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: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 10:10:43 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191589843.402780.205490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 5, 3:08 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191508674.133975.78620@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 3:14 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191292403.276336.59250@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Myths belong to the realm of fiction. Fictional stories can
feature real people, real places and even decribe real events
(eg the sinking of the Titanic) but they all have one thing in
common: somebody made them up.
Yes
We're done.
Thank goodness. I thought you intended to keep on lying about me
forever.
Lying is something that I've never done is this thread. You could say
the same but you'd be lying. Again.
*****!
Of course that's the fundy way. When you're caught in the act, you lie
and lie and lie and the only defense you have is to lie some more.
Good luck with that...
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
06 Oct 2007 05:19:51 AM |
|
|
On Oct 6, 11:10 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191589843.402780.205490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 5, 3:08 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191508674.133975.78620@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 3:14 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191292403.276336.59250@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Myths belong to the realm of fiction. Fictional stories can
feature real people, real places and even decribe real events
(eg the sinking of the Titanic) but they all have one thing in
common: somebody made them up.
Yes
We're done.
Thank goodness. I thought you intended to keep on lying about me
forever.
Lying is something that I've never done is this thread. You could say
the same but you'd be lying. Again.
*****!
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
07 Oct 2007 05:38:25 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191665991.900875.171460@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 6, 11:10 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191589843.402780.205490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 5, 3:08 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191508674.133975.78620@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 3:14 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191292403.276336.59250@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Myths belong to the realm of fiction. Fictional stories can
feature real people, real places and even decribe real events
(eg the sinking of the Titanic) but they all have one thing
in common: somebody made them up.
Yes
We're done.
Thank goodness. I thought you intended to keep on lying about me
forever.
Lying is something that I've never done is this thread. You could
say the same but you'd be lying. Again.
*****!
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
How would you know? You avoid it at all costs.
Lies, especially those intended to injure, do hurt. But that's why you
keep telling them.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
07 Oct 2007 11:46:33 PM |
|
|
On Oct 8, 6:38 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1191665991.900875.171460@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 6, 11:10 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191589843.402780.205490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 5, 3:08 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191508674.133975.78620@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 3:14 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191292403.276336.59250@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Myths belong to the realm of fiction. Fictional stories can
feature real people, real places and even decribe real events
(eg the sinking of the Titanic) but they all have one thing
in common: somebody made them up.
Yes
We're done.
Thank goodness. I thought you intended to keep on lying about me
forever.
Lying is something that I've never done is this thread. You could
say the same but you'd be lying. Again.
*****!
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
How would you know? You avoid it at all costs.
Projection.
Lies, especially those intended to injure, do hurt. But that's why you
keep telling them.
Cite one. You can't, can you?
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
08 Oct 2007 05:55:09 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191818793.873384.254400@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 8, 6:38 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1191665991.900875.171460@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 6, 11:10 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191589843.402780.205490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 5, 3:08 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191508674.133975.78620@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 3:14 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191292403.276336.59250@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Myths belong to the realm of fiction. Fictional stories
can feature real people, real places and even decribe real
events (eg the sinking of the Titanic) but they all have
one thing in common: somebody made them up.
Yes
We're done.
Thank goodness. I thought you intended to keep on lying about
me forever.
Lying is something that I've never done is this thread. You
could say the same but you'd be lying. Again.
*****!
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
How would you know? You avoid it at all costs.
Projection.
Lies, especially those intended to injure, do hurt. But that's why
you keep telling them.
Cite one. You can't, can you?
Actually I can. You said you knew I was lying. That's a pretty bold
statement to make to someone who isn't.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
08 Oct 2007 06:50:16 PM |
|
|
On Oct 9, 6:55 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191818793.873384.254400@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 8, 6:38 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1191665991.900875.171460@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 6, 11:10 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191589843.402780.205490@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 5, 3:08 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191508674.133975.78620@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 3:14 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191292403.276336.59250@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Myths belong to the realm of fiction. Fictional stories
can feature real people, real places and even decribe real
events (eg the sinking of the Titanic) but they all have
one thing in common: somebody made them up.
Yes
We're done.
Thank goodness. I thought you intended to keep on lying about
me forever.
Lying is something that I've never done is this thread. You
could say the same but you'd be lying. Again.
*****!
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
How would you know? You avoid it at all costs.
Projection.
Lies, especially those intended to injure, do hurt. But that's why
you keep telling them.
Cite one. You can't, can you?
Actually I can. You said you knew I was lying. That's a pretty bold
statement to make to someone who isn't.
First you claim that your god is "very real" and that
you have "objective evidence" that he is real but all you offer is
subjective experiences and you won't admit that evidence has be be
physical and examinable for it to be objective. Then you claim that
you still believe anyway and, when we ask why, you then ask how we
know anything is true and claim that you don't believe anything
really
exists (supposedly not even your god) as if denying the existance of
everything gives you the moral high ground against atheists.
Meanwhile, you tell atheists that they "choose to believe" when the
fact is that most of us probably never did really believe. Who
knows,
maybe you don't really believe either and that's a lie too. It's so
hard to tell if and when you are telling the truth.
Now which part of what I wrote above are you going to tell me was a
lie. Be specific. Don't accuse me of lying and not tell me what you
think my lies were! You use "liar" as nothing but an ad hominem.
(Admittedly Christopher Lee does the same but in your case he turned
out to be correct.)
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Danwood" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 06:10:36 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
But you cannot even say HOW one could produce evidence of your
universal negative.
I wasn't claiming to have proven a universal negative, you idiot. I
showed that your god was as much a myth as Zeus or Odin. If you want
to claim that ALL gods are somehow real then that is your right but it
is a LIE for you to claim that your god is somehow special and
deserves to be treated as anything but just another myth. Period.
There's no room for disagreement. Your word is not the final authority.
Danwood
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 09:17:29 PM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 7:10 am, Danwood <nore...@noreply.com> wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
But you cannot even say HOW one could produce evidence of your
universal negative.
I wasn't claiming to have proven a universal negative, you idiot. I
showed that your god was as much a myth as Zeus or Odin. If you want
to claim that ALL gods are somehow real then that is your right but it
is a LIE for you to claim that your god is somehow special and
deserves to be treated as anything but just another myth. Period.
There's no room for disagreement. Your word is not the final authority.
ALL gods are mythological. If you argue that they can still exist
then you are distorting the meaning of "mythological" to suit your own
ends.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 02:33:31 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191291449.905541.296970@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 2, 7:10 am, Danwood <nore...@noreply.com> wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
But you cannot even say HOW one could produce evidence of your
universal negative.
I wasn't claiming to have proven a universal negative, you idiot. I
showed that your god was as much a myth as Zeus or Odin. If you
want
to claim that ALL gods are somehow real then that is your right but
it
is a LIE for you to claim that your god is somehow special and
deserves to be treated as anything but just another myth. Period.
There's no room for disagreement. Your word is not the final
authority.
ALL gods are mythological. If you argue that they can still exist
then you are distorting the meaning of "mythological" to suit your own
ends.
No, YOU are.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 09:49:41 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 3:33 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191291449.905541.296970@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 2, 7:10 am, Danwood <nore...@noreply.com> wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
But you cannot even say HOW one could produce evidence of your
universal negative.
I wasn't claiming to have proven a universal negative, you idiot. I
showed that your god was as much a myth as Zeus or Odin. If you
want
to claim that ALL gods are somehow real then that is your right but
it
is a LIE for you to claim that your god is somehow special and
deserves to be treated as anything but just another myth. Period.
There's no room for disagreement. Your word is not the final
authority.
ALL gods are mythological. If you argue that they can still exist
then you are distorting the meaning of "mythological" to suit your own
ends.
No, YOU are.
Assertion. Words acquire meaning based on usage. You can't decide
what a word means for yourself and presume to dictate that meaning to
everybody else.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 02:28:29 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191509381.499073.95780@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 3:33 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191291449.905541.296970@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 2, 7:10 am, Danwood <nore...@noreply.com> wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
But you cannot even say HOW one could produce evidence of your
universal negative.
I wasn't claiming to have proven a universal negative, you
idiot. I showed that your god was as much a myth as Zeus or
Odin. If you
want
to claim that ALL gods are somehow real then that is your right
but
it
is a LIE for you to claim that your god is somehow special and
deserves to be treated as anything but just another myth.
Period.
There's no room for disagreement. Your word is not the final
authority.
ALL gods are mythological. If you argue that they can still exist
then you are distorting the meaning of "mythological" to suit your
own ends.
No, YOU are.
Assertion. Words acquire meaning based on usage. You can't decide
what a word means for yourself and presume to dictate that meaning to
everybody else.
Look in the mirror and say that.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 08:19:12 AM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 3:28 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191509381.499073.95780@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 3:33 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191291449.905541.296970@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 2, 7:10 am, Danwood <nore...@noreply.com> wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
But you cannot even say HOW one could produce evidence of your
universal negative.
I wasn't claiming to have proven a universal negative, you
idiot. I showed that your god was as much a myth as Zeus or
Odin. If you
want
to claim that ALL gods are somehow real then that is your right
but
it
is a LIE for you to claim that your god is somehow special and
deserves to be treated as anything but just another myth.
Period.
There's no room for disagreement. Your word is not the final
authority.
ALL gods are mythological. If you argue that they can still exist
then you are distorting the meaning of "mythological" to suit your
own ends.
No, YOU are.
Assertion. Words acquire meaning based on usage. You can't decide
what a word means for yourself and presume to dictate that meaning to
everybody else.
Look in the mirror and say that.
Why? I'm talking to you, the dishonest idiot without a clue.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 10:58:34 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191590352.691479.247530@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 5, 3:28 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191509381.499073.95780@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 3:33 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191291449.905541.296970@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 2, 7:10 am, Danwood <nore...@noreply.com> wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:58 am, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
But you cannot even say HOW one could produce evidence of
your universal negative.
I wasn't claiming to have proven a universal negative, you
idiot. I showed that your god was as much a myth as Zeus or
Odin. If you
want
to claim that ALL gods are somehow real then that is your
right but
it
is a LIE for you to claim that your god is somehow special
and deserves to be treated as anything but just another myth.
Period.
There's no room for disagreement. Your word is not the final
authority.
ALL gods are mythological. If you argue that they can still
exist then you are distorting the meaning of "mythological" to
suit your own ends.
No, YOU are.
Assertion. Words acquire meaning based on usage. You can't decide
what a word means for yourself and presume to dictate that meaning
to everybody else.
Look in the mirror and say that.
Why? I'm talking to you, the dishonest idiot without a clue.
No, *****. You're talking to yourself, the ***** who like to hear
his own lies.
I really don't know why I DON'T put a bunch of you fundy atheists in my
killfile. You've not said anything new or edifying and you all LIE about
ME to my face.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
06 Oct 2007 05:26:46 AM |
|
|
On Oct 6, 11:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191590352.691479.247530@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 5, 3:28 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191509381.499073.95780@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 3:33 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191291449.905541.296970@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 2, 7:10 am, Danwood <nore...@noreply.com> wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
On Oct 1, 7:58 am, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
But you cannot even say HOW one could produce evidence of
your universal negative.
I wasn't claiming to have proven a universal negative, you
idiot. I showed that your god was as much a myth as Zeus or
Odin. If you
want
to claim that ALL gods are somehow real then that is your
right but
it
is a LIE for you to claim that your god is somehow special
and deserves to be treated as anything but just another myth.
Period.
There's no room for disagreement. Your word is not the final
authority.
ALL gods are mythological. If you argue that they can still
exist then you are distorting the meaning of "mythological" to
suit your own ends.
No, YOU are.
Assertion. Words acquire meaning based on usage. You can't decide
what a word means for yourself and presume to dictate that meaning
to everybody else.
Look in the mirror and say that.
Why? I'm talking to you, the dishonest idiot without a clue.
No, *****. You're talking to yourself, the ***** who like to hear
his own lies.
What lies, you lying piece of *****? You can't identify a single lie
you presume to tell me that I've told, can you? You've been caught
time and time again telling lies and all you can do is turn the
accusation around on us. You're pathetic!
You've not said anything new or edifying and you all LIE about
ME to my face.
Projection.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
06 Oct 2007 05:48:37 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 03:26:46 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 11:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191590352.691479.247530@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 5, 3:28 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191509381.499073.95780@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
No, *****. You're talking to yourself, the ***** who like to hear
his own lies.
What lies, you lying piece of *****? You can't identify a single lie
you presume to tell me that I've told, can you? You've been caught
time and time again telling lies and all you can do is turn the
accusation around on us. You're pathetic!
You've not said anything new or edifying and you all LIE about
ME to my face.
Projection.
It's standard operating procedure: instead of addressing points made,
they dismiss them with personal lies as ad hominems about "why" they
are made.
Which even if true, won't make the points go away.
In their mind these lies aren't lies and don't make them liars.
But by telling them about us to our faces they make it very personal.
After which they invariably turn even nastier, and into whining
hypocrites accusing us of what they themselves do.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
07 Oct 2007 05:27:06 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:6npeg31afr869i1ntgc9eekm1519juk3kd@4ax.com:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 03:26:46 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 11:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191590352.691479.247530@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 5, 3:28 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191509381.499073.95780@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
No, *****. You're talking to yourself, the ***** who like to
hear his own lies.
What lies, you lying piece of *****? You can't identify a single lie
you presume to tell me that I've told, can you? You've been caught
time and time again telling lies and all you can do is turn the
accusation around on us. You're pathetic!
You've not said anything new or edifying and you all LIE about
ME to my face.
Projection.
It's standard operating procedure: instead of addressing points made,
they dismiss them with personal lies as ad hominems about "why" they
are made.
You don't make any real points. You just lie about me to my face.
Which even if true, won't make the points go away.
What points? The point that I cannot (more like will not in this case)
supply you with "proof" (that you won't accept anyway) of God's
existence? When I never offered to do so.
In their mind these lies aren't lies and don't make them liars.
You can say that in the mirror, too, liar.
But by telling them about us to our faces they make it very personal.
You're a liar. I'm telling you that to your face. Unfortunately it's so
far up your ***** that you can't see me.
After which they invariably turn even nastier, and into whining
hypocrites accusing us of what they themselves do.
Sod, off, liar. YOU turn nasty the minute any theist dares to be a
theist in your holy presence. Now go to the bathroom and worship
yourself like a good little narcissist.
If you believe the lies you're telling here, then your connection with
reality was severed a long time ago.
Do you actually have anything EDIFYING to say? Do you actually KNOW
anything edifying? Personally, I doubt it. You're too obsessed with
theism to look at anything else.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
30 Sep 2007 11:19:31 PM |
|
|
On Oct 1, 7:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1190989654.440641.312120@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:12 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:4i9nf354f3ibthu3j5ltr79iuva90oj881@4ax.com:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:48:35 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:gqslf35ga417kqlevflfvki2p2tvp674fh@4ax.com:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:46:25 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Read the Nicene Creed for a description of what exactly is my
VERY REAL God.
Objectively real? Then post the objective evidence.
You have to find it for yourself. I recommend the following
experiment:
I recommend that you stop making claims of objective existence for
which you them refuse to post objective evidence. That's how
Usenet works, David - you make the claim, YOU back it up. Or prove
yourself to be a troll.
I recommend that you stop demanding evidence I never offered to
produce.
You never offered to produce any because you knew damn well you didn't
have any. So why did you claim you did?
I'm really tired of your lies
Which is funny because I have never lied to you. Everyone here knows
that you described your god as a "very real god" as if you had any
actually reason to believe in it other than mere wishful thinking.
Grow up.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 08:06:37 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191212371.604596.94980@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 7:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1190989654.440641.312120@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:12 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:4i9nf354f3ibthu3j5ltr79iuva90oj881@4ax.com:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:48:35 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:gqslf35ga417kqlevflfvki2p2tvp674fh@4ax.com:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:46:25 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Read the Nicene Creed for a description of what exactly is my
VERY REAL God.
Objectively real? Then post the objective evidence.
You have to find it for yourself. I recommend the following
experiment:
I recommend that you stop making claims of objective existence
for which you them refuse to post objective evidence. That's
how Usenet works, David - you make the claim, YOU back it up.
Or prove yourself to be a troll.
I recommend that you stop demanding evidence I never offered to
produce.
You never offered to produce any because you knew damn well you
didn't have any. So why did you claim you did?
I'm really tired of your lies
Which is funny because I have never lied to you. Everyone here knows
that you described your god as a "very real god" as if you had any
actually reason to believe in it other than mere wishful thinking.
Again, you lie.
But that's your wishful thinking coming to the fore.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 09:31:42 PM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 9:06 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191212371.604596.94980@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 7:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1190989654.440641.312120@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:12 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:4i9nf354f3ibthu3j5ltr79iuva90oj881@4ax.com:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:48:35 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:gqslf35ga417kqlevflfvki2p2tvp674fh@4ax.com:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:46:25 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Read the Nicene Creed for a description of what exactly is my
VERY REAL God.
Objectively real? Then post the objective evidence.
You have to find it for yourself. I recommend the following
experiment:
I recommend that you stop making claims of objective existence
for which you them refuse to post objective evidence. That's
how Usenet works, David - you make the claim, YOU back it up.
Or prove yourself to be a troll.
I recommend that you stop demanding evidence I never offered to
produce.
You never offered to produce any because you knew damn well you
didn't have any. So why did you claim you did?
I'm really tired of your lies
Which is funny because I have never lied to you. Everyone here knows
that you described your god as a "very real god" as if you had any
actually reason to believe in it other than mere wishful thinking.
Again, you lie.
You forget that this is not a private conversation: you've claimed
twice now that your god is real and then gone on to claim that you are
not the one required to present any evidence to back up your
assertions. Other people have already commented on this.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 02:13:47 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191292302.119853.52160@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 2, 9:06 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191212371.604596.94980@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 7:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1190989654.440641.312120@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:12 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:4i9nf354f3ibthu3j5ltr79iuva90oj881@4ax.com:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:48:35 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:gqslf35ga417kqlevflfvki2p2tvp674fh@4ax.com:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:46:25 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Read the Nicene Creed for a description of what exactly is
my VERY REAL God.
Objectively real? Then post the objective evidence.
You have to find it for yourself. I recommend the following
experiment:
I recommend that you stop making claims of objective
existence for which you them refuse to post objective
evidence. That's how Usenet works, David - you make the
claim, YOU back it up. Or prove yourself to be a troll.
I recommend that you stop demanding evidence I never offered to
produce.
You never offered to produce any because you knew damn well you
didn't have any. So why did you claim you did?
I'm really tired of your lies
Which is funny because I have never lied to you. Everyone here
knows that you described your god as a "very real god" as if you
had any actually reason to believe in it other than mere wishful
thinking.
Again, you lie.
You forget that this is not a private conversation: you've claimed
twice now that your god is real and then gone on to claim that you are
not the one required to present any evidence to back up your
assertions. Other people have already commented on this.
You have claimed more than once that God is unreal and that my belief is
irrational. And you have yet to present anything but opinions to back up
your beliefs. Well the fact that some other people share your chosen
opinions is not evidence one way or the other of their truth.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 02:21:46 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in
news:Xns99BF257EF29Cdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159:
Well the fact that some other people share your chosen
opinions is not evidence one way or the other of their truth.
What an ugly little man you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 02:06:42 AM |
|
|
Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns99BFB023861D6nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5:
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in
news:Xns99BF257EF29Cdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159:
Well the fact that some other people share your chosen
opinions is not evidence one way or the other of their truth.
What an ugly little man you are.
And what a stupid little man you are. Are you really buying this *****
about how awful it is for these atheists to actually encounter a theist?
They must stay in a whole lot.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 10:21:39 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns99BFB023861D6nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5:
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in
news:Xns99BF257EF29Cdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159:
Well the fact that some other people share your chosen
opinions is not evidence one way or the other of their truth.
What an ugly little man you are.
And what a stupid little man you are. Are you really buying this *****
about how awful it is for these atheists to actually encounter a theist?
Can you point out anyone who actually made such a claim? Or are you
just lying again?
They must stay in a whole lot.
More assumptions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 10:07:56 PM |
|
|
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191597699.666722.280350@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns99BFB023861D6nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5:
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in
news:Xns99BF257EF29Cdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159:
Well the fact that some other people share your chosen
opinions is not evidence one way or the other of their truth.
What an ugly little man you are.
And what a stupid little man you are. Are you really buying this
***** about how awful it is for these atheists to actually
encounter a theist?
Can you point out anyone who actually made such a claim? Or are you
just lying again?
It's the excuse Lee always gives for attacking me. Others use the same
one.
They must stay in a whole lot.
More assumptions.
No, just sarcasm.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
06 Oct 2007 03:56:49 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191597699.666722.280350@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns99BFB023861D6nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5:
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in
news:Xns99BF257EF29Cdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159:
Well the fact that some other people share your chosen
opinions is not evidence one way or the other of their truth.
What an ugly little man you are.
And what a stupid little man you are. Are you really buying this
***** about how awful it is for these atheists to actually
encounter a theist?
Can you point out anyone who actually made such a claim? Or are you
just lying again?
It's the excuse Lee always gives for attacking me. Others use the same one.
No, it isn't. Try reading what he actually said, and not what fits
your prejudice.
They must stay in a whole lot.
More assumptions.
No, just sarcasm.
Too bad it's wrong; sarcasm works best when it reflects the absurdity
of reality,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
07 Oct 2007 05:09:55 PM |
|
|
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191704209.931033.321160@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191597699.666722.280350@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns99BFB023861D6nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5:
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in
news:Xns99BF257EF29Cdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159:
Well the fact that some other people share your chosen
opinions is not evidence one way or the other of their truth.
What an ugly little man you are.
And what a stupid little man you are. Are you really buying this
***** about how awful it is for these atheists to actually
encounter a theist?
Can you point out anyone who actually made such a claim? Or are
you just lying again?
It's the excuse Lee always gives for attacking me. Others use the
same one.
No, it isn't. Try reading what he actually said, and not what fits
your prejudice.
Hey, this all started because I went aboard a theist fundy who was
attacking evolution with lies. YOU people made a fight over theism out
of that. Look at the thread title. It's a dead giveaway.
They must stay in a whole lot.
More assumptions.
No, just sarcasm.
Too bad it's wrong; sarcasm works best when it reflects the absurdity
of reality,
Too bad it hits a nerve.
But then your own assumptions are the only ones that count, right.
Sorry, I'm too mad to be nice any more. If atheists want to be credible,
then they should prove their claims like they ask others to do. But none
of you can because your central dogma, being a universal negative is
inherently unprovable. So you HAVE to shift the burden of proof away
from that and when someone does offer evidence AGAINST it, you MUST call
him a liar or your central dogma will go down in flames.
Well, son, that's the trouble when you hitch your philosophical star to a
lie that nobody will ever be able to prove. Live with it--or not.
Nobody has told me why I should care at all.
Instead a bunch of OBVIOUS loonies have persisted in declaring ME insane
because I won't buy into their unprovable dogma with them. Like I said,
atheist fundies are as nutty as their theist counterparts. You just
don't like having your nose rubbed in the fact that your obsession with
theism has you just as attached to it as that of the theist fundies.
It's just that the thing that attaches you to it is repulsion instead of
attraction.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
07 Oct 2007 06:19:03 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191704209.931033.321160@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191597699.666722.280350@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns99BFB023861D6nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5:
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in
news:Xns99BF257EF29Cdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159:
Well the fact that some other people share your chosen
opinions is not evidence one way or the other of their truth.
What an ugly little man you are.
And what a stupid little man you are. Are you really buying this
***** about how awful it is for these atheists to actually
encounter a theist?
Can you point out anyone who actually made such a claim? Or are
you just lying again?
It's the excuse Lee always gives for attacking me. Others use the
same one.
No, it isn't. Try reading what he actually said, and not what fits
your prejudice.
Hey, this all started because I went aboard a theist fundy who was
attacking evolution with lies. YOU people made a fight over theism out
of that. Look at the thread title. It's a dead giveaway.
The thread title, "A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution," was
written by a theist. Please point out who said anything like "this
***** about how awful it is for these atheists to actually
encounter a theist?"
They must stay in a whole lot.
More assumptions.
No, just sarcasm.
Too bad it's wrong; sarcasm works best when it reflects the absurdity
of reality,
Too bad it hits a nerve.
Why do you assume that?
But then your own assumptions are the only ones that count, right.
Hmm, I don't recall ever saying anything that could even remotely be
interpreted as anything like that. Why don't you point it out for me?
Sorry, I'm too mad to be nice any more.
That was you being nice?
If atheists want to be credible,
You mean as opposed to theists, who each claim there's an invisible
eternal super magic sky daddy just for them, who in infallible but
makes all sorts of mistakes, is loving and just but hateful and
spiteful, and who even though he's all powerful can't create people
who can freely chose to do the right thing? Is that the sort of
credibility you're talking about?
then they should prove their claims like they ask others to do.
Which claim is that again? That there's no objective, verifiable
evidence for deities? Should we have to prove there're no unicorns,
leprechauns, and ghosts, too, before we get that precious credibility?
But none of you can because your central dogma, being a universal negative is
inherently unprovable.
Hey, look, you're redefining terms again. Now it's "dogma." Not to
mention that handing mind-reading ability you've sprouted.
So you HAVE to shift the burden of proof
The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. You know that. Why
do you think it should be shifted?
away from that and when someone does offer evidence AGAINST it,
Hold up, buckaroo. Are you claiming someone has provided objective,
verifiable evidence of a deity? Did this happen recently?
you MUST call him a liar or your central dogma will go down in flames.
Sweetheart, it isn't my fault you've gotten caught in your own lies.
You, nor anyone else, has provided any objective, verifiable evidence;
to claim otherwise is just another lie.
Well, son, that's the trouble when you hitch your philosophical star to a
lie that nobody will ever be able to prove.
Please specify the lie.
Live with it--or not. Nobody has told me why I should care at all.
Okay, here's a reason you should care: intellectual honesty.
Instead a bunch of OBVIOUS loonies have persisted in declaring ME insane
because I won't buy into their unprovable dogma with them.
Nope. You're declared insane because you believe things which are
unsupported by any objective, verifiable evidence at all, and which
contradict what is known about reality. Believing irrational things
is why people are called irrational. I think that's at least the
third time I've pointed that out to you.
Like I said, atheist fundies are as nutty as their theist counterparts.
Yes, you've said that, several times. And it's been pointed out why
you're wrong, several times. Refusal to acknowledge reality is just
one more symptom.
You just don't like having your nose rubbed in the fact that your obsession with
theism has you just as attached to it as that of the theist fundies.
You assume I'm obsessed with theism because I respond to lies about
atheists? I'm not permitted to defend my position?
It's just that the thing that attaches you to it is repulsion instead of attraction.
No, the thing that attaches me to it is the refusal of theists to
support their assertions, and their refusal to allow atheists to lack
belief. Like Mr Lee keeps saying, if theists would just keep their
beliefs to themselves, which ironically is exactly what Jesus
commanded xians to do, there wouldn't be an issue at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
08 Oct 2007 05:33:53 PM |
|
|
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191799143.426293.223670@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191704209.931033.321160@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191597699.666722.280350@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns99BFB023861D6nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5:
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in
news:Xns99BF257EF29Cdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159:
Well the fact that some other people share your chosen
opinions is not evidence one way or the other of their
truth.
What an ugly little man you are.
And what a stupid little man you are. Are you really buying
this ***** about how awful it is for these atheists to
actually encounter a theist?
Can you point out anyone who actually made such a claim? Or | | | | | | | | | | | | |
