Now this is interesting - OT

"neoholistic" <neoholistic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162504494.415078.199610@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Rhiannon ha escrito:

>> My thanks to you Bobbie. Neither side has all the answers. Neither side
>> really knows for sure. Either side is as entitled to their opinion and
>> the
>> right to express it. I chose my side (creationist) and I stand by it.
>> The
>> only fundamental difference between me and them that I can see, is the
>> degree of respect that I afford them, the fact that I can discuss their
>> side
>> with them without ridiculing their beliefs, which, sadly, is rarely
>> offered
>> in return. The thing of it is, it's no more a stretch of my imagination
>> to
>> believe we were created by God, then it is to believe the world came out
>> of
>> a big bang, or our distant cousins were apes, and either side ends up
>> having
>> to rely on a degree of faith.
>>
>> --
>> Rhi

> Sorry, but this is untrue. Totally, absolutely UNTRUE.
>
> Science cannot give exact answers nor 'absolute truths'

Exactly.

> but it isn't based on beliefs.

You're right. It's based on theory.

--
Rhi

"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:eie0hq$abk$1@news.datemas.de...
> "neoholistic" <neoholistic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162504494.415078.199610@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > Rhiannon ha escrito:
>
> >> My thanks to you Bobbie. Neither side has all the answers. Neither
side
> >> really knows for sure. Either side is as entitled to their opinion and
> >> the
> >> right to express it. I chose my side (creationist) and I stand by it.
> >> The
> >> only fundamental difference between me and them that I can see, is the
> >> degree of respect that I afford them, the fact that I can discuss their
> >> side
> >> with them without ridiculing their beliefs, which, sadly, is rarely
> >> offered
> >> in return. The thing of it is, it's no more a stretch of my
imagination
> >> to
> >> believe we were created by God, then it is to believe the world came
out
> >> of
> >> a big bang, or our distant cousins were apes, and either side ends up
> >> having
> >> to rely on a degree of faith.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rhi
>
> > Sorry, but this is untrue. Totally, absolutely UNTRUE.
> >
> > Science cannot give exact answers nor 'absolute truths'
>
> Exactly.
>
> > but it isn't based on beliefs.
>
> You're right. It's based on theory.
>
> --
> Rhi
>
>

i believe all of it cause there's no lying on the intenet

"neoholistic" <neoholistic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162507149.047098.152680@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> neoholistic ha escrito:
>
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> Rhiannon ha escrito:
>>
>> > <crysalis7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1162423802.001057.177250@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> > >
>> > > BoredToTears wrote:
>> > >> Rhiannon wrote:
>> > >> > 17 Evidences Against Evolution
>> > >> > http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/engl...idences.html#6
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Number 13 being the most compelling.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 13. SUN'S DIAMETER
>> > >> > The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour.
>> > >> > At
>> > >> > this
>> > >> > rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > --
>> > >> > Rhi
>> > >>
>> > >> Having had a cursory look, ROFLMFAO! 17 is the killer: it's a
>> > >> fucking
>> > >> book!
>> > >
>> > > I am with Rhi. I've been a creationist since the 80's, and despite
>> > > what
>> > > many may think, the evidences are compelling. My not being as good at
>> > > argument as Alvin doesn't negate the position. There are as many
>> > > eloquent speakers in favor of creation as you could ever count.
>> > >
>> > > The Bible is way more than a book to alot of us. It is the Word of
>> > > God,
>> > > and the history of His Plan. For me, it is a great source of comfort,
>> > > guidance, and perspective when I need it most.
>> > >
>> > > My opinion is that most, if not all, people believe what they want to
>> > > believe. That's our right. But making fun of someone else's beliefs
>> > > is
>> > > simple bigotry.
>> > >
>> > > Bobbie
>> >
>> > My thanks to you Bobbie. Neither side has all the answers. Neither
>> > side
>> > really knows for sure. Either side is as entitled to their opinion and
>> > the
>> > right to express it. I chose my side (creationist) and I stand by it.
>> > The
>> > only fundamental difference between me and them that I can see, is the
>> > degree of respect that I afford them, the fact that I can discuss their
>> > side
>> > with them without ridiculing their beliefs, which, sadly, is rarely
>> > offered
>> > in return. The thing of it is, it's no more a stretch of my
>> > imagination to
>> > believe we were created by God, then it is to believe the world came
>> > out of
>> > a big bang, or our distant cousins were apes, and either side ends up
>> > having
>> > to rely on a degree of faith.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Rhi
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but this is untrue. Totally, absolutely UNTRUE.
>>
>> Science cannot give exact answers nor 'absolute truths', but it isn't
>> based on
>> beliefs. It is NOT on the same ground with beliefs or mere opinions.
>> Also, it is
>> NOT true that all opinions, hypotheses or assumptions are equal; some
>> ARE
>> better than others - namely, those that describe the Universe more
>> accurately.
>> I'll repeat this: some... opinions (not the concept I'm really thinking
>> of, excuse my
>> poor English here) ARE better than others, in an absolute sense.
>>
>> Evolutionism is an idea - one based on the observation and study of
>> Nature.
>> Is it 'true'? Well, it's certainly 'truer' than any other we've had so
>> far (that we know).
>> Will we find a better ('truer', more accurate) description in the
>> future that will render
>> it obsolete? Maybe, who knows. (Although evolution HAS been observed in
>> some
>> species since the 19th century, BTW).
>>
>> Creationism is there with magic, religion, esoterism, and any other
>> forms of
>> superstition and irrational thought.
>>
>> It's appalling what a terrible job the education systems (notice the
>> plural) do in
>> teaching the basics of science. Terribly depressing, in fact.
>>
>> [Sad Neo]
>
> My father used to say that I was too rough(*) when talking to people. A
> good
> friend told me the same, more than once. I like to think I've improved
> over the
> years, but still every now and then I end up saying something and
> sounding
> a lot harsher than I intended.
>
> So, I'll re-explain what I meant - not only because I actually like
> you, but also
> because I'm sure I'll do it again in the future. A certain cause of
> future
> misunderstandings in all likeliness.
>
> What I meant is that not all beliefs/optinions are on the same ground,
> or are
> equally valid, or 'good', WHEN TRYING TO DESCRIBE HOW THINGS WORK.
> Some are better than others because they describe reality better, being
> based
> in actual observation and being in accordance with actual observation.
> I put that above ANY opinion(s) based exclusively on religious beliefs,
> and
> I'm adamant about that. Especially when they use bad science, or even
> (occasionally)
> 'facts' that are proved wrong, to try to back them in an attempt to
> inspire a sense
> of veracity or credibility in them. This I do take seriously as a cause
> of concern
> (when not irritation).
>
> But I'm talking here of optinions related to the 'physical' world. I'm
> not making a
> judgement on moral beliefs. Personally, I do have a grudge against
> religion, and
> I'm afraid it does show through, even though I keep trying to remain as
> unbiased
> as I'm able to when approaching any matters dealing with religion.
> Thus, I do
> honestly try to respect everybody's moral beliefs (just as I generally
> prefer having
> mine respected). I know that, for some people, they are a central part
> of their lives,
> or one of paramount importance, and I'm certainly not the one to judge
> them. Some
> people close to me hold, or have held, deep spiritual or religious
> convictions.
>
> So, sorry if I offended you (Rhi, and a general 'you' for anyone else).
> Not my
> intention in any way.
>
> (*) But shy/timid at the same time. Weird, I know.

No need to apologize. I like you too and I wasn't offended Neo. But I
thank you for it anyway. :-)

--
Rhi

RGB wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> crysalis7@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I have heard it, and met one of the travelers.
>
> You met a scientist who went on a jungle expedition and saw a dinosaur?

Yep! And I was even on my meds.

Bobbie

Ivan Marsh wrote:
> You have the right to believe whatever crazy nonsense you want... why do
> you feel you have the right to force other people to live by your beliefs?

Actually, Ivan, I don't. Have you ever heard me tell anyone what to
believe?

Bobbie

BoredToTears wrote:
> crysal...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > BoredToTears wrote:
> > > Rhiannon wrote:
> > > > 17 Evidences Against Evolution
> > > > http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/engl...idences.html#6
> > > >
> > > > Number 13 being the most compelling.
> > > >
> > > > 13. SUN'S DIAMETER
> > > > The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this
> > > > rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Rhi
> > >
> > > Having had a cursory look, ROFLMFAO! 17 is the killer: it's a fucking
> > > book!
> >
> >
> > I am with Rhi. I've been a creationist since the 80's, and despite what
> > many may think, the evidences are compelling.
>
> What evidence?
>
> > My not being as good at argument as Alvin doesn't negate the position.
> > There are as many eloquent speakers in favor of creation as you could ever count.
>
> It's not about arguments or eloquence or made-up stuff, it's about
> *EVIDENCE*. Unfortunately, "creationists" have *NONE*.
>
> > The Bible is way more than a book to alot of us. It is the Word of God,
> > and the history of His Plan. For me, it is a great source of comfort,
> > guidance, and perspective when I need it most.
>
> It's a book. Written and edited by men, over several hundred years,
> who lived in a primitive and credulous society and therefore could
> spout all sorts of crap and pass it off as "the truth" or "the word of
> god". It seems to me you believe the bible is the word of god because
> the bible tells you it is. Circular logic. What other *EVIDENCE* do you
> have?
>
> > My opinion is that most, if not all, people believe what they want to believe.
>
> Which makes them unthinking, credulous fools.
>
> > That's our right. But making fun of someone else's beliefs is simple bigotry.
>
> No, it's my right to make fun of anyone.

I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately, and again with
this post and the recent Kerry/Lurch post... I think maybe that the
most elevated, loving humor is to laugh WITH other people, maybe that's
the best we can achieve as an ideal... but I've also thought lately
that you absolutly have to Laugh AT people sometimes, to keep your
sanity... I realize that this can lead to trouble... people don't like
to be laughed at... but maybe that's a big source of the problems in
the world... not being able to laugh at ourselves, not being able to
accept people laughing at us and our ideas... I don't know, I'm not
saying it's easy to be laughed at, or to laugh at ourselves... it can
hurt us, it can hurt our self esteem... but maybe there really is no
other choice if we want to have the world be a better place... maybe at
least we can work on laughing at people's ideas while still trying to
respect the people as people... again, I realize it's not easy, but is
there another solution?

-"Jordy"

In article <eie0hq$abk$1@news.datemas.de>,
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> > Science cannot give exact answers nor 'absolute truths'
>
> Exactly.

Not to read too much into a single word, but I hope this isn't intended
as a criticism of science. You want absolute truths, look to
mathematics; that's not what science is about. Science is an inductive
enterprise, the goal being to come up with the best explanation of what
is known coupled with the ability to predict reliably what is not yet
known. When you have a clean, consistent theory that accounts for
observed phenomena and serves as a useful tool for prediction, you
probably are onto something; the best explanation of why science is
useful and predictive is that it is largely true. But new data can
always come along and force a revision of a commonly held theory or even
a revolutionary "paradigm shift" where some really fundamental
assumptions fail. That's not a weakness, that's a strength; it's what
allows our understanding of the natural world to grow.

Like I said, Rhiannon, I don't want to read too much into a single word,
but I *have* known religious folks who sneer at science because it's
"only theories", as if it could possibly be or aspire to be anything
else, and as if there were something wrong with that.

Mark

In article <1162512041.878255.78450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.c om>,
crysalis7@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > I have heard it, and met one of the travelers.
> >
> > You met a scientist who went on a jungle expedition and saw a dinosaur?
>
> Yep! And I was even on my meds.

Cool. They didn't happen to capture any gigantic apes while they were
they, did they? I seem to recall seeing a documentary about some
expedition bringing one back and having it get loose in New York City
and climb the Empire State Building.

Mark

In article <OQv2h.242367$0s1.59130@fe03.news.easynews.com>,
RGB <RGB-101506@gipgipgip.com> wrote:

> In article <1162512041.878255.78450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.c om>,
> crysalis7@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > I have heard it, and met one of the travelers.
> > >
> > > You met a scientist who went on a jungle expedition and saw a dinosaur?
> >
> > Yep! And I was even on my meds.
>
> Cool. They didn't happen to capture any gigantic apes while they were
> they, did they? I seem to recall seeing a documentary about some
> expedition bringing one back and having it get loose in New York City
> and climb the Empire State Building.
>
> Mark

Ack... "they were they" -> "they were THERE"

<Icnh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162512255.246194.255630@h54g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> BoredToTears wrote:
>> crysal...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > BoredToTears wrote:
>> > > Rhiannon wrote:
>> > > > 17 Evidences Against Evolution
>> > > > http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/engl...idences.html#6
>> > > >
>> > > > Number 13 being the most compelling.
>> > > >
>> > > > 13. SUN'S DIAMETER
>> > > > The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour.
>> > > > At this
>> > > > rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Rhi
>> > >
>> > > Having had a cursory look, ROFLMFAO! 17 is the killer: it's a fucking
>> > > book!
>> >
>> >
>> > I am with Rhi. I've been a creationist since the 80's, and despite what
>> > many may think, the evidences are compelling.
>>
>> What evidence?
>>
>> > My not being as good at argument as Alvin doesn't negate the position.
>> > There are as many eloquent speakers in favor of creation as you could
>> > ever count.
>>
>> It's not about arguments or eloquence or made-up stuff, it's about
>> *EVIDENCE*. Unfortunately, "creationists" have *NONE*.
>>
>> > The Bible is way more than a book to alot of us. It is the Word of God,
>> > and the history of His Plan. For me, it is a great source of comfort,
>> > guidance, and perspective when I need it most.
>>
>> It's a book. Written and edited by men, over several hundred years,
>> who lived in a primitive and credulous society and therefore could
>> spout all sorts of crap and pass it off as "the truth" or "the word of
>> god". It seems to me you believe the bible is the word of god because
>> the bible tells you it is. Circular logic. What other *EVIDENCE* do you
>> have?
>>
>> > My opinion is that most, if not all, people believe what they want to
>> > believe.
>>
>> Which makes them unthinking, credulous fools.
>>
>> > That's our right. But making fun of someone else's beliefs is simple
>> > bigotry.
>>
>> No, it's my right to make fun of anyone.
>
> I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately, and again with
> this post and the recent Kerry/Lurch post... I think maybe that the
> most elevated, loving humor is to laugh WITH other people, maybe that's
> the best we can achieve as an ideal... but I've also thought lately
> that you absolutly have to Laugh AT people sometimes, to keep your
> sanity... I realize that this can lead to trouble... people don't like
> to be laughed at... but maybe that's a big source of the problems in
> the world... not being able to laugh at ourselves, not being able to
> accept people laughing at us and our ideas... I don't know, I'm not
> saying it's easy to be laughed at, or to laugh at ourselves... it can
> hurt us, it can hurt our self esteem... but maybe there really is no
> other choice if we want to have the world be a better place... maybe at
> least we can work on laughing at people's ideas while still trying to
> respect the people as people... again, I realize it's not easy, but is
> there another solution?
>
> -"Jordy"
>
if you can laugh at yourself, then you're halfways there

sometimes ya just gotta laugh but that has nothing to do with being
disrespectful or mean..........
there's a difference

"justabeing" <just.a.being@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sow2h.326$Mw.86@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> <Icnh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162512255.246194.255630@h54g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > BoredToTears wrote:
> >> crysal...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > BoredToTears wrote:
> >> > > Rhiannon wrote:
> >> > > > 17 Evidences Against Evolution
> >> > > > http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/engl...idences.html#6
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Number 13 being the most compelling.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 13. SUN'S DIAMETER
> >> > > > The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per
hour.
> >> > > > At this
> >> > > > rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Rhi
> >> > >
> >> > > Having had a cursory look, ROFLMFAO! 17 is the killer: it's a
fucking
> >> > > book!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I am with Rhi. I've been a creationist since the 80's, and despite
what
> >> > many may think, the evidences are compelling.
> >>
> >> What evidence?
> >>
> >> > My not being as good at argument as Alvin doesn't negate the
position.
> >> > There are as many eloquent speakers in favor of creation as you could
> >> > ever count.
> >>
> >> It's not about arguments or eloquence or made-up stuff, it's about
> >> *EVIDENCE*. Unfortunately, "creationists" have *NONE*.
> >>
> >> > The Bible is way more than a book to alot of us. It is the Word of
God,
> >> > and the history of His Plan. For me, it is a great source of comfort,
> >> > guidance, and perspective when I need it most.
> >>
> >> It's a book. Written and edited by men, over several hundred years,
> >> who lived in a primitive and credulous society and therefore could
> >> spout all sorts of crap and pass it off as "the truth" or "the word of
> >> god". It seems to me you believe the bible is the word of god because
> >> the bible tells you it is. Circular logic. What other *EVIDENCE* do you
> >> have?
> >>
> >> > My opinion is that most, if not all, people believe what they want to
> >> > believe.
> >>
> >> Which makes them unthinking, credulous fools.
> >>
> >> > That's our right. But making fun of someone else's beliefs is simple
> >> > bigotry.
> >>
> >> No, it's my right to make fun of anyone.
> >
> > I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately, and again with
> > this post and the recent Kerry/Lurch post... I think maybe that the
> > most elevated, loving humor is to laugh WITH other people, maybe that's
> > the best we can achieve as an ideal... but I've also thought lately
> > that you absolutly have to Laugh AT people sometimes, to keep your
> > sanity... I realize that this can lead to trouble... people don't like
> > to be laughed at... but maybe that's a big source of the problems in
> > the world... not being able to laugh at ourselves, not being able to
> > accept people laughing at us and our ideas... I don't know, I'm not
> > saying it's easy to be laughed at, or to laugh at ourselves... it can
> > hurt us, it can hurt our self esteem... but maybe there really is no
> > other choice if we want to have the world be a better place... maybe at
> > least we can work on laughing at people's ideas while still trying to
> > respect the people as people... again, I realize it's not easy, but is
> > there another solution?
> >
> > -"Jordy"
> >
> if you can laugh at yourself, then you're halfways there
>
> sometimes ya just gotta laugh but that has nothing to do with being
> disrespectful or mean..........
> there's a difference
>
>

who decides what is disrespectful or mean

"RGB" <RGB-101506@gipgipgip.com> wrote in message
news:mOv2h.242302$0s1.166519@fe03.news.easynews.co m...
> In article <eie0hq$abk$1@news.datemas.de>,
> "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> > Science cannot give exact answers nor 'absolute truths'
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> Not to read too much into a single word, but I hope this isn't intended
> as a criticism of science. You want absolute truths, look to
> mathematics; that's not what science is about. Science is an inductive
> enterprise, the goal being to come up with the best explanation of what
> is known coupled with the ability to predict reliably what is not yet
> known. When you have a clean, consistent theory that accounts for
> observed phenomena and serves as a useful tool for prediction, you
> probably are onto something; the best explanation of why science is
> useful and predictive is that it is largely true. But new data can
> always come along and force a revision of a commonly held theory or even
> a revolutionary "paradigm shift" where some really fundamental
> assumptions fail. That's not a weakness, that's a strength; it's what
> allows our understanding of the natural world to grow.
>
> Like I said, Rhiannon, I don't want to read too much into a single word,
> but I *have* known religious folks who sneer at science because it's
> "only theories", as if it could possibly be or aspire to be anything
> else, and as if there were something wrong with that.
>
> Mark

Absolutely not a criticism of science. Nor am I one of those religious
folks who sneer at science because it's only theory. The "exactly" was only
meant to illustrate that, as Neo pointed out, there are no exact answers nor
'absolute truths' proven by either side. I would even go so far as to say
that creationism and evolutionism could co-exist without either being wrong.
If my faith has taught me anything, it's that anything is possible, so I
keep an open mind, and though I have chosen to err on the side of
creationism, I am willing to consider all the information out there.

--
Rhi

justabeing wrote:
> "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:eidmud$jof$1@news.datemas.de...
> >
> > <crysalis7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1162423802.001057.177250@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> >>
> >> BoredToTears wrote:
> >>> Rhiannon wrote:
> >>> > 17 Evidences Against Evolution
> >>> > http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/engl...idences.html#6
> >>> >
> >>> > Number 13 being the most compelling.
> >>> >
> >>> > 13. SUN'S DIAMETER
> >>> > The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At
> >>> > this
> >>> > rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Rhi
> >>>
> >>> Having had a cursory look, ROFLMFAO! 17 is the killer: it's a fucking
> >>> book!
> >>
> >> I am with Rhi. I've been a creationist since the 80's, and despite what
> >> many may think, the evidences are compelling. My not being as good at
> >> argument as Alvin doesn't negate the position. There are as many
> >> eloquent speakers in favor of creation as you could ever count.
> >>
> >> The Bible is way more than a book to alot of us. It is the Word of God,
> >> and the history of His Plan. For me, it is a great source of comfort,
> >> guidance, and perspective when I need it most.
> >>
> >> My opinion is that most, if not all, people believe what they want to
> >> believe. That's our right. But making fun of someone else's beliefs is
> >> simple bigotry.
> >>
> >> Bobbie
> >
> > My thanks to you Bobbie. Neither side has all the answers. Neither side
> > really knows for sure. Either side is as entitled to their opinion and
> > the right to express it. I chose my side (creationist) and I stand by it.
> > The only fundamental difference between me and them that I can see, is the
> > degree of respect that I afford them, the fact that I can discuss their
> > side with them without ridiculing their beliefs, which, sadly, is rarely
> > offered in return. The thing of it is, it's no more a stretch of my
> > imagination to believe we were created by God, then it is to believe the
> > world came out of a big bang, or our distant cousins were apes, and either
> > side ends up having to rely on a degree of faith.
> >
> > --
> > Rhi
> >
> why is the idea of God creating a Big Bang so weird

I don't understand why it has to be an either/or thing... If "God"
is seperated from the "man in the sky" image, If God is an intelligent
energy, if God is everything, then every process that happens is
natural, and at the same time "God"... I think seeing God in a
pantheistic way makes the most sense, even though that still leaves
plenty of unawnsered questions...


-"Jordy"

"punk" <punkn05@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162489551.524828.177460@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> and putting some us here just to end up suffering and
> miserable...what's that about?

i suppose god does that knowing some of us may have a problem with it. maybe
he just does stuff to see what happens. maybe humanity is an abandoned
experiment. maybe one of countless such. or maybe there is a grand point to
it all, and in the last chapter the big guy pulls all the quadrillions of
subplots together for a knockout surprise ending.

as an account of the "plan", the bible is a slim, simplistic allegory at
best. but i think it does express an important part of the wisdom and beauty
of our species in capsular form.

when i want to remind myself just how BIG this story is, i sometimes go over
to hubble.org and check out the photos of the galaxies and nebulae and
boggle at how many of these things there are, and how big, and old, and how
far apart, and how much more there must be that no telescope could ever see
or human mind conceive of, and how infinitessimally tiny i am by comparison.
there is in fact no comparison at all. as a component of the universe, i
barely exist.

by what inane stretch of logic can we make the vain assumption that we're
the only sentient, reasoning beings in all this, and that there aren't
innumerable others whose mental and spiritual powers are far older and
greater than ours?

any theology that puts humanity at the center and summit of creation has to
be the equivalent of astronomy that had the sun orbiting around the earth
and made the earth flat, stationary, and larger than any of the heavenly
bodies. these are infantile distortions, which the churches still promote in
subtle variations like "why god would never make an 'alien'." maybe we need
these little rooms of the mind for the sake of our sanity, or for a reason
to stay alive when the other reasons seem to fail us. but, in cold
objectivity, that doesn't make them real, and the fact that they aren't real
doesn't mean the true, nameless, unknowable god isn't real, ruler of the
universe, and as alive in me as in everything. and that's what i believe.

> Ivan Marsh wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:25:36 -0700, Franz Bestuchev wrote:
>>
>> > Gravity wrote:
>> >> "Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the
>> >> universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created."
>> >>
>> >> and who wrote the Bible?
>> >>
>> >> "In denying this we call God a liar. "
>> >>
>> >> nice argument. a religion based on fear.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > I was talking to a priest (Catholic) who was trying to convince me that
>> > God wouldn't create other "aliens" in the universe.
>> >
>> > He felt that God wouldn't create anything superior to man, but I told
>> > him to imagine that they're no more superior...they simply have a
>> > method
>> > of transit that we haven't figured out.
>> >
>> > He then launched into some analogy about how a shepherd who had never
>> > seen a device such as a screwdriver. He would have no clue how to make
>> > a
>> > steel shaft with a machined bit and a plastic handle.
>> >
>> > Same difference to me...and I hope ET is out there and that when he
>> > comes humanity doesn't want to toss bombs at him or some real stupid
>> > shit like that.
>> >
>> > I also pointed out that the area's sacred rock was just an inactive,
>> > eroded volcano core. However if they like the rock - more power to 'em.
>>
>> That's what bothers me about the idea of any religion that puts Man in a
>> central role in the universe... if we're the best a supreme, omnipotent
>> being can do then that is one weak ass, useless god.
>

X-No-Archive: yes

Rhiannon wrote:

> I would even go so far as to say
> that creationism and evolutionism could co-exist without either being wrong.
> If my faith has taught me anything, it's that anything is possible, so I
> keep an open mind, and though I have chosen to err on the side of
> creationism, I am willing to consider all the information out there.

Then what the hell are you doing on Usenet??? =8^)

Serially, your kind of openmindedness is a rare thing in discussions
such as this. People like you could give creationism a good name... if
there were more of them.

Mark

"%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7qSdnWBU9PMqDtfYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
> "justabeing" <just.a.being@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Sow2h.326$Mw.86@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> <Icnh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162512255.246194.255630@h54g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> >
>> > BoredToTears wrote:
>> >> crysal...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> > BoredToTears wrote:
>> >> > > Rhiannon wrote:
>> >> > > > 17 Evidences Against Evolution
>> >> > > > http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/engl...idences.html#6
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Number 13 being the most compelling.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > 13. SUN'S DIAMETER
>> >> > > > The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per
> hour.
>> >> > > > At this
>> >> > > > rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years
>> >> > > > ago.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --
>> >> > > > Rhi
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Having had a cursory look, ROFLMFAO! 17 is the killer: it's a
> fucking
>> >> > > book!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I am with Rhi. I've been a creationist since the 80's, and despite
> what
>> >> > many may think, the evidences are compelling.
>> >>
>> >> What evidence?
>> >>
>> >> > My not being as good at argument as Alvin doesn't negate the
> position.
>> >> > There are as many eloquent speakers in favor of creation as you
>> >> > could
>> >> > ever count.
>> >>
>> >> It's not about arguments or eloquence or made-up stuff, it's about
>> >> *EVIDENCE*. Unfortunately, "creationists" have *NONE*.
>> >>
>> >> > The Bible is way more than a book to alot of us. It is the Word of
> God,
>> >> > and the history of His Plan. For me, it is a great source of
>> >> > comfort,
>> >> > guidance, and perspective when I need it most.
>> >>
>> >> It's a book. Written and edited by men, over several hundred years,
>> >> who lived in a primitive and credulous society and therefore could
>> >> spout all sorts of crap and pass it off as "the truth" or "the word of
>> >> god". It seems to me you believe the bible is the word of god because
>> >> the bible tells you it is. Circular logic. What other *EVIDENCE* do
>> >> you
>> >> have?
>> >>
>> >> > My opinion is that most, if not all, people believe what they want
>> >> > to
>> >> > believe.
>> >>
>> >> Which makes them unthinking, credulous fools.
>> >>
>> >> > That's our right. But making fun of someone else's beliefs is simple
>> >> > bigotry.
>> >>
>> >> No, it's my right to make fun of anyone.
>> >
>> > I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately, and again with
>> > this post and the recent Kerry/Lurch post... I think maybe that the
>> > most elevated, loving humor is to laugh WITH other people, maybe that's
>> > the best we can achieve as an ideal... but I've also thought lately
>> > that you absolutly have to Laugh AT people sometimes, to keep your
>> > sanity... I realize that this can lead to trouble... people don't like
>> > to be laughed at... but maybe that's a big source of the problems in
>> > the world... not being able to laugh at ourselves, not being able to
>> > accept people laughing at us and our ideas... I don't know, I'm not
>> > saying it's easy to be laughed at, or to laugh at ourselves... it can
>> > hurt us, it can hurt our self esteem... but maybe there really is no
>> > other choice if we want to have the world be a better place... maybe at
>> > least we can work on laughing at people's ideas while still trying to
>> > respect the people as people... again, I realize it's not easy, but is
>> > there another solution?
>> >
>> > -"Jordy"
>> >
>> if you can laugh at yourself, then you're halfways there
>>
>> sometimes ya just gotta laugh but that has nothing to do with being
>> disrespectful or mean..........
>> there's a difference
>>
>>
>
> who decides what is disrespectful or mean
>
>
well you, obviously ; )

On 2 Nov 2006 17:13:22 -0800, "RGB" <mark022806-asd@yahoo.com> wrote:

>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>Rhiannon wrote:
>
>> I would even go so far as to say
>> that creationism and evolutionism could co-exist without either being wrong.
>> If my faith has taught me anything, it's that anything is possible, so I
>> keep an open mind, and though I have chosen to err on the side of
>> creationism, I am willing to consider all the information out there.
>
>Then what the hell are you doing on Usenet??? =8^)
>
>Serially, your kind of openmindedness is a rare thing in discussions
>such as this. People like you could give creationism a good name... if
>there were more of them.
>
>Mark

I want more on conspiracies and aliens...she's cheerful even in
threads that always turn ugly...

"justabeing" <just.a.being@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:_hx2h.1018$vP1.638@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com ...
>
> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7qSdnWBU9PMqDtfYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> >
> > "justabeing" <just.a.being@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Sow2h.326$Mw.86@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> >>
> >> <Icnh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1162512255.246194.255630@h54g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > BoredToTears wrote:
> >> >> crysal...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> > BoredToTears wrote:
> >> >> > > Rhiannon wrote:
> >> >> > > > 17 Evidences Against Evolution
> >> >> > > > http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/engl...idences.html#6
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Number 13 being the most compelling.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > 13. SUN'S DIAMETER
> >> >> > > > The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per
> > hour.
> >> >> > > > At this
> >> >> > > > rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years
> >> >> > > > ago.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > --
> >> >> > > > Rhi
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Having had a cursory look, ROFLMFAO! 17 is the killer: it's a
> > fucking
> >> >> > > book!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am with Rhi. I've been a creationist since the 80's, and despite
> > what
> >> >> > many may think, the evidences are compelling.
> >> >>
> >> >> What evidence?
> >> >>
> >> >> > My not being as good at argument as Alvin doesn't negate the
> > position.
> >> >> > There are as many eloquent speakers in favor of creation as you
> >> >> > could
> >> >> > ever count.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's not about arguments or eloquence or made-up stuff, it's about
> >> >> *EVIDENCE*. Unfortunately, "creationists" have *NONE*.
> >> >>
> >> >> > The Bible is way more than a book to alot of us. It is the Word of
> > God,
> >> >> > and the history of His Plan. For me, it is a great source of
> >> >> > comfort,
> >> >> > guidance, and perspective when I need it most.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a book. Written and edited by men, over several hundred years,
> >> >> who lived in a primitive and credulous society and therefore could
> >> >> spout all sorts of crap and pass it off as "the truth" or "the word
of
> >> >> god". It seems to me you believe the bible is the word of god
because
> >> >> the bible tells you it is. Circular logic. What other *EVIDENCE* do
> >> >> you
> >> >> have?
> >> >>
> >> >> > My opinion is that most, if not all, people believe what they want
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > believe.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which makes them unthinking, credulous fools.
> >> >>
> >> >> > That's our right. But making fun of someone else's beliefs is
simple
> >> >> > bigotry.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, it's my right to make fun of anyone.
> >> >
> >> > I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately, and again with
> >> > this post and the recent Kerry/Lurch post... I think maybe that the
> >> > most elevated, loving humor is to laugh WITH other people, maybe
that's
> >> > the best we can achieve as an ideal... but I've also thought lately
> >> > that you absolutly have to Laugh AT people sometimes, to keep your
> >> > sanity... I realize that this can lead to trouble... people don't
like
> >> > to be laughed at... but maybe that's a big source of the problems in
> >> > the world... not being able to laugh at ourselves, not being able to
> >> > accept people laughing at us and our ideas... I don't know, I'm not
> >> > saying it's easy to be laughed at, or to laugh at ourselves... it can
> >> > hurt us, it can hurt our self esteem... but maybe there really is no
> >> > other choice if we want to have the world be a better place... maybe
at
> >> > least we can work on laughing at people's ideas while still trying to
> >> > respect the people as people... again, I realize it's not easy, but
is
> >> > there another solution?
> >> >
> >> > -"Jordy"
> >> >
> >> if you can laugh at yourself, then you're halfways there
> >>
> >> sometimes ya just gotta laugh but that has nothing to do with being
> >> disrespectful or mean..........
> >> there's a difference
> >>
> >>
> >
> > who decides what is disrespectful or mean
> >
> >
> well you, obviously ; )
>
>

as funny as that is , i was serious , but nevermind , i like the answer
anyway

"Bacon" <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vv7lk2pqjd55qjffh72c9vh0mcjnfkephf@4ax.com...
> On 2 Nov 2006 17:13:22 -0800, "RGB" <mark022806-asd@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >X-No-Archive: yes
> >
> >Rhiannon wrote:
> >
> >> I would even go so far as to say
> >> that creationism and evolutionism could co-exist without either being
wrong.
> >> If my faith has taught me anything, it's that anything is possible, so
I
> >> keep an open mind, and though I have chosen to err on the side of
> >> creationism, I am willing to consider all the information out there.
> >
> >Then what the hell are you doing on Usenet??? =8^)
> >
> >Serially, your kind of openmindedness is a rare thing in discussions
> >such as this. People like you could give creationism a good name... if
> >there were more of them.
> >
> >Mark
>
> I want more on conspiracies and aliens...she's cheerful even in
> threads that always turn ugly...


i heard bigfoot once

"%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mYWdnf9WaZj_P9fYnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
> "justabeing" <just.a.being@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_hx2h.1018$vP1.638@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com ...
>>
>> "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7qSdnWBU9PMqDtfYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>> >
>> > "justabeing" <just.a.being@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Sow2h.326$Mw.86@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> >>
>> >> <Icnh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1162512255.246194.255630@h54g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > BoredToTears wrote:
>> >> >> crysal...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> > BoredToTears wrote:
>> >> >> > > Rhiannon wrote:
>> >> >> > > > 17 Evidences Against Evolution
>> >> >> > > > http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/engl...idences.html#6
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > Number 13 being the most compelling.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > 13. SUN'S DIAMETER
>> >> >> > > > The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per
>> > hour.
>> >> >> > > > At this
>> >> >> > > > rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years
>> >> >> > > > ago.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > --
>> >> >> > > > Rhi
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Having had a cursory look, ROFLMFAO! 17 is the killer: it's a
>> > fucking
>> >> >> > > book!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I am with Rhi. I've been a creationist since the 80's, and
>> >> >> > despite
>> > what
>> >> >> > many may think, the evidences are compelling.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What evidence?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > My not being as good at argument as Alvin doesn't negate the
>> > position.
>> >> >> > There are as many eloquent speakers in favor of creation as you
>> >> >> > could
>> >> >> > ever count.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's not about arguments or eloquence or made-up stuff, it's about
>> >> >> *EVIDENCE*. Unfortunately, "creationists" have *NONE*.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The Bible is way more than a book to alot of us. It is the Word
>> >> >> > of
>> > God,
>> >> >> > and the history of His Plan. For me, it is a great source of
>> >> >> > comfort,
>> >> >> > guidance, and perspective when I need it most.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's a book. Written and edited by men, over several hundred years,
>> >> >> who lived in a primitive and credulous society and therefore could
>> >> >> spout all sorts of crap and pass it off as "the truth" or "the word
> of
>> >> >> god". It seems to me you believe the bible is the word of god
> because
>> >> >> the bible tells you it is. Circular logic. What other *EVIDENCE* do
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> have?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > My opinion is that most, if not all, people believe what they
>> >> >> > want
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > believe.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which makes them unthinking, credulous fools.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > That's our right. But making fun of someone else's beliefs is
> simple
>> >> >> > bigotry.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, it's my right to make fun of anyone.
>> >> >
>> >> > I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately, and again
>> >> > with
>> >> > this post and the recent Kerry/Lurch post... I think maybe that the
>> >> > most elevated, loving humor is to laugh WITH other people, maybe
> that's
>> >> > the best we can achieve as an ideal... but I've also thought lately
>> >> > that you absolutly have to Laugh AT people sometimes, to keep your
>> >> > sanity... I realize that this can lead to trouble... people don't
> like
>> >> > to be laughed at... but maybe that's a big source of the problems in
>> >> > the world... not being able to laugh at ourselves, not being able to
>> >> > accept people laughing at us and our ideas... I don't know, I'm not
>> >> > saying it's easy to be laughed at, or to laugh at ourselves... it
>> >> > can
>> >> > hurt us, it can hurt our self esteem... but maybe there really is no
>> >> > other choice if we want to have the world be a better place... maybe
> at
>> >> > least we can work on laughing at people's ideas while still trying
>> >> > to
>> >> > respect the people as people... again, I realize it's not easy, but
> is
>> >> > there another solution?
>> >> >
>> >> > -"Jordy"
>> >> >
>> >> if you can laugh at yourself, then you're halfways there
>> >>
>> >> sometimes ya just gotta laugh but that has nothing to do with being
>> >> disrespectful or mean..........
>> >> there's a difference
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > who decides what is disrespectful or mean
>> >
>> >
>> well you, obviously ; )
>>
>>
>
> as funny as that is , i was serious , but nevermind , i like the answer
> anyway
>
>
thanks
well i was sure hoping you would : )

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:28:17 -0500, "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.com>
wrote:

>17 Evidences Against Evolution
>http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/engl...idences.html#6
>
> Number 13 being the most compelling.
>
>13. SUN'S DIAMETER
>The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this
>rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

This falls into a similar category of charlatan science like the moon dust
argument, from which "reputable", even semi-"reputable", creationists have
fled. Outright charlatans such as Kent Hovind still stick with the idea
even though it has been soundly defeated.

As for the sun, the idea is that the sun is shrinking at a rate of five
feet per hour and, working backwards, must have been far too large and hot
for life to have evolved on earth 100,000 years ago.

The problem is that you can't assume that the current rate of shrinkage has
always been the same. On the contrary the sun was likely far more stable in
the past since the balance between nuclear and gravitational forces was
pretty much spot on. It still is actually - five feet per hour is nothing
considering the size of the sun.

Currently, and into the future, the sun's nuclear forces will gradually
lose the battle with gravity and the sun will shrink. Then extreme nuclear
forces generated by more intense gravity will cause the sun to expand into
a red giant which will engulf Mercury, Venus, and almost certainly the
earth as well.

Mars could become a nice place to live during that time. But nothing lasts
forever, and extreme nuclear forces within the sun will cause it to go
nova, blowing away much of it's outer mass (destroying most of the solar
system) and leaving the remaining mass to gravitational forces. The result
will be a white dwarf star. This is something that is pretty well
understood by studying other stars.

There are, however, some creationist questions that do remain mysteries.
Sometimes the more clever creationists can ask questions that spur
scientists towards refining their ideas.

For instance, it is not quite understood how the solar system could have
formed from a spinning disk of gas, yet ended up with the planets
containing the vast majority of angular momentum. By all known physics that
is completely backwards - it is the sun that should contain the majority of
angular momentum.

But one extremely clever scientist might have found an answer to this. I
don't understand the physics quite well, but the idea involves the gradual
leakage of angular momentum from the sun to the planets via
electro-magnetic forces.

I forget the name of the man who developed the theory, but from what I
understand it is quickly becoming accepted as the likely cause for what we
observe.

And there you have it. Scientists are willing to give up old ideas because
a new one more closely explains the observations. There is some dogma in
science, especially physics, that hinders advances. String theory hindered
the theory of super gravity and brane theory for years, and nearly ruined
the theorist's career. Now that theorist is considered an icon, and string
theory has been laid to rest for the most part.

The dogma in religion is a lot tougher to overcome...

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:13:32 -0600, Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:

>#2 : The Earth's magnetic field has been proved to have flipped (switched
>poles) enumerable times during Earth's existence... it's overdue to do it
>again right now.

Just out of curiosity, when this happens will Aussies then be able to say
Americans live down under?

>#4 : Embryonic recapitulation is irrelevant considering humans and chimps
>share 99% of their DNA.

I have never shared my DNA with a chimp, and if you ever dare say that
again I will sue you for libel!

>#5 : Probability is irrelevant when you can observe evolution in a petite
>dish.

True. However the question of amino acids spontaneously forming into
proteins is something we have not observed. Then again, it is very late in
the game. Any new life that were to be spontaneously created in the wild
would be quickly gobbled up by the life that is already here. The initial
evolutionary creation of life might have a very narrow window, even though
evolutionary forces continue to work on the exiting life forms.

>#6 : "If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is
>impossible"... decreasing diversity in gene pools has been shown to cause
>many issues in species.

Also, the natural trend towards degeneration (entropy in general) is on a
very large scale. If entropy were to be accepted as absolute, then stars
and galaxies could never have formed. But even though entropy is unbeatable
in the end, there are small victories along the way.

>#8 : There are many records of world wide catastrophes that don't need the
>story of Noah to explain them.

Speaking of Noah, his story isn't even congruent. Genesis contains
conflicting details of his mission.

>#10 : Genetics is a much better tool to explain the relationships between
>species.

Frankly I support laws banning relationships between species. Friendship is
okay, but no sharing DNA - especially in public.

>#11 : Yes... dating methods can be inaccurate... and?

And there are so many dating methods, all being prone to some error, that
just happen to average out consistently giving an apparently very accurate
age for the earth.

>#12 : "There would have been plenty of room on the Ark for the
>dinosaurs"... I just spit Coke all over my keyboard. That's one BIG
>FUCKING BOAT! The weight of all the ants on Earth right now is more than
>the weight of all the mammals on Earth right now. Just building an Ark
>that could house the number of insects required to keep every species
>alive would be impossible even by modern standards.

The creationist answer to this is that Noah didn't have to haul along every
species. Small scale changes within species are accepted by creationists,
such as early wolves one day becoming poodles and German Shepards. They
just don't accept a reptile changing into a mammal.

But still, there are no reports in the bible of dinosaurs. And some of them
would have been extremely fierce when it came to humans, so it is unlikely
that their existence would have been omitted.

>One reason for belief in evolution (whether you believe in a supreme being
>or not):
>
>The birds Darwin used as a model for Origin of the Species have evolved
>smaller beaks as a result of an invading bird species they now compete
>with for food, since the writing of the book.

How about kiwis and other flightless birds in New Zealand. New Zealand is
completely cutoff, so if all the animals except for those on the ark died,
how did birds end up in New Zealand?

Easy, they flew there. Because of flight, they were the only animals that
could get there. Flight requires a lot of energy which is turn requires a
lot of food. So the birds in New Zealand simply stropped flying because,
being the only animals there, they had no predators to fear. So why waste
the time and energy flying when they can just sit around and eat?

This process eventually caused future generations of the birds to lose the
ability to fly.