Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
From: R.Schenck (nygdan_morteauxspam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/01/04
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: stew dean: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:28:58 +0000 (UTC)
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> on 01 Sep 2004 posted
>
> "R.Schenck" <nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8fcb1069.0409010943.55adc472@posting.google.com...
>> "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<q9bZc.215668$8_6.91811@attbi_s04>...
>> > "Alan Jeffery" <observa_no_spam@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>> > news:2pknj1Fm87o2U1@uni-berlin.de...
>> > >
>> > > "VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:78e3ae70.0408311720.7cd5ad55@posting.google.com...
>> > > > "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<%t3Zc.213728$8_6.141480@attbi_s04>...
>> > > >
>> > > > <...>
>> > > >
>> > > > > SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
>
>> > I would like to ally myself with the Creationists on the following
>> > grounds:
>> >
>> > 1. They would get for their part the law overturned banning
>> > the teaching of God in public schools. Creationism would
>> > be proven to be scientifically correct and would also have
>> > to be taught in the Public School Science curriculem.
>>
>>
>> Ok, lets pretend that your 'idea' is in fact correct and true, and
>> that you have been able to prove that a god of some sort exists
>> (which, remeber, we're just pretending, and you actually haven't done
>> this in, you know, reality). How does the existence of god make
>> 'creationism' true? Perhaps you are just unfamiliar with creationism
>> or something and don't know what it says is 'true'.
>
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Lets not waste time with excessive verbiage.
> Let me try to summarize the scientific discovery
> and it's theological result. If you are not already familiar
> with this discovery, this will not be adequate,
Like i said in an earlier repsonse, I've seen your webapge before.
> but it will
> give you a thumbnail sketch of the science and some
> understanding of the theological result:
snip what effectively was the sig
How about you explain why your website doesn't have a scientific proof of
god?
Did you respond to the wrong poster or something?
>
>
>
>> > Of course we would have to find a millionaire Creationist advocate
>> > to fund the legal challenge
>>
>> Talk to kent hovind. He deposited over a million dollars into
>> multiple bank accounts over the course of a year, according to the tax
>> case against him. Money is not the issue here, the ideas are stupid
>> to begin with, whether we're talking about general 'creationism' or
>> this 'scientific proof of god'
>
> [Hammond]
> Maybe we'll see you in court.. the Supreme Court
I would be absolutely honoured to be sitting on the other side of the
court from the creationists in such a situation. Its rather unlikely
that I would be there, but one can pretend no? I will be the guy
shooting spit balls at you and making googely faces at kent hovind.
snip sig
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: stew dean: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
