 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / February 2008the scientific method is a religious approach claims scientists
Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’” So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not simply exchanging one type of faith for another? In some cases, disbelief appears to be a deliberate refusal to face the truth. Astronomer Allan Sandage said: “I find it quite improbable that such order [in the universe] came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” > Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that >the scientific method itself is a religious approach. How so? It >rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to >laws of nature. So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not >simply exchanging one type of faith for another? In some cases, >disbelief appears to be a deliberate refusal to face the truth. One in-your-face lying moron citing others as "authority". > Astronomer Allan Sandage said: I find it quite improbable that such >order [in the universe] came out of chaos. There has to be some >organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for >the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing. >> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that >> the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > One in-your-face lying moron citing others as "authority". Astronomers have used electronic devices to study its origin. What have they found? In God and the Astronomers, Robert Jastrow wrote: “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.” “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians [persons believing in creation] who have been sitting there for centuries.” > >> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that > >> the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > theologians [persons believing in creation] who have been sitting there > for centuries.” I assume that this would be the same Robert Jastrow, astronomer, who also wrote that "I am an agnostic and not a believer"? Frankly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you really want this to end up with us discussing the fact that among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, the creme de la creme of American science, only 7 percent express a "belief in a personal God"? -- cary >>>> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that >>>> the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I assume that this would be the same Robert Jastrow, astronomer, > who also wrote that "I am an agnostic and not a believer"? Good point. > Frankly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you really > want this to end up with us discussing the fact that among the > members of the National Academy of Sciences, the creme de la creme > of American science, only 7 percent express a "belief in > a personal God"? They are all here on usenet? > > Frankly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you really > > want this to end up with us discussing the fact that among the > > members of the National Academy of Sciences, the creme de la creme > > of American science, only 7 percent express a "belief in > > a personal God"? It's sad that they cant be led to a better religion that allows them to beleive truth. I dont mean churches who accept evolution. But at least explanations of science rather than miracles. This doesnt mean twist the story and say the Red Sea was Reed Sea and a tide went out etc. It means what can scientifically part the water. Everything can be done if conditions and circumstances are there. Only theory i ever heard that competes with the Red Seais the one that says they went NW to the cloud of Thera, and upon reaching the sea they went east walled up on the peninsula with water on both sides, but in those days it crossed over. Then the tsunami came and swept Pharaoh away. Either way, at least its an honest scientific attempt and not all the lame empty proofless scientific theories that have been proposed for 100 years now. That is pitifully pathetic that science comes up with as many lame stories for explanations as so many churches do. It places them just as much on the other side of the line of truth. Or perhaps science and religion are in bed together making up this stuff because when it comes to schools, whether science or religion they like the money. > > Frankly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you really > > want this to end up with us discussing the fact that among the > > members of the National Academy of Sciences, the creme de la creme > > of American science, only 7 percent express a "belief in > > a personal God"? Some of the greatest minds in history believed in God, including Newton and Einstein. >> > Frankly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you really >> > want this to end up with us discussing the fact that among the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Some of the greatest minds in history believed in God, including Newton and >Einstein. Newton did. But after his brilliant work on the laws of motion, celestial mechanics etc his view of God became very unconventional - a mechanistic one who set the universe in motion and left it to its own devices according to certain rules. And Einstein's view of God was even more unconventional. He used it as a metaphor for the wonders of the universe. But even if they did believe in anything remotely like what you mean by the word God, they didn't let it interfere with their work. Please try to think next time before embarrassing yourself. >>> > Frankly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you really >>> > want this to end up with us discussing the fact that among the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And Einstein's view of God was even more unconventional. He used it as > a metaphor for the wonders of the universe. "God does not play dice with the Universe" Einstein > But even if they did believe in anything remotely like what you mean > by the word God, they didn't let it interfere with their work. There is nothing wrong with unconventional views of God, and that in no way diminishes the point. Personally, I think he is way beyond our understanding and probably the churches are about as accurate as saying light is a particle. adam russell said the following on 2/22/2008 10:35 PM: >>>>> Frankly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you really >>>>> want this to end up with us discussing the fact that among the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "God does not play dice with the Universe" > Einstein "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Einstein The quote you're using is out-of-context. It was about quantum theory and Einstein couldn't accept it. It has NOTHING to do with the Christian god. But, keep repeating it. It makes you look like a lazy idiot who will only repeat what he's heard in passing without doing any research behind it. >> But even if they did believe in anything remotely like what you mean >> by the word God, they didn't let it interfere with their work. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > understanding and probably the churches are about as accurate as saying > light is a particle. The problem with that hypothesis is multiple variables therein. If God is "way beyond our understanding" then it's possible that there is a god *ABOVE* God that is beyond God's understanding. And therefore, it's also possible that there is a god *ABOVE* that god that is *ABOVE* God....ad infinitum. How about this: Show evidence, first, that there is a God at all. If not, this entity will remain in the fictional world with other fictional characters like Captain Kirk.  Signature**************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act * * of the whole American people which declared that * * their legislature should make no law respecting * * an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the * * free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of * * separation between church and state." * * --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 * **************************************************** >>>> > Frankly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you really >>>> > want this to end up with us discussing the fact that among the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >"God does not play dice with the Universe" >Einstein Look up "metaphor", moron. >> But even if they did believe in anything remotely like what you mean >> by the word God, they didn't let it interfere with their work. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >understanding and probably the churches are about as accurate as saying >light is a particle. Question-begging idiot. >>>>> > Frankly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you really >>>>> > want this to end up with us discussing the fact that among the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Question-begging idiot. Why all the hate? I never said anything insulting to you, nor did I ever imply that you should believe as I do. On Feb 23, 10:30 am, "adam russell" <adamruss...@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> > Frankly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you really > >>>>> > want this to end up with us discussing the fact that among the [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Why all the hate? I never said anything insulting to you, nor did I ever > imply that you should believe as I do. Because he daddy call thim that since birth, he confuses people wit morons, and doesn't rea;ize it when he looks into the mirror. >> Question-begging idiot. > >Why all the hate? I never said anything insulting to you, nor did I ever >imply that you should believe as I do. Then why are you posting to alt.atheism? >>> Question-begging idiot. >> >>Why all the hate? I never said anything insulting to you, nor did I ever >>imply that you should believe as I do. What "hate"? >Then why are you posting to alt.atheism? They don't seem to understand just how stupid, as well as disrespectful it is to talk outside their belief system as though it were real - especially to an audience they know don't share their beliefs. >>>> Question-begging idiot. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >were real - especially to an audience they know don't share their >beliefs. ...And they are never trying to convince us of anything, they are just mentioning it in passing. (:-/ > >>> Question-begging idiot. > > >>Why all the hate? I never said anything insulting to you, nor did I ever > >>imply that you should believe as I do. > > What "hate"? Calling someone an idiot is not nice, its hateful. > >Then why are you posting to alt.atheism? > > They don't seem to understand just how stupid, as well as > disrespectful it is to talk outside their belief system as though it > were real - especially to an audience they know don't share their > beliefs. If this had been one post by a troll then I would have ignored it. But it was a thread with a debate going back and forth. I didnt start the thread, but I am fully within rights to join it. You cant just expect to have your say then tell the other side to shut up. Thats whats rude, imo. >> >>> Question-begging idiot. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Calling someone an idiot is not nice, its hateful. Not when it's an observation. >> >Then why are you posting to alt.atheism? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >expect to have your say then tell the other side to shut up. Thats >whats rude, imo. Irrelevant. You knew there were atheists in the audience. You could even have checked your headers. >> >>> Question-begging idiot. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >But it was a thread with a debate going back and forth. I didnt start >the thread, but I am fully within rights to join it. Indeed you are. ...And we are completely within our rights to tell you to f.ck off out of alt atheism. >You cant just >expect to have your say then tell the other side to shut up. Thats >whats rude, imo. But your opinion is of little, if any, interest to us. > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:14:12 -0800 (PST), adamruss...@sbcglobal.net > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ...And we are completely within our rights to tell you to f.ck off out > of alt atheism. Perhaps this individual didn't realise that he was cross-posting to alt.atheism. > >You cant just > >expect to have your say then tell the other side to shut up. Thats > >whats rude, imo. > > But your opinion is of little, if any, interest to us. > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - >Perhaps this individual didn't realise that he was cross-posting to >alt.atheism. Perhaps: We shall see. > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:30:30 -0700, "adam russell" > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Then why are you posting to alt.atheism? I replied to a thread in alt.astronomy. Sorry I didnt notice it was going to multiple forums. But is your belief so fragile that it offends you to hear someones elses beliefs? Its not like I was preaching. >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:30:30 -0700, "adam russell" >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >offends you to hear someones elses beliefs? Its not like I was >preaching. What "belief", moron? You knew there were people who didn't share your beliefs in the audience. And you didn't care. Whether or not it was preaching is immaterial. It was your stupid and rude question-begging. I'm sure even you can grasp the difference. >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:30:30 -0700, "adam russell" >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I replied to a thread in alt.astronomy. What; did you imagine that an astronomy group would be interested in your tripe. >Sorry I didnt notice it was >going to multiple forums. But is your belief so fragile that it >offends you to hear someones elses beliefs? No, but lies do. >>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:30:30 -0700, "adam russell" >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What; did you imagine that an astronomy group would be interested in > your tripe. Since the astronomy group appeared to be discussing it, obviously there was interest by definition. What makes you think you have the right to debate a topic and not recieve dissenting opinions in a public forum? >>Sorry I didnt notice it was >>going to multiple forums. But is your belief so fragile that it >>offends you to hear someones elses beliefs? > > No, but lies do. I never lied. >>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:30:30 -0700, "adam russell" >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >I never lied. "But is your belief so fragile that it offends you to hear someones elses beliefs?" QED >>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:30:30 -0700, "adam russell" >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > "But is your belief so fragile that it offends you to hear someones > elses beliefs?" If that is intended to turn my question back on myself then no I am not in the least offended that some people do not believe in God, nor am I offended by other people believing in other versions of God. >>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:30:30 -0700, "adam russell" >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Since the astronomy group appeared to be discussing it, obviously there was >interest by definition. Were they discussing it, or merely replying to the idiot theists, x-posting there? >>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:30:30 -0700, "adam russell" >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Were they discussing it, or merely replying to the idiot theists, I see no difference whether it is in reply to someone they like or dont like. If they do not want the thread to be replied to then they should not reply to it. Any statement of opinion, or even facts supporting an opinion, naturally invites replies. I dont see how that cannot be completely obvious. >>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:30:30 -0700, "adam russell" >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >naturally invites replies. I dont see how that cannot be completely >obvious. Self righteous little prick; aint you? >>I see no difference whether it is in reply to someone they like or dont >>like. If they do not want the thread to be replied to then they should [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Self righteous little prick; aint you? <shrug> I believe in freedom of speech. It seems to me that the self-righteous are the ones that think only they have the right to speak and everyone else should just agree or be quiet. Thats not me, is it you? Dont you think that in any public forum that the honest discussion of ideas (both pro and con) is healthier and more productive than everyone toeing the standard lines? >>>I see no difference whether it is in reply to someone they like or dont >>>like. If they do not want the thread to be replied to then they should [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] ><shrug> >I believe in freedom of speech. Then don't bitch when others exercise that same freedom. >It seems to me that the self-righteous are >the ones that think only they have the right to speak and everyone else >should just agree or be quiet. Yep, standard xtian, self righteous prick, attitude. >Thats not me, is it you? Dont you think >that in any public forum that the honest discussion of ideas (both pro and >con) is healthier and more productive than everyone toeing the standard >lines? Not if the intervention of superstition, and superstition driven pseudo science, is not wanted, as would be the case in any technical, scientific, or atheist NG. Just because you are answered, does not mean that you are welcome. >>>>I see no difference whether it is in reply to someone they like or dont >>>>like. If they do not want the thread to be replied to then they should [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > pseudo science, is not wanted, as would be the case in any technical, > scientific, or atheist NG. I never posted superstition. I may have been mistaken about Einstein, but I think my main point was still valid. I think its not what I posted you have a problem with, but that you really just dont want anyone with my beliefs posting anything about anything. Why dont you lighten up a little? >>>>>I see no difference whether it is in reply to someone they like or dont >>>>>like. If they do not want the thread to be replied to then they should [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >really just dont want anyone with my beliefs posting anything about >anything. Why dont you lighten up a little? Why are so many theists such self-important liars? What part of "keep it to yourselves and there won't be the reaction you pretend is something else" was too hard for you to understand? >>>>>I see no difference whether it is in reply to someone they like or dont >>>>>like. If they do not want the thread to be replied to then they should [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >I never posted superstition. <There is nothing wrong with unconventional views of God, and that in <no way diminishes the point. Personally, I think he is way beyond <our understanding That is superstition. < and probably the churches are about as accurate as saying light is a particle. You have a problem with the idea of light being a particle >I may have been mistaken about Einstein, In deed you were. > but I think my main point was still valid. Not if it involves deity. > I think its not what I posted you have a problem with, but that you >really just dont want anyone with my beliefs posting anything about >anything. We do not want to read your superstition, in groups dedicated to reality. There are enough groups out there dedicated to superstition, you have no reason to post to technical, scientific, or atheist, groups. >> > Frankly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you really >> > want this to end up with us discussing the fact that among the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Some of the greatest minds in history believed in God, including Newton Newton lived in an age where people were still burned at the stake for heresy. At an age where nobody knew any better and certainly did not know that Christianity had a very tumultuos beginning with a myriad of beliefs, and their bible was a product of 16th century manuscripts. > and Einstein. Einstein did not believe in god especially the god of the bible and Christians. This has been discussed hundreds of times and included quotes from Einstein's writing. SignatureLater, Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com Webpage Sorcery http://webpagesorcery.com We Put the Magic in Your Webpages >> > Frankly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you really >> > want this to end up with us discussing the fact that among the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Some of the greatest minds in history believed in God, including Newton > and Einstein. You're wrong about Einstein, but even so, so what? SignatureRobyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 On Feb 22, 5:19 pm, "adam russell" <adamruss...@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote: > > > Frankly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you really > > > want this to end up with us discussing the fact that among the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Some of the greatest minds in history believed in God, including Newton and > Einstein. Jim Jones and Osama Bin Laden, too. > >> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that > >> the scientific method itself is "a religious approach." How so? "It [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > theologians [persons believing in creation] who have been sitting there > for centuries." A terrestrial limited creation of supposedly intelligent humans by whatever God is downright pathetic. What God in his/her mind would ever be so limited in scope. In most every way that counts, the human species is not very smart or otherwise intelligent, are we. There's at least another million Earth like or far better environments for accommodating intelligent other life out there. Perhaps Earth is not even a good example. . - Brad Guth Please speak for yourself, Brad! It's obvious that you hate yourself. lmao! Do not include anyone else in such thinking! Saul Levy >A terrestrial limited creation of supposedly intelligent humans by >whatever God is downright pathetic. What God in his/her mind would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >not even a good example. >. - Brad Guth > >> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that > >> the scientific method itself is "a religious approach." How so? "It [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > theologians [persons believing in creation] who have been sitting there > for centuries." Really Jabbers? Astronomers have actually see the firmament all the stars are afixed to? JohnN > On Feb 20, 6:33 pm, Renard Picard <Saintgulleydek...@shedakook.net> > > Really Jabbers? Astronomers have actually see the firmament all the > stars are afixed to? About in the fashion they see the sun "rise" and "descend" every day. > > >> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that > > >> the scientific method itself is "a religious approach." How so? "It [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Really Jabbers? Astronomers have actually see the firmament all the > stars are afixed to? As one character in a sci-fi show said, "For the world is hollow, and I have touched the sky!" Unfortunately for this character the god of his world punished him for telling this secret to outsiders, a secret actually kept from the inhabitants of that world. Perhaps this is the world that the Bible Literalists actually dwell in. At least in their own heads. > JohnN- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > >> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that > >> the scientific method itself is "a religious approach." How so? "It [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > theologians [persons believing in creation] who have been sitting there > for centuries." Yes, and how did those stalwart Theologians do in other matters, say, in eradicating smallpox and polio, in curing syphilis and pneumonia, in doubling the expected life span? Tell me when you fly, do you wish the plane were designed by theologians? Do you wish your medicine were the product of prayer, not the scientific method? Are you a complete moron or is your stupidity just compartmentalized? It seems the net.psychopath is using yet another nym. > It seems the net.psychopath is using yet another nym. And he's posting "copy & paste" passages from his Watchtower CDs. He even replies to people with C&P nonsense. I see he's added an astronomy group. He's looking for fresh people who don't know his history. Everyone from the religious groups ignore him. >> It seems the net.psychopath is using yet another nym. > >And he's posting "copy & paste" passages from his Watchtower CDs. He even >replies to people with C&P nonsense. I see he's added an astronomy group. >He's looking for fresh people who don't know his history. Everyone from the >religious groups ignore him. Anybody who's been on Usenet for very long knows him. He's a legend. Word gets around, especially after what he did. Even if you haven't been subjected to his psychopathic behaviour in your own home newsgroup. Renard Picard schrieb: > Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that > the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for > the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm 56. ARGUMENT FROM STEADFAST FAITH (1) A lot of really cool people believed in God their entire lives. (2) Therefore, God exists. Signaturegods r 4 pussys >Renard Picard schrieb: Actually Jabriol. Again. >> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that >> the scientific method itself is a religious approach. How so? It [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >(1) A lot of really cool people believed in God their entire lives. >(2) Therefore, God exists. > Renard Picard schrieb: >> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed Snipped-------- Astronomers have used electronic devices to study its origin. What have they found? In God and the Astronomers, Robert Jastrow wrote: “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.” “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians [persons believing in creation] who have been sitting there for centuries.” SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSnip! > 56. ARGUMENT FROM STEADFAST FAITH > (1) A lot of really cool people believed in God their entire lives. > (2) Therefore, God exists. > gods r 4 pussys That makes sense. Madonna and Oprah beleive in God so she must really exist. Like i said its not the scientist who beleives in God that proves God exists, but rather it is the scientist who doesnt beleive in God yet trusts all that God created to be truth. An atheist who questions evolution is an atheist who sees God. But a theist who beleives in Adam created 40,000 years ago doesnt see God at all because Adam was created in 4025 BC proven by alot more than just some Bible Genesis book of one man Moses. In our last episode, <gb2vj.8304$_T3.3332@trnddc07>, the lovely and talented Renard Picard broadcast on alt.atheism: > Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that > the scientific method itself is a religious approach. How so? It rests > upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to laws of > nature. bullshit. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com Countdown: 334 days to go. > In our last episode, > <gb2vj.8304$_T3.3332@trnddc07>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > bullshit. Take it up with him, he has the degree, ---------you? On Feb 21, 7:42 am, Renard Picard <Saintgulleydek...@shedakook.net> wrote: > > In our last episode, > > <gb2vj.8304$_T3.3332@trnddc07>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Take it up with him, he has the degree, ---------you? Apparently you don't have a degree since you are looking up to him. We all have a good degree here, and we don't simply argue for the sake of argument. But to refute you stupid thinking, pls see earlier reply. > On Feb 21, 7:42 am, Renard Picard <Saintgulleydek...@shedakook.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Apparently you don't have a degree since you are looking up to him. Actually I Do. But I was asking you. >> On Feb 21, 7:42 am, Renard Picard <Saintgulleydek...@shedakook.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Actually I Do. But I was asking you. You have no degree in anything Antonio.You've admitted that yourself. You're a habitual and pathological liar. >> On Feb 21, 7:42 am, Renard Picard <Saintgulleydek...@shedakook.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Actually I Do. But I was asking you. Jabbers lies again. SignatureMark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion ------------------------------------------------------------ There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't... > hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Feb 21, 7:42 am, Renard Picard <Saintgulleydek...@shedakook.net> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Actually I Do. But I was asking you. You certainly don't have one in science or engineering, and McDonald's Hamburger University doesn't count. >> In our last episode, >> <gb2vj.8304$_T3.3332@trnddc07>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> bullshit. > Take it up with him, he has the degree, ---------you? Ah! The appeal to misplaced authority. Wigglesworth was an entomoligist. He is no authority to speak on what constitutes a "religious approach." I wouldn't argue insects with him --- especially as he food for them now. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com Countdown: 334 days to go. On Feb 21, 6:53 am, Renard Picard <Saintgulleydek...@shedakook.net> wrote: > Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that > the scientific method itself is "a religious approach." How so? "It [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for > the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Including you, we have now see some pretty diehard ignorant loons. The faith that you are talking about by scientists is called the "base" knowledge that we human rely upon every day with valid data for a process to work routinely. The fundamentals of the base is evident and existed to be used. An example, one of the fundamental base is 1 + 1 = 2, maths. For the bigots, your 1 + 1 = 0. You have no base. So, what are you talking about? You don't even know that you are making a fool of yourself. > Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that > the scientific method itself is "a religious approach." How so? "It [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for > the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." When making such claims it is common courtesy to provide citations, merely claiming that X said Y is not sufficient. >> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that >> the scientific method itself is "a religious approach." How so? "It [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > When making such claims it is common courtesy to provide citations, > merely claiming that X said Y is not sufficient. Everything he (JABRIOL) is posting is copy and paste from the Watchtower CDs. They do no research and take things out of context. You're wasting your time with Renard Picard aka JABRIOL, a devout creationist. Renard is just another of his sock-puppets. > Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... [Sir Vincent Brian Wigglesworth (17 April 1899 - 11 February 1994)] >...of Cambridge University observed that > the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” How so? “It > rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to > ‘laws of nature.’” Pause here and read that line again: the scientific method "...rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’” That's a different kind of faith than religious faith. That is faith in things that are seen, and *NOT* faith in things unseen. > So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not > simply exchanging one type of faith for another? NO, Different kinds of "faith". > In some cases, > disbelief appears to be a deliberate refusal to face the truth. > Astronomer Allan Sandage said: “I find it quite improbable that such > order [in the universe] came out of chaos. There has to be some > organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for > the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” That's his personal opinion and he's entitled to it. >> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That's a different kind of faith than religious faith. That is faith in > things that are seen, and *NOT* faith in things unseen. There goes Gravity. >>> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > There goes Gravity. Gravity is a force and exists. Many things are not seen and yet exist. >>>> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Gravity is a force and exists. Many things are not seen and yet exist. You just broke the Irony meter. You know that I hope. >>>>> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You just broke the Irony meter. You know that I hope. Why? Many things are not visible but have effects and are known to exist. Gravity, (why planets stay in orbit), electrons (though they are visible when slammed into particular coatings), radiation (c.f. your dentist). >>>>>> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > visible when slammed into particular coatings), radiation (c.f. your > dentist). Definitely we need a bigger meter. | >>>>> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... | >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] | Gravity, (why planets stay in orbit), electrons (though they are visible when | slammed into particular coatings), radiation (c.f. your dentist). So why does this not apply to God? Many people have has measurable experiences with God, an invisible force. > | >>>>> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... > | >>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > So why does this not apply to God? Nothing measurable. Nothing with any scientific evidence so far. > Many people have has measurable experiences with God, an invisible force. And many people have measurable experiences when schizophrenic, or thinking about elves or Santa. The existence of God is something that requires faith - John 1:18; 6:46 2 Cor 5:7 | > | >>>>> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... | > | >>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] | | The existence of God is something that requires faith - John 1:18; 6:46 2 Cor 5:7 You said: "Many things are not seen and yet exist" Does that take faith? > | > | >>>>> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... > | > | >>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Does that take faith? No. They have evidence that they exist. It this really that difficult to grasp? Invisible things can exist (glass; air, photons, electrons), but they must be evidenced in some way. If something is invisible and has no scientific evidence then it for all practical purposes does not exist. | > | > | >>>>> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... | > | > | >>>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] | evidenced in some way. If something is invisible and has no scientific evidence | then it for all practical purposes does not exist. So things that are not seen can be real to you, but not something like believing in God. ok > | > | > | >>>>> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... > | > | > | >>>> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > ok Did I say that? > | > | >>>>> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... > | > | >>>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Does that take faith? No faith needed since their effects are felt and known. > | >>>>> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... > | >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Many people have has measurable experiences with God, an invisible force. What did they measure it with and what were the measurements? | >> Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth... | > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | | There goes Gravity. And a few other things > Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that >the scientific method itself is a religious approach. How so? It >rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to >laws of nature. So when someone rejects belief in God, is he not >simply exchanging one type of faith for another? In some cases, >disbelief appears to be a deliberate refusal to face the truth. The scientific method has nothing to do with faith. It is a process of experimentation that yields data that explains how the real world works. Its called eveidence. Mountains of eveidence. Faith in an invisible deity in the sky is the suspension of reason and logic in favor of superstition and ignorance. > Astronomer Allan Sandage said: I find it quite improbable that such >order [in the universe] came out of chaos. There has to be some >organizing principle. Yes...gravity ! >God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for >the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing. The universe came from a by-product of extra dementional space called a "singularity". Its a process that has been occuring forever and will continue forever. It doesn't require God..just infinte time. > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:53:00 GMT, Renard Picard . > The scientific method has nothing to do with faith. It is a process of > experimentation that yields data that explains how the real world > works. Its called eveidence. Mountains of eveidence. and the evidence that man evolved from a common ancestor is.. where? and who observed it? >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:53:00 GMT, Renard Picard > . >> The scientific method has nothing to do with faith. It is a process of >> experimentation that yields data that explains how the real world >> works. Its called eveidence. Mountains of eveidence. > and the evidence that man evolved from a common ancestor is.. where? > and who observed it? Can you name any other kind of descent than from an ancestor? > >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:53:00 GMT, Renard Picard > > . [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Can you name any other kind of descent than from an ancestor? answer the question with another question. Didn't Jesus did that? > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:53:00 GMT, Renard Picard > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > and the evidence that man evolved from a common ancestor is.. where? Fossils and DNA. Heard of those? > and who observed it? Scientists. You know, like the guys who invented the computer you're using. >> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:53:00 GMT, Renard Picard >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Fossils and DNA. Heard of those? The Watchtower literature doesn't cover such things nor approve the reading of them. They're pro-creation like the poster BlueJedi, a creationist Jehovah's Witness. >> and who observed it? > > Scientists. You know, like the guys who invented the computer you're > using. > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:53:00 GMT, Renard Picard > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Scientists. You know, like the guys who invented the computer you're > using. Scientis been around a few millions years? excellent. Tekkamen schrieb: >>> and the evidence that man evolved from a common ancestor is.. where >> Fossils and DNA. Heard of those? >>> and who observed it? >> Scientists. You know, like the guys who invented the computer you're >> using. > Scientis been around a few millions years? excellent. Don't drink and post, mate. The grey mass between your ears is used by intelligent people to think before they pour out. Fossils and DNA - which on this two words don't you understand? Signaturegods r 4 pussys > Tekkamen schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- > gods r 4 pussys I am more interested in the scientist who was around those millions of years and observed evolution. dimwit wrote: > I am more interested in the scientist who was around those millions of > years and observed evolution. No, you are not interested in that, you even don't understand the word scientist, dimwit. You only produce your density to the rest of the world. Answers you get are above your abilities, so the conclusion is that you are handicapped. You cannot go from door to door to annoy other citizens like your brothers in faith do, so you must stick at your computer and do the same there. Because you start to whine if you can't collect answers: scientists don't need to stand beside a tree to watch evolution. Only brilliant brains like you must stand beside their dog to believe that it will sh.t a while after it ate. Signaturegods r 4 pussys >dimwit wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >brains like you must stand beside their dog to believe that it will sh.t >a while after it ate. It's the net.psychopath Jabriol. What do you expect? | >dimwit wrote: | > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | | It's the net.psychopath Jabriol. What do you expect? I bet you dream of Jabriol in your sleep. Do you have sexual fantasies about Jabriol too? I bet so. Maybe medication would sooth your mind regarding Jabriol. Ask a doctor. DO IT SOON!! > || >dimwit wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > DO IT SOON!! He is own by Jabriol at this point. > dimwit wrote: > >> I am more interested in the scientist who was around those millions of >> years and observed evolution. > > No, you are not interested in that Mind reader are you now? > (snip) > I am more interested in the scientist who was around those millions of > years and observed evolution. Ahhh, so is a "fossil" really that difficult a concept for you to grasp? >> (snip) > >> I am more interested in the scientist who was around those millions of >> years and observed evolution. > > Ahhh, so is a "fossil" really that difficult a concept for you to grasp? Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe fossils are old. They are told by the WTS that Satan created and planted them to fool people into turning away from their great god Jehovah. > >> (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that Satan created and planted them to fool people into turning away from > their great god Jehovah. Well we can now say we have proof that Carol is a Liar when she said she hang around JW for years. wanna make a bet Christopher Lee will believe this one too? >>> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >that Satan created and planted them to fool people into turning away from >their great god Jehovah. NAUGHTY Satan! (:-) >>>> (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > NAUGHTY Satan! The sad part is - they believe it and will look no further. One weekend we were taking some neighborhood children to the Museum Of Natural History in NYC. My JW friends would not allow their children to go to this Museum because of the fossils and other, what they felt were "dangerous stumblers" their children would see there. BTW, their children are not allowed to join the boy or girl-scouts either. They see Satan everywhere and live in constant stress of his/her/it's influence. > (:-) Satan is everywhere, Kathy. And they might learn something about forbidden topics, God forbid! Saul Levy >The sad part is - they believe it and will look no further. One weekend we >were taking some neighborhood children to the Museum Of Natural History in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >> (:-) >>>>> (snip) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >the boy or girl-scouts either. They see Satan everywhere and live in >constant stress of his/her/it's influence. For them, truth, destroys hope. > > (snip) > > I am more interested in the scientist who was around those millions of > > years and observed evolution. > > Ahhh, so is a "fossil" really that difficult a concept for you to grasp? Piltdown man >> > (snip) >> > I am more interested in the scientist who was around those millions of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Piltdown man Jesus. >>> (snip) >>> I am more interested in the scientist who was around those millions of >>> years and observed evolution. >> Ahhh, so is a "fossil" really that difficult a concept for you to grasp? > > Piltdown man So? >>>> (snip) >>>> I am more interested in the scientist who was around those millions of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >So? Piltdown man was a joke when I was a kid, more than 50 years ago. I remember when fluoroscopic testing finally confirmed it, but even before that it was known to be a hoax. It was an anomaly and anomalies get investigated. I was gobsmacked when I moved to the USA and heard people I had previously respected using it as a "reason" to doubt a cornerstone of science. I remember reading one of Conan Doyle's Professor Challenger stories, where they found a prehistoric man of Piltdown origin, and complaining to my father. His explanation was that this was before they had realised it was a hoax, which made sense. But that was before I read that Conan Doyle was one of the suspects himself. > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:53:00 GMT, Renard Picard > . [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and the evidence that man evolved from a common ancestor is.. where? > and who observed it? Well, if you want just *one* data point, geneticists have observed that humans and apes share an RNA imprint of an ape virus at exactly the same location on our respective genomes. That's pretty powerful evidence that we had a common ancestor that was used by the virus as a vehicle to replicate its RNA, the shadow of which we all still carry. But then, you'd have to crack an *actual science book* to know stuff like that, and we can't have you getting that kind of an education, now can we? Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding skyeyes nine at cox dot net ed it? > Well, if you want just *one* data point, geneticists have observed > that humans and apes share an RNA imprint of an ape virus at exactly > the same location on our respective genomes. Humans share genes with a banana, so? >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:53:00 GMT, Renard Picard > . [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and the evidence that man evolved from a common ancestor is.. where? > and who observed it? And the evidence that man was magically created from dirt is.. where? And who observed it Antonio? > >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:53:00 GMT, Renard Picard > > . [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And the evidence that man was magically created from dirt is.. where? > And who observed it Antonio? You are asking a true monkey, which still has not evolved sufficiently to understand human language. If he could understand a bit and can't respond with language, he will jump up and down pointing his fingers to the sky........that's your answer. Just look the nearest ape in the eye, BlueJedi! lmao! Saul Levy >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:53:00 GMT, Renard Picard >. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >and the evidence that man evolved from a common ancestor is.. where? >and who observed it? |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message