From: William Clark on
In article <MPG.26bf877e7e67eee698a185(a)news.giganews.com>,
BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

> In article <wclark2-B74F08.12584701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
> > > > >
> > > > > Evolution is a theory.
> > > >
> > > > Correct. I'd say at this point it is a theory that is a close to proven
> > > > as any theory can ever be, but it is still a theory.
> > > >
> > > > However, it is neither atheistic nor theistic.
> > >
> > > According to Science a theory cannot never become a certanty.
> > >
> > > The F word always comes into play when it comes down to the nunts and
> > > bolts.
> >
> > There is only one "F" word for nutters like you. Tell you what, why
> > don't you let us all in on the evidence for the faith-based origins of
> > human life?
>
> Where did the Big Bang originate?

From a singularity in the general theory of relativity, which led to an
infinitely dense and hot Universe that then expanded.

Not with and old man with a long white beard.
From: William Clark on
In article <MPG.26bf83dee810133698a184(a)news.giganews.com>,
BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

> In article <wclark2-C52EB5.12570701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
> >
> > In article <MPG.26bf2ff0ab24ec6798a174(a)news.giganews.com>,
> > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <alangbaker-15E2AB.23062231072010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> > > alangbaker(a)telus.net says...
> > > >
> > > > In article <8bjv3hFufjU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:wclark2-DBCC9B.17523931072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > > > > In article <8bj66lFm27U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > > > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:MPG.26be08094943135398a15f(a)news.giganews.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And, superstition is more widely believed and adhered to around
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > world than science.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ask any baseball player. Golfers too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Greg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, their superstition does not contribute to their ability at the
> > > > > > game,
> > > > > > just to how they calm their nerves.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's belief. I didn't claim there was in validity. It's a shot in
> > > > > the
> > > > > dark, like atheistic evolution.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Greg
> > > >
> > > > LOL
> > > >
> > > > Evolution is not atheistic or theistic, Greg. It simply is.
> > >
> > > Evolution is a theory.
> >
> > Supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.
>
> Evolution is still just a theory, it is not a fact.

There is no evidence to support any alternative model, and the
preponderance of evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Now, are you going to take my $10,000 wager on tomorrow's sunrise,
because that is based on a theory, and it is not a "fact". So you should
be happy to make the wager, or is something holding you back? Like,
evidence?
From: William Clark on
In article <u9kb56dlukph4hecvaistmliugrioe3lrb(a)4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark
> <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Oh, and it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in evolution.
> >That's just another creationist crock.
>
> The big objection isn't in evolution - some evolution was obvious long
> before Darwin.
>
> The objection is in natural selection, as long as "natural" means "not
> done by God or by Man". And of course, the idea that humans evolved
> from something else.

Yes, well when I read what some fellow humans are capable of writing
here, I do question whether they have evolved at all.
From: William Clark on
In article <MPG.26bfbd93c85a419c98a197(a)news.giganews.com>,
BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

> In article <5kqb56diek5m92djb6v60r1ilcpl82im5u(a)4ax.com>, donsno2
> @charter.net says...
> >
> > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark
> > ><wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>Oh, and it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in evolution.
> > >>That's just another creationist crock.
> >
> > >The big objection isn't in evolution - some evolution was obvious long
> > >before Darwin.
> >
> > >The objection is in natural selection, as long as "natural" means "not
> > >done by God or by Man". And of course, the idea that humans evolved
> > >from something else.
> >
> > It's easier to find physical evidence that mankind (and every other
> > living thing) evolved from gobs of protoplasm than it is to find
> > evidence that there is a creative mind behind it all. It's in the
> > DNA.
>
> Where did the DNA come from?
>
> I am not a propoent of intelligent design, never have been and never
> will be. But, someone is going to have to come up with an explanation of
> what caused the Big Bang. Chaos theory can be used to describe DNA
> oringination on Earth but, if we start finding DNA in other parts of he
> Solar systme, Galaxy or Universe there will have to be some re-Sciencing
> going on.

The explanations are all out there for the big bang. Problem is, it is
not simple enough for those of your ilk, and requires some stretching of
the mind that is clearly out of your reach. You know, special
relativity, and all that.
From: Alan Baker on
In article <MPG.26bf3b0078102a5398a17a(a)news.giganews.com>,
BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

> In article <alangbaker-C02771.05355401082010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> alangbaker(a)telus.net says...
> >
> > In article <MPG.26bf2fc2b4d462cb98a173(a)news.giganews.com>,
> > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <4c54ee80$0$4970$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:40:52 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > > > > In article <wclark2-513B7C.17363431072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> > > > > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
> > > > >> In article <MPG.26be2a79e87bedb698a163(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR
> > > > >> <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> In article <wclark2-479852.12420731072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> > > > >>> state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> So is Breitbart a deliberate liar or not? Simple moral question -
> > > > >>>> yes or no will do.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Breitbart is a publisher and he made a business decision just like
> > > > >>> the NYT, WaPo and other media outlets.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Judgement on Breitbart's using your moral question is irrelevant.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Remember, government censor, businesses make decisions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So did he lie with the intention of misrepresenting the NAACP and Ms.
> > > > >> Sherrod or not? Simple question. Have the cojones to answer it.
> > > > >
> > > > > He made a business decision.
> > > >
> > > > ...to tell a lie.
> > >
> > > Sherrod's own words are not a lie.
> >
> > Sherrod's own words twisted and taken out of context are a lie told by
> > Breitbart.
>
> You really do need to take a look at your argument again. You are
> digging yourself into a hole.

LOL

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?