| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
04 Mar 2006 06:58:32 AM |
| Object: |
Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
http://helives.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_helives_archive.html#112842850254320442
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
They just don't like us
I find it very interesting, this insistence of atheist evolutionists
that an inerrant bible is incompatible with science.
For example, popular evolution blogger and anti-Christian bigot PZ
Myers wrote:
A religion that declares the bible inerrant is not compatible with
science, because its followers would have to be idiots.
Now, this statement is not constructed in a way that is logical. It
states nothing more that Myers's belief that anyone who believes in an
inerrant bible is an idiot. Even if that were true, one could not
conclude, as Myers does, that the bible was incompatible with science.
Setting aside Myers's failure to construct rational, self-consistent
statements, the more relevant point for today's discussion is that he
is willing to call the Roman Catholic Church and all right-of-center
Protestants "idiots" rather than admit that an inerrant bible is
compatible with science.
It is not just Myers-go to any of the evolution sites and offer an
opinion that an inerrant bible is compatible with science, and you'll
face a barrage of attacks.
The interesting part is that, at first glance, you would think they
would welcome such pronouncements, even as they privately viewed them
as silly. Every scientist who makes the claim of bible-science
compatibility-well they could use us (albeit in their mind as useful
idiots) to claim, see religion has nothing to fear from science-these
scientists and devout Christians see no conflict whatsoever.
However, it is a strategy they just can't make themselves follow.
Why? I can only assume that it is because their hatred for Christianity
far outweighs the possible political advantage. Someone like Myers
could never say: "What are you worried about? Professor X believes in
the compatibility of an inerrant bible and science. Science is not your
enemy." No, to someone like Myers religion must be the enemy. It just
has to be. No alliances permitted. He loves being an enemy of religion.
Even with their most trusted Christian ally, Brown Professor Kenneth
Miller, you see this tension boil to the surface. For example, you read
comments like:
'"Faith and reason are not only compatible. They are
complementary," testified Ken Miller'
See this is where Miller has always gotten lost to me. If you have
evidence you don't really need faith.
Here you see a less virulent form of the same disease. Miller, whom
they use as a trophy when it suits them, is still a little bit
"icky". I'm sure they wish he would stick to the script: I'm a
famous Brown University Professor, a good Catholic, and I believe in
evolution. Even with Miller their visceral dislike for religion is
evident, and many will not even allow Miller his mild oath of
faith-reason complementarity.
Of course, in this case Miller was spot on. Blind faith is never, ever
called for, and "faith" used in the bible is much closer to "live
by faith" or "walk the walk" than belief. Jesus forgave a lames
man's sins (an invisible act). If he intended blind faith to be what
we had to muster, he'd have stopped there. Instead, he proved himself
by healing the man (Matt.9:1-8). Evidence has been provided: now live
by faith.
Alas, for the PZ Myers of the world, an inerrant bible is compatible
with science. The last conflict of which I am aware was when scientists
(including Einstein) argued for a steady state universe, one with an
infinite past. The bible clearly argues for a universe that had a
beginning.
There is conflict no more. The bible is infallible; Einstein was not.
.
|
|
| User: "Lörd Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
04 Mar 2006 07:24:33 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> had me ROTFL with:
news:1141477112.286100.285640@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
A religion that declares the bible inerrant is not compatible with
science, because its followers would have to be idiots.
Never a truer word was spoken. Science observes the laws of nature, the bible
is compelled to conform to nature, NOT the other way round.
--
Lörd Phÿltêr
Alt.Atheism #1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
04 Mar 2006 08:17:19 AM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1141477112.286100.285640@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
http://helives.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_helives_archive.html#1128428502543204
42
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
They just don't like us
I find it very interesting, this insistence of atheist evolutionists
that an inerrant bible is incompatible with science.
I would think that is would also be true of scientists of faith as well. An
inerrant ANYTHING is incompatible with science.
For example, popular evolution blogger and anti-Christian bigot PZ
Myers wrote:
A religion that declares the bible inerrant is not compatible with
science, because its followers would have to be idiots.
Now, this statement is not constructed in a way that is logical. It
states nothing more that Myers's belief that anyone who believes in an
inerrant bible is an idiot. Even if that were true, one could not
conclude, as Myers does, that the bible was incompatible with science.
Not from the statement alone. But one can simply take a look at how science
works and see the same thing. I disagree that one could call "its followers
idiots," but, to the extent that any of them belief in an inerrant bible,
one could call them "in error."
Setting aside Myers's failure to construct rational, self-consistent
statements, the more relevant point for today's discussion is that he
is willing to call the Roman Catholic Church and all right-of-center
Protestants "idiots" rather than admit that an inerrant bible is
compatible with science.
Why would he want to "admit that an inerrant bible is compatible with
science."?
The bible is not inerrant. It is in fact filled with errors.
It is not just Myers-go to any of the evolution sites and offer an
opinion that an inerrant bible is compatible with science, and you'll
face a barrage of attacks.
What would make one think that even an inerrant bible [presuming we ever
found one] would be compatible with science? Unless everything in the bible
agreed in principle and in fact with everything so-far discovered by
science, the bible and science would not agree.
The interesting part is that, at first glance, you would think they
would welcome such pronouncements, even as they privately viewed them
as silly. Every scientist who makes the claim of bible-science
compatibility-well they could use us (albeit in their mind as useful
idiots) to claim, see religion has nothing to fear from science-these
scientists and devout Christians see no conflict whatsoever.
Every scientist who believes in bible-science compatibility is expressing a
personal belief. Science as science shouldn't be in the business of
religion.
However, it is a strategy they just can't make themselves follow.
Why? I can only assume that it is because their hatred for Christianity
far outweighs the possible political advantage. Someone like Myers
could never say: "What are you worried about? Professor X believes in
the compatibility of an inerrant bible and science. Science is not your
enemy." No, to someone like Myers religion must be the enemy. It just
has to be. No alliances permitted. He loves being an enemy of religion.
I can't speak to Myers' internal mental states and I suspect you can't
either. What is true is that the paragraph above is filled with
inconsistencies.
1. There seems to be more science hating christians around lately than
scientists declaring Jihads on religion.
2. There is no compatibility between the bible and science on a factual
level.
3. Since the bible is self-evidently not inerrant, no scientist would see
making such a statement as being political advantageous. It would just
simply be wrong.
4. The factual analysis of the bible does not make science the enemy of
anyone. The two statements don't go together.
Even with their most trusted Christian ally, Brown Professor Kenneth
Miller, you see this tension boil to the surface. For example, you read
comments like:
'"Faith and reason are not only compatible. They are
complementary," testified Ken Miller'
See this is where Miller has always gotten lost to me. If you have
evidence you don't really need faith.
I sustpect that Dr. Miller is referring to faith in the idiomatic sense of
being "a way of living." And those on the far religious right ought to
recognize that it's a far more dangerous position when one 'discovers' that
'if you have faith, you don't really need evidence.'
Here you see a less virulent form of the same disease.
What disease?
Miller, whom
they use as a trophy when it suits them, is still a little bit
"icky". I'm sure they wish he would stick to the script: I'm a
famous Brown University Professor, a good Catholic, and I believe in
evolution. Even with Miller their visceral dislike for religion is
evident, and many will not even allow Miller his mild oath of
faith-reason complementarity.
I think the unreasoning hatred of the author is showing here. I've read Dr.
Miller and I've read a lot of scientists on this subject. Some of them have
expressed a distaste for their reigious opponents. That's unfortunate, but
with the consistently virulent and dishonest attacks of the religious right
on science, it's not surprising that some scientists have taken it
personally and felt the need to strike back in kind.
Of course, in this case Miller was spot on. Blind faith is never, ever
called for, and "faith" used in the bible is much closer to "live
by faith" or "walk the walk" than belief. Jesus forgave a lames
man's sins (an invisible act). If he intended blind faith to be what
we had to muster, he'd have stopped there. Instead, he proved himself
by healing the man (Matt.9:1-8). Evidence has been provided: now live
by faith.
Sorry, but the words of the authors of the gospels, much retranslated and
themselves adapted from an earlier unrecovered account do not constitute
"evidence" of anything but a literary history. I agree that Jesus probably
forgave them for their sins, but that's something that we could all do were
we to demonstrate a bit more mercy. Healing is different. For that, there
is no evidence.
Alas, for the PZ Myers of the world, an inerrant bible is compatible
with science.
An unsupported assertion. This article seems to hinge on this one
remarkably unsupported assertion. How does the notion of an inerrant bible
make itself "compatible with science."?
The last conflict of which I am aware was when scientists
(including Einstein) argued for a steady state universe, one with an
infinite past. The bible clearly argues for a universe that had a
beginning.
That was only one, glaringly obvious area of incompatibility. There are
literally hundreds more, from a worldwide flood, to the bible's fanciful
version of 'genetics', to the creation of the world...it goes on and on.
Many scientists accept the bible as metaphor. Beyond that, its own
inconsistencies mark it as an externally and internally flawed text.
There is conflict no more.
Of course there is.
The bible is infallible; Einstein was not.
You're half right.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
04 Mar 2006 07:56:05 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1141477112.286100.285640@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
http://helives.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_helives_archive.html#112842850254320442
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
They just don't like us
I find it very interesting, this insistence of atheist evolutionists
that an inerrant bible is incompatible with science.
For example, popular evolution blogger and anti-Christian bigot PZ
Myers wrote:
A religion that declares the bible inerrant is not compatible with
science, because its followers would have to be idiots.
Now, this statement is not constructed in a way that is logical. It
states nothing more that Myers's belief that anyone who believes in an
inerrant bible is an idiot. Even if that were true, one could not
conclude, as Myers does, that the bible was incompatible with science.
Setting aside Myers's failure to construct rational, self-consistent
statements, the more relevant point for today's discussion is that he
is willing to call the Roman Catholic Church and all right-of-center
Protestants "idiots" rather than admit that an inerrant bible is
compatible with science.
It is not just Myers-go to any of the evolution sites and offer an
opinion that an inerrant bible is compatible with science, and you'll
face a barrage of attacks.
The interesting part is that, at first glance, you would think they
would welcome such pronouncements, even as they privately viewed them
as silly. Every scientist who makes the claim of bible-science
compatibility-well they could use us (albeit in their mind as useful
idiots) to claim, see religion has nothing to fear from science-these
scientists and devout Christians see no conflict whatsoever.
However, it is a strategy they just can't make themselves follow.
Why? I can only assume that it is because their hatred for Christianity
far outweighs the possible political advantage. Someone like Myers
could never say: "What are you worried about? Professor X believes in
the compatibility of an inerrant bible and science. Science is not your
enemy." No, to someone like Myers religion must be the enemy. It just
has to be. No alliances permitted. He loves being an enemy of religion.
Even with their most trusted Christian ally, Brown Professor Kenneth
Miller, you see this tension boil to the surface. For example, you read
comments like:
'"Faith and reason are not only compatible. They are
complementary," testified Ken Miller'
See this is where Miller has always gotten lost to me. If you have
evidence you don't really need faith.
Here you see a less virulent form of the same disease. Miller, whom
they use as a trophy when it suits them, is still a little bit
"icky". I'm sure they wish he would stick to the script: I'm a
famous Brown University Professor, a good Catholic, and I believe in
evolution. Even with Miller their visceral dislike for religion is
evident, and many will not even allow Miller his mild oath of
faith-reason complementarity.
Of course, in this case Miller was spot on. Blind faith is never, ever
called for, and "faith" used in the bible is much closer to "live
by faith" or "walk the walk" than belief. Jesus forgave a lames
man's sins (an invisible act). If he intended blind faith to be what
we had to muster, he'd have stopped there. Instead, he proved himself
by healing the man (Matt.9:1-8). Evidence has been provided: now live
by faith.
Alas, for the PZ Myers of the world, an inerrant bible is compatible
with science. The last conflict of which I am aware was when scientists
(including Einstein) argued for a steady state universe, one with an
infinite past. The bible clearly argues for a universe that had a
beginning.
There is conflict no more. The bible is infallible; Einstein was not.
The bible clearly does not argue for a Universe (U) that had a beginning,
though it argues for a universe (u) that had a beginning. It also tells that
Adam was the first man, then Adam is thrown out of Eden into the [outer
frontier] world of previously existing MEN. Yes, Adam was the first man. The
first man [relative] to the Hebrew religion. Obviously the first man [of]
the Hebrew religion. Equally obvious, the only man, period, the Hebrew
religion would recognize as FIRST. Equally obvious to Jews, Christians and
Muslims, the entire Universe began only with the beginning base, the ancient
origins, of those three religions. The Japanese too, among so many others,
considered themselves "The People," the first and foremost people, with
their beginning so to the beginning of the Universe. And for them,
relatively speaking, it is quite proper and right, just as real as real can
get, for them to think it is the all encompassing simple truth of the
matter. And so it is (since the remote background horizon obviously reduces,
collapses, to an always universally observed one-dimensionality). But in no
way, shape, or form is it the infinity of many differing local foregrounds'
infinitely COMPLEX truth of the matter.
You ready for this? Everything was and is, and ever will be, in that
horizon of endless beginning. Therefore nothing was ever, or ever is, or
ever will be, in that horizon of endless beginning. Travel toward it in any
direction at all and you get nothing -- relatively speaking -- but openings
(beginnings) before you, therefore obversely, nothing but closings (endings)
behind you. Can you even begin to comprehend the scope and meaning? Probably
not. Few, very few, can. ("So he drove out the man; and he placed at the
east of the garden of Eden cher-u-bim (whatever that is), and a flaming
sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." --
Genesis 4:24.)
Proceed logically. Where then is Eden? Where then is the tree of life?
Inside?
No! Turn it upside down! Turn it inside out to infinity! Inverse order.
Reverse in position, direction, tendency. As a matter of fact you are
practically told to do so via the 'Apocalypse', 'Revelations'. Eden, the
tree of life, are to the outside rather than to the inside. The middle of
the garden is furthest out, outside. The grass will always be greener
outside, "over the next hill" or in the next frontier up in an infinity of
frontiers -- so to speak. Somewhere in the Old Testament of your bible there
is a messaging from God that goes something like, "I will not hear your
lamentations because you haven't given me forty years in the wilderness."
You don't even understand the ancient wisdoms of, the ancient logic, the
hidden complexities compacted into, locked away in, simpleton simplicities
in your own bible (for which there are key logical permanents to open up).
"Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law,
happy is he." -- Proverbs 29:18.
"If you have evidence, you don't need faith." The hell you don't.
Evidence is principal forever needing gain in interest to even keep.
GLB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
04 Mar 2006 12:59:27 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1141477112.286100.285640@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
http://helives.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_helives_archive.html#112842850254320442
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
They just don't like us
I find it very interesting, this insistence of atheist evolutionists
that an inerrant bible is incompatible with science.
For example, popular evolution blogger and anti-Christian bigot PZ
Myers wrote:
A religion that declares the bible inerrant is not compatible with
science, because its followers would have to be idiots.
Well, if the bible is inerrant, who the hell was Mrs. Cain?
Biblical inerrancy is not only incompatible with science, it's incompatible
with common sense.
Now, this statement is not constructed in a way that is logical. It
states nothing more that Myers's belief that anyone who believes in an
inerrant bible is an idiot. Even if that were true, one could not
conclude, as Myers does, that the bible was incompatible with science.
I think we can conclude that Myer's statement is a joke, not an argument.
Setting aside Myers's failure to construct rational, self-consistent
statements, the more relevant point for today's discussion is that he
is willing to call the Roman Catholic Church and all right-of-center
Protestants "idiots" rather than admit that an inerrant bible is
compatible with science.
It is not just Myers-go to any of the evolution sites and offer an
opinion that an inerrant bible is compatible with science, and you'll
face a barrage of attacks.
An inerrant bible isn't even consistent with itself, much less science.
The interesting part is that, at first glance, you would think they
would welcome such pronouncements, even as they privately viewed them
as silly. Every scientist who makes the claim of bible-science
compatibility-well they could use us (albeit in their mind as useful
idiots) to claim, see religion has nothing to fear from science-these
scientists and devout Christians see no conflict whatsoever.
However, it is a strategy they just can't make themselves follow.
Why? I can only assume that it is because their hatred for Christianity
far outweighs the possible political advantage. Someone like Myers
could never say: "What are you worried about? Professor X believes in
the compatibility of an inerrant bible and science. Science is not your
enemy." No, to someone like Myers religion must be the enemy. It just
has to be. No alliances permitted. He loves being an enemy of religion.
Okay. So what?
Interestingly, I think it's implicit in the story of Jesus that God is the
enemy
of religion as well. It wasn't the Jews as a whole who wanted Jesus dead,
it was the religionists: the guys who made their living off religion.
Priests are
the enemies of God, if there is a God. How could it be otherwise?
Even with their most trusted Christian ally, Brown Professor Kenneth
Miller, you see this tension boil to the surface. For example, you read
comments like:
'"Faith and reason are not only compatible. They are
complementary," testified Ken Miller'
See this is where Miller has always gotten lost to me. If you have
evidence you don't really need faith.
Here you see a less virulent form of the same disease. Miller, whom
they use as a trophy when it suits them, is still a little bit
"icky". I'm sure they wish he would stick to the script: I'm a
famous Brown University Professor, a good Catholic, and I believe in
evolution. Even with Miller their visceral dislike for religion is
evident, and many will not even allow Miller his mild oath of
faith-reason complementarity.
Of course, in this case Miller was spot on. Blind faith is never, ever
called for, and "faith" used in the bible is much closer to "live
by faith" or "walk the walk" than belief. Jesus forgave a lames
man's sins (an invisible act). If he intended blind faith to be what
we had to muster, he'd have stopped there. Instead, he proved himself
by healing the man (Matt.9:1-8). Evidence has been provided: now live
by faith.
Alas, for the PZ Myers of the world, an inerrant bible is compatible
with science. The last conflict of which I am aware was when scientists
(including Einstein) argued for a steady state universe, one with an
infinite past. The bible clearly argues for a universe that had a
beginning.
There is conflict no more. The bible is infallible; Einstein was not.
Yeah, except, even in the Big Bang Theory, it took a lot more than 6000
years to get where we are now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
04 Mar 2006 09:40:31 PM |
|
|
shrikeback wrote:
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1141477112.286100.285640@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
http://helives.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_helives_archive.html#112842850254320442
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
They just don't like us
I find it very interesting, this insistence of atheist evolutionists
that an inerrant bible is incompatible with science.
For example, popular evolution blogger and anti-Christian bigot PZ
Myers wrote:
A religion that declares the bible inerrant is not compatible with
science, because its followers would have to be idiots.
Well, if the bible is inerrant, who the hell was Mrs. Cain?
She was created by God's lesser-known brother, Ralph.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
07 Mar 2006 07:16:10 PM |
|
|
shrikeback wrote:
Well, if the bible is inerrant, who the hell was Mrs. Cain?
According to the book of Jubilees, written around 200 BCE, it was his
sister. Since this is an answer to a question the Greeks asked, the
explanation was no different than "Who did Zeus marry?" Answer his
sister Hera.
It was only after there were enough people that God commanded there be
no more sibling marriages. Hey, they had no idea of genetics back then
so what do you expect. By the way I think her name was Awan.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
04 Mar 2006 07:14:23 AM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote in message news:1141477112.286100.285640@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
There is conflict no more. The bible is infallible; Einstein was not.
The Infallible Bible in action:
http://members.aol.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/quotes.htm
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=D0=AFelf?=" |
|
| Title: Churches are just bars where you don't need alcohol to get drunk. |
07 Mar 2006 03:26:56 AM |
|
|
Hi Sound_of_Trumpet, You've suspended your disbelief in the bible for
the same reason people do so at the movies,
....it makes things much more enjoyable, albeit _Much_ less sober.
In the interest of fair disclosure, I don't watch TV or movies,
I mostly write code, post to Usenet or browse the web.
Churches are just bars where you don't need alcohol to get drunk,
great for picking up chicks or just having a good time.
People absolutely _Love_ unknowns, hating to face reality.
Unknowns make nature seem like a fun casino,
where one is free to ignore the fact that he can't win in the long run.
And why not ? All meaning is local, -- here and now --, the rest is inane.
But the harsh facts are these:
_All is just as bound temporally as spatially.
_All any ever did was consume, like a match, dissipating in the end.
_All is imprisoned by a God, and God to it's prisoners.
You said Einstein was wrong about the state of the cosmos.
I know that you don't know what he thought on the topic.
I posit that there are 5 _Spatial_ dimensions, Space_Time_Entropy,
and that it's only unknowns that make it seem otherwise,
especially at the smaller scales where most basic facts remain unknown.
The entropy dimension is, of course, easiest to see at the cosmic level,
where the universe, -- Space_Time --, is observed to be expanding at
a constant acceleration, GR's Cosmological_Constant, lambda.
I post that there never was a start to the big bang,
the universe has just always been, -- and always will be --, dissipating,
....going from notionally no entropy and infinite density
to inifinite entropy and a perfect vacuum... notionally, of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SBC Yahoo" |
|
| Title: Re: Churches are just bars where you don't need alcohol to get drunk. |
07 Mar 2006 10:48:25 AM |
|
|
Before the big bang there was the black hole, sucking in all matter, until
it was full, then it spit it all out (the big bang). And eventually, the
black hole will again suck all matter in its vicinity into it until it is
full and explode again, creating another system of galaxie(s). There are
many black holes and many galaxies, and they all (probably) act in the same
manner.
There was a big bang, and this is about the only explanation which might
make sense, that the universe is infinite in both age and size, but at
least in age. It recycles matter through black holes. (Makes one wonder
about the real value of real estate?)
Now, to prove it . . . . . . .
I worship at the Alter of Science, that demands nothing, and gives a
lifetime of knowledge in return for properly applied efforts.
Now, there's a religion.
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_7_P5MB@Cotse.NET...
Hi Sound_of_Trumpet, You've suspended your disbelief in the bible for
the same reason people do so at the movies,
...it makes things much more enjoyable, albeit _Much_ less sober.
In the interest of fair disclosure, I don't watch TV or movies,
I mostly write code, post to Usenet or browse the web.
Churches are just bars where you don't need alcohol to get drunk,
great for picking up chicks or just having a good time.
People absolutely _Love_ unknowns, hating to face reality.
Unknowns make nature seem like a fun casino,
where one is free to ignore the fact that he can't win in the long run.
And why not ? All meaning is local, -- here and now --, the rest is
inane.
But the harsh facts are these:
_All is just as bound temporally as spatially.
_All any ever did was consume, like a match, dissipating in the end.
_All is imprisoned by a God, and God to it's prisoners.
You said Einstein was wrong about the state of the cosmos.
I know that you don't know what he thought on the topic.
I posit that there are 5 _Spatial_ dimensions, Space_Time_Entropy,
and that it's only unknowns that make it seem otherwise,
especially at the smaller scales where most basic facts remain unknown.
The entropy dimension is, of course, easiest to see at the cosmic level,
where the universe, -- Space_Time --, is observed to be expanding at
a constant acceleration, GR's Cosmological_Constant, lambda.
I post that there never was a start to the big bang,
the universe has just always been, -- and always will be --, dissipating,
...going from notionally no entropy and infinite density
to inifinite entropy and a perfect vacuum... notionally, of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=D0=AFelf?=" |
|
| Title: Each finds meaning only locally, -- here and now --, ignoring the rest. |
07 Mar 2006 01:43:10 PM |
|
|
Hi SBC_Yahoo, I wrote:
Churches are just bars where you don't need alcohol to get drunk.
And you, claiming no need for proofs, wrote:
I worship at the Alter of Science, that demands nothing,
and gives a lifetime of knowledge in return for properly applied efforts.
Now, there's a religion.
So you get drunk on science fiction... big deal, it's still not very sober.
The postulates I put forth are much more sober... and more likely to be true.
_Each finds meaning only locally, -- here and now --, ignoring the rest.
_Each is imprisoned by its God, and God to its prisoners.
_Each is as much temporally bound as it is spatially.
_Each does naught but consume, like a match, dissipating into the night.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Each finds meaning only locally, -- here and now --, ignoring the rest. |
09 Mar 2006 01:04:44 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_7_XdWd@Cotse.NET...
Hi SBC_Yahoo, I wrote:
Churches are just bars where you don't need alcohol to get drunk.
And you, claiming no need for proofs, wrote:
I worship at the Alter of Science, that demands nothing,
You dont seem to adhere to the scientific method though.
and gives a lifetime of knowledge in return for properly applied efforts.
Now, there's a religion.
So you get drunk on science fiction... big deal, it's still not very
sober.
You get drunk on self referential information and USENET.
The postulates I put forth are much more sober... and more likely to be
true.
Nope on both counts.
_Each finds meaning only locally, -- here and now --, ignoring the rest.
_Each is imprisoned by its God, and God to its prisoners.
Proof. (as you stated above)
_Each is as much temporally bound as it is spatially.
_Each does naught but consume, like a match, dissipating into the night.
Proof this applies to subatomic particles.
You are the one who claims to worship on the altar of science. If so then
tell me how we can experimentally falsify your postulates.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=D0=AFelf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Wake's imaginary source of infinite energy. |
10 Mar 2006 08:14:03 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake,
Speaking of the fact that I'm ten thousand times more sober than you,
You imagined: You get drunk on self referential information and USENET.
Despite how _Very_ busy I am,
I still find the time to give you tons of solid references,
like Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV... yet you acted like they were all just crank sites.
Oh, pardon me... should I quote more from Sci-Fi.COM ?
I bet they'd support your notions of inifinite density,
thus infinite gravitational acceleration and infinite Unruh radiation,
....your imaginary source of infinite energy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake's imaginary source of infinite energy. |
11 Mar 2006 08:18:13 AM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_10_4Eqm@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake,
Speaking of the fact that I'm ten thousand times more sober than you,
Prove it.
You imagined: You get drunk on self referential information and USENET.
Despite how _Very_ busy I am,
I still find the time to give you tons of solid references,
like Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV... yet you acted like they were all just crank
sites.
When?
Please try to read the posts that I make not the what the voices in your
head tell you I said. You will notice there is a significant difference.
You will observe that, not once, I have I belittled the NASA sites. I have
belittled your attempts at gleaning understanding from them. I belittled
your use of the NYT as a science journal. There is a difference but your
deranged mind obviously struggles to realise it.
Oh, pardon me... should I quote more from Sci-Fi.COM ?
You've lost me here. Is this an "in joke" for nutjobs?
I bet they'd support your notions of inifinite density,
thus infinite gravitational acceleration and infinite Unruh radiation,
...your imaginary source of infinite energy.
You are funny. You come up to a concept which you don't understand so you
label it as fiction. You do this to mask your own feeling of inadequacy at
being able to come to terms with the new concepts.
Keep going.
If it makes you feel any better the whole world is reading sci-fi and you
are the only person who knows the truth. Well done you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake's imaginary source of infinite energy. |
10 Mar 2006 09:35:44 PM |
|
|
Jeff_=D0=AFelf wrote:
Hi T_Wake,
Speaking of the fact that I'm ten thousand times more sober than you,
You imagined: You get drunk on self referential information and USENET.
Despite how _Very_ busy I am,
I still find the time to give you tons of solid references,
like Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV... yet you acted like they were all just crank si=
tes.
Oh, pardon me... should I quote more from Sci-Fi.COM ?
I bet they'd support your notions of inifinite density,
thus infinite gravitational acceleration and infinite Unruh radiation,
...your imaginary source of infinite energy.
Again you speak about what you do not understand. Apart from the
singularity, *everything* about a black hole is finite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake's imaginary source of infinite energy. |
11 Mar 2006 03:45:25 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:35:44 -0800, Eric Gisse wrote:
Jeff_Яelf wrote:
Hi T_Wake,
Speaking of the fact that I'm ten thousand times more sober than you,
You imagined: You get drunk on self referential information and USENET.
Despite how _Very_ busy I am,
I still find the time to give you tons of solid references,
like Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV... yet you acted like they were all just crank sites.
Oh, pardon me... should I quote more from Sci-Fi.COM ?
I bet they'd support your notions of inifinite density,
thus infinite gravitational acceleration and infinite Unruh radiation,
...your imaginary source of infinite energy.
Again you speak about what you do not understand. Apart from the
singularity, *everything* about a black hole is finite.
Dunno about that. I've met one or two black holes that have infinite
energy. Life is good!
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.curlysurmudgeon.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barky Bark" |
|
| Title: Re: Churches are just bars where you don't need alcohol to get drunk. |
07 Mar 2006 05:54:39 PM |
|
|
Well you had me till the end.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan LeHun" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
04 Mar 2006 07:35:22 AM |
|
|
In article <1141477112.286100.285640@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
soundoftrumpet@lycos.com says...
Setting aside Myers's failure to construct rational, self-consistent
statements, the more relevant point for today's discussion is that he
is willing to call the Roman Catholic Church and all right-of-center
Protestants "idiots" rather than admit that an inerrant bible is
compatible with science.
Science is about seeking answers. The inerrant bible is about not asking
questions.
The two are incompatable.
--
Alan LeHun
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
04 Mar 2006 08:51:44 AM |
|
|
Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote in news:MPG.1e73a7f884c423069898c0
@news.clara.net:
In article <1141477112.286100.285640@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
soundoftrumpet@lycos.com says...
Setting aside Myers's failure to construct rational, self-consistent
statements, the more relevant point for today's discussion is that he
is willing to call the Roman Catholic Church and all right-of-center
Protestants "idiots" rather than admit that an inerrant bible is
compatible with science.
Science is about seeking answers. The inerrant bible is about not asking
questions.
The two are incompatable.
One proclaims to have "All the Answers" and the other quite truthfully says
that we don't have all the answers. Again it is as if having all the
answers is a contest or is some way to determine which is more correct or
better, religion or science.
Religous types can rest assured that they have "All the answers" but when
it comes to thing like a headache, the first thing they do is grab their
favorite analgesic that was brought to them by science. They can also
wallow in their ignorance and/or stupidity as well, but don't drag the rest
of the people down to their level of stupidity.
I charge that no single creationist could live a single day without
encountering 10 things they consider essential that was brought to them by
science. It can't be done. From the clothes they wear to the food they
eat to the water they drink, science has either made it or made it better
or made it cheaper.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cnctut" |
|
| Title: Comments |
04 Mar 2006 09:21:33 AM |
|
|
Just a couple of comments:
1. One would assume that to discuss physics intelligently some study
would be required--likewise with the Bible.
2. How many of you have worked with real life translators? Very scary!
3. For Sound of Trumpet--cross-posting seems excessive.
Tut
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
01 Apr 2006 05:14:48 AM |
|
|
On 4 Mar 2006 04:58:32 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote:
[all words and letters snipped, recycled]
Why humans fear fundamentalists...
.... they can see, hear, read and think.
Christopher = 'bearing, carrying Christ'
So in the service of the church and king, Christopher Columbus voyaged
to the 'new world', seeking to pillage and plunder to obtain riches to
be used by the church to further its empire.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/columbus.html
So in bringing Christianity to the 'savages' of the new world,
Christopher and crew were known to:
1] grab suckling babies from their mother's bosom, swing them by the
legs to smash their heads against any nearby rock or tree, then toss
the mangled body to their attack dogs.
2] whack innocent Indians in half, on petty bets, to see who's sword
was sharpest, so as to do it in the fewest strokes.
3] behead 8 y.o. kids carrying pet birds, just for sport
4] Slice flesh from Indians to test the sharpness of their knives
5] hang Indians from a beam and slow roast them alive over a fire, 13
at a time. Why 13? To honor Jesus and the 12 apostles of course!
And that was only the beginning. The English Christians were far more
brutal. They even hung other white Christians who held alternative
beliefs than the fundamentalist Puritans exercising political
authority. When the king heard reports of his subjects being so
mistreated and made inquiries, the governor of Massachusetts wrote
back explaining that while the Quakers committed no capital crime
whatsoever, they questioned their authority and the beliefs of the
local church, so they just HAD to be hung.
One might note that the native populations in USA and Canada are
virtually wiped out, the remnants having little if any control of
their lives or freedom to determine their own destiny. Whereas south
of the border, indigenous populations who were subjected more to the
Spanish and Portuguese atrocities fared better and are still in the
majority. The Mexican population, even though still dominated by
Spaniards and other foreigners, consists of 30% fullblood native and
60% mixed blood.
About 1685, the colonizer's assigned Pastorius to establish a
community in the 'new world'. Pastorius did a demographic survey of
'his domain' and reported back thusly:
"Concerning the Inhabitants of this Province
Of these, three sorts may be found: 1. The natives, the so-called
savages. 2. The Christians who have come here from Europe, the
so-called Old Settlers. 3. The newly-arrived Associations and
Companies.
So far as concerns the first, the savages, they are, in general,
strong, agile and supple people, with blackish bodies; they went about
naked at first and only wore a cloth about the loins. Now they are
beginning to wear shirts. They have, usually, coal-black hair, shave
the head, smear the same with grease, and allow a long lock to grow on
the right side. They also besmear the children with grease, and let
them creep about in the heat of the sun, so that they become the color
of a nut, although they were white enough by nature.
They strive after a sincere honesty, hold strictly to their promises,
cheat and injure no one. They willingly give shelter to others, and
are both useful and loyal to their guests.
Their huts are made of young trees, twined, or bent, together, which
they know how to roof over with bark. They use neither table nor
bench, nor any other household stuff, unless perchance a single pot in
which they boil their food.
I once saw four of them take a meal together in hearty contentment,
and eat a pumpkin cooked in clear water, without butter and spice.
Their table and bench was the bare earth, their spoons were
mussel-shells, with which they dipped up the warm water, their plates
were the leaves of the nearest tree, which they did not need to wash
with painstaking after a meal, nor to keep with care for future use. I
thought to myself, these savages have never in their lives heard the
teaching of Jesus concerning temperance and contentment, yet they far
excel the Christians in carrying it out.
They are, furthermore, serious and of few words, and are amazed when
they perceive so much unnecessary chatter, as well as other foolish
behavior on the part of Christians.
Each man has his own wife, and they detest harlotry, kissing and
lying. They know no idols, but they worship a single all-powerful and
merciful God, who limits the power of the devil. They also believe in
the immortality of the soul, which, after the course of life is
finished, has a suitable recompense from the all-powerful hand of God
awaiting it.
They accompany their own worship of God with songs, during which they
make strange gestures and motions with the hands and feet, and when
they recall the death of their parents and friends, they begin to wail
and weep most pitifully.
They listen very willingly, and not without perceptible emotion, to
discourse concerning the Creator of Heaven and earth, and His divine
Light, which enlightens all men who have come into the world, and who
are yet to be born, and concerning the wisdom and love of God, because
of which he gave his only-begotten and most dearly-loved Son to die
for us. It is only to be regretted that we can not yet speak their
language readily, and therefore cannot set forth to them the thoughts
and intent of our own hearts, namely how great a power and salvation
lies concealed in Christ Jesus. They are very quiet and thoughtful in
our gatherings, so that I fully believe that in the future, at the
great day of judgment, they will come forth with those of Tyre and
Sidon, and put to shame many thousands of false nominal and canting
Christians.
As for their economy and housekeeping, the men attend to their hunting
and fishing. The women bring up their children honestly, under
careful oversight and dissuade them from sin. They plant Indian corn
and beans round about their huts, but they take no thought for any
more extensive farming and cattle raising; they are rather astonished
that we Christians take so much trouble and thought concerning eating
and drinking and also for comfortable clothing and dwellings, as if we
doubted that God were able to care for and nourish us.
Their native language is very dignified, and in its pronunciation much
resembles Italian, although the words are entirely different and
strange. They are accustomed to paint their faces with colors; both
men and women use tobacco with pleasure; they divert themselves with
fifes, or trumpets, in unbroken idleness.
---------
The second sort of Inhabitants on the province are the old Christians,
who came here from Europe.
These have never had the upright intention to give these native
creatures instruction in the true living Christianity, but instead
they have sought only their own worldly interests, and have cheated
the simple inhabitants in trade and intercourse, so that at length
those savages who dealt with these Christians, proved themselves to be
also for the most part, crafty, lying, and deceitful, so that I can
not say much that is creditable of either. These misguided people are
wont to exchange the skins and peltry which they obtain for strong
drink, and to drink so much that they can neither walk nor stand; also
they are wont to commit all sorts of thievery, as the occasion may
arise.
Owing to this, their kings and rulers have frequently complained of
the sins of falsehood, deceit, thieving, and drunkenness, introduced
here by the Christians, and which were formerly entirely unknown in
these parts."
========================
Francis Daniel Pastorius, on the founding of the settlement at
Germantown, "at a distance of two hours walk from Philadelphia", 1685
========================
Many years later, as the evangelicals sought to 'civilize' the
surviving Indians, one missionary made a visit to a Cherokee village.
Seeking permission to preach, he was interviewed by one of the
Cherokee elders, who wanted to ascertain the nature of the minister's
message.
The elder listened intently as the minister read some chapters from
the gospel of Matthew. Then, after pondering on those scriptural
words, he remarked 'That sounds like a good book. It is strange though
that you white people are not better persons, you have had it so
long.'
A tree is known by its fruits. Just what fruits has the tree of
Christianity born over the last 2000 years?
.
|
|
|
| User: "2328 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
01 Apr 2006 08:14:16 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 06:14:48 -0500, wrote:
On 4 Mar 2006 04:58:32 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote:
[all words and letters snipped, recycled]
Why humans fear fundamentalists...
... they can see, hear, read and think.
Um, "why HUMANS fear FUNDAMENTALISTS"?
Wow. That's one for the books.
Christopher = 'bearing, carrying Christ'
So in the service of the church and king, Christopher Columbus voyaged
to the 'new world', seeking to pillage and plunder to obtain riches to
be used by the church to further its empire.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/columbus.html
So in bringing Christianity to the 'savages' of the new world,
Christopher and crew were known to:
1] grab suckling babies from their mother's bosom, swing them by the
legs to smash their heads against any nearby rock or tree, then toss
the mangled body to their attack dogs.
2] whack innocent Indians in half, on petty bets, to see who's sword
was sharpest, so as to do it in the fewest strokes.
3] behead 8 y.o. kids carrying pet birds, just for sport
4] Slice flesh from Indians to test the sharpness of their knives
5] hang Indians from a beam and slow roast them alive over a fire, 13
at a time. Why 13? To honor Jesus and the 12 apostles of course!
And that was only the beginning. The English Christians were far more
brutal. They even hung other white Christians who held alternative
beliefs than the fundamentalist Puritans exercising political
authority. When the king heard reports of his subjects being so
mistreated and made inquiries, the governor of Massachusetts wrote
back explaining that while the Quakers committed no capital crime
whatsoever, they questioned their authority and the beliefs of the
local church, so they just HAD to be hung.
One might note that the native populations in USA and Canada are
virtually wiped out, the remnants having little if any control of
their lives or freedom to determine their own destiny. Whereas south
of the border, indigenous populations who were subjected more to the
Spanish and Portuguese atrocities fared better and are still in the
majority. The Mexican population, even though still dominated by
Spaniards and other foreigners, consists of 30% fullblood native and
60% mixed blood.
About 1685, the colonizer's assigned Pastorius to establish a
community in the 'new world'. Pastorius did a demographic survey of
'his domain' and reported back thusly:
"Concerning the Inhabitants of this Province
Of these, three sorts may be found: 1. The natives, the so-called
savages. 2. The Christians who have come here from Europe, the
so-called Old Settlers. 3. The newly-arrived Associations and
Companies.
So far as concerns the first, the savages, they are, in general,
strong, agile and supple people, with blackish bodies; they went about
naked at first and only wore a cloth about the loins. Now they are
beginning to wear shirts. They have, usually, coal-black hair, shave
the head, smear the same with grease, and allow a long lock to grow on
the right side. They also besmear the children with grease, and let
them creep about in the heat of the sun, so that they become the color
of a nut, although they were white enough by nature.
They strive after a sincere honesty, hold strictly to their promises,
cheat and injure no one. They willingly give shelter to others, and
are both useful and loyal to their guests.
Their huts are made of young trees, twined, or bent, together, which
they know how to roof over with bark. They use neither table nor
bench, nor any other household stuff, unless perchance a single pot in
which they boil their food.
I once saw four of them take a meal together in hearty contentment,
and eat a pumpkin cooked in clear water, without butter and spice.
Their table and bench was the bare earth, their spoons were
mussel-shells, with which they dipped up the warm water, their plates
were the leaves of the nearest tree, which they did not need to wash
with painstaking after a meal, nor to keep with care for future use. I
thought to myself, these savages have never in their lives heard the
teaching of Jesus concerning temperance and contentment, yet they far
excel the Christians in carrying it out.
They are, furthermore, serious and of few words, and are amazed when
they perceive so much unnecessary chatter, as well as other foolish
behavior on the part of Christians.
Each man has his own wife, and they detest harlotry, kissing and
lying. They know no idols, but they worship a single all-powerful and
merciful God, who limits the power of the devil. They also believe in
the immortality of the soul, which, after the course of life is
finished, has a suitable recompense from the all-powerful hand of God
awaiting it.
They accompany their own worship of God with songs, during which they
make strange gestures and motions with the hands and feet, and when
they recall the death of their parents and friends, they begin to wail
and weep most pitifully.
They listen very willingly, and not without perceptible emotion, to
discourse concerning the Creator of Heaven and earth, and His divine
Light, which enlightens all men who have come into the world, and who
are yet to be born, and concerning the wisdom and love of God, because
of which he gave his only-begotten and most dearly-loved Son to die
for us. It is only to be regretted that we can not yet speak their
language readily, and therefore cannot set forth to them the thoughts
and intent of our own hearts, namely how great a power and salvation
lies concealed in Christ Jesus. They are very quiet and thoughtful in
our gatherings, so that I fully believe that in the future, at the
great day of judgment, they will come forth with those of Tyre and
Sidon, and put to shame many thousands of false nominal and canting
Christians.
As for their economy and housekeeping, the men attend to their hunting
and fishing. The women bring up their children honestly, under
careful oversight and dissuade them from sin. They plant Indian corn
and beans round about their huts, but they take no thought for any
more extensive farming and cattle raising; they are rather astonished
that we Christians take so much trouble and thought concerning eating
and drinking and also for comfortable clothing and dwellings, as if we
doubted that God were able to care for and nourish us.
Their native language is very dignified, and in its pronunciation much
resembles Italian, although the words are entirely different and
strange. They are accustomed to paint their faces with colors; both
men and women use tobacco with pleasure; they divert themselves with
fifes, or trumpets, in unbroken idleness.
---------
The second sort of Inhabitants on the province are the old Christians,
who came here from Europe.
These have never had the upright intention to give these native
creatures instruction in the true living Christianity, but instead
they have sought only their own worldly interests, and have cheated
the simple inhabitants in trade and intercourse, so that at length
those savages who dealt with these Christians, proved themselves to be
also for the most part, crafty, lying, and deceitful, so that I can
not say much that is creditable of either. These misguided people are
wont to exchange the skins and peltry which they obtain for strong
drink, and to drink so much that they can neither walk nor stand; also
they are wont to commit all sorts of thievery, as the occasion may
arise.
Owing to this, their kings and rulers have frequently complained of
the sins of falsehood, deceit, thieving, and drunkenness, introduced
here by the Christians, and which were formerly entirely unknown in
these parts."
========================
Francis Daniel Pastorius, on the founding of the settlement at
Germantown, "at a distance of two hours walk from Philadelphia", 1685
========================
Many years later, as the evangelicals sought to 'civilize' the
surviving Indians, one missionary made a visit to a Cherokee village.
Seeking permission to preach, he was interviewed by one of the
Cherokee elders, who wanted to ascertain the nature of the minister's
message.
The elder listened intently as the minister read some chapters from
the gospel of Matthew. Then, after pondering on those scriptural
words, he remarked 'That sounds like a good book. It is strange though
that you white people are not better persons, you have had it so
long.'
A tree is known by its fruits. Just what fruits has the tree of
Christianity born over the last 2000 years?
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
04 Mar 2006 10:21:14 AM |
|
|
On 4 Mar 2006 04:58:32 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@lycos.com> wrote:
http://helives.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_helives_archive.html#112842850254320442
Christians, or at least the fundies, seem to have no clue how stupid
spouting this sort of drivel makes them sound. Sad.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
04 Mar 2006 02:02:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 04:58:32 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://helives.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_helives_archive.html#112842850254320442
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
They just don't like us
I find it very interesting, this insistence of atheist evolutionists
that an inerrant bible is incompatible with science.
You have that right. Now, get back in your cave.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beware the American Taliban
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
04 Mar 2006 08:17:37 AM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
(snip)
It is not just Myers-go to any of the evolution sites and offer an
opinion that an inerrant bible is compatible with science, and you'll
face a barrage of attacks.
Go to any religious site and offer an opinion that an inerrant bible is
fact and see what happens.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein Was Wrong, The Bible Was Right |
04 Mar 2006 08:50:09 AM |
|
|
The thread title makes me wonder whether the detractors of modern physics
tend more towards atheism or fundamentalism. I might have guessed
fundamentalism except for the opinions of certain posters that have been
expressed when they weren't going on about their favorite topics.
--
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
-- Richard P. Feynman, 1959
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
