|
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
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. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
... than to formulate a real opinion.
What, exactly, is a "real opinion", Donal? In this case and in absence of real data, the real opinion is some sort of fairy tail. Can't explain the thunder? No problem, it's Thor. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
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. Maybe Donal isn't human! RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Evolution, if the theory is true, is direct evidence that God exists.
And so goes the scary brainwashing power. If proof counters existence of god, then "believers" warp it into some sort of proof to support their faith. One day we'll learn that the bible was just part of a graphic novel and those with faith will take a deep collective breath and exclaim, "You see!!!" Amazing. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
EdGordonRN wrote:
Evolution, if the theory is true, is direct evidence that God exists. Please explain how this is so. However, after studying its claims, I don't believe it. So much for that argument. After studying the claims of those who have faith, I don't believe that god exists. So much for their arguments. -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
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. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Dodonal?
BB Specific classification: Dodonalus Minimindess Beneteauess. Quite common until mostly wiped out by unsafe boats. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
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. |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
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. |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
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. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"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 -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"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 -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"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 -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"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 -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"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 -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"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 -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
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 |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
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 |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
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. |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
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 -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
What other options are there? WE either evolved, or we were created!
Donal, there is total proof of evolution simply by the fact that genetic skin pigment exists according to climate. Biological Adaptation is evolution. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
|
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
There had to be creation before evolution.
Simple logic. Josie, Simple logic also dictates that someone/thing had to create god. If you say he was "always here" then I simply reply, so was the universe. Logic isn't for you, Josephine! RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal stated:
WE either evolved, or we were created! Bologna....the Church does not insist on accepting the creation story as literal, Donal. the "birth" of mankind into setients can be fully explained by evolution with a belief in the creativity of God having written the masterplan.... -- katysails s/v Chanteuse Kirie Elite 32 http://katysails.tripod.com "Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Evolution, if the theory is true, is direct evidence that God exists. And so goes the scary brainwashing power. If proof counters existence of god, then "believers" warp it into some sort of proof to support their faith. You've already admitted that you used fiction to support your point of view. You "imagined" an unfortunate 12y/o girl in your attempt to prove that God sidn't exist. Can't you see that if you need to resort to invention, your theory must be very weak? Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... What other options are there? WE either evolved, or we were created! Donal, there is total proof of evolution simply by the fact that genetic skin pigment exists according to climate. Biological Adaptation is evolution. Bob, I don't have a problem with the concept of evolution. In fact, I believe that we *are* evolving. Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive. My point is that we could NOT have evolved into our current state in the time available. Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Navigator" wrote in message ... Donal check these out: http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/darkenergy.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html I've read the links. However I don't see how they are at odds with the concept of my third option. 3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of "matter" and "anti-matter". Do you think that there is a fourth option? Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
|
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Wally" wrote in message ... 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? A Teensy-weensy bit! 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. Rubbish! I proposed three alternatives. 1) God created it. 2) It is endlessly expanding and contracting 3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of "matter" and "anti-matter". I can prove that two of them are impossible. That leaves the third option as the only viable answer. If you have an alternative proposal, then you should put it forward. Simply stating that I am wrong is the behaviour of an idiot. I know that you are not stupid, so why don't you offer us some evidence to back up your position? 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'? Think about "beyond reasonable doubt"???? Regards Donal -- |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal wrote:
You are a bit arrogant too, aren't you? Am I? A Teensy-weensy bit! Not at all. Rubbish! I proposed three alternatives. 1) God created it. 2) It is endlessly expanding and contracting 3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of "matter" and "anti-matter". I can prove that two of them are impossible. Please do so. If you have an alternative proposal, then you should put it forward. Simply stating that I am wrong is the behaviour of an idiot. I know that you are not stupid, so why don't you offer us some evidence to back up your position? I have already stated (more than once) that I don't think we have enough data to draw a viable conclusion. If we did have, this sort of thing wouldn't be the on-going subject of debate that it is. 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'? Think about "beyond reasonable doubt"???? What?!? If the conclusion is 'insufficient data', then *no* other conclusion can be drawn! If we don't know, then we *don't* know - any attempt to imply that we do know is little more than fantasy. -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Donal" wrote in message
... "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... What other options are there? WE either evolved, or we were created! Donal, there is total proof of evolution simply by the fact that genetic skin pigment exists according to climate. Biological Adaptation is evolution. Bob, I don't have a problem with the concept of evolution. In fact, I believe that we *are* evolving. Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive. My point is that we could NOT have evolved into our current state in the time available. Yes we could, and did. I've considered all of the possibilities and concluded this is the only one that makes sense. |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
"Donal" wrote in message
... 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. How? 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. In other words, while you argue "scientifically" you will not consider the possibility that you might be wrong. And yet you say that the is not an absolute act of faith. 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? You're not arguing if deby the possibility that you might be proven wrong. You're simply asserting your faith. I find it strange that people get so defensive when evidence is put forward that suggests that God must exist. I agree, why are you so defensive? Are you trying to prove God's existence as a way to bolster your faith? |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
katysails wrote: Donal stated: WE either evolved, or we were created! Bologna....the Church does not insist on accepting the creation story as literal, Donal. the "birth" of mankind into setients can be fully explained by evolution with a belief in the creativity of God having written the masterplan.... Nice fence you've got there Kook! Cheers |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Bobsprit wrote: Dodonal? BB Specific classification: Dodonalus Minimindess Beneteauess. Quite common until mostly wiped out by unsafe boats. Stop it you're killing me! Bwhahhahahahah Cheers |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal wrote: "Navigator" wrote in message ... Donal check these out: http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/darkenergy.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html I've read the links. However I don't see how they are at odds with the concept of my third option. Did you like the ideas -do they make sense? 3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of "matter" and "anti-matter". Do you think that there is a fourth option? Yes, dark matter too. Maybe even anti-dark matter but I don't know if that is in any way required by a coherent cosmology. Cheers |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal wrote: "Wally" wrote in message ... 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? A Teensy-weensy bit! Don't be modest, that's my province! Cheers |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
My point is that we could NOT have evolved into our current state in the
time available. Sadly, all evidence points to exactly that. Your problem is the timeline, based on VERY limited data on evolution. What you fail to release is that evolution has probably slowed due to a general geological stabilization over millions of years. It MAY have moved at a faster rate and all indications are this is exactly what happened. No big bearded gods need apply. RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Can't you see that if you need to resort to invention, your theory must be
very weak? Not all, seeing as my "invention" was a mix of real events and is quite common otherwise. "Pain and suffering" may not ultimately disprove the existance of god, but they do show the level of job he/she's been doing. It's almost as if Bush were god...! RB |
Yacht Clubs--a mistake
Donal
You've just completely undone your own argument, Dodonal I doubt he sees it. RB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com