>On Nov 3, 5:46 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> >wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 04:39:02 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > On Nov 3, 11:37 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: >> > > On Nov 2, 10:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: >> > > if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis, >> > > doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years. >> > The bible speaks of the physical representation of Israel, the temple, >> > the tabernackle, the ark, the cherubs etc etc, as >> > being physical representations of heavenly israel.
>> ROTFL! Er, ah, you do realize Earth is an oblate spheroid, right?! >> The center of Earth is deep in the core, under extreme pressure >> and heat, made out of what appears to be crystalized iron. There >> isn't anyone living down there, you silly goose.
>> --http://desertphile.org >> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water >> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
>Centre of the surface land you RETARD!
Really? What's the center of the surface of a sphere? Perhaps the wrong individual was designated a "RETARD". --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
>On Nov 3, 5:39 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 3, 5:46 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> >> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 04:39:02 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>> > <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Nov 3, 11:37 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: >> > > > On Nov 2, 10:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: >> > > > if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis, >> > > > doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years. >> > > The bible speaks of the physical representation of Israel, the temple, >> > > the tabernackle, the ark, the cherubs etc etc, as >> > > being physical representations of heavenly israel.
>> > ROTFL! Er, ah, you do realize Earth is an oblate spheroid, right?! >> > The center of Earth is deep in the core, under extreme pressure >> > and heat, made out of what appears to be crystalized iron. There >> > isn't anyone living down there, you silly goose.
>> > --http://desertphile.org >> > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water >> > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
>> Centre of the surface land you RETARD!- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>There are only three points that could be considered unique from a >geometric point of view. The center as Desertphile points out and the >two poles (OK, OK, -- semi-unique)
>I suspect some point near the North pole meets your criterion better >than Jerusalem, but I doubt it really matters.
The poles are only unique because of the Earth's rotation; a sphere generally has no poles. And geometrically there's no "Centre of the surface" of a sphere. --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
>> > > > On Nov 3, 9:42 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: >> > > > > Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote: >> > > > > > For the creationist:
>> > > > > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that >> > > > > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar >> > > > > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to >> > > > > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose >> > > > > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star >> > > > > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this >> > > > > > change your mind about creationism?
>> > > > > Boring. See James Blish, A Case of Conscience >> > > > > for a much better christian puzzle.
>> > > > Care to provide a Coles Notes summary? >> > > Jesuit priest scientist is sent to a planet of entirely rational and >> > > unemotional reptilians. They use reason alone. Have no religion or >> > > rituals but behave exactly according to rational self interest. They >> > > are very nice.
>> > > A scientific experiment on that planet causes a major catastrophe that >> > > extinguishes all life on the planet just as the priest decides he is >> > > forced by theological considerations to exorcise the planet as demonic. >> > > He then presents himself for trial as a heretic (as Satan cannot >> > > create, but he decided that the planet was created by Satan).
>> > The two times I read the book I did not understand it. Perhaps one >> > needs at least a brief background in Christian mythology, and >> > specifically Catholic / Jesuit mythology, before one can keep up >> > with what goes on.
>> > A nuclear accident, and the exorcism, destroyed the alien planet.
>> > --http://desertphile.org >> > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water >> > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide quoted text -
>> > - Show quoted text -
>> I realize that reading is beyond your ability, however...
>> A_Case_of_Conscience is part of a novella. You have to read the other >> books to fully understand it.
>A "novella" is not a series of books. It is a work of fiction shorter >than a novel but too long to be called a short story.When people give >awards out to literary works they have a number of words that makes >something a novella, rather than a longish short story, but I don't >remember how many words make up a novella.
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:11:52 -0800 (PST), the following > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim DeLaney > <delaney.timo...@comcast.net>:
> >On Nov 3, 5:39 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 3, 5:46 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> > >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 04:39:02 -0800 (PST), spintronic
> >> > <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > On Nov 3, 11:37 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: > >> > > > On Nov 2, 10:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: > >> > > > if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis, > >> > > > doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years. > >> > > The bible speaks of the physical representation of Israel, the temple, > >> > > the tabernackle, the ark, the cherubs etc etc, as > >> > > being physical representations of heavenly israel.
> >> > Why should anyone care what the Bible says?
And this has to be one of the most obvious cases of _ex post facto_ nonsense I have seen. This is a Mecator projection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection In particular both distances and shapes are distorted near the poles in Mercator projections. Even so, the person who drew this had to choose the lines very carefully so as to come close to an equal *map* (not real) distance on each end. [You do notice that the angles are not equal.] Clearly the person drew this with the intention of making Jerusalem the center of his bullseye. So much easier to do after you know what you want in the bullseye.
> >> > ROTFL! Er, ah, you do realize Earth is an oblate spheroid, right?! > >> > The center of Earth is deep in the core, under extreme pressure > >> > and heat, made out of what appears to be crystalized iron. There > >> > isn't anyone living down there, you silly goose.
> >> > --http://desertphile.org > >> > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water > >> > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
> >> Centre of the surface land you RETARD!- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >There are only three points that could be considered unique from a > >geometric point of view. The center as Desertphile points out and the > >two poles (OK, OK, -- semi-unique)
> >I suspect some point near the North pole meets your criterion better > >than Jerusalem, but I doubt it really matters.
> The poles are only unique because of the Earth's rotation; a > sphere generally has no poles. And geometrically there's no > "Centre of the surface" of a sphere. > --
> Bob C.
> "Evidence confirming an observation is > evidence that the observation is wrong." > - McNameless
>On Nov 4, 1:57 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote: >> On 4 Nov 2009 08:50:19 -0800, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> enriched >> this group when s/he wrote:
>> >"On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:11:57 +0000 (UTC), in article >> ><Xns9CB953663ECD2dickcrmotzare...@188.40.43.213>, Dick C. stated..."
>> >>> On Nov 3, 11:37!m, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: >> >>>> On Nov 2, 10:000m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote: >> >>> . >> >>> .
>> >>>> if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis, >> >>>> doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years.
>> >>> The bible speaks of the physical representation of Israel, the temple, >> >>> the tabernackle, the ark, the cherubs etc etc, as >> >>> being physical representations of heavenly israel.
>> >Doesn't the Bible also say that one is not supposed to make >> >physical representations of heavenly things?
>> Bugger, that puts Playboy out of business.
>> >>> Interestingly, jerusalem is literally, "the centre of the world, when >> >>> you work it out on a map.
>> >>Really, the center of the universe is at N 35th and Fremont ave N. in >> >>Seattle, Wa. Known as the Fremont district.
>> >>One can create a map showing any point on the earth as being the >> >>center. It all depends upon the point of reference.
>> >But, you are assuming that the earth is a globe. spintronic is >> >telling us that the Bible says that the earth is a finite bounded >> >surface. (A globe is an example of a finite, but unbounded >> >surface. A disk is an example of a finite bounded surface.)
>> And we all know that the bible thinks the Earth is a flat disc.
>Riding on the back of four elephants who are standing on a giant >turtle. Some say that it is turles all the way down but we have only >seen the top turtle and I think it is wrong to speculate further. And >the center of the disk is at Ankh-Morpork.
More pork, I'll go for that.
-- Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't make an exception for the last one.
>>> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>>> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people >>> lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation >>> will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God." >>> =============================================
>> And God feels OK about that?
>> If not, why does he allow it? >> If he doesn't mind, then it doesn't matter.
>> Or is he some sort of Celestial Daily Mail editor who needs to create >> things to hate?
>> -- >> Mike.
> He does not need to create hate. YOU need to create hate. Mankind > needs to create hate.
> God simply set up the conditions for a left and a right; a top and a > bottom. Love and hate.
> Mankind can choose all love, all hate, or a bit of both.
Well, you do seem to have changed the subject: it was at first whether God actually cares about a person's ability to perceive him. I suppose, though, that it was my fault for making a joke about the Daily Mail, and that distracted you.
> You have to have both in existance. How would you understand what love > is if you did not have it's opposite, which is hate, to compare it to.
I don't see why a good feeling can necessarily be understood only in contrast with a corresponding bad feeling. From a mystical point of view, it could be argued that one cannot properly know love until one has entirely banished hatred.
> You atheists are not too bright , are you?
Well, perhaps I am an atheist by your measure; but I do try to avoid personal insults. The temptation can become severe, though.
> On Nov 3, 9:46 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 6:16 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 7:27 pm, "Hairesis" <a??e...@hairesis.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > >> For the non-believer:
> > > > >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system > > > > >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size, > > > > >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely > > > > >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that > > > > >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural > > > > >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider > > > > >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural > > > > >> origin?
> > > > Why do you idiots keep coming up with crap like this...?
> > > > The fact is, *you don't have a supernatural agent to show us*.
> > > So you suggest that ALL of the ancient texts, historical documents, > > > stone and clay tablets, hieroglyphics, ledgends and traditions > > > regarding the supernatural that has been handed down to us from > > > ancient man in every culture on the PLANET is all obe big lie?
> > Lies, poetry, metaphor, shamanistic training, moral instruction, > > history, a call to rebellious arms, cultural communications the > > nature of which we have forgotten, best guesses based on little > > reliable evidence, all mixed in different proportions.
> > Why do you think that the most fantastic stories, contrary to > > observable facts, are concrete and true?
> Because I can make the necessary distinction between them that you > cannot.
> Prolly because you lack perception is another reason.
That, or I am not delusional. Working on a psych ward in the military, I knew a number of folks who saw things that the rest of us did not see. That is not, in itself, an impressive claim. Now, if it gave you some useful knowledge (i.e. a map to Oz or the Garden of Eden, or where the bodies are hidden), or perhaps a way kewl superpower, then you might be more persuasive. But you don't, do you?
> []
> > > Oh my. You really are a freak of nature.
> > Yes, yes. And we know this because you say so. Certainly not because > > you have any actual evidence.
> Well. What do you consider evidence? If you say scientific evidence > then that is rather self limiting K.
Ummm. yes. I am afraid that I limit evidence to things which others can see or hear. Would you be happy about being convicted of a crime based on evidence which only the prosecuting attorney could see?
> Your human senses are well known to have flaws, to be inadequate.
Yes. Unlike arrogant Creationists, scientists insist that their data be double checked and challenged by everyone, especially their rivals. They also insist that their models make *predictions, which can be watched for. This is what makes science so effective - its methodology of verification.
> Even > a common house cat can hear and see better then you can. Why would you > want evidence for God to be based on a science that is interpreted > with your rather limited human senses?
Because 50 prophets of god will give 50 different prophecies, which either fail to come true, are so trivial that they could be guessed by my cat, or most often, are so vague that they could be happening in front of you and you wouldn't know.
I knew psychotics. Psychotics were friends of mine. And you sir, are... well, you *could be psychotic for all I know. How do *you tell the difference? How do you know you aren't wallowing in self- deception?
> You crack me up!
> But OTOH, if you are willing to accept the proper evidence for God, > that goes beyond what your human senses are able to acquire, then I am > sure I have something laying around that will convince you.
How would I verify it? Would I know a week ahead of time whether it would rain? Would I be able to read ancient Egyptian?
> BTW. I knew you would respond K. You had to. It was compelling. Wasn't > it? So don't for a moment think my reply-post to Hairesis-the-dip-shit > was meant only for Hairesis-the-dip-shit. I had you in my sights.
The best parts of the ward for a few weeks were the group therapy sessions. We had Jesus and Satan in the same sessions. They were both gentlemen, and got along well; we were afraid when they were first schedule together that they might get into trouble, but they were fine. They looked like sailors in pajamas to me. <Shrug> What do I know?
Well, they couldn't talk Etruscan or shoot fire out of their fingers; they couldn't do *anything unusual, but maybe they didn't feel like it.
> You happen to be a sucker for these kinds of threads. Why is that? > Still searching for the real truth? Good. That is very good. So am I.
Actually, I'm trying to throw a good punch without wobbling. It's not as easy as it sounds. I'm not trying to *beat the wooden dummy or the heavy bag; they won't ever admit defeat, and I've been whalin' away on the bag for over a quarter century now. But my punches are getting better, even as I start to get a little ...brittle.
To clarify; I am trying to streamline my arguments, clarify the evidence, and see more clearly the fallacies which are my target. I do not expect to convince an of the Creationists who come here; that way lies madness. I even learn new stuff. I just want to be relaxed and get straight to the target, and wobble as little as possible.
As for "searching for the real truth", I spent too many years of my youth wallowing in self-deception. But I worked my way out of it, and now find I have little patience when I see it in others.
> > > > We aren't any further advanced when something we haven't accounted for is > > > > explained by something we haven't got.
> > > Having SO much recorded about the supernatural that is still > > > unexplained is not advancing mankind. Probably because people such as > > > your self have your head buried too far up your ass to want to find > > > out more about it.
> > Sometimes the correct answer is "We don't know". More often than not, > > the answer is "we don't know, but it's probably something quite > > mundane".
> That is rather presumptuous on your part considering you have such > limited skills of perception.
I never saw Jesus do any miracles, nor Satan's wings.
> > > > Fool.
> > > THAT would be you.
> > Yes, we know. We are idiots because we don't believe your fantastic > > claims which are refuted by facts. After all, you *say that you are > > correct. Say, are you interested in buying a bridge?
> I should be asking YOU that question. After all it is YOU, not me, > that limits the scope of human knowledge to what can be discovered > with science.
It's true, you are free to imagine anything you like. Feel special if you care to, pretend you are smarter than the eggheads, or that you see a glorious reality which is somehow, in some undefinable and undemonstrable way more real than realty. Science limits itself to verifiable realty, and in that way has performed miracles.
Show me the prayers or numerology or visions that wiped out a disease, sent men to the moon, showed us pictures of galaxies taken from a camera in space that can see 10 billion years ago, or reattached a severed limb.
*Show us. don't tell me stories about them, or I will taunt you with stories of garden fairies and Santa Claus.
> A science that can only be intrepretated with your human > senses.
Yes. A science that *works*.
> Senses that just so happen to have less perception and ability > then that of the average house cat, Or dog for that matter.
My cat hears better than I, but she does not see microbes, peer into distant galaxies, take pictures of the electrochemical activity in living human brains, or analyze the substance of distant stars by their spectrograph. In fact, cats see well in the dark, but they do not have human visual resolution, nor our color vision. She does, I'm sure, smell better than you...
> > > -- > > > The face of an Angel, the mind of a god has
> > > The All Seeing I
> > You forgot "humble". You should remind people of how humble you are. > > Your humility is only matched by the convincing nature of your > > arguments.
> When in Rome and all that K..... (you know the rest)
> > Kermit-
> *smoochies*
> I hope your garden is doing well.
It's going to sleep for the winter. Another 3 to 5 years to get the infrastructure done. Next year, the tomatoes will be under control!
<allseei...@usa.com> wrote: >On Nov 3, 11:55 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> >wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 06:22:24 -0800 (PST), wf3h
>> <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: >> > On Nov 3, 8:54 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> > > You probably do not realize this but you just described Adam and Eve's >> > > condition before they took of the forbidden fruit. Once they took the >> > > forbidden fruit (the knowledge offered by Satan) their eyes were >> > > opened. They became like God and the Angels knowing the concept of >> > > good and evil, right or wrong. >> > so it was god's intention that we were mindless robots and, when we go >> > to heaven we'll be mindless robots again, but in the meantime we get >> > fucked because we're smart.
>> > gee. some view of god you got
>> Imagine there was a god that created everything; that god would >> surely be royally pissed at the people who wrote the Bible, and >> the people who believe the Bible accurately reflects the god. The >> Bible is one long libel.
>> --http://desertphile.org >> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water >> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
>You should go back to the hospital. Your fever is still causing >delusions.
<ap...@email.com> wrote: >On Nov 3, 10:48 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> >wrote: >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:20:09 -0600, heekster
>> <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote: >> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 04:25:57 -0800 (PST), spintronic >> > <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >On Nov 3, 12:28 am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote: >> > >> For the creationist:
>> > >> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that >> > >> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar >> > >> system, and it turned out to be different enough to >> > >> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose >> > >> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star >> > >> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this >> > >> change your mind about creationism? >> > >The bible mentions *many* different intelligent life forms. >> > >Man, Serephs, cherubs, Angels, demons etc.
>> Leprechauns, banshees, barghests, dybbuks ("sort of like a bad >> Santa Claus"), goblins, kobolds, wearwolves, Paul Bunyan, Titania, >> Woden....
>> > Except for man, the rest are mythological entities. >> > If you disagree, provide some proof.
>> Hell, skip the proof: I'd like to see some evidence.
>Evidence can be proof idiot.
Evidently, you're still an idiot.
Evidently, you still don't provide proof or evidence.
Just fairy tales and imbecilities.
C'mon Peewee, say something unfuckingbelievably stupid.
On Nov 2, 6:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
> For the non-believer:
> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system > that was very similar to earth in composition, size, > average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely > establish that it had never developed life. Would that > change your mind about the likelihood of natural > abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider > the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural > origin?
> Tim
Based on such a small sample size, definitely not (we'd need to find at least a third world to act as a tie-breaker).
If we found several thousand such worlds, then I'd at least acknowledge that conditions on Earth were unique and that abiogenesis appears to be rare (my gut tells me this isn't the case, but my gut has no formal scientific training).
I'm afraid that in order to consider the possibility of a supernatural origin for life on Earth, I'd have to see at least one known example of a supernatural origin for life somewhere else; i.e., I'd have to watch the local god poof his version of life into existence on that world.
On Nov 2, 6:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
> For the non-believer:
> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system > that was very similar to earth in composition, size, > average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely > establish that it had never developed life. Would that > change your mind about the likelihood of natural > abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider > the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural > origin?
> Tim
Based on such a small sample size, definitely not. We'd at least have to find a third world to act as a tiebreaker.
If we found several thousand such worlds, I'd be willing to admit that conditions on Earth appear to be special and that abiogenesis is relatively rare.
In order to consider a supernatural origin for life on Earth, I'd have to have a *known* example of a supernatural origin for life somewhere else to compare against; i.e., I'd have to watch the local god poof his version of life into existence.
> >> >> > >On Nov 3, 12:28 am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> > >> For the creationist:
> >> >> > >> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that > >> >> > >> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar > >> >> > >> system, and it turned out to be different enough to > >> >> > >> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose > >> >> > >> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star > >> >> > >> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this > >> >> > >> change your mind about creationism? > >> >> > >The bible mentions *many* different intelligent life forms. > >> >> > >Man, Serephs, cherubs, Angels, demons etc.
> >> >> Leprechauns, banshees, barghests, dybbuks ("sort of like a bad > >> >> Santa Claus"), goblins, kobolds, wearwolves, Paul Bunyan, Titania, > >> >> Woden....
> >> >> > Except for man, the rest are mythological entities. > >> >> > If you disagree, provide some proof.
> >> >> Hell, skip the proof: I'd like to see some evidence.
> >> >Evidence can be proof idiot.
> >> So find some evidence that Kent 'bogus degree' Hovind actually made a > >> single scientific discovery. > >Hell, I would like to see some evidence Rev Hovind understands > >what a scientific discovery is. > I just love to watch some of his vids - best comedy routine I've seen > for ages (well, except Cougar Town).
> Watched one the other day where he did a Dishonest Ray. tried to tell > his audience that "universe" was derived from "uni" meaning one, and > "verse" meaning a poem or words. He used that definition to claim that > "universe" means "spoke into existence" or some wacky idea like that.
Wow. That's just..... so very Fundamentalist Christian. No doubt he thinks "cannibal" comes from "Canaanite."
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
> >>> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
> >>> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people > >>> lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation > >>> will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God." > >>> =============================================
> >> And God feels OK about that?
> >> If not, why does he allow it? > >> If he doesn't mind, then it doesn't matter.
> >> Or is he some sort of Celestial Daily Mail editor who needs to create > >> things to hate?
> >> -- > >> Mike.
> > He does not need to create hate. YOU need to create hate. Mankind > > needs to create hate.
> > God simply set up the conditions for a left and a right; a top and a > > bottom. Love and hate.
> > Mankind can choose all love, all hate, or a bit of both.
> Well, you do seem to have changed the subject: it was at first whether > God actually cares about a person's ability to perceive him. I suppose, > though, that it was my fault for making a joke about the Daily Mail, and > that distracted you.
> > You have to have both in existance. How would you understand what love > > is if you did not have it's opposite, which is hate, to compare it to.
> I don't see why a good feeling can necessarily be understood only in > contrast with a corresponding bad feeling. From a mystical point of > view, it could be argued that one cannot properly know love until one > has entirely banished hatred.
> > You atheists are not too bright , are you?
> Well, perhaps I am an atheist by your measure; but I do try to avoid > personal insults. The temptation can become severe, though.
> -- > Mike.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Well, think about it.
How would you know and understand what light is if you has never stood in the darkness?
> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar > system, and it turned out to be different enough to > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this > change your mind about creationism?
> For the non-believer:
> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system > that was very similar to earth in composition, size, > average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely > establish that it had never developed life. Would that > change your mind about the likelihood of natural > abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider > the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural > origin?
I'm going to answer this one, though I'm not an atheist or agnostic, but because I am not a creationist.
No, it wouldn't make me change my mind about whether or not abiogenesis occurred on Earth. Right now we've only got a sample size of one, and 2 isn't significantly better.
John Harshman wrote: > Tim DeLaney wrote: >> For the creationist:
>> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that >> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar >> system, and it turned out to be different enough to >> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose >> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star >> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this >> change your mind about creationism?
>> For the non-believer:
>> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size, >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural >> origin?
> Because two data points give you so much more information than one?
Actually, statistically speaking, they give you infinitely more information, since (at least this has been drummed into my head) it is impossible to do statistics with a sample size of one. I do agree with Inez that it would only start to give me pause if there were very many earth-like worlds with no life. Now at that point one might consider a supernatural origin for abiogenesis. As has been explained before, the supernatural is outside of science and so is irrelevant to scientific understanding.
Bob Casanova wrote: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:43:29 -0700, the following appeared > in talk.origins, posted by Desertphile > <desertph...@invalid-address.net>:
> <snip>
>> If magic happens, I wonder how we would even know it.
> We'd assume it was advanced technology.
> <snip>
And isn't it great that we can go to the bathroom and wash our hands at highway rest stops and not have to touch a thing? A la Clarke, it _is_ magic. What I am waiting for is when our cars (powered by renewable energy) can drive themselves.
> On Nov 3, 4:36 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: > > On Nov 3, 9:46 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 3, 6:16 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 2, 7:27 pm, "Hairesis" <a??e...@hairesis.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> > > > > > >> For the non-believer: > > > > > >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system > > > > > >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size, > > > > > >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely > > > > > >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that > > > > > >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural > > > > > >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider > > > > > >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural > > > > > >> origin?
> > > > > Why do you idiots keep coming up with crap like this...?
> > > > > The fact is, *you don't have a supernatural agent to show us*.
> > > > So you suggest that ALL of the ancient texts, historical documents, > > > > stone and clay tablets, hieroglyphics, ledgends and traditions > > > > regarding the supernatural that has been handed down to us from > > > > ancient man in every culture on the PLANET is all obe big lie?
> > > Lies, poetry, metaphor, shamanistic training, moral instruction, > > > history, a call to rebellious arms, cultural communications the > > > nature of which we have forgotten, best guesses based on little > > > reliable evidence, all mixed in different proportions.
> > > Why do you think that the most fantastic stories, contrary to > > > observable facts, are concrete and true?
> > Because I can make the necessary distinction between them that you > > cannot.
> > Prolly because you lack perception is another reason.
> That, or I am not delusional. Working on a psych ward in the military, > I knew a number of folks who saw things that the rest of us did not > see. That is not, in itself, an impressive claim. Now, if it gave you > some useful knowledge (i.e. a map to Oz or the Garden of Eden, or > where the bodies are hidden), or perhaps a way kewl superpower, then > you might be more persuasive. But you don't, do you?
Excuse me. We were discussing your inability to make the necessary distinctions between what is obvious fantasy and what ancient man was trying to communicate to us about events that happened in his life time. You do not seem to have the capacity to tell the difference between the two. I'm trying to help you with that, but you resist.
You continue to persist by drawing an analogy from valid ancient texts, such as those describing "Eden", to such fantasy stories such as the wizard of "OZ".
FURTHERMORE, You also continue to persist in wanting evidence that can be interpreted with human senses while completely avoiding the fact that there are other types of evidences that go beyond what your senses can achieve, Why is that? Are you afraid to understand what so many millions of people in the past and so many people today understand? Trust me. It is not all that frightening. []
> > > > Oh my. You really are a freak of nature.
> > > Yes, yes. And we know this because you say so. Certainly not because > > > you have any actual evidence.
> > Well. What do you consider evidence? If you say scientific evidence > > then that is rather self limiting K.
> Ummm. yes. I am afraid that I limit evidence to things which others > can see or hear. Would you be happy about being convicted of a crime > based on evidence which only the prosecuting attorney could see?
That is a rather dishonest comparison don't you think? But for arguments sake I would answer: There have been people set free because the prosecuting attorney was wrong about what he saw in the evidence. This clearly shows that what we perceive as evidence can be wrong. There would not have been people set free otherwise.
IOW evidence that was acquired and interpreted with human senses, which was thought to be accurate, turned out to be wrong. Why? Because the human senses are not quite as good as the average house cat's. You spend your entire life wanting evidences based on a science that can only be interpreted with human senses that we know can be wrong.
Then you base your disbelief of God on THAT. Amusing K. Very amusing.
> > Your human senses are well known to have flaws, to be inadequate.
> Yes. Unlike arrogant Creationists, scientists insist that their data > be double checked and challenged by everyone, especially their rivals. > They also insist that their models make *predictions, which can be > watched for. This is what makes science so effective - its methodology > of verification.
And despite all of these marvelous checks and balances you mention science remains under constant revision. Revised because the original evidence was incomplete, or misinterpreted. Why? Because of human flaws.
Look. Science has done many wonderful things for mankind. But it is still limited to mankind's abilities. I keep trying to explain to you that mankind's abilities are not even as good as the average human's pet. There are many animals that have senses and abilities that far surpass human ability. But you persist in this nonsense that science is the be-all and end-all of human understanding.
Well. It is not.
There are other types of evidence that you refuse to consider based on a science that is limited to mankind's abilities.
That is rather self limiting if you ask me K.
> > Even a common house cat can hear and see better then you can. Why would you > > want evidence for God to be based on a science that is interpreted > > with your rather limited human senses?
> Because 50 prophets of god will give 50 different prophecies, which > either fail to come true, are so trivial that they could be guessed by > my cat, or most often, are so vague that they could be happening in > front of you and you wouldn't know.
Not so. Have you read the bible? A true prophet of God is rare. He can usually consume the works of false prophets.
> I knew psychotics. Psychotics were friends of mine. And you sir, > are... well, you *could be psychotic for all I know. How do *you tell > the difference? How do you know you aren't wallowing in self- > deception?
Well. It is not ME that cannot differentiate between fantasy stories and legends that have been handed down to inform. THAT would be you.
> > You crack me up!
> > But OTOH, if you are willing to accept the proper evidence for God, > > that goes beyond what your human senses are able to acquire, then I am > > sure I have something laying around that will convince you.
> How would I verify it? Would I know a week ahead of time whether it > would rain? Would I be able to read ancient Egyptian?
OHHH!! You want magic! Sorry. God is not magic.
Although some perceive what God can do as magic i suppose.
Short answer: You will have no need to verify once you make the connection to truth.
> > BTW. I knew you would respond K. You had to. It was compelling. Wasn't > > it? So don't for a moment think my reply-post to Hairesis-the-dip-shit > > was meant only for Hairesis-the-dip-shit. I had you in my sights.
> The best parts of the ward for a few weeks were the group therapy > sessions. We had Jesus and Satan in the same sessions. They were both > gentlemen, and got along well; we were afraid when they were first > schedule together that they might get into trouble, but they were > fine. They looked like sailors in pajamas to me. <Shrug> What do I > know?
More then you are willing to admit. But that is just an assumption on my part.
> Well, they couldn't talk Etruscan or shoot fire out of their fingers; > they couldn't do *anything unusual, but maybe they didn't feel like > it.
> > You happen to be a sucker for these kinds of threads. Why is that? > > Still searching for the real truth? Good. That is very good. So am I.
> Actually, I'm trying to throw a good punch without wobbling. It's not > as easy as it sounds. I'm not trying to *beat the wooden dummy or the > heavy bag; they won't ever admit defeat, and I've been whalin' away on > the bag for over a quarter century now. But my punches are getting > better, even as I start to get a little ...brittle.
> To clarify; I am trying to streamline my arguments, clarify the > evidence, and see more clearly the fallacies which are my target. I do > not expect to convince an of the Creationists who come here; that way > lies madness. I even learn new stuff. I just want to be relaxed and > get straight to the target, and wobble as little as possible.
> As for "searching for the real truth", I spent too many years of my > youth wallowing in self-deception. But I worked my way out of it, and > now find I have little patience when I see it in others.
You should have more patience since you understand. But Anyway...
I do not see a quest for truth as a fight. Maybe you do. But then I had a better experience with religion then you did as a youth. However, I never underestimate the damage that can be done by ones own family, teachers and pastors. This does not mean that I kept religion as I got older. I did not. I was like you with one exception. I emancipated myself from religion while not departing from God. Because I saw the flaws in religion but i never once found a flaw in God or his ability to work in the mysterious ways that everyone always talked about.
For me it was a desire. A desired to have a full understanding of the bible and what it meant. It was a matter of discovering my true origins i suppose.
Oh. While we are at it I have a side thought, I am beginning to see that some folks have a desire for truth regardless of where that truth may lead them, but, there are other folks that never will have that desire because they are afraid of where that truth may lead them. They
...
> > >> >> > >On Nov 3, 12:28 am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >> >> > >> For the creationist:
> > >> >> > >> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that > > >> >> > >> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar > > >> >> > >> system, and it turned out to be different enough to > > >> >> > >> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose > > >> >> > >> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star > > >> >> > >> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this > > >> >> > >> change your mind about creationism? > > >> >> > >The bible mentions *many* different intelligent life forms. > > >> >> > >Man, Serephs, cherubs, Angels, demons etc.
> > >> >> Leprechauns, banshees, barghests, dybbuks ("sort of like a bad > > >> >> Santa Claus"), goblins, kobolds, wearwolves, Paul Bunyan, Titania, > > >> >> Woden....
> > >> >> > Except for man, the rest are mythological entities. > > >> >> > If you disagree, provide some proof.
> > >> >> Hell, skip the proof: I'd like to see some evidence.
> > >> >Evidence can be proof idiot.
> > >> So find some evidence that Kent 'bogus degree' Hovind actually made a > > >> single scientific discovery. > > >Hell, I would like to see some evidence Rev Hovind understands > > >what a scientific discovery is. > > I just love to watch some of his vids - best comedy routine I've seen > > for ages (well, except Cougar Town).
> > Watched one the other day where he did a Dishonest Ray. tried to tell > > his audience that "universe" was derived from "uni" meaning one, and > > "verse" meaning a poem or words. He used that definition to claim that > > "universe" means "spoke into existence" or some wacky idea like that.
> Wow. That's just..... so very Fundamentalist Christian. No doubt > he thinks "cannibal" comes from "Canaanite."
Do try and keep UP.
It does not come from "Canaanite" moron. It comes from two words.
> Inez wrote: > > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> For the creationist:
> >> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that > >> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar > >> system, and it turned out to be different enough to > >> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose > >> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star > >> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this > >> change your mind about creationism?
> >> For the non-believer:
> >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system > >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size, > >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely > >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that > >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural > >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider > >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural > >> origin?
> >> Tim
> > For one other planet? I really don't think so.
> > If you could show that there was no life anywhere else in the > > universe, that might give me pause.
> You can't assume there is life elsewhere in the Universe. > But then the question becomes
> > where do you go from there? There's still no rational basis for > > believing in magic, and I don't see any evidence to support the > > current crop of religions.
> And why should anybody care about your thoughts?
>> Wow. That's just..... so very Fundamentalist Christian. No doubt >> he thinks "cannibal" comes from "Canaanite."
> Do try and keep UP.
> It does not come from "Canaanite" moron. It comes from two words.
No, it doesn't, as has been shown to you quite often. It comes from "Caniba", a word that Columbus used to translate the term the Carib Indians used for themselves. See:
If you sound the words out you get what sounds like "cane-ah" and "bail" This is not the derivation of the word "Cannibal". (prounounced like "can-ah-ball")
Folk etymologies are almost always wrong, and the one that Ray borrowed from Gene Scott, who stole it from Alexander Hislop is no exception.
> > > >> >> > >On Nov 3, 12:28 am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> >> > >> For the creationist:
> > > >> >> > >> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that > > > >> >> > >> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar > > > >> >> > >> system, and it turned out to be different enough to > > > >> >> > >> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose > > > >> >> > >> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star > > > >> >> > >> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this > > > >> >> > >> change your mind about creationism? > > > >> >> > >The bible mentions *many* different intelligent life forms. > > > >> >> > >Man, Serephs, cherubs, Angels, demons etc.
> > > >> >> Leprechauns, banshees, barghests, dybbuks ("sort of like a bad > > > >> >> Santa Claus"), goblins, kobolds, wearwolves, Paul Bunyan, Titania, > > > >> >> Woden....
> > > >> >> > Except for man, the rest are mythological entities. > > > >> >> > If you disagree, provide some proof.
> > > >> >> Hell, skip the proof: I'd like to see some evidence.
> > > >> >Evidence can be proof idiot.
> > > >> So find some evidence that Kent 'bogus degree' Hovind actually made a > > > >> single scientific discovery. > > > >Hell, I would like to see some evidence Rev Hovind understands > > > >what a scientific discovery is. > > > I just love to watch some of his vids - best comedy routine I've seen > > > for ages (well, except Cougar Town).
> > > Watched one the other day where he did a Dishonest Ray. tried to tell > > > his audience that "universe" was derived from "uni" meaning one, and > > > "verse" meaning a poem or words. He used that definition to claim that > > > "universe" means "spoke into existence" or some wacky idea like that.
> > Wow. That's just..... so very Fundamentalist Christian. No doubt > > he thinks "cannibal" comes from "Canaanite."
> Do try and keep UP.
> It does not come from "Canaanite" moron. It comes from two words.
> "Cana Baal"
> Now, Sound the two words out.
Fucking ignorant folk etymology. It comes from the Carib tribe. The word does not _appear_ before Columbus encountered the Caribs and their foes, the Arawaks.
Speaking of invincible ignorance, you're the champ.
>On Nov 4, 4:32 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 3, 4:36 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: >> > On Nov 3, 9:46 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Nov 3, 6:16 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: >> > > > On Nov 2, 7:27 pm, "Hairesis" <a??e...@hairesis.co.uk> wrote: >> > > > > > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> >> > > > > >> For the non-believer: >> > > > > >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system >> > > > > >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size, >> > > > > >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely >> > > > > >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that >> > > > > >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural >> > > > > >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider >> > > > > >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural >> > > > > >> origin?
>> > > > > Why do you idiots keep coming up with crap like this...?
>> > > > > The fact is, *you don't have a supernatural agent to show us*.
>> > > > So you suggest that ALL of the ancient texts, historical documents, >> > > > stone and clay tablets, hieroglyphics, ledgends and traditions >> > > > regarding the supernatural that has been handed down to us from >> > > > ancient man in every culture on the PLANET is all obe big lie?
>> > > Lies, poetry, metaphor, shamanistic training, moral instruction, >> > > history, a call to rebellious arms, cultural communications the >> > > nature of which we have forgotten, best guesses based on little >> > > reliable evidence, all mixed in different proportions.
>> > > Why do you think that the most fantastic stories, contrary to >> > > observable facts, are concrete and true?
>> > Because I can make the necessary distinction between them that you >> > cannot.
>> > Prolly because you lack perception is another reason.
>> That, or I am not delusional. Working on a psych ward in the military, >> I knew a number of folks who saw things that the rest of us did not >> see. That is not, in itself, an impressive claim. Now, if it gave you >> some useful knowledge (i.e. a map to Oz or the Garden of Eden, or >> where the bodies are hidden), or perhaps a way kewl superpower, then >> you might be more persuasive. But you don't, do you?
>Excuse me. We were discussing your inability to make the necessary >distinctions between what is obvious fantasy and what ancient man was >trying to communicate to us about events that happened in his life >time. You do not seem to have the capacity to tell the difference >between the two. I'm trying to help you with that, but you resist.
Because what we have has been so altered over time that it is almost impossible to find any real history in the stories.
>You continue to persist by drawing an analogy from valid ancient >texts, such as those describing "Eden", to such fantasy stories such >as the wizard of "OZ".
There is no difference. Neither is based on reality.
>FURTHERMORE, You also continue to persist in wanting evidence that can >be interpreted with human senses while completely avoiding the fact >that there are other types of evidences that go beyond what your >senses can achieve, Why is that?
Because your claim is invalid.
> Are you afraid to understand what so >many millions of people in the past and so many people today >understand? Trust me. It is not all that frightening.
Actually, yes it is. It really frightens me to think that there are so many ignorant people in the world.
>[] >> > > > Oh my. You really are a freak of nature.
>> > > Yes, yes. And we know this because you say so. Certainly not because >> > > you have any actual evidence.
>> > Well. What do you consider evidence? If you say scientific evidence >> > then that is rather self limiting K.
>> Ummm. yes. I am afraid that I limit evidence to things which others >> can see or hear. Would you be happy about being convicted of a crime >> based on evidence which only the prosecuting attorney could see?
>That is a rather dishonest comparison don't you think?
No, it is very honest.
> But for >arguments sake I would answer: There have been people set free because >the prosecuting attorney was wrong about what he saw in the evidence.
Nope. The prosecution does not convict.
>This clearly shows that what we perceive as evidence can be wrong.
The difference here is that you don't have any evidence for your side.
>There would not have been people set free otherwise.
>IOW evidence that was acquired and interpreted with human senses, >which was thought to be accurate, turned out to be wrong. Why? Because >the human senses are not quite as good as the average house cat's.
And yet, some time ago, you wanted to claim humans were perfect.
>You >spend your entire life wanting evidences based on a science that can >only be interpreted with human senses that we know can be wrong.
>Then you base your disbelief of God on THAT. Amusing K. Very amusing.
The amusing part is that people still believe in gods as we reach the end of the first decade of the 21st century. That is a damning indictment of educations systems all over the world.
>> > Your human senses are well known to have flaws, to be inadequate.
>> Yes. Unlike arrogant Creationists, scientists insist that their data >> be double checked and challenged by everyone, especially their rivals. >> They also insist that their models make *predictions, which can be >> watched for. This is what makes science so effective - its methodology >> of verification.
>And despite all of these marvelous checks and balances you mention >science remains under constant revision. Revised because the original >evidence was incomplete, or misinterpreted. Why? Because of human >flaws.
Religion does the same - constantly changing to try and cover its errors.
>Look. Science has done many wonderful things for mankind. But it is >still limited to mankind's abilities. I keep trying to explain to you >that mankind's abilities are not even as good as the average human's >pet. There are many animals that have senses and abilities that far >surpass human ability. But you persist in this nonsense that science >is the be-all and end-all of human understanding.
>Well. It is not.
But it is, whatever you say, far in advance of religion.
>There are other types of evidence that you refuse to consider based on >a science that is limited to mankind's abilities.
>That is rather self limiting if you ask me K.
>> > Even a common house cat can hear and see better then you can. Why would you >> > want evidence for God to be based on a science that is interpreted >> > with your rather limited human senses?
>> Because 50 prophets of god will give 50 different prophecies, which >> either fail to come true, are so trivial that they could be guessed by >> my cat, or most often, are so vague that they could be happening in >> front of you and you wouldn't know.
>Not so. Have you read the bible? A true prophet of God is rare. He can >usually consume the works of false prophets.
Harpic.
>> I knew psychotics. Psychotics were friends of mine. And you sir, >> are... well, you *could be psychotic for all I know. How do *you tell >> the difference? How do you know you aren't wallowing in self- >> deception?
>Well. It is not ME that cannot differentiate between fantasy stories >and legends that have been handed down to inform. THAT would be you.
No, that is most certainly you.
>> > You crack me up!
>> > But OTOH, if you are willing to accept the proper evidence for God, >> > that goes beyond what your human senses are able to acquire, then I am >> > sure I have something laying around that will convince you.
>> How would I verify it? Would I know a week ahead of time whether it >> would rain? Would I be able to read ancient Egyptian?
>OHHH!! You want magic! Sorry. God is not magic.
Oh?
[snip even more stupidity.]
-- Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:33:39 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 4, 8:05 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 3, 11:11 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> On Nov 3, 5:40 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> . >> .
>> > > I don't believe in ghosts.-
>> > sure you do.
>> Are you a retard on purpose?
>I can answer THAT.
>YES. It is not an act. Spincronic and I are retarded by choice and by profession.
Corrected without charge.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to? Certainly I don't.
|
