshows where this sort of thing goes on.
Oddly, despite God's supposed powers to heal, he seems incapable of
healing something such as an amputation, which, let's face it, would be
child's play for a critter who can supposedly create entire universes.
Why is that? I mean, it makes sense if the critter simply didn't exist,
but no, according to them, he does - so why is his power suddenly so
drastically limited he can't pull off something which should be, for
something of his supposed power, so trivial?
Heck, it even lost a war for its chosen people because they only had
bronze but their enemies had chariots of iron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
11 Oct 2007 06:32:22 AM |
|
|
On Oct 10, 10:03 pm, Danwood <nore...@noreply.com> wrote:
You have the same concept of Deity you learned in kindergarten. Your
concept of Deity hasn't matured as you yourself matured.
As you mature you will come to realize that your diety doesn't exist
AT ALL.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
11 Oct 2007 11:59:01 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:03:48 -0400, Danwood wrote:
First, Jews and Christians maintain that religion is based upon _faith_
not empirical fact.
Which means that they will *never* claim God actually exists, it is
nothing more than an article of faith for them, right? Wrong. They do it
all the time.
Secondly, one does not put demands upon the deity.
Why not? If it's nothing more than an article of faith, it can be
anything you want it to be, do anything you want it to do - just have
faith that it will.
You have the same concept of Deity you learned in kindergarten. Your
concept of Deity hasn't matured as you yourself matured.
Invisible magic sky pixies don't really change much in their character;
they're as unevidenced today as they were then.
The Deity does
_not_ micro manage.
Unless you have faith that he does, it all being, after all, just a matter
of faith. Go on, just believe he micro manages.
Reproduction for example, is accomplished by
animals, plants single cell organisms as a result of "built in"
facilities, not by direct involvement of Deity. Perhaps the deity has
other more pressing interest.
And perhaps it simply doesn't exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danwood" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
12 Oct 2007 05:29:02 PM |
|
|
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
[snips]
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:03:48 -0400, Danwood wrote:
First, Jews and Christians maintain that religion is based upon _faith_
not empirical fact.
Which means that they will *never* claim God actually exists, it is
nothing more than an article of faith for them, right? Wrong. They do it
all the time.
"They do it all the time"? This is not my experience. Perhaps
There is no physical evidence of a deity. Anyone who pretends
otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest. I hate to think the
latter. It is a matter of faith.
Secondly, one does not put demands upon the deity.
Why not? If it's nothing more than an article of faith, it can be
anything you want it to be, do anything you want it to do - just have
faith that it will.
No. It doesn't happen.
You have the same concept of Deity you learned in kindergarten. Your
concept of Deity hasn't matured as you yourself matured.
Invisible magic sky pixies don't really change much in their character;
they're as unevidenced today as they were then.
No one I ever knew believed in your "invisible magic pixie". _Only_
(some atheists) have erected this "straw man" entity. You will never
find a theist'deist who accepts this counterfeit atheistic creation.
The Deity does
_not_ micro manage.
Unless you have faith that he does, it all being, after all, just a matter
of faith. Go on, just believe he micro manages.
Why? When it's perfectly obviously it doesn't.
Reproduction for example, is accomplished by
animals, plants single cell organisms as a result of "built in"
facilities, not by direct involvement of Deity. Perhaps the deity has
other more pressing interest.
And perhaps it simply doesn't exist.
Well that's you faith. You are welcome to it. It's of no concern
to me.
Dana
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
12 Oct 2007 05:39:40 PM |
|
|
Danwood wrote:
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
[snips]
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:03:48 -0400, Danwood wrote:
First, Jews and Christians maintain that religion is based upon
_faith_ not empirical fact.
Which means that they will *never* claim God actually exists, it is
nothing more than an article of faith for them, right? Wrong. They
do it
all the time.
"They do it all the time"? This is not my experience. Perhaps
There is no physical evidence of a deity. Anyone who pretends
otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest. I hate to think the
latter. It is a matter of faith.
Secondly, one does not put demands upon the deity.
Why not? If it's nothing more than an article of faith, it can be
anything you want it to be, do anything you want it to do - just have
faith that it will.
No. It doesn't happen.
You have the same concept of Deity you learned in kindergarten. Your
concept of Deity hasn't matured as you yourself matured.
Invisible magic sky pixies don't really change much in their character;
they're as unevidenced today as they were then.
No one I ever knew believed in your "invisible magic pixie". _Only_
(some atheists) have erected this "straw man" entity. You will never
find a theist'deist who accepts this counterfeit atheistic creation.
And I don't believe in your deity.
Naturally, you don't like that, but you have done nothing to change my mind.
BTW, I noticed you ran away from everything else. Pity really, but it
was expected.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
12 Oct 2007 05:55:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:39:40 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
[snips]
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:03:48 -0400, Danwood wrote:
First, Jews and Christians maintain that religion is based upon
_faith_ not empirical fact.
Which means that they will *never* claim God actually exists, it is
nothing more than an article of faith for them, right? Wrong. They
do it
all the time.
"They do it all the time"? This is not my experience. Perhaps
There is no physical evidence of a deity. Anyone who pretends
otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest. I hate to think the
latter. It is a matter of faith.
Secondly, one does not put demands upon the deity.
Question-begging stupidity.
Why not? If it's nothing more than an article of faith, it can be
anything you want it to be, do anything you want it to do - just have
faith that it will.
No. It doesn't happen.
You have the same concept of Deity you learned in kindergarten. Your
concept of Deity hasn't matured as you yourself matured.
Invisible magic sky pixies don't really change much in their character;
they're as unevidenced today as they were then.
No one I ever knew believed in your "invisible magic pixie". _Only_
(some atheists) have erected this "straw man" entity. You will never
find a theist'deist who accepts this counterfeit atheistic creation.
The liar pretends it isn't substitution of how we see it.
And I don't believe in your deity.
Naturally, you don't like that, but you have done nothing to change my mind.
BTW, I noticed you ran away from everything else. Pity really, but it
was expected.
Well, it is Dan Wood.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Danwood" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
13 Oct 2007 12:05:10 AM |
|
|
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Danwood wrote:
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
[snips]
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:03:48 -0400, Danwood wrote:
First, Jews and Christians maintain that religion is based upon
_faith_ not empirical fact.
Which means that they will *never* claim God actually exists, it is
nothing more than an article of faith for them, right? Wrong. They
do it
all the time.
"They do it all the time"? This is not my experience. Perhaps
There is no physical evidence of a deity. Anyone who pretends
otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest. I hate to think the
latter. It is a matter of faith.
Secondly, one does not put demands upon the deity.
Why not? If it's nothing more than an article of faith, it can be
anything you want it to be, do anything you want it to do - just have
faith that it will.
No. It doesn't happen.
You have the same concept of Deity you learned in kindergarten. Your
concept of Deity hasn't matured as you yourself matured.
Invisible magic sky pixies don't really change much in their character;
they're as unevidenced today as they were then.
No one I ever knew believed in your "invisible magic pixie". _Only_
(some atheists) have erected this "straw man" entity. You will never
find a theist'deist who accepts this counterfeit atheistic creation.
And I don't believe in your deity.
Naturally, you don't like that, but you have done nothing to change my mind.
BTW, I noticed you ran away from everything else. Pi | | | | | | | | | |
