Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: The Natural Philosopher on 8 Jul 2008 02:40 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 7, 4:31�am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> hhyaps...(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Since we know that when human die, every thing is gone. >>> The body decays and the consciousness disappear too. Nothing, except >>> memory and children, stay. >>> This is the human cycle and you are blind to it? >>> As I have said before, lots of human like you are greedy, they want to >>> be eternal. But an imaginary eternal heaven is for their god/gods, and >>> not for human. >>> Why are you always wanting to equate heaven for human, when it is >>> supposed to be the home for god/gods? What sane sense do you have? >> The point is, that people who have nothing to lose except their lives, >> are not controllable politically. If you give them something to lose >> beyond that - their immortal souls - and tell them if they go against >> the particular political institution you put in place to control them as >> slaves - the church, they will lose even that, �then they may just be >> stupid enough to go along with the fiction. >> >> Christianity offers two things to slaves: It makes them feel self >> important, and it tells them that if they are good little slaves, they >> will be equal to the highest in the land - possibly more than equal. >> >> Cui Bono? >> >> The slavemasters and priests, of course. >> >> Robbo is just a good little member of the Church of Latter Day Slaves, >> that's all. >> >> The thought that he is an unimportant person, and will always be that >> way, and that no one, not even God, actually gives a toss about him, and >> once he is dead they will care even less, is so unappealing to his ego, >> that he cannot bear to even consider the possibility it is true. It >> takes great courage to be an Atheist, courage and humility. Robbo has >> neither. >> >> All he has is his Faith. Remove that and he has nothing. > > So what are you saying, that you are a better person than I am? No, you are saying that. I don't do 'better' and make MORAL judgements. I leave that to people who think that absolute mortality exists. > Robert B. Winn
From: BuddyThunder on 8 Jul 2008 03:40 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 6, 9:26 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 6, 4:45 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jul 6, 1:53 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 6, 12:44 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 2:31 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 2:42 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 4, 3:22 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 11:28 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 1:55 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 8:35 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 2:03 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 11:59 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 1:04 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 12:20 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 1:19�pm, Enkidu <fox_rgf...(a)trashmail.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote in news:22183802-cf28-4305-af11- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7d254b106...(a)d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are the one being deliberately obtuse. � The existence of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tunnel validates many other things said in the Bible about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assyrian invasion of Judea. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The Hobbit" talks of ale, axes, and forests which we know exist. Does that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validate Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, trolls, magic rings, walking trees and Tom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bombadil? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enkidu AA#2165 � >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ULC, Modesto, CA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools, or health insurance for all? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> � � �-Kurt Vonnegut >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you decide for yourself? You were the one who thought of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you try to defend your assertions? How can we know we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trust what you say?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter to me what you trust. You decide what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to trust. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can't provide any sensible reason to believe your fanciful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims, then I guess we're done.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fanciful claims? I said that the Jews dug a tunnel as a conduit for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water between Gihon spring and the pool of Siloam. Why do you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is a fanciful claim? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not a fanciful claim. You and I both know that I'm referring to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your supernatural claims. Those would be the ones you're completely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unable to support with any evidence.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have not made any claims to atheists except that the Jews dug a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tunnel to be used as a conduit for water, and the Assyrians built a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ramp out of dirt to get over the city wall at Lachish. To an atheist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these might seem like supernatural claims because there were actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people working to accomplish both of these tasks instead of just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving orders, criticism, etc., the way atheists do. Since atheists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been unable to visualize these two events, there is no reason to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceed on to anything more complex. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we're in total agreement. A tunnel was dug a long time ago and it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got mentioned in some ancient writings, providing absolutlely no support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for any supernatural claims. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So why all the posts?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do not seem to be visualizing it very well. The Assyrians came >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into Judea with an army of hundreds of thousands on their way home >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after taking a big chunk of Egypt. Judea was a little dot in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> middle of the Assyrian kingdom, which extended from the Caspian Sea to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Egypt. So why was there still a Kingdom of Judea when King >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sennacherib got back to his capitol city of Ninevah? Sennacherib >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself says there was on the column he had erected in Ninevah. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or so the story goes.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean so the story goes? The column erected by Sennacherib >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Ninevah is still there today. He plainly says on it that Hezekiah >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paid tribute to him, and he was such a nice guy that he just went home >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after he got the money. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great. Sennacherib went home and left Jerusalem unsacked. That doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean that it was due to the angel of the lord slaughtering 185,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troops in a night. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you favour the oddly magical Biblical account over Sennacherib's?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 186,000 troops. Chaldean historians of the same time said that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assyrian army died of plague while besieging Jerusalem, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sennacherib fled in great fear back to his own city of Ninevah. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sennacherib made no mention of losing his army on the column he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erected. He seems to have pretended to his fellow Assyrians that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> army was still somewhere doing something, but his own two sons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> murdered him, probably because they were upset about him losing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> army. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So where are God's footprints in all of this? Arguments for both sides >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be made without invoking magic.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, from a military standpoint, the Jews had no chance whatsoever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against the Assyrians. But when it was all over, it was the Assyrian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> king who lost everything, including his own life. So I would say, let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atheists of today explain it their way, and let Christians explain it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their way. The Jews explained it by saying that an angel of the Lord >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killed 186,000 Assyrian troops. That is a matter of record. It is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recorded in three different books of the Old Testament. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Old Testament isn't particularly compelling evidence, it suggests >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there was a global flood and special creation over the course of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> six days. It might be a "matter of record" on some things, but it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely not on others.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I am sure the Jews feel bad that you do not like the Old >>>>>>>>>>>>> Testament, but it says what it says. It says in three different >>>>>>>>>>>>> books that an angel of the Lord went through the camp of the Assyrians >>>>>>>>>>>>> and slew 186,000 soldiers. >>>>>>>>>>>> It also says that the universe was created a handful of thousands of >>>>>>>>>>>> years ago. The Bible is not reliable.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>> Well, as I said before, you atheists believe in relativity of time >>>>>>>>>>> unless you are talking about the earth. Then you insist on absolute >>>>>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>>>>> Instead you make some ridiculous claims about the relativity of time >>>>>>>>>> completely without evidential basis, or... any rational support at all. >>>>>>>>>> The Earth is older than 6500 thousand years old. Much older. I'll go >>>>>>>>>> with the many independent lines of verification on that one.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>> Well, that is fine, but why is relativity of time something that >>>>>>>>> exists except when talking about the earth? >>>>>>>> Because Earth isn't travelling at near light speed. I'm no physicist but...- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> So what makes you believe that motion is the only factor that would >>>>>>> affect time? >>>>>> Gee, I dunno. Until you back up your notions, it's hard to know what >>>>>> you're on about. >>>>>> What makes you think that you know better than every mainstream >>>>>> peer-reviewed physicist on the planet?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> Every mainstream peer reviewed physicist on the planet uses the >>>>> Lorentz equation. There is no way that the Lorentz equations could be >>>>> more than a close approximation. >>>> I don't have the grounding in physics to sensibly contend the point. I >>>> will delegate anything beyond my high-school physics to mainstream >>>> scientific consensus. You seem to be at odds with them, if you believe >>>> you really have a breakthrough for physics, you should publish so we may >>>> all benefit from the new knowledge.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> It cannot be done. I talk to scientists in sci.physics.relativity. >>> That is all I am ever going to do. >> Then you'll forgive me for backing the mainstream. Hate to be a sheep, >> just gotta go where the evidence points. > > Well, as the scientists of Galileo's day said, the safe way to go is > to say that the sun orbits the earth because that is what the majority > of scientists say. I can certainly forgive you for believing that. Science uncovered what the church tried to suppress.
From: BuddyThunder on 8 Jul 2008 04:07 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 7, 3:48�am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> BuddyThunder wrote: >>> rbwinn wrote: >>>> On Jul 6, 12:58 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>> - >>>> Well, look spirit up in the dictionary. �If you do not believe in >>>> spirit, then there is no way to explain it to you. >>> I looked it up and found lots of vague notions of intermediaries between >>> body and soul. That kind of nonsense. >>> So there is no meaningful definition of "spirit" in reality? You made a >>> positive claim about my "spirit", then choosing to define it in terms of >>> itself. A kind of "spirit is spirit, what's wrong with you" argument. >>> I'm none the wiser as to what you're actually referring to. >> The mediaeval understanding of spirit,was essentially what we today >> would call the mind, as distinct and somewhat independent of, the body. >> The concept of the 'objective observer' grew out of this particular >> worldview. Science owes religious philosophy that much, at least.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Spirit could also be called intelligence. Why not simply use "intelligence" then? It's a much less nebulous word. Intelligence is emergent from normal brain-activity (in many animals including humans) and doesn't seem to be supernatural at all.
From: BuddyThunder on 8 Jul 2008 04:14 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 6, 9:42 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >>> On Jul 6, 5:06 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jul 6, 11:02�am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> My definition of sin was willful disobedience of God. �Bearing false >>>>>>> witness about me would fall under the category of willful disobedience >>>>>>> of God. >>>>>> In that case you are totally guilty of that exact sin. >>>>>> We have already established by your own definitions that you are a >>>>>> sinful person (onkl Jesus is free of sin you said) , and your lack of >>>>>> charity excommnunicates you as a Christian. (you wont talk to God on >>>>>> anyones behalf..) >>>>>> I think you are in deep trouble, dude. >>>>> No, I am fine. I say a little prayer every once in a while about >>>>> atheists. >>>> That one ever get answered? ;-)- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Well, I know one atheist who became a Christian. >> Ah nice. I was just such a man. I eventually grew out of it though. :-)- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well, you were just an atheist working undercover. > If you were going back to atheism, you were never really a believer. What a hugely arrogant, ignorant thing to say. I really believed, I really wanted it to be true. Sadly, it didn't live up to the hype, so five years down the track belief was abandoned. It seems my experience doesn't fit your myth. That's not my problem, I would suggest it's your myth's.
From: BuddyThunder on 8 Jul 2008 04:17
rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 6, 9:15 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" > <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> On Jul 7, 1:13 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 6, 7:18 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> On Jul 5, 1:07 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>> On Jul 3, 11:58 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2:35 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 6:11 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>>>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 9:59 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 1:28 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>>>>>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 11:30 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 12:13 am, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 3:34 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 6:43 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alwh...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 11:27 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 1:14 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 12:34 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 12:25 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 6:06�pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:26:59 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 12:50?pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:11:54 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 7:17?am, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:05:42 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...(a)juno.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 12:26?am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 6:42?pm, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am upset by *people* who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that the Bible is anything more than mythology and try ?to impose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs on me ?using the Bible as evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can someone impose a belief on you? ?Just believe whatever you want to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The wrong part is when people attempt to use the myth to formulate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public policy or indoctrinate children or inform foreign policy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, actually they use fables. ?The apostles Paul said they would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turned to fables in the last days. ?A fable is a story about animals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like the story about monkeys turning into humans. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, you're ignorant about evolution. Colour me surprised. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In what way am I ignorant about evolution? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Monkeys and humans do share a common ancestor. Your denial of the fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not change that fact.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charles Darwin was not my ancestor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evolution happens. Learn to deal with reality.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never have believed in evolution. �I think it is a fable, just as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul said it was. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul knew nothing about it. You mock the Bible with such silly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretations of it.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just believe what Paul said. You seem a little upset that I do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe your fable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please identify what he said about it? Please?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teachers, having itching ears; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turned unto fables. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't see any mention of evolution. I can't even see any description >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the theory, or even a theistic strawman description. Can you help me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out? You made a claim that seems difficult to substantiate.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I think we are getting into subject matter that is too difficult >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you. Maybe we should go back to Hezekiah's tunnel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not struggling, maybe you could point out the verse where evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is singled out. Maybe he's talking about the germ theory of disease. I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure you believe that demons are behind illness, rather than pathogens.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Paul said that in the last days, men would be turned to fables >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain things. So today we see science explaining most things by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fables. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please explain how "evolution" counts as a fable? And we'll show you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how you understanding of evolution is horribly wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, as Paul pointed out, in the last days men would be unable to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> endure sound doctrine and would devise a fable to try to explain the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of mankind without a God. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't relate evolution to a fable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you ever answer a question that isn't just from your own >>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagination? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>>> It happened just the way Paul said it would. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to converse with the voices in your head, could you just >>>>>>>>>>>> leave out alt.atheism in your replies? Your posts are clearly not >>>>>>>>>>>> related to anything you're clicking reply on. >>>>>>>>>>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>> As I understand it I have given a response to one of your posts that >>>>>>>>>>> does not comform to atheistic rules. >>>>>>>>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>>>>>>>> Those would be those rules about not lying blatantly? >>>>>>>>>> They're more like guidelines, and more Human than specifically >>>>>>>>>> atheist. >>>>>>>>> Well, Al, I always try to tell the truth. Sometimes I am given >>>>>>>>> information by atheists that turns out to be false, such as a large >>>>>>>>> portion of what I was taught in school. >>>>>>>> I'd love some examples of these "atheistic lies". You won't provide any >>>>>>>> though, right?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>> Well, we could start with Albert Einstein's description of >>>>>>> transmission of light, which is not a lie, but turns out to be false. >>>>>>> It requires a bona fide miracle to work. This is one miracle that >>>>>>> atheists never criticize. >>>>>> Can we get a real physicist with a loony filter here to translate?- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> The Lorentz equations are >>>>> x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>>>> y'=y >>>>> z'=z >>>>> t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>>>> These equations require that a moving object contract in length in the >>>>> direction of movement. When the object reaches the speed of light its >>>>> length is 0. >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>> An object can't reach the speed of light. Get over it. >>>> Al- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> So what about photons? The Lorentz equations have them as little flat >>> disks with circumference but no length. >>> Robert B. Winn >> And? >> >> Al- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Photons were invented by Einstein. He did not visualize them that > way, but that is how the Lorentz equations have them. Yes, he carved them out of purest phlogiston. Very good with his hands. What are you saying?! |