Re: Definition of God

[Bob]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:58:19 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>>>"If we evolved from monkeys, then why are monkeys still around? "

>> We need someone to vote for the Demoncraps.

>Please Bob!- by snipping the way you did, it makes me appear that it is a
>statement I made or agree with.
>I'm so embarrassed.
>You could have at least included the part where I said it was a dumb
>question.
>But you had to go for the gag, right? ;-)

I can't help it.

It's what I do.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Lizz Holmans]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 14:15:43 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote:

>>
>For the past 10 years I have been in daily correspondence with real
>British citizens. I read the Telegraph every morning. I participate on
>British political forums like uk.politics.misc and uk.legal. I know
>more about contemporary British politics than many Brits who read
>those pinko commie rags.

Oh, now I understand. You're a Daily Torygraph reader. No wonder you
don't get a balanced view of the UKoGBaNI.
>

>It is clear that you do not understand Texas jargon. A "commie" is a
>term used to denote someone from the ExtremeFarLeft, usually a
>socialist but generally a godless collectivist.

Suh, I am from Oklahoma. I understand the Texas mindset very well, as
I have relatives in Texas City, Houston, and Dallas.
>
>My British friends vote UKIP.

I'm sorry. If you're going to vote for a party that has no MPs, why
don't you just join the Tories? They at least get MPs in Parliament.

>ROTF.

I hope your mom vacuumed afterward.
>
>You must like oxymorons like "rational social services".

You'd prefer no cops, no sewage, no street lights, no child protection
services, no schools, and medical care that you have to pay for at
point of service, but health insurance is widely available?

I don't talk to nutcases that have neve really experienced Great
Britain. I recommend that you don't- you wouldn't want all your
delusions destroyed. I'll leave you with a line from a great British
writer..

Lizz 'You're pretty weird' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta

 

[Frank Mayhar]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:36:32 -0400, Michelle Malkin wrote:

> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> news:44f1a2c7.652781@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:03:42 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I do agree with you that you are nothing but a troll.
>>
>> But I am not the usual troll.
>
> Sure you are. You think that by boasting about
> how 'unusual' you are that this makes you
> someone special? It doesn't. Most trolls really
> have very tiny egos and try to conceal this by
> telling people how wonderful they are. All this
> shows is that they need to puff themselves up
> in the eyes of those they are trying to bother.
> It also shows that their egos are nearly non-
> existent and they know it. Such trolls are
> desperate for attention. That's you.
>
> Did you choose the nym 'Free Lunch' because
> there is no such thing as you?

Uh, you're responding to "Bob." "Free Lunch" is the guy who called him a
troll.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/

 

[Bob]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:36:32 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>news:44f1a2c7.652781@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:03:42 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
>> wrote:

>>>I do agree with you that you are nothing but a troll.

>> But I am not the usual troll.

>Sure you are. You think that by boasting about
>how 'unusual' you are that this makes you
>someone special? It doesn't. Most trolls really
>have very tiny egos and try to conceal this by
>telling people how wonderful they are. All this
>shows is that they need to puff themselves up
>in the eyes of those they are trying to bother.
>It also shows that their egos are nearly non-
>existent and they know it. Such trolls are
>desperate for attention. That's you.

<yawn>

>Did you choose the nym 'Free Lunch' because
>there is no such thing as you?

I am not "Free Lunch". You got your attributions screwed up.

If you are going to post on Usenet, at least make an effort to
understand how it works.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Bob]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:33:04 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>
wrote:

>> Did you choose the nym 'Free Lunch' because
>> there is no such thing as you?

>Uh, you're responding to "Bob." "Free Lunch" is the guy who called him a
>troll.

Stupid slit doesn't know what the **** she is doing.

Ignore her.

--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Bob]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:28:35 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Oh, now I understand. You're a Daily Torygraph reader. No wonder you
>don't get a balanced view of the UKoGBaNI.

You mean I am not brainwashed like most people there.

>I don't talk to nutcases that have neve really experienced Great
>Britain. I recommend that you don't- you wouldn't want all your
>delusions destroyed. I'll leave you with a line from a great British
>writer..

I would never set foot in Britain - far too many leftist queers. And
you can't own guns, which makes you an unarmed wimp peasant.

Britain, the Gay Capital of the World. You can have it.

Did you know that 1 out of 5 people are seriously considering leaving
Britain right now.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Frank Mayhar]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:48:28 +0000, Bob wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:33:04 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Did you choose the nym 'Free Lunch' because
>>> there is no such thing as you?
>
>>Uh, you're responding to "Bob." "Free Lunch" is the guy who called him a
>>troll.
>
> Stupid slit doesn't know what the **** she is doing.
>
> Ignore her.

No, _you're_ the one I plan to ignore, you ignorant ****. She's right in
every single thing she said about you, she just got the attributions
confused. What's _your_ excuse?

Michelle at her worst is better than you at your "best."
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/

 

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:36:32 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in
<EoydnaJHUupoeGzZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>news:44f1a2c7.652781@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:03:42 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I do agree with you that you are nothing but a troll.
>>
>> But I am not the usual troll.
>
>Sure you are. You think that by boasting about
>how 'unusual' you are that this makes you
>someone special? It doesn't. Most trolls really
>have very tiny egos and try to conceal this by
>telling people how wonderful they are. All this
>shows is that they need to puff themselves up
>in the eyes of those they are trying to bother.
>It also shows that their egos are nearly non-
>existent and they know it. Such trolls are
>desperate for attention. That's you.

I'll let Bob answer his own questions.

>Did you choose the nym 'Free Lunch' because
>there is no such thing as you?

No, I used it because Laffer is a total idiot and our current President
thinks that Laffer is smart. You'll note that nofreelunch.us is my
domain. Too bad that the neocons don't understand that we cannot have
one just because they believe.

 

[stoney]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:32:28 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:

>> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >news:7ov0f2tdap65vrqhkdvq1h6j9hretsuofo@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:01:48 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> >> wrote:

>> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >> >newsiq0f2hmicdht1867n7mtuoaqhq2ldcje5@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:28:31 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>> >> >> <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It turns out that "DanWood" is actually R.D. Heilman. He just sent
>me
>> >> >> some slanderous email from the Heilman account at BellSouth, signed
>> >> >> Dan Wood.
>> >> >>
>> >> >This is not true! I live in a up scale housing development where we
>have
>> >> >a community recreation center with in door and outdoor swimming pools
>> >> >tennis courts, a electronic game room and a couple of computers,
>> >> >connected to the internet. Any member has access to these computers.
>> >>
>> >> Here's the message, with your signature.
>> >>
>> >It doesn't matter what you think.
>>
>> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>>
>I'm rather new to this community. Someone set these computers up
>long before I moved here. I pay my dues so I'm allowed full access
>to these facilities including these computers.

Yes, but you'd have to log into your account at least for email and
stuff.

>There are three computers
>one is for kid games only. There is 200 more than households able to
>use these recreational facilities. This is near Research Triangle Park in
>Raleigh-Durham N.C.

Two computers, non kid games, for two hundred or more households?
Must be horrendously difficult to get computer time.


>Dan




--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 02:59:10 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in
alt.atheism

>
>"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>news:44f04ce3.56742796@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:44:37 GMT, Gospel Bretts
>> <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved
>>>confined exclusively inside the brain
>>
>> Actually there is a very good reason.
>>
>> Consciousness is a result of electromagnetic activity in the brain.
>
>You got the chicken and egg, or cause/effect back to front. No
>consciousness, means no activity to begin with.
>
>
>> Only the brain is constructed to support such activity.
>>
>
>and a slight adjustment here would read : The Brain is created or
>constructed to support the activity of consciousness in the physical.
>
>The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the consciousness is Pure Being
>the power behind physical reality. A faulty brain limits the expression of
>consciousness into this reality.


>Brain dead stops that expression in the
>current form, but the consciousness continues and does not die, unlike the
>physical body.

laughter.


>a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual without the need
>for physical death, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're willing to
>re-formulate your world view much larger than it currently is. ;-)
>



--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Dan Wood]

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:9916f25gnc8922ah1j9fisua3925r7fe9d@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:32:28 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> >
> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:7ov0f2tdap65vrqhkdvq1h6j9hretsuofo@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:01:48 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >newsiq0f2hmicdht1867n7mtuoaqhq2ldcje5@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:28:31 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
> >> >> >> <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It turns out that "DanWood" is actually R.D. Heilman. He just
sent
> >me
> >> >> >> some slanderous email from the Heilman account at BellSouth,
signed
> >> >> >> Dan Wood.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >This is not true! I live in a up scale housing development where we
> >have
> >> >> >a community recreation center with in door and outdoor swimming
pools
> >> >> >tennis courts, a electronic game room and a couple of computers,
> >> >> >connected to the internet. Any member has access to these
computers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here's the message, with your signature.
> >> >>
> >> >It doesn't matter what you think.
> >>
> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
> >>
> >I'm rather new to this community. Someone set these computers up
> >long before I moved here. I pay my dues so I'm allowed full access
> >to these facilities including these computers.
>
> Yes, but you'd have to log into your account at least for email and
> stuff.
>
In order to actually create my own account I need information not
available to me, such as passwords given by the provider (bellsouth)
and a secret password i.e. mother's maiden name etc. Maybe you
know a way to get around this; I do not. I was always intimidated by
computers, but I always hired office personnel who had good computer
skills. I never receive emails. I was always intimidated by the computer
and I just never saw the need to have more than a basic familarity with
them. Or maybe I'm too old to learn. I do not believe these computers
were intended
>
> >There are three computers
> >one is for kid games only. There is 200 more than households able to
> >use these recreational facilities. This is near Research Triangle Park in
> >Raleigh-Durham N.C.
>
> Two computers, non kid games, for two hundred or more households?
> Must be horrendously difficult to get computer time.
>
These are all upscale homes, and fortunately, most of them apparently,
do have computers, but I don't.
And people who do come to the center usually come for swimming,
laying in the sun, playing tennis, pool etc. so the computers are not
overused. I'm just an old retired person, I never thought I needed a
personal computer. Especially when they are so available at the office,
the community center and public libraries. I really do not have need
for a personal computer.

Best Wishes,
Dan

>
> >Dan
>
>
>
>
> --
> Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
> shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
> at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
> be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Charlie-Boo]

Immortalist wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > One of the ironies of the theist-atheist debate is that neither side
> > can define what they mean by God.

Occam would be shocked at the lengthy definitions and discussions that
I snipped. In standard CBL:

P(a) , P(a)^TRUE(a)
TRUE(x)

God output everything and rested. TRUE is everything, defined by DEF
P(a) , P(a)^TRUE(a). To output everything we TRUE(x) and to do so and
then halt we TRUE(x) . So God is TRUE(x) . The prophets are:

~P/P

which is the negation of CBL axiom -~P/P.

Godel's 1931 1st. Incompleteness Theorem:
1. -~P/P Axiom
2. -~PR/PR SUB 1, P=PR
3. -{ ~PR/TW , PR=TW } DEF/SUB
4. -{ ~PR/TW, PR=>TW, TW=>PR } DEF
5. -{ ~PR/TW , Sound, Allknowing }
6. If unprovability is expressible then if the system is sound then it
is not allknowing - there is a true sentence that is not provable.

Rosser's 1936 Extension:
1. -~P/P Axiom
2. -~PR/PR SUB 1, P=PR
3. -{ DIS/PR , DIS=~PR } DEF/SUB
4. -{ DIS/PR , DIS=>~PR , ~PR=>DIS } DEF
5. -{ Refutability is representable, Consistent, Complete }
6. If refutability is representable, then if the system is consistent
then it is incomplete.

(Similarly for other variations concluded by Godel in passing,
Smullyan's Dual Form Theorem, Turing's 1937 Unsolvability of the
Halting Problem, and related theorems.)

Using CBL is like playing with tinker toys. We put them together and
they make an endless array of pretty structures. It is the truly
primitive concepts.

C-B

> > Rope, Tree, Journalist - some assembly required.

 

[thepossibilities]

> > thepossibilities wrote:
> > Do you believe the universe was created from a big bang? what was out
> > there before?
> droth responded:
>
> 1. It seems likely.
> 2. The question is nonsensical. There was no such thing as "before".
>

how can there not be a before? is this something from nothing then?
higher logic seems like a lot of double talk you can neither totally
prove or disprove all of the higher level stuff.

I do believe in the fundamental sciences. especially the ones to do
with health as they have helped many many people.

appliances and tech stuff are pretty cool to, the only problem here is
it's likely we'll invent something to use in war that will probably
back fire and take us out with it. like vacuum energy perhaps.

 

[thepossibilities]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On 25 Aug 2006 10:29:09 -0700, "thepossibilities"
> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >> On 25 Aug 2006 09:02:36 -0700, "thepossibilities"
> >> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >> >>etc. is the total absence of hard evidence for them.
> >> >>
> >> >> And just like most of them, "thepossibilities" can't grasp this simple
> >> >> and obvious point so he stupidly and rudely both begs the question and
> >> >> invents positions we don't have.
> >> >
> >> >this doesn't make sense, so there is not positive information that God
> >> >doesn't exist which makes your view point so easy to prove right?
> >> >Because I only have to focus on the negative all my view points must be
> >> >right.
> >>
> >> Don't be so ****ing stupid.
> >
> >i don't dillute myself in thinking I am an expert, I am just a little
> >pissed off that I am being attacked for what I believe in. however I
> >do understand now, that I realized I stumbled onto this board, what the
> >big rub is, i am guessing the sci.logic board is not very welcoming of
> >theists.
>

>
> As well as all the other things you have stupidly and rudely invented
> about us.

i have to admit i never gave atheism much thought and I may not have
approached it in a considerate matter from which I can learn from.
however what I am curious about is what kind of code do atheists live
by? common sense? as most religions help spell out right and wrong
for the followers.

we as a people need a common sense of purpose in this country, we are
divided amongst ourselves and tearing down common citizen rights for
individual rights. a nation divided shall not stand. i believe this.

>
> You need to learn that there is a real world outside your religion, in
> which your doctrines, including those about reality and the people in
> it, simply don't apply.

i know plenty about the real world outside my religion, i know many
people with many different beliefs however none have approached me with
so much hostility.

 

[thepossibilities]

Steve O wrote:
> This is about the dumbest question anyone could ever ask concerning
> evolutionary theory.
> It is a variatiopn of the old "If we evolved from monkeys, then why are
> monkeys still around? " question.
> To ask this question is to display a profound ignorance on the subject.
> Please stop.
> You are simply making a fool of yourself, yet you seem completely unaware of
> it.
> First of all, it is highly unlikely that monkeys would ever evolve into
> humans.
> Evolution has no foresight - there is no attainable goal, and it is arrogant
> and presumptious of you to think that human beings are the pinnacle of
> evolution.
> There are other animals far more suitably adapted to their environment.
> The only thing that monkeys could ever evolve into, for your information -
> is more sophisticated monkeys.
>

so educate me then, what is the latest theory on how humans came about?
i haven't been hearing or reading about any others.

 

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 28 Aug 2006 15:01:21 -0700, "thepossibilities"
<bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On 25 Aug 2006 10:29:09 -0700, "thepossibilities"
>> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> >> On 25 Aug 2006 09:02:36 -0700, "thepossibilities"
>> >> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> >> >>etc. is the total absence of hard evidence for them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And just like most of them, "thepossibilities" can't grasp this simple
>> >> >> and obvious point so he stupidly and rudely both begs the question and
>> >> >> invents positions we don't have.
>> >> >
>> >> >this doesn't make sense, so there is not positive information that God
>> >> >doesn't exist which makes your view point so easy to prove right?
>> >> >Because I only have to focus on the negative all my view points must be
>> >> >right.
>> >>
>> >> Don't be so ****ing stupid.
>> >
>> >i don't dillute myself in thinking I am an expert, I am just a little
>> >pissed off that I am being attacked for what I believe in. however I
>> >do understand now, that I realized I stumbled onto this board, what the
>> >big rub is, i am guessing the sci.logic board is not very welcoming of
>> >theists.
>>
>> As well as all the other things you have stupidly and rudely invented
>> about us.
>
>i have to admit i never gave atheism much thought and I may not have
>approached it in a considerate matter from which I can learn from.

You didn't.

Would you go into a black bar in Harlem, East Palo Alto, Watts etc and
tell the people there what it means to them to be black?

If not, why tell atheists what it means to them to be atheist?

>however what I am curious about is what kind of code do atheists live
>by? common sense? as most religions help spell out right and wrong
>for the followers.

You're projecting.

Decent, considerate people don't need "a code".

Unfortunately those who aren't, need a simple one-size-fits-all rule
to tell them how to behave towards others.

Especially those whose natural behaviour towards others has been
subverted by their religion.

But the kind of simpke rule that is easy to remember, doesn't always
work.

For example the golden rule tells you to do to others what you would
like done to you.

But the Marquis de Sade justified inflicting pain because he would
like it done to himself.

And evangelical fundamentalists imagine that if they weren't Christian
they would want people to convert them - so they make a nuisance of
themselves where it is neither wanted nor needed, and can't understand
the negative reaction.

George Bernard Shaw summed it up as "don't to to others as you would
have the do unto you, their tastes might be different.

In short, the golden rule puts you in the other guys shoes as yoursel
- not the other guy.

>we as a people need a common sense of purpose in this country, we are
>divided amongst ourselves and tearing down common citizen rights for
>individual rights. a nation divided shall not stand. i believe this.

The "common sense of purpose" is obtained most easily by uniting
against a common enemy. Which is often an unpopular minority. And
encouraged or used by the government. Especially one that panders to
the religious extremists.

>> You need to learn that there is a real world outside your religion, in
>> which your doctrines, including those about reality and the people in
>> it, simply don't apply.
>
>i know plenty about the real world outside my religion, i know many
>people with many different beliefs however none have approached me with
>so much hostility.

You haven't learned much about it.

And we didn't "approach you", moron.

You came here and were incredibly, sanctimoniously, nastily rude.

 

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 28 Aug 2006 15:13:41 -0700, "thepossibilities"
<bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Steve O wrote:
>> This is about the dumbest question anyone could ever ask concerning
>> evolutionary theory.
>> It is a variatiopn of the old "If we evolved from monkeys, then why are
>> monkeys still around? " question.
>> To ask this question is to display a profound ignorance on the subject.
>> Please stop.
>> You are simply making a fool of yourself, yet you seem completely unaware of
>> it.
>> First of all, it is highly unlikely that monkeys would ever evolve into
>> humans.
>> Evolution has no foresight - there is no attainable goal, and it is arrogant
>> and presumptious of you to think that human beings are the pinnacle of
>> evolution.
>> There are other animals far more suitably adapted to their environment.
>> The only thing that monkeys could ever evolve into, for your information -
>> is more sophisticated monkeys.
>
>so educate me then, what is the latest theory on how humans came about?
> i haven't been hearing or reading about any others.

You meant to ask "what are the latest conclusions?". If you're
serious, which you obviously aren't, go to your nearest Barnes & Noble
and pick up a copy of the Scientific American's latest special
"Becoming Human".

And then if you want to ask questions, ask on talk.origins because it
is (a) nothing to do with atheism or vice versa, (b) not
controversial, and (c) where they will educate you.

But if you were serious you wouldn't have asked stupid questions based
on invalid premises, that were intended to make a point but instead
told us you were both deliberately ignorant and uninterested it the
answers.

 

[Steve O]

"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156803221.013513.32960@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Steve O wrote:
>> This is about the dumbest question anyone could ever ask concerning
>> evolutionary theory.
>> It is a variatiopn of the old "If we evolved from monkeys, then why are
>> monkeys still around? " question.
>> To ask this question is to display a profound ignorance on the subject.
>> Please stop.
>> You are simply making a fool of yourself, yet you seem completely unaware
>> of
>> it.
>> First of all, it is highly unlikely that monkeys would ever evolve into
>> humans.
>> Evolution has no foresight - there is no attainable goal, and it is
>> arrogant
>> and presumptious of you to think that human beings are the pinnacle of
>> evolution.
>> There are other animals far more suitably adapted to their environment.
>> The only thing that monkeys could ever evolve into, for your
>> information -
>> is more sophisticated monkeys.
>>
>
> so educate me then, what is the latest theory on how humans came about?
> i haven't been hearing or reading about any others.

You're not making any sense at all.
Evolutionary theory IS the latest theory on how humans came about.
It has been refined a little over recent years, but is essentially the
latest theory.
Perhaps you are confusing the question of how humans came about with the
question how the universe came into existence.
If, however, you're unhappy with evolutionary theory, do you have anything
better to replace it?
Please don't mention ID - I might laugh.


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

 

[Steve O]

"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156802042.245420.68240@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> > thepossibilities wrote:
>> > Do you believe the universe was created from a big bang? what was out
>> > there before?
>> droth responded:
>>
>> 1. It seems likely.
>> 2. The question is nonsensical. There was no such thing as "before".
>>
>
> how can there not be a before? is this something from nothing then?

Yes.
Your God, apparently.


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

 

[Michelle Malkin]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kv5Jg.32800$j8.29027@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ><snip>
>> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>>
> I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is something
> wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
> I could never deny him.
>
> Dan

Why? Does he have the hots for you?

--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^