"Wally" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

I believe that one of my three options is currently "in vogue" with
the scienticic community.

Is that the same as saying that those hypotheses that don't agree with the
fashionable one have been falsified?

No!!

I was suggesting that the idea that the Universe appeared as the result of a
spontaneous incident was generally accepted by the scientific community.




Furthermore, scientists will produce
evidence, backed up by observation, to prove that their theory is
correct.

Are there other scientists that will produce different evidence to prove
that *their* theory is correct?

Probably... but their voices are not heard.



So I think that the question *can* be answered in terms
that are generally acceptable.

You can tell someone that the sun is warm, and prove it by standing them
in
the sun to feel its warmth. If I tell somone that god made the universe,
how
do I show him or make him experience it? Ditto for a big bang or a
cyclical
thing that has always been.

The universe is big.

Really big.

Honest, I'm not kidding.

We're sitting here on our speck of molten iron, throwing radio stations
into
space, while we shoot around in something that is flabbergastingly huge.
I'm
a little skeptical of the notion that we've acquired enough data to go
making proclamations of how it all began, or whether it did or didn't
begin
at all.



I don't disagree with you.



Regards


Donal
--

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
fairy tail. Can't explain the thunder? No problem, it's Thor.

RB

Well... Donal is proof that Darwin wasn't completely correct.

Mutations can exist on a downward spiral, and like the Dodo, Donal is
obviously
a failed mutation.

Obviously!



Regards


Donal
--

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

Mutations that are caused by nuclear radiation are not likely to be
any different from mutations caused by solar radiation. Try again!!!
Nuclear radiation has been proven to be fatal to mankind.

"not likely"?? What's that in terms of percentage chance? Please cite
learned references to support your response.

You should reconsider your question!

Mutations are *mutations*. Think about it!



Regards


Donal
--

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Mutations that are caused by nuclear radiation are not likely to be any
different from mutations caused by solar radiation.

Donal, you need to do some VERY basic studies on radiation, especially
solar
radiation, which is quite different from our short term experiments and
attacks. You can call me silly, but the fact is...you're wrong.

I wouldn't call you silly! You just don't know anything about this
subject.


Silliness and ignorance are completely different things!


Regards


Donal
--

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
And its given us a few revelations, like
Donal doesn't believe in evolution. Think of how much fun that could
be.

I think Donal is messing about. Dispite his choice of boats, he appears to
have
something going on between his ears beyond an infection. I'd guess that he
does
believe in Evolution for the most part. His comments about radiation and
mutation were too uneducated, even for him. He's trolling, and rather
obviously
at that.

I never troll.


You obviously think that everybody behaves like you!


Regards


Donal
--

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

If you would ask yourself the questions that I posed, then "God"
becomes an inescapable conclusion.

Why does it become an inescapable conclusion?

Ask yourself the questions.

You asserted that it was an inescapable conclusion, and I'm asking you to
explain why you think that. I asked myself the questions years ago, and
didn't come to the same conclusion that you did.

What conclusions did you reach?


The fact that you seem to
think that I will if I 'ask myself the questions' is arrogant.

Correct! I am arrogant.

You are a bit arrogant too, aren't you?




I've considered all the available options.

What makes you think that the real explanation has been covered by
any one of the available options?

Nothing!

So, what you're effectively saying is that there are a bunch of ideas, we
have no idea if any of them are correct, so we'll just pick one anyway.


I'm trying to conduct this conversation from a scientific
viewpoint.

You're kidding!

No! Why do you question me?




I'm quite happy to consider alternative explanations.
Do you have an alternative to offer? I'd really like to hear it!!

Of course not! What a preposterous notion!

Ah!




You don't have any hypothesis at all, do you?

See above. See below.


There isn't much above, is there?





I bet that you find it much easier to criticise ...

I haven't criticised - I've stated my opinion and I've questioned some of
the reasoning presented here. You don't seem to have responded to very
many
of my comments. Why not?

Time????




... than to formulate a real opinion.

What, exactly, is a "real opinion", Donal?


If you want to disagree with me, then you should have the balls to put
forward your own beliefs.

I already have. The fact that you have responded to virtually none of my
questions in earlier posts in this thread leaves me wondering if you even
bothered to read them.

My apologies. I *do* read all posts to the ng. However, I don't have
enough time to post all the answers that I would like to.




I already stated that I don't think we humans have
very much knowledge of the universe and that I don't think we're in a
position to go making proclamations about its origins.

I agree with that conclusion.


Regaards

Donal
--

Donal wrote:

"not likely"?? What's that in terms of percentage chance? Please cite
learned references to support your response.

You should reconsider your question!

Mutations are *mutations*. Think about it!

You said...

1. Nuclear radiation is fatal.

2. Solar radiation is probably fatal because it's some kind of radiation as
well.

....and I asked...

How much is 'not likely'?

'Not likely' isn't very precise - how similar are solar and nuclear
radiation in terms of their effects on organisms like humans? You're arguing
by analogy, and I'm trying to determine how valid that analogy is by asking
you to cite a study which compares solar and nuclear radiation.

And you tell me that "mutations are *mutations*".

So, what's your point?


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Donal wrote:

The fact that you seem to
think that I will if I 'ask myself the questions' is arrogant.

Correct! I am arrogant.

You are a bit arrogant too, aren't you?

Am I?


I'm trying to conduct this conversation from a scientific
viewpoint.

You're kidding!

No! Why do you question me?

I don't see how the notion that god created the universe can be arrived at
by scientific means - how that can be an 'inescapable conclusion'. There is
no presentable, sharable evidence that supports the contention that god
exists, or ever has. Without evidence for god, the argument's busted - it's
no more scientific than an untested hypothesis.


You don't have any hypothesis at all, do you?
See above. See below.

There isn't much above, is there?

There was...
----------
Do you have an alternative to offer?
----------
Of course not!
----------


I already stated that I don't think we humans have
very much knowledge of the universe and that I don't think we're in a
position to go making proclamations about its origins.

I agree with that conclusion.

Is it compatible with the notion of 'god did it' being an inescapable
conclusion? If we don't have enough information to draw a conclusion other
than 'insufficient data', then how can any other conclusion be
'inescapable'?


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Converted to what?

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Oh, relax, Jon. Its entertaining. And its given us a few revelations,
like
Donal doesn't believe in evolution. Think of how much fun that could be.

Are you afraid you might get converted?


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Is there some reason why we care? Take your religious BULL**** somewhere
else.

"EdGordonRN" wrote in message
...
YES!! You're right! These "documents" can change one into an
irrelevent
figure!


Jesus Christ was irrelevant? Jesus Christ is a character in the
Gospels.
He may
have actually existed in history, but what really matters is that he
is a
symbol for our "higher self." He was what we are supposed to be. His
mission
was different than yours or mine, but we all have missions, and we are
all
supposed to be Christ.

Jeff Morris wrote:
Are you actually claiming that God must exist because evolution isn't possible.
That's pretty lame.

What other options are there? WE either evolved, or we were created!


And while you might have made an interesting claim that humans couldn't evolve
in the rather narrow time period they seem to have, you're claiming that the
full age of the Earth is not sufficient. Its pretty clear that there's been
plenty of time. Mammals have had roughly 100,000,000 generations to evolve.
That's a real long time - we've only had a 100 generations since Biblical times.
And mammals have only been around for the last few percent of the timeline.

I find it odd that some people try to use "science" to prove the existence of
God.

Why?

Belief in God should be an absolute act of faith.

Incorrect. Many religions demand absolute faith - which is quite
different.


Arguing for the
existence of God on scientific or logical grounds is accepting the possibility
that someone could simply provide a stronger argument the God doesn't exist.

True. However, if you have Faith, then you know that nobody will be
able to provide a stronger argument.

If
you want to believe, fine - but don't try to prove that your faith is justified.

I've been discussing the existence of God, not faith. Why do you think
that I shouldn't argue for the existence of God?


I find it strange that people get so defensive when evidence is put
forward that suggests that God must exist.




Regards


Donal
--