On 6/5/2011 9:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

...
Yeah; it's called "college". Maybe if you'd attended and
taken a few physics classes you'd know what your quote
meant. Einstein also said (regarding QM) "God doesn't play
dice"; do you imagine that means he believed in an actual
deity?

Yes, I have noticed you use the same "Baffle With Bull****" tactics as
the children you associate with ... your thinking being, "I'll take the
topic away from hard physics into religion. Then, using strawman
arguments, I will attempt to use a persons personal beliefs to attack
their credibility. Now, once succeeding in that, I will "transfer" the
fact I appear correct over to the hard science -- effectively winning
the argument in hard science with less than truthful arguments."

Gee, where have we seen that before?

God doesn't play dice, obviously the rules and laws over our portion of
the universe are very fixed and rigid ... although in some far flung
corner they may differ ... only God would know, at this time.

But, as to Einstein, we have watched quacks hunt and attempt to
interpret, expand, etc. his words to allow various "fudge factors" which
he never intended ... usually with attempts to move discussions into
religious areas and begin debate on such books as the bible ... most
always the sign of the unethical and immature.

--

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, 05 Jun 2011 09:58:31 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith :

On 6/5/2011 9:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

...
Yeah; it's called "college". Maybe if you'd attended and
taken a few physics classes you'd know what your quote
meant. Einstein also said (regarding QM) "God doesn't play
dice"; do you imagine that means he believed in an actual
deity?

Yes, I have noticed you use the same "Baffle With Bull****" tactics as
the children you associate with ... your thinking being, "I'll take the
topic away from hard physics into religion. Then, using strawman
arguments, I will attempt to use a persons personal beliefs to attack
their credibility. Now, once succeeding in that, I will "transfer" the
fact I appear correct over to the hard science -- effectively winning
the argument in hard science with less than truthful arguments."

Gee, where have we seen that before?

Below, in your avoidance of the question.

God doesn't play dice, obviously the rules and laws over our portion of
the universe are very fixed and rigid ... although in some far flung
corner they may differ ... only God would know, at this time.

But, as to Einstein, we have watched quacks hunt and attempt to
interpret, expand, etc. his words to allow various "fudge factors" which
he never intended ... usually with attempts to move discussions into
religious areas and begin debate on such books as the bible ... most
always the sign of the unethical and immature.

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?
--

Bob C.

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

On 6/6/2011 9:48 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 09:58:31 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John :

On 6/5/2011 9:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

...
Yeah; it's called "college". Maybe if you'd attended and
taken a few physics classes you'd know what your quote
meant. Einstein also said (regarding QM) "God doesn't play
dice"; do you imagine that means he believed in an actual
deity?

Yes, I have noticed you use the same "Baffle With Bull****" tactics as
the children you associate with ... your thinking being, "I'll take the
topic away from hard physics into religion. Then, using strawman
arguments, I will attempt to use a persons personal beliefs to attack
their credibility. Now, once succeeding in that, I will "transfer" the
fact I appear correct over to the hard science -- effectively winning
the argument in hard science with less than truthful arguments."

Gee, where have we seen that before?

Below, in your avoidance of the question.

God doesn't play dice, obviously the rules and laws over our portion of
the universe are very fixed and rigid ... although in some far flung
corner they may differ ... only God would know, at this time.

But, as to Einstein, we have watched quacks hunt and attempt to
interpret, expand, etc. his words to allow various "fudge factors" which
he never intended ... usually with attempts to move discussions into
religious areas and begin debate on such books as the bible ... most
always the sign of the unethical and immature.

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 ...

--

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 1:02 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

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 1:54 PM, John Smith wrote:



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.

You can say THAT and then post THIS with a straight face?



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


Of course you have a cite for this....Right?



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.


Of course he never said that...You did.
So who created YOUR creator?



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.


You know, I'd ask for a cite (I know you don't have one) but
really who gives a **** what some dead physicist's religious
views were?

I'm more interested in why YOU believe in god, why YOU believe
in intelligent design, and why YOU believe in ether.

Well?


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


I'd say, accident, chance, luck and time...Lots and lots of time.


.... 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!


I look around with eyes open and I see absolutely zero evidence for
and gods. If you have evidence for these mythical creatures, bring
it forth. If not, you're merely reciting fairy tales.





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

On 6/6/2011 3:40 PM, HVAC wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:54 PM, John Smith wrote:



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.

You can say THAT and then post THIS with a straight face?



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


Of course you have a cite for this....Right?



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.


Of course he never said that...You did.
So who created YOUR creator?



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.


You know, I'd ask for a cite (I know you don't have one) but
really who gives a **** what some dead physicist's religious
views were?

I'm more interested in why YOU believe in god, why YOU believe
in intelligent design, and why YOU believe in ether.

Well?


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


I'd say, accident, chance, luck and time...Lots and lots of time.


... 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!


I look around with eyes open and I see absolutely zero evidence for
and gods. If you have evidence for these mythical creatures, bring
it forth. If not, you're merely reciting fairy tales.

Yes, we are already quite familiar with your rants, opinions, personal
attacks, off the wall comments, fantasies, visions, etc.

I am sure you will have something of importance to post in the future ...


--

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 Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:40:24 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by HVAC :

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.

Correct. And unlike organized religion, science has no
problem with admitting lack of knowledge, or with research
to discover reality.
--

Bob C.

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

On 6/7/2011 1:33 PM, Bob Casanova 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.

Correct. And unlike organized religion, science has no
problem with admitting lack of knowledge, or with research
to discover reality.



How's that old saying go?
"Science asks questions that may never be answered, religion has answers
that may never be questioned". Ya, that's it.




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

On 6/8/2011 2:24 AM, HVAC wrote:

...
How's that old saying go?
"Science asks questions that may never be answered, religion has answers
that may never be questioned". Ya, that's it.


Sounds about right, they are of differing purposes, one to deduce and
understand the mind of the creator and the laws he established in the
universe.

The other a set of rules and commandments meant to establish order over
successful societies.

--

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