Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation
From: stew dean (stewart_at_webslave.dircon.co.uk)
Date: 09/04/04
- Next message: Eric Gisse: "Re: GPS versus source dependency / ballistic theory"
- Previous message: bv_schornak: "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: Timberwoof: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Reply: Timberwoof: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 10:42:12 +0000 (UTC)
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<8QzZc.19083$_g7.6876@attbi_s52>...
> "stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2b68957a.0409012237.1e0349ef@posting.google.com...
> > "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<tVqZc.15781$_g7.11625@attbi_s52>...
> > > "TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> > > news:Pv6dnVVp2uw1qKvcRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> > > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > Hey... I was given to understand there were some real Creationists
> > > > > on this newsgroup. Where are they? Who are they?
> > > > >
> > > > > I've heard that there are some real Bible thumping, Fundamentalist,
> > > > > Genesis believing Creationist Bluebloods on this NG who I thought
> > > > > it was time to talk to.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm looking for the kind of Creationist who wants to sue the U.S.
> > > > > Department of Education and get the law overturned so that
> > > > > "God" would have to be taught in the Public School Science
> > > > > curriculem as a "scientific subject". The discovery of a true
> > > > > scientific proof of God would be the basis of this lawsuit.
> > > >
> > > > Why not file suit yourself? Do it locally, and it's a really
> inexpensive
> > > > process. Start by filing against the local school district:
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Whaddau think I'm suicidal? There's an army of Creationists who
> > > have already taken the Kansas City school board to court
> > > and won. I need an army dummy... I don't plan to be David
> > > fighting Goliath. The only thing the Creatioists don't have is an
> > > argument that will stand up against the Scientists... I have
> > > the weapon they are looking for... a scientific proof of God
> > > and Biblical Creation.
> >
> > There is not such thing as scientific proof. What you need is a strong
> > theory.
> >
> > If you had done your homework the only possibly viable hypothesis that
> > is slightly distanced from creationism is intelligent design and that
> > at the moment has some large gaps in it.
>
> [Hammond]
> Anyone who would debate "intelligent design" is a high school
> dropout.
You mean debate against it? If so the above statement is not true.
>
> > You've got to ask yourself why no one is prepared to support your
> > views.
>
> [Hammond]
> Same reason no one would support Gregor Mendel's views.
Urm No, Mendel's pea plant work was objective and his work won out.
Yours is purely subjective and not very well put togehter.
>
> > If someone is religious and/or knowledgable in physics and you
> > had something valid why wouldnt they support it.
>
> [Hammond]
> Because they are jealous, not to say deathly afraid, of anyone
> who could discover a "scientific proof of God"...
Let's be honest with ourselves, all of the above is hardly likely. You
average scientist is more interested in knowledge than childish
squablings. They certainly arnt going to be afriad, skeptical yes,
afraid no.
> and so
> are you. And you and they ARE TOTALLY JUSTIFIED
> in this fear.
If you did indeed have some kind of proof of a god you would then have
to carry on the work and explain what god is, what kind of god it is
etc etc. You would turn what is essentialy supernatual in to a natual
and knowable thing.
I'm personaly not afraid of learning new things, nor am I really
afraid of knowing I've been wrong about something as we're all wrong
about something and it's better to be open to new ideas.
> > In fact if it was
> > scientific you would easily convince healthy skeptics like myself to
> > consider your view.
>
> [Hammond]
> Lethal injection is totally scientific, that doesn't mean you
> would volunteer.
Huh? That doesnt make sense.
> > Unfortunatly you are unable to explain your ideas that relates to any
> > physics concept that is accepted.
>
> [Hammond]
> I'm not here to preach the "acceptable year of the Lord"
> smarty pants. I'm here to take names and kick ass.
Urm, right. So how exactly are you going to 'kick ass' in a newsgroup
if you avoid debate?
> > Also you won't find any 'creationists' here,
>
> [Hammond]
> I'll buy that... I'm postinhg to alt.talk.creationism too.
>
> > I say you fit the profile.
>
> [Hammond]
> Right.... you can't name it but you know it when you see it.
In translation. You can't explain you ideas, don't want to explain
them and just want to waste everyones time. If you want to side with
what ever creationist there are then why not debate that point of
view?
If you want to be taken seriously you need to think how to communicate
your ideas - that is how you can kick ass. Turning up, claiming youre
a genius and then insulting people who disagree with you and never
justify you original statement is only going to end up with the kind
of reactions no doubt you have got used to by now.
So let's debate this - bring it back to intelligent design if you
want.
Stew Dean
- Next message: Eric Gisse: "Re: GPS versus source dependency / ballistic theory"
- Previous message: bv_schornak: "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: Timberwoof: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Reply: Timberwoof: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
