In article , says...

On 6/5/2011 3:29 PM, BDK wrote:
In , says...

On 6/5/2011 1:27 PM, BDK wrote:


OUR side? You mean the side of utter kooktardery? Well, I guess I
haven't ever been on that side, no.
That's FUD-master spin that even Hitler would improve of.

FUD? Is this what it means?


I always thought it was like Elmer Fud....

"Shhhhh, be vewy, vewy quiet. We're hunting Venus Wabbits".


Now, don't get upset, Guth, we're just having a bit
of sport. At your expense, of course. :-)

One of the most amusing things over the years has been decoding what the
terms used by the kookers. They just assume that other people know what
the hell they are raving about, and then get angry when they are asked
about it. With Guthball, it's a trick to decode just one entire
paragraph, let alone one of his multi paragraphed Rothschild and pretend
atheist raves.


Naaa, what is kewl is watching you find tempests in teapots and bogeymen
under your beds ...

Regards,
JS

LOL, you're the one doing that, Johnny KqqK. From birthtard stuff to
whatever, if it's kookery they are selling, you're usually first in line
to buy it, no matter how insanely stupid it is.

--
BDK- Top of the government shill heap for over 10 years running!

On 6/6/2011 10:02 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:42:09 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John :

On 6/5/2011 11:38 AM, HVAC wrote:

...
Who gives a flying fandango **** what Einstein thought about god?

The fact is that god, much like the ether that you love so much,
has zero value to any computations. They can both be treated EXACTLY
as if they do not exist at all.

That's a hint-and-a-half for your ass.
...

The only fact here is that your theory of spontaneous generation fails
in the most minor of analysis

What "theory of spontaneous generation" is that? I assume
you're not referring to the notion of the instantaneous
appearance of multicellular life directly from non-living
matter, since that was debunked by science (Pasteur) over a
century ago.

... hence, the reason for Einsteins logic.

Einstein was referring to the beginning of the universe
(what we call the Big Bang), not the start of life.

Your religious beliefs involving the particular leap of faith you take
has been noted, already ...

What "leap of faith" is that? Acceptance of evidence and the
laws of science?

Have you come up with something new?

Have you?

I think when Einstein proposes the requirement of the gravitational
ether as being necessary to his theory of relativity and the very
propagation/transmission of light, to be science and obeying the laws of
the universe ... I find you simply doing obfuscation. And, attempting
to off on tangents ... and in circles.

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 12:14:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Brad Guth
:

On Jun 5, 9:38*am, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:07:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Brad Guth
:

On Jun 4, 11:40*am, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:23:12 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith :

snip

...we will never know how radio waves (or any other waves, for
that matter) transverse and are propagated by the ether though space.
EM radiation doesn't require a propagation medium.
What's the all-inclusive population or average photon density per
given km3 of ISM, or better to know that of the IGM? (I'm talking of
accounting for everything from at least EIR/ELF [1km] to those
extremely hard Gamma of .001 nm)

Damfino, but Google is Your Friend.

And what's the relevance?

So, how many photons per km3 is there way out between the galaxies and
all them stars?

See my comment and question above? Did you somehow miss
their meanings?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 12:21:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by :

On Jun 5, 5:36*am, HVAC wrote:
On 6/4/2011 5:22 PM, John Smith wrote:



I have at least a half-a-dozen physics books on my shelves which miss it
to ... :-(

Wow! You actually own a physics book?

Yes, but it is there that any similarity between you and I ends ...

You see, I actually read/understand them.

Velikovsky's 'World In Collision', really isn't a physics book...Is it?

--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

No, it is not a physics textbook . However -- some of Velikivsky's
ideas were found to be correct , several years after it's
publication

Specifically which ideas? Cites, please.

. Real genius is seldom recognized during his/her
life . . .
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

On 6/6/2011 1:02 PM, John Smith wrote:


Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the
context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an
actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the
term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to
something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by
Michaelson and Morley, or not?

I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent
creator a strong possibility!



Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't)
all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator?

To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually
honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question
of what started everything.

To say 'god did it', is just giving up.









--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

John Smith wrote:
Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the
context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an
actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the
term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to
something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by
Michaelson and Morley, or not?

I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent
creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but,
everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of
"thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ...

I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are.

In 1927

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the
actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of
his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic
causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior
spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and
transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the
highest importance-but for us, not for God. "


In 1945
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been
an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a
personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not
share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is
mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature
and of our being."

In 1954
"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. "

Shortly before he died
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of
human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive
legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Keith

On 6/6/2011 10:40 AM, HVAC wrote:

...
I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent
creator a strong possibility!



Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't)
all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator?

To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually
honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question
of what started everything.

To say 'god did it', is just giving up.


Your constant attempts to work the edges, to peel up the logic and
reason is dishonest.

Einstein simply, in looking at the structure(s), laws and principals
which he sees, and is overwhelmed at the mind and intelligence it would
take to create such, and that such is the only reason conceivable for
its' existence ... I know of no comments or text of his which ventures
to understand "the creation of the creator", or claim he has a theory on
where the creators mind comes from, of from what it is formed.

He is simply forced into accepting things as they are, appear, and what
proofs exist in these observations ... and why he was brought to allow
for intelligent design.

The religion of atheism, and a specific definition of "atheism"
encompasses the denial of a creator, an intelligence which designed and
constructed all which we see, keeps those who have found a religious
belief in atheism of allowing for anything, other than accident, chance,
luck and spontaneous generation ... obviously, Einstein refused to make
the leap of faith into that/those principle(s.)

To make any progress in any direction, one must first see the reality
and truths of what lie before their senses, to refuse simply because
"you can't believe what your eyes and senses tell you, is a religious
belief in and of itself!

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On 6/6/2011 1:03 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:



Most people teach their children to see the beauty in a rainbow.

I taught mine to see the secrets of the universe in a rainbow.

I showed mine both; they're not mutually exclusive.


Agreed. But the beauty is in the secrets that rainbows reveal.

The reason I even mentioned this was because when my daughter
was about 8-9 years old, she asked me about a rainbow...Actually
a prismatic effect on the wall from sunlight coming in my office
window and refracting through my aquarium. When I told her that a
very sensitive thermometer would read different temperatures for
the different colors, she was captivated.

She graduated cum laude from Saint Anslem's, and 2 years ago from
Boston College with a PHD in physics.

Secrets indeed.


Religion is for weak-minded fools who are afraid of death.

Only those religions which incorporate the idea of a
conscious afterlife. Many don't.


LOL...My youngest daughter recently announced to me that she was
a Buddhist. She claimed it wasn't a religion. I asked her if the
Buddha had superpowers. She said that he did. That was case closed
for me. I do like the Buddhist idea that what happens after you die
is of no concern of you NOW.




--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On 6/6/2011 10:44 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the
context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an
actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the
term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to
something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by
Michaelson and Morley, or not?

I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent
creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but,
everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of
"thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ...

I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are.

In 1927

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the
actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of
his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic
causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior
spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and
transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the
highest importance-but for us, not for God. "


In 1945
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been
an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a
personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not
share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is
mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature
and of our being."

In 1954
"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. "

Shortly before he died
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of
human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive
legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Keith



Yes, here you come with your religious obfuscations, beliefs, denials,
acceptances, etc., again!

I don't remember anyone mentioning such things as Jesus, church, mormon,
catholic, jehovah witnesses, protestants, miracles, doctorine, the great
flood, angels, jews, etc.

In our discussion, God = Creator = Intelligent Design = structure =
logic = etc.

For some reason, your hatred or wish to attack religion makes it central
to your life and beliefs, and you attempt to inject it into any
discussion that exists here and have us participate with you ...

You start off on tangents of primitive legends and childish persuasions,
and wish to start discussing biblical beliefs!

Since you have injected these things and claim to have a knowledge of
them and that your ideas on them have bearing on what we discuss, you
develop them, you explain how, you develop text around them ...

To me, your moronic blathering is nothing more than an insane background
noise which is annoying ... if others wish to engage you in this, have
at it ... I have no time for whatever you think you are doing. I simply
have no interest ... you do, or you wouldn't not maintain such central
focus to it ...

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

Bit, bit, bit How many names does that MOFO have?
cuhulin