A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 22:51 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:82774e2a-602c-40a4-9919-55a0a9502701(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... On Aug 2, 5:33 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:18ae96af-e4b9-4bd3-838d-6b74c67da875(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 2, 3:00 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > >news:alangbaker-FD89BC.11301202082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > In article <8bofofF3j...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > How little faith you have in scientists. If it were happening, it > would > > be > > > > observed. > > > > Sounds like you're the one who has faith. > > > I think there are sincere scientists out there who would love to observe > > this. > > > > > > 2. More importantly, new life would be very undeveloped to compete > > > > > against life that has been evolving for billions of eyes. > > > > > Think in terms of logic. The ancient collision of matter creates a > > spark of > > > > life, according to evolutionists.. Don't you think that enviroment is > > more > > > > hostile than the one that exists on earth? > > > > Not to new life, no. > > > > Scientists have already demonstrated that the chemicals of life arise > > > spontaneously from the elements and compounds that existed on the early > > > earth. > > > Cite. > > > > Now the first very simple "lifeform" comes together: what other life is > > > it competing with? > > > > If such a simple lifeform came into being today, it would be in a > > > environment of thousands and thousands of other microscopic life who > > > would be able to feed on it. > > > Fine. Then all scientists have to do is "create" the enviroment that this > > life comes from nothing, and then make it sterile from outside predators, > > then observe whether this "life" eats and reproduces. > > > Trouble is....no life has ever been created in a lab or on earth. Cite > > where it has. > > > -Greg > > No life has ever been created on earth? What does that mean? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Not since the beginning. Reproduction...yes. But organic life resulting > from the right mix of matter....no. > > -Greg Are you saying that every species on earth today has always been here? -------------------------------------------------------------------- I think there were different timelines. Obviously dinosaurs preceded mankind. It's just odd to me that the religion of science cannot answer why no new life is manifesting itself, even though conditions are ripe for it. -Greg
From: Carbon on 2 Aug 2010 22:51 On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:06:42 -0700, John B. wrote: > On Aug 2, 6:31 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:50:18 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: >>> "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >>> news:4c5364d2$0$4971$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:40:34 -0400, BAR wrote: >>>> >>>>> Like Obama you haven't thought it through. What is the difference >>>>> between the persons housed at Gitmo and the criminals you >>>>> described? >>>> >>>> Those housed at Gitmo have been tortured, so there is no practical >>>> way to prosecute them. >>> >>> All of them? >> >> I would suspect so, but I don't know. I do know there's no practical >> way to prosecute someone who stands up in court and says, "I was >> waterboarded 62 times. Of course I admitted to all kinds of things. >> You would have done the same in my place." > > Some of the gitmo prisoners are children. I trust they haven't been > waterboarded. So do I.
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 22:57 I never made it a secret that I believe in ID, dumbass. -Greg "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-62E26D.20503502082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <8bp2edFhjdU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:4c574338$0$4964$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:14:24 -0700, dene wrote: > > > > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in > > > > message > > > > news:clark-50F88F.09230702082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > >> In article <8bmuc6F11gU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" > > > >> <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > >>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > >>> news:alangbaker-27495F.05365101082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > >>>> In article <MPG.26bf2ff0ab24ec6798a174(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR > > > >>>> <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 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. > > > >>> > > > >>> There are those who believe in God and evolution. > > > >> > > > >> Which entirely proves Alan's point. Duh. > > > > > > > > I used the words atheistic evolution vs. deistic evolution, to > > > > illustrate that the former requires more faith than those who believe > > > > in pig guts and astrology. Duh. > > > > > > > > Deistic evolution is a more reasoned approach to the origin and > > > > development of life. > > > > > > Or not. To me non-magical explanations are inherently more reasonable. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Something from nothing, randomly colliding into life, surviving, and then > > becoming more complex sans design, is more magical thinking than a supreme > > creative being. > > In other words, than ID. Thanks for making your intellectual foundations > so clear to the rest of us. > > > > Why 10 fingers instead of 8? Why do we have hair? Why not eyes in the back > > of our heads? If survival is the basis for evolutionary change, then it > > would seem we should have the eyesight of a fly. > > Evolution, evolution, evolution. We have what we need. We don't need a > fly's eye because we don't have to see that well. Seems to work, since I > would say we have dominance over the fly, wouldn't you? > > > > Thousands of design questions but no answers within the laboratory or the > > fossil record. Just theory with a lot of magical assumptions. > > Ah, that word "design" again. It's getting clearer and clearer on which > side of this discussion "magic" resides, and it is not that of science.
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 22:58 "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-754AFF.20465802082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <8bog0sF559U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > > news:clark-50F88F.09230702082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > In article <8bmuc6F11gU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > > news:alangbaker-27495F.05365101082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > There are those who believe in God and evolution. > > > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > Which entirely proves Alan's point. Duh. > > > > I used the words atheistic evolution vs. deistic evolution, to illustrate > > that the former requires more faith than those who believe in pig guts and > > astrology. Duh. > > Why and how? You are clearly defining a belief in God as necessitating > adherence to "intelligent" design. That's just BS. > > You are trying the usual "you don't understand" platitude of the > creationists when science knocks them on their rear. > > > > Deistic evolution is a more reasoned approach to the origin and development > > of life. > > Why and how? Especially given that it has zero scientific basis to > support it. I'll discuss my opinion with sincere grownup. Go waste somebody else's time.....or better yet, leave my country, pompous prick. -Greg
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 23:03
"William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-EFE60F.20312702082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <8bogjpF8v3U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:wclark2-B8DAC2.21294701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > 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. > > > > That is a stupid answer, professor. Hopefully my 18 year old will not run > > into your ilk on the university level. > > > > -Greg > > OK, then let us discuss the Penrose-Hawking singularity, and its > implications for the origins of the universe. > > Go ahead, after you. Thus proving my point why you psuedo-intellectual, silver spoon, over educated pricks like yourself have zero worth to society. Your entire self image is wrapped around what other people have taught you. The brightest people I've met are humble. You're the opposite. At U of Portland, every professor is judged by their ability to convey concepts to every student they encounter. If they fail, they teach somewhere else. You wouldn't last two seconds in that enviroment. Enjoy your tenure, Richard Cranium. -Greg |