Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...on-darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she “didn’t believe
in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish
that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually
swung down from the trees.”
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection, perhaps the
most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal that the reality she
lives in is not related in any serious way to the world she actually inhabits.
Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

Poet , they dont do common sense , nor logic ..


BTW

My welder has NOT be repaired .

Longevity-inc.com promised to sell me a working , functiong

welder . They lied .

They wont /cant repair nor redesign it to work .


Simon K is a JEW .

These welders arernt for welding , they're for selling ...

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:56:10 -0600, RBnDFW wrote:

Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...9/11/palin-on-
darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she
€œdidnt believe in the theory that human beings €” thinking, loving
beings €” originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the
sea€� or from €œmonkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.€�
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection,
perhaps the most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal
that the reality she lives in is not related in any serious way to the
world she actually inhabits. Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

Clearly the part of 'science' that you don't understand is that _nothing_
is considered proven -- _everything_ is taken as theory, and only after
there has been some evidence to let it graduate from 'hypothesis'. So
there can be theory with lots of evidence behind it, or theory without
much evidence, but _nothing_ in science goes beyond theory, because
scientists understand that the human mind is finite and we can never,
ever, understand everything, nor even any one thing completely.

We have _less_ solid evidence behind any theory of gravity than we do
behind the theory of evolution. So do you believe that God personally
holds his thumb on your head to keep you from floating off into space?

God made the universe _first_ and then we came along and hired Jimmy
Swaggart, Jim Baker, Oral Roberts and Pat Robertson to write the Bible
for us. That makes the physical evidence of the world we live in the
first Word of God, and the Bible is a poor second. _Anyone_ who wants to
take a document written by people and claim from it absolute knowledge of
_anything_ (much less everything) is an arrogant so-and-so who's trying
to displace God.

Clearly you, in your arrogance, are doing so, and want us to believe a
book written by people -- greedy, fallen, self-centered and power hungry
people -- before we believe the first word of God. You're only
comfortable with something called 'God' when you've put him into a box
that's just the size and shape that you want, and you've stomped the lid
shut and you've locked the box.

Of course, when you do so you neglect the fact that God is infinite, and
simply won't fit into any box that a human can make...

--
www.wescottdesign.com

RBnDFW wrote:

Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...on-darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she “didn’t believe
in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish
that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually
swung down from the trees.”
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection, perhaps the
most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal that the reality she
lives in is not related in any serious way to the world she actually inhabits.
Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

It was theory when it was proposed all those years ago. Evolution has
since been proven and is now fact, unlike the theories of various
superstitions which despite thousands of years of trying have yet to
find any supporting evidence, much less proof.

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

RBnDFW wrote:

Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...on-darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she
"didn't believe
in the theory that human beings - thinking, loving beings - originated
from fish
that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who
eventually
swung down from the trees."
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection,
perhaps the
most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal that the
reality she
lives in is not related in any serious way to the world she actually
inhabits.
Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

It was theory when it was proposed all those years ago. Evolution has
since been proven and is now fact, unlike the theories of various
superstitions which despite thousands of years of trying have yet to
find any supporting evidence, much less proof.

God has a zero probability of existence because you can't quantify it.

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:49:51 -0500, Buerste wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

RBnDFW wrote:

Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...2009/11/palin-
on-darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she
"didn't believe
in the theory that human beings - thinking, loving beings -
originated from fish
that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who
eventually
swung down from the trees."
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection,
perhaps the
most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal that the
reality she
lives in is not related in any serious way to the world she actually
inhabits.
Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

It was theory when it was proposed all those years ago. Evolution has
since been proven and is now fact, unlike the theories of various
superstitions which despite thousands of years of trying have yet to
find any supporting evidence, much less proof.

God has a zero probability of existence because you can't quantify it.

I'm more in line with Stephen J. Gould's opinion that science and
religion address two separate realms of knowledge -- he calls them
"magisteria" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
overlapping_magisteria).

Lack of proof isn't proof of lack. You cannot state scientifically that
the supernatural _can't_ exist, although you're welcome to _believe_ it
with all your heart as long as you don't try to ram that belief -- with
all your own personal ramifications about what I must and must not do --
down _my_ throat.

(Although the Abrahamic Jehovah that matches a literal interpretation of
the bible is about as likely as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, IMHO. But
if he's out there, I refuse to believe that he's a liar -- hence I'm a
lot more ready to believe that Darwin is right and the rocks are right,
which means that the authors of the bible are wrong and Pat Robertson is
a dangerous lunatic with too many followers).

--
www.wescottdesign.com

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:49:51 -0500, Buerste wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

RBnDFW wrote:

Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...2009/11/palin-
on-darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she
"didn't believe
in the theory that human beings - thinking, loving beings -
originated from fish
that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who
eventually
swung down from the trees."
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection,
perhaps the
most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal that the
reality she
lives in is not related in any serious way to the world she actually
inhabits.
Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

It was theory when it was proposed all those years ago. Evolution has
since been proven and is now fact, unlike the theories of various
superstitions which despite thousands of years of trying have yet to
find any supporting evidence, much less proof.

God has a zero probability of existence because you can't quantify it.

I'm more in line with Stephen J. Gould's opinion that science and
religion address two separate realms of knowledge -- he calls them
"magisteria" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
overlapping_magisteria).

Lack of proof isn't proof of lack. You cannot state scientifically that
the supernatural _can't_ exist, although you're welcome to _believe_ it
with all your heart as long as you don't try to ram that belief -- with
all your own personal ramifications about what I must and must not do --
down _my_ throat.

(Although the Abrahamic Jehovah that matches a literal interpretation of
the bible is about as likely as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, IMHO. But
if he's out there, I refuse to believe that he's a liar -- hence I'm a
lot more ready to believe that Darwin is right and the rocks are right,
which means that the authors of the bible are wrong and Pat Robertson is
a dangerous lunatic with too many followers).

--
www.wescottdesign.com

Let me rephrase:

"God has a zero probability of existence in PETE'S mind because PETE is
incapable of qualifying God's existence in terms PETE can understand"

That's more like what I meant.

Buerste wrote:

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:49:51 -0500, Buerste wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

RBnDFW wrote:

Cliff wrote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...2009/11/palin-
on-darwin.html
[
[
Elsewhere in this volume she talks about creationism, saying she
"didn't believe
in the theory that human beings - thinking, loving beings -
originated from fish
that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who
eventually
swung down from the trees."
]

So we have a national candidate whose views on natural selection,
perhaps the
most important theory in recent scientific history, reveal that the
reality she
lives in is not related in any serious way to the world she actually
inhabits.
Good going, Senator McCain
]

What part of "theory" do you not understand?

It was theory when it was proposed all those years ago. Evolution has
since been proven and is now fact, unlike the theories of various
superstitions which despite thousands of years of trying have yet to
find any supporting evidence, much less proof.

God has a zero probability of existence because you can't quantify it.

I'm more in line with Stephen J. Gould's opinion that science and
religion address two separate realms of knowledge -- he calls them
"magisteria" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
overlapping_magisteria).

Lack of proof isn't proof of lack. You cannot state scientifically that
the supernatural _can't_ exist, although you're welcome to _believe_ it
with all your heart as long as you don't try to ram that belief -- with
all your own personal ramifications about what I must and must not do --
down _my_ throat.

(Although the Abrahamic Jehovah that matches a literal interpretation of
the bible is about as likely as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, IMHO. But
if he's out there, I refuse to believe that he's a liar -- hence I'm a
lot more ready to believe that Darwin is right and the rocks are right,
which means that the authors of the bible are wrong and Pat Robertson is
a dangerous lunatic with too many followers).

--
www.wescottdesign.com

Let me rephrase:

"God has a zero probability of existence in PETE'S mind because PETE is
incapable of qualifying God's existence in terms PETE can understand"

That's more like what I meant.

Another pathetic superstitions micro mind heard from. So sad you can't
comprehend science so you have to make up fairy tales to shield yourself
from the real world...