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 42 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: "Kelsey Bjarnason"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	14 Oct 2007 06:28:24 PM

[snips]
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:41:01 -0400, Danwood wrote:

You did not understand my beaver dam analogy. I suspect this went\over
your head.

We understood it just fine; we rejected it as crap.

There is evidence that convinces me that there was an intelligent
agency behind the scene.

Fine, feel free to provide it.

This is evidence that is a corollary
evidence to the beaver dam

Nope. We know beavers exist, we know beaver dams exist, we know beavers
build such dams. To be remotely related to god claims and the like, the
actors would have to be equally known. We can show you a beaver... now
show us a god. Can't? Then the cases aren't parallel.
--
“Your attempt at humour is pathetic! Get a life in Christ.”
-- Frank Hudson
“I always thought that ‘get a life’ was an incredibly stupid cliche’.
I had no idea that you could make it even stupider.” -- J.J. Hitt
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	13 Oct 2007 09:12:07 AM

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 08:15:19 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:22:33 -0400, in alt.atheism
Danwood <noreply@noreply.com> wrote in <47105619.4010709@noreply.com>:

Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:35:55 -0400, in alt.atheism
Danwood <noreply@noreply.com> wrote in <470FF6CB.2080208@noreply.com>:

Christopher A.Lee wrote:

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:08:02 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

[snips]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:56:00 -0400, Danwood wrote:

Hmm... weren't you supposedly offering up evidence of deities? Missed
it.

The entire while I have been demonstrating how it is impossible to
convince someone whose bias will not permit anything that goes against
their mindset.

Good thing this is only Wood's stupid straw man. It is a personal lie

This is Chris lee's _only_ argument. It's the _only_ way he has for
staying in any discussion ie just call any and everyone's argument
a lie. Furthermore he is a _hit_ and_ run_ yellow bellied coward.

Dana J.B. Wood

Dana, you've never bothered with evidence.

Problem is, and I've said before. I have no idea what you and others
of like mind would accept as evidence.

Which is why he lies about atheists, eg "someone whose bias will not
permit anything that goes against their mindset". To use the whining
hypocrite's own words:
And why he lies with "I have no idea what you and others of like mind
would accept as evidence". He knows perfectly well that it is anything
that leads inescapably to his "conclusion".
This is Dan Wood's _only_argument. It's the _only_ way he has for
staying in any discussion ie just resort to personal and other lies
instead of addressing what he is told. Furthermore he is a _hit_ and_
run_ yellow bellied coward.

And as people have said before, that is a bogus excuse. You know what
scientific evidence is. You don't have any.

Which is why he has to lie about both it and atheists.

he fact is: there were no
observers 14^9 years ago or 3.8^9 years ago.

Another bogus objection. Observation is not the only, nor necessarily
the best,way to gather evidence.

They don't have footprints on his planet.

othing can be repeated
the deity cannot examined under a microscope or viewed through a
telescope. IOW there is no natural means to test the deity. One
possibility is that our scientific method has not progressed
to the point that we are able to detect, who knows what the
future will bring in this area.

Fallacies of special pleading and question-begging.

There's no evidence for a deity. Live with it. If you had some, you
wouldn't be making so many excuses for why you cannot offer any
evidence.

You make assertion after

assertion, but cannot be bothered to back it up with any evidence.

What assertions are you in reference? Please specify these
assertions.

Until
you build your claims on the rock of evidence, you will not persuade
anyone. You have demonstrated an ignorance of science that you seem
completely unwilling to mend, but complain when people don't get your
religious doctrines exactly right.

You don't know what you are talking about. What are my religious
doctrines? The only "Religious" doctrine I have mentioned is my
belief in a greater intelligent agency. I have never espoused any
other religious doctrine.

The scientific evidence that you reject out of hand gives us a very good
idea what your religious beliefs include.

User: "Kelsey Bjarnason"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	14 Oct 2007 02:19:39 PM

[snips]
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:22:33 -0400, Danwood wrote:

Dana, you've never bothered with evidence.

Problem is, and I've said before. I have no idea what you and others
of like mind would accept as evidence.

Okay, I'm going to post this again. Actually, I'll re-write it, as I
haven't got the original handy, but the sentiment was previously written
by me.
In such a discussion, we start from a basic initial premise: theists,
being humans, are capable of reasoning and critical thinking. We grant
them the assumption that this is true for them.
When a theist comes along and says "X is true" - such as "god exists" - we
thus have to conclude that they *already* have a basis for making that
claim; they *already* have evidence sufficient to compel acceptance of
their claim in a reasoning, critically-thinking, sceptical person. If
they didn't, then they themselves would never have accepted the claim as
valid - but they obviously did.
Thus, it follows, that the theist making such a claim *already* knows
*exactly* what is required to convince a reasoning, critically-thinking,
sceptical person of the validity of their claims. There is no reason for
them _ever_ to need to ask "what sort of evidence do you need", as they
already know what sort of evidence is needed - the very sort that
convinced them.
If they actually have to _ask_ what sort of evidence such a person would
require, that is, if they don't know, then it follows that either they are
not such a person at all - in which case there's little reason to pay much
attention to their claims - or they are such a person but have no such
evidence, in which case - again - there's little reason to pay much
attention to their claims.
Thus by simply having to _ask_, the theist reveals himself to either be a
credulous sort who will uncritically swallow any sort of nonsense, or
dishonest, in that he claims something to be valid without even knowing
how to tell whether it is valid or not.
Which it is - credulous or dishonest - isn't really of interest to us, as
either lead to the same result: the theist hasn't got a foundation for his
claims.
So here we are, granting you the boon of assuming you are a reasoning,
critically-thinking sort of person, the sort who wouldn't make such claims
unless there were a reason to do so. What do you do with this? Do you
show us that yes, you are in fact such a person, by showing the support
for your claims?
No, you instead tell us you don't even know what sort of evidence would
qualify to convince a reasoning, critically-thinking person of your
claims... yet you made them. Thus, since _you_ were obviously not
compelled by the weight of the evidence, yet believe it anyways, it
follows that you are not, in fact, a reasoning, critically-thinking
person, thus are not to be taken seriously.
One should note, however, that it is not us casting aspersions which led
to this conclusion; we granted you the status of just such a person from
the outset; if this is the conclusion to be reached, it is by your own
actions, your demonstrating you simply don't know what such a person would
require as evidence of such a claim.
So, if you're going to, in effect, tell us that whatever you've got, it
has nothing at all to do with reason or critical thinking, then why would
you make the claim in the first place, other than to show us that you are,
in fact, incapable of such things?

The fact is: there were no
observers 14^9 years ago or 3.8^9 years ago.

20,661,046,784 years? But the estimated age of the universe is only some
14 billion years; where'd you get the extra six from? As to the other,
that's only 165,216 years, and yes, Virginia, there were members of genus
Homo 165,000 years ago; in fact, they go back about 2 million years.

Nothing can be repeated the
deity cannot examined under a microscope or viewed through a telescope.
IOW there is no natural means to test the deity.

So you can't point to it, see it, smell it or hear it, nor can you
conclusively determine its effects. In short, you cannot point to a
single evidential reason to propose that it exists at all. Yes, well, we
sort of gathered that - but then why suggest it does?

One possibility is that
our scientific method has not progressed to the point that we are able
to detect, who knows what the future will bring in this area.

Doesn't matter. Point is, people are *today* claiming it exists,
therefore they must have some means of detecting it, determining that it
does in fact exist - or they're a pack of lunatic crackpots. So, assuming
they're _not_ nutjobs, it follows they can, in fact, detect gods. Which,
in turn, means that _we_ can do so by the same means... or they are
claiming to posses some sense which the rest of us simply don't have. If
the latter, I'm sure you won't mind demonstrating that you do, in fact,
have such an extra sense, right?
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	12 Oct 2007 05:54:35 PM

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:46:52 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:35:55 -0400, in alt.atheism
Danwood <noreply@noreply.com> wrote in <470FF6CB.2080208@noreply.com>:

Christopher A.Lee wrote:

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:08:02 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

[snips]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:56:00 -0400, Danwood wrote:

Hmm... weren't you supposedly offering up evidence of deities? Missed
it.

The entire while I have been demonstrating how it is impossible to
convince someone whose bias will not permit anything that goes against
their mindset.

Hey, Wood - this was another of your personal lies.
It's this sort of thing that gets you called the liar you show
yourself.
Stop pretending.
It doesn't even fool yourself.

Good thing this is only Wood's stupid straw man. It is a personal lie

The liar is lying yet again. He knows perfectly well that if he didn't
repeatedly lie about atheists to our faces he would not be called a
liar.
He never, ever takes any notice of what he is told, and always resorts
to this kind of personal lie. Ever since he first cross=posted to that
atheist newsgroup.

Dana J.B. Wood

Dana, you've never bothered with evidence. You make assertion after
assertion, but cannot be bothered to back it up with any evidence. Until
you build your claims on the rock of evidence, you will not persuade
anyone. You have demonstrated an ignorance of science that you seem
completely unwilling to mend, but complain when people don't get your
religious doctrines exactly right.

User: "Kelsey Bjarnason"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	11 Oct 2007 11:55:02 AM

[snips]
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:04:31 -0400, 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.

Hold it right there, me Bucko. "Obvious" *how*?
You look at a dam of this sort and conclude "beaver". Why? Ah, yes,
because we have seen beavers building such dams, on documentaries and the
like, some of us have seen them "in the wild". We recognize such a dam
_as_ a beaver dam because we have actually seen beavers building just such
structures.
Now we come to, oh, Bibles. Or universes. Or humans. Or whatever. And
we recognize these as the products of gods, because we've seen other gods
making just such things, repeatedly, right?
Hmm. No, actually, we haven't. And your little analogy falls merrily
apart.
On a side note, what we _have_ seen, many times - some of us have even
done it ourselves - is people writing books. Hmm, here's a book, it's
called the Bible. Based on what we know, from experience, it was probably
written by people. People who are lousy at getting details right, people
who love to read and create fiction, people who have a long tradition of
tales of heroics and miracles and wonders.
So, we have a very good reason to think this is just more of the same, and
no reason at all to think otherwise. By your analogy, see the dam, assume
the beaver, see the book, assume the purely human author, writing in a
purely human manner.
We might also note that _today_ we live in a society of science and
technology. We have wonders and miracles, but they are wonders and
miracles of science: supersonic jets, heart transplants, all sorts of
things.
Despite this, there are many who persist in believing all sorts of
superstitious nonsense. The magic healing power of crystals. Alien
visitation. Honest politicians. Gods.
If we, in our era of science and technology and education still pump out
an endless supply of the ignorant and credulous, there's little reason to
suspect that there weren't just as many in days gone by - but there _is_
good reason to think (as we know, from many writings over the eons) that
on the whole, they lacked any really decent notion of critical thinking.
Which isn't to say they were stupid, per se. It is, rather, to say that
when presented with an explanation of something - "Thunder happens when
the gods go bowling" - they lacked any formal methodology for analyzing
such claims. If it came from a reputable source, it was probably true.
Taken together, we're left with a particular set of claims, written during
just these periods, by the credulous and those lacking strong critical
skills, lacking any real evidence supporting the claims and the best the
current lot can come up with is, in essence, "It must have been important,
they wrote it down" or some equivalent.
Now you complain we want proof before we want evidence. No, we don't.
What we want is that if you're going to use X to demonstrate the validity
of Y, you demonstrate that X is valid.
As a simple example, I could write a book claiming I am the king of Spain.
I could then point to said book, suggesting that this _is_ the evidence
that I am the king of Spain. Obviously, this is not going to get me on
the throne; I'll need something a little more compelling.
So to with the Bible, with personal experiences, with claims of
changed lives, with pretty much everything the theists throw at us; not a
bit of it has been validated itself, so it's hardly useful in validating
other things, any more than my book is useful in validating my claim to
the throne.
.

User: "Danwood"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	12 Oct 2007 06:04:05 PM

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

[snips]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:04:31 -0400, Danwood wrote:

I suppose I didn't make myself clear on this point. I was in reference
to a unique situation and a specific time and place involving my
grandfather and me several decades ago.
He was a simple country farmer in Carolina, land rich, but dirt poor.
He had no TV, never saw a beaver or a beaver's dam. These were
fanciful creatures as far as he was concerned or creatures in
other places.

<
Not so, since you generalized a specific event. You re-constructed my
scenario then found fault. This was invalid.

On a side note, what we _have_ seen, many times - some of us have even
done it ourselves - is people writing books. Hmm, here's a book, it's
called the Bible. Based on what we know, from experience, it was probably
written by people. People who are lousy at getting details right, people
who love to read and create fiction, people who have a long tradition of
tales of heroics and miracles and wonders.

So, we have a very good reason to think this is just more of the same, and
no reason at all to think otherwise. By your analogy, see the dam, assume
the beaver, see the book, assume the purely human author, writing in a
purely human manner.

We might also note that _today_ we live in a society of science and
technology. We have wonders and miracles, but they are wonders and
miracles of science: supersonic jets, heart transplants, all sorts of
things.

Despite this, there are many who persist in believing all sorts of
superstitious nonsense. The magic healing power of crystals. Alien
visitation. Honest politicians. Gods.

If we, in our era of science and technology and education still pump out
an endless supply of the ignorant and credulous, there's little reason to
suspect that there weren't just as many in days gone by - but there _is_
good reason to think (as we know, from many writings over the eons) that
on the whole, they lacked any really decent notion of critical thinking.

Which isn't to say they were stupid, per se. It is, rather, to say that
when presented with an explanation of something - "Thunder happens when
the gods go bowling" - they lacked any formal methodology for analyzing
such claims. If it came from a reputable source, it was probably true.

Taken together, we're left with a particular set of claims, written during
just these periods, by the credulous and those lacking strong critical
skills, lacking any real evidence supporting the claims and the best the
current lot can come up with is, in essence, "It must have been important,
they wrote it down" or some equivalent.

Now you complain we want proof before we want evidence. No, we don't.
What we want is that if you're going to use X to demonstrate the validity
of Y, you demonstrate that X is valid.

As a simple example, I could write a book claiming I am the king of Spain.
I could then point to said book, suggesting that this _is_ the evidence
that I am the king of Spain. Obviously, this is not going to get me on
the throne; I'll need something a little more compelling.

So to with the Bible, with personal experiences, with claims of
changed lives, with pretty much everything the theists throw at us; not a
bit of it has been validated itself, so it's hardly useful in validating
other things, any more than my book is useful in validating my claim to
the throne.

You are supposedly responding to something I wrote. I'm not sure of your
reason for bring up the Bible. Please note, I do not and have never
appealed to the Bible, Torah, Koran, Book of Mormon any other
"scripture", so why do this?
Dan Wood, DDS

User: "Kelsey Bjarnason"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	14 Oct 2007 02:24:33 PM

[snips]
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:04:05 -0400, Danwood wrote:

You look at a dam of this sort and conclude "beaver". Why? Ah, yes,
because we have seen beavers building such dams, on documentaries and the
like, some of us have seen them "in the wild". We recognize such a dam
_as_ a beaver dam because we have actually seen beavers building just such
structures.

That's nice. We know beavers exist - we can see 'em if we want. Show us
gods. No? Can't do it? Fine; then where you _can_ suggest a beaver
could be responsible for a dam, given that we can readily demonstrate
beavers, dams *and* the propensities of beavers to build just such dams,
the same is not true of gods, so we cannot justifiably use them to explain
anything.
Now that we've got that out of the way, you of course will not attempt to
claim gods are responsible for anything, or have any specific properties,
unless and until you demonstrate those gods exist, right? Good.

Not so, since you generalized a specific event.

Actually, you were trying to show how "miraculous events" happen every
day, thus reducing "miracles" to the commonplace and thus sneak your gods
in the back door. I simply called you on it, by showing that no, sorry,
beaver dams are hardly miraculous events, nor are miraculous events
commonplace.
Try again, though.
--
If you had just stayed home in your closet, they would never have
known that you are Black, (oh wait, that wasn’t it), Jewish?, ... I
forgot, what is your crime? -- Jack O’Neill
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	11 Oct 2007 12:54:05 PM

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:55:02 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

[snips]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:04:31 -0400, Danwood wrote:

It imagines the analogy works because it can't grasp that if it had
given as much evidence for its pretend friend as for beavers it might
have had a point.
But like too many stupid believers, it can't grasp the
question-begging nature of its presumptions. Nor the stupidity and
rudeness in presuming these outside his religion to people he knows
don't share them.
..
Fortunately they're not all like this.

Now we come to, oh, Bibles. Or universes. Or humans. Or whatever. And
we recognize these as the products of gods, because we've seen other gods
making just such things, repeatedly, right?

Hmm. No, actually, we haven't. And your little analogy falls merrily
apart.

On a side note, what we _have_ seen, many times - some of us have even
done it ourselves - is people writing books. Hmm, here's a book, it's
called the Bible. Based on what we know, from experience, it was probably
written by people. People who are lousy at getting details right, people
who love to read and create fiction, people who have a long tradition of
tales of heroics and miracles and wonders.

So, we have a very good reason to think this is just more of the same, and
no reason at all to think otherwise. By your analogy, see the dam, assume
the beaver, see the book, assume the purely human author, writing in a
purely human manner.

We might also note that _today_ we live in a society of science and
technology. We have wonders and miracles, but they are wonders and
miracles of science: supersonic jets, heart transplants, all sorts of
things.

Despite this, there are many who persist in believing all sorts of
superstitious nonsense. The magic healing power of crystals. Alien
visitation. Honest politicians. Gods.

If we, in our era of science and technology and education still pump out
an endless supply of the ignorant and credulous, there's little reason to
suspect that there weren't just as many in days gone by - but there _is_
good reason to think (as we know, from many writings over the eons) that
on the whole, they lacked any really decent notion of critical thinking.

Which isn't to say they were stupid, per se. It is, rather, to say that
when presented with an explanation of something - "Thunder happens when
the gods go bowling" - they lacked any formal methodology for analyzing
such claims. If it came from a reputable source, it was probably true.

Taken together, we're left with a particular set of claims, written during
just these periods, by the credulous and those lacking strong critical
skills, lacking any real evidence supporting the claims and the best the
current lot can come up with is, in essence, "It must have been important,
they wrote it down" or some equivalent.

Now you complain we want proof before we want evidence. No, we don't.
What we want is that if you're going to use X to demonstrate the validity
of Y, you demonstrate that X is valid.

As a simple example, I could write a book claiming I am the king of Spain.
I could then point to said book, suggesting that this _is_ the evidence
that I am the king of Spain. Obviously, this is not going to get me on
the throne; I'll need something a little more compelling.

So to with the Bible, with personal experiences, with claims of
changed lives, with pretty much everything the theists throw at us; not a
bit of it has been validated itself, so it's hardly useful in validating
other things, any more than my book is useful in validating my claim to
the throne.

User: "Martin Phipps"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	08 Oct 2007 06:57:42 PM

On Oct 9, 7:02 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

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

No, they weren't. A person says he was sick and then later says he
feels better. That's not even objective for HIM let alone you, a
secondary observer with no medical training.

And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not quite
objective at the time?

Because the people who wrote the gospels were known liars: the gospels
contradict themselves and the apocrptal gospels that were covered up
by the Council of Nicea constitute even further damning evidence of
their ability to simply make things up. QED
Martin
.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	10 Oct 2007 04:13:36 AM

Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191887862.247983.34980@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 9, 7:02 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

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

No, they weren't. A person says he was sick and then later says he
feels better. That's not even objective for HIM let alone you, a
secondary observer with no medical training.

And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not
quite objective at the time?

I see. Just make up some false charges against the authors and your
whole problem vanishes. I do "get it."
As for QED, that's a complete legend in your mind. You have demonstrated
nothing.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	10 Oct 2007 02:39:08 AM

On 9 Oct, 00:57, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 7:02 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not quite
objective at the time?

Because the people who wrote the gospels were known liars:

You need to document this strange claim. To whom were there 'known
liars' and in which ancient texts does this claim appear? <confused>

and the apocrptal gospels that were covered up
by the Council ofNiceaconstitute even further damning evidence of
their ability to simply make things up.

There are several errors of fact (rather than errors of opinion) in
this:
1. No such events took place at the Council of Nicaea. This is a
myth.
2. The Council of Nicaea took place in 325, hundreds of years after
the authors of the NT died.
3. The apocryphal gospels are merely later fakes. Whether genuine or
not, they can't really bear on the authenticity of the real ones.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Martin Phipps"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	10 Oct 2007 04:31:18 AM

On Oct 10, 3:39 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On 9 Oct, 00:57, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 7:02 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not quite
objective at the time?

Because the people who wrote the gospels were known liars:

You need to document this strange claim. To whom were there 'known
liars' and in which ancient texts does this claim appear? <confused>

It turns out that the Bible is 100% fiction, including the new
testament.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm
"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory,
why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" (St. Paul, Romans 3.7)
"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and
for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived." (Bishop Eusebius,
the official propagandist for Constantine, 12th Book of Evangelical
Preparation)
"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events
which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to
posterity." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).
"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...
For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a
mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be
called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and
skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up
for the defects of the mind ...
And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits
by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course
has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
(John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of
Constantinople, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1)
'Clearly the Christians have used ... myths ... in fabricating the
story of Jesus' birth ... It is clear to me that the writings of the
Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough
constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction.'
- Celsus (On The True Doctrine, c178 AD)
'Only lies have our fathers handed down to us, emptiness in which
there is nothing of any avail!' - Jeremiah 16.19
"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of
our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his
faith; especially since - as already it has been often proved - these
things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long
while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews,
not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of
reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the
names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to
follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written
their lies and conceits according to them." - Faustus, the Manichean
bishop
'The Church forgery mill did not limit itself to mere writings but
for
centuries cranked out thousands of phony "relics" of its "Lord,"
"Apostles" and "Saints" ... There were at least 26 'authentic' burial
shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud
of Turin is just one ... At one point, a number of churches claimed
the one foreskin of Jesus, and there were enough splinters of the
"True Cross" that Calvin said the amount of wood would make "a full
load for a good ship." ' (Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy)
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to
be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556), the tireless zealot for papal authority
- he was the founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits)
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake
of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a
useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he
would accept them."
- Martin Luther (Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed.,
Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossm=FCthigen von Hessen mit Bucer,
vol. I.)
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie." - 2 Thessalonians 2.11
'The forgery of pious documents of every imaginable character was
among the most constant and zealous activities of the holy
propagandists of the Christian Faith, from the beginning to the
critical era when forgeries were no longer possible or profitable.' -
Joseph Wheless (1930)
"Unsigned works are a peculiar Christian phenomenon, in works with a
dogmatic, apologetic, and propagandistic aim - in other words, works
already suspect, and thus made even more so by an author's anonymity."
- Richard Carrier
"In reality, the Neronian persecution never occurred. It is a fiction
of the Church, invented for its greater glory." (Arthur Drews, The
Legend of St Peter, p63)
"It is usual for the sacred historian to conform himself to the
generally accepted opinion of the masses in his time.' - St Jerome
(P.L., XXVI, 98; XXIV, 855).
'There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common
crowd or an uneducated congregation.' - St. Jerome (Epistle. lii, 8;
p=2E 93.)
"There are actually some 200 gospels, epistles and other books
concerning the life of Jesus Christ. Writing such material was a
popular literary form, particularly in the 2nd century. The pious
fantasies competed with Greek romantic fiction. Political
considerations in the late 2nd century led to the selection of just
four approved gospels and the rejection of others. After three
centuries of wrangling 23 other books were accepted by the Church as
divinely inspired. The rest were declared 'pious frauds'. In truth,
the whole lot belongs to a genre of literary FICTION." -
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

and the apocryptal gospels that were covered up
by the Council of Nicea constitute even further damning evidence of
their ability to simply make things up. =20

There are several errors of fact (rather than errors of opinion) in
this:

1. No such events took place at the Council of Nicaea. This is a
myth.

2. The Council of Nicaea took place in 325, hundreds of years after
the authors of the NT died.

3. The apocryphal gospels are merely later fakes.

as opposed to early fakes.
Martin
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	11 Oct 2007 07:54:31 AM

On 10 Oct, 10:31, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 10, 3:39 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On 9 Oct, 00:57, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 7:02 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not quite
objective at the time?

Because the people who wrote the gospels were known liars:

You need to document this strange claim. To whom were there 'known
liars' and in which ancient texts does this claim appear? <confused>

Ahem. Is that it? Everyone knows that this is misrepresentation.

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and
for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived." (Bishop Eusebius,
the official propagandist for Constantine, 12th Book of Evangelical
Preparation)

Bogus quote, I'm afraid. The chapter title of the Praeparatio
Evangelica doesn't quite say that, in fact; it's content in fact
merely discusses how parts of the Old Testament are not to be taken
literally but allegorically, because some people aren't intelligent
enough to understand things any other way.

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events
which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to
posterity." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).

Second bogus quote, taken out of context.
But Eusebius lived 300 years later. How does this relate to your
comment?
I have snipped the remainder of the material which you quote, but
never checked. Shouldn't you check whether these things are so,
before repeating smears? All of this is irrelevant, most of it is
bogus, deceitful or misrepresentation, and all of it characteristic of
hate-literature. Be more sceptical.

and the apocryptal gospels that were covered up
by the Council of Nicea constitute even further damning evidence of
their ability to simply make things up.

There are several errors of fact (rather than errors of opinion) in
this:

1. No such events took place at the Council of Nicaea. This is a
myth.

2. The Council of Nicaea took place in 325, hundreds of years after
the authors of the NT died.

3. The apocryphal gospels are merely later fakes.

as opposed to early fakes.

You are entitled to consider the gospels fakes, and to offer evidence
for your assertions, of course. But this has nothing to do with your
post or mine.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Martin Phipps"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	12 Oct 2007 07:40:40 PM

On Oct 11, 8:54 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On 10 Oct, 10:31, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 10, 3:39 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On 9 Oct, 00:57, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 7:02 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not quite
objective at the time?

Because the people who wrote the gospels were known liars:

You need to document this strange claim. To whom were there 'known
liars' and in which ancient texts does this claim appear? <confused>

It turns out that the Bible is 100% fiction, including the new
testament.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory,
why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" (St. Paul, Romans 3.7)

Ahem. Is that it? Everyone knows that this is misrepresentation.

It depends on what the original Greek said.

You do realize that when you say "some people aren't intelligent
enough to understand" that you are talking about the early Christians,
don't you?

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events
which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to
posterity." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).

Second bogus quote, taken out of context.

But Eusebius lived 300 years later. How does this relate to your
comment?

It is a question of presenting the mentality at hand, one that is not
concerned with history that is true and accurate but rather "useful".

I have snipped the remainder of the material which you quote, but
never checked.

Of course not.

Shouldn't you check whether these things are so,
before repeating smears? All of this is irrelevant, most of it is
bogus, deceitful or misrepresentation, and all of it characteristic of
hate-literature. Be more sceptical.

Your irony makes me laugh.
Martin
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	13 Oct 2007 11:04:49 AM

On 13 Oct, 01:40, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 11, 8:54 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On 10 Oct, 10:31, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 10, 3:39 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On 9 Oct, 00:57, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 7:02 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not quite
objective at the time?

Because the people who wrote the gospels were known liars:

You need to document this strange claim. To whom were there 'known
liars' and in which ancient texts does this claim appear? <confused>

It turns out that the Bible is 100% fiction, including the new
testament.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory,
why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" (St. Paul, Romans 3.7)

Ahem. Is that it? Everyone knows that this is misrepresentation.

It depends on what the original Greek said.

Not really, unless you want to argue that sentences must be taken out
of context.

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and
for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived." (BishopEusebius,
the official propagandist for Constantine, 12th Book of Evangelical
Preparation)

You do realize that when you say "some people aren't intelligent
enough to understand" that you are talking about the early Christians,
don't you?

Not sure what this has to do with the issue.

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events
which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to
posterity." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).

Second bogus quote, taken out of context.

But Eusebiuslived 300 years later. How does this relate to your
comment?

It is a question of presenting the mentality at hand, one that is not
concerned with history that is true and accurate but rather "useful".

If Eusebius had said "I am a liar" (which he did not), it would not
justify your comments about the first century, since he lived 3
centuries later. Surely?
The idea that the quote indicates dishonesty is not accepted by
scholars, incidentally. Since he is declaring his method in what
follows, it indicates honesty, albeit also limitation.

I have snipped the remainder of the material which you quote, but
never checked.

Of course not.

Before posting slurs, I recommend checking whether they are true.

Your irony makes me laugh.

No answer? Atheists...
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Martin Phipps"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	13 Oct 2007 09:11:30 PM

On Oct 14, 12:04 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On 13 Oct, 01:40, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 11, 8:54 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On 10 Oct, 10:31, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 10, 3:39 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On 9 Oct, 00:57, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 7:02 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

And how can you say the events described in the gospels were not quite
objective at the time?

Because the people who wrote the gospels were known liars:

You need to document this strange claim. To whom were there 'known
liars' and in which ancient texts does this claim appear? <confused>

It turns out that the Bible is 100% fiction, including the new
testament.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory,
why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" (St. Paul, Romans 3.7)

Ahem. Is that it? Everyone knows that this is misrepresentation.

It depends on what the original Greek said.

Not really, unless you want to argue that sentences must be taken out
of context.

Now you are changing your objection.

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and
for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived." (BishopEusebius,
the official propagandist for Constantine, 12th Book of Evangelical
Preparation)

You do realize that when you say "some people aren't intelligent
enough to understand" that you are talking about the early Christians,
don't you?

Not sure what this has to do with the issue.

You are admitting that teh early Christians were easily fooled.

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events
which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to
posterity." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).

Second bogus quote, taken out of context.

But Eusebiuslived 300 years later. How does this relate to your
comment?

It is a question of presenting the mentality at hand, one that is not
concerned with history that is true and accurate but rather "useful".

If Eusebius had said "I am a liar" (which he did not), it would not
justify your comments about the first century, since he lived 3
centuries later. Surely?

The idea that the quote indicates dishonesty is not accepted by
scholars, incidentally. Since he is declaring his method in what
follows, it indicates honesty, albeit also limitation.

What you consider honesty and what I consider honesty apparently
differs. My definition of honesty precludes the sort of bias Eusebius
alluded to.

I have snipped the remainder of the material which you quote, but
never checked.

Of course not.

Before posting slurs, I recommend checking whether they are true.

And what if they are? What then? Do you continue to go on through
life with your eyes and ears covered?

Your irony makes me laugh.

No answer?

You lack of reading comprehension makes me want to cry. You actually
think you are the sceptical one. What a joke you are!
Martin
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution	15 Oct 2007 11:24:52 AM

On 14 Oct, 03:11, Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: