🚀 go-pugleaf

On 27 jun, 14:56, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 1:10�am, Virgil <Vir...@gmale.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <1214552129.152...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
> > �The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Jun 26, 3:56?pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
> > > > <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > >> On Jun 27, 6:09 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>
> > > >>> W.A. Sawford wrote:
> > > >>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, rbwinn wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Jun 26, 5:05? am, RobertL <robertml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On Jun 26, 4:48? am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Jun 25, 7:27?pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>> Well, if no one proved it, then it was not proven. ? All you have done
> > > >>>>> is to say it was proven without showing any proof or anyone who is
> > > >>>>> suppsed to have done it. ?Atheists have said they have proven all
> > > >>>>> manner of things. ?Almost always it turns out to be something some
> > > >>>>> individual atheist put together that sounds good to other atheists.
> > > >>>>> Robert B. Winn
> > > >>>> I wasn't going to get involved in all this (unless it's Friday, which it
> > > >>>> isn't) but I can't stand it any longer (sigh).
> > > >>>> 'Atheists have said they have proven all manner of things.'
> > > >>>> Well, what exactly have they claimed to have proved, and which atheists
> > > >>>> have claimed it? ?Atheists don't actually need to 'prove' anything,
> > > >>>> because there is not a shred of evidence that god exists in the first
> > > >>>> place. The onus is not on atheists to prove the non-existence of god any
> > > >>>> more than the non-existence of the ravening bug-blatter beast of Traal.
> > > >>> Completely wrong. The concept of God is not a scientific hypotheis, nor
> > > >>> a fact.
> > > >>> So it can't be proven or disproven.
> > > >>> Its simply a shorthand for 'all the wide and wonderful stuff we cant get
> > > >>> a handle on; and feel scared by' more or less.
> > > >>> Atheism isn't so much denying His existence, nor yet keeping and open
> > > >>> mind on the subject (agnostic) its merely sidestepping the whole mess as
> > > >>> something one can simply do without.
> > > >>>> Show me some real evidence and I'll think about belief. Although actual
> > > >>>> evidence would of course remove the need for belief in the first place...
> > > >>> That's the whole point. Belief is a state of mind that has utility. Its
> > > >>> a little bit of Wise-ardry. Headology.
> > > >>> Wise-ards understand that believing in something is an action, not a
> > > >>> statement about its existence, or lack thereof.
> > > >>>> Wendy
> > > >> Your "god" is yours. ?Different people have more or less
> > > >> anthropomorphic ideas of gods. ?And the claim wasn't so much that your
> > > >> god of gaps was disproven (that would be a misnomer, as you're
> > > >> suggesting god is the stuff we don't know), but the literal biblical
> > > >> god is provably false. ?The most obviously wrong points would be the
> > > >> age of the universe, origin of species/types, and a world-wide flood.
> > > >> There are lots of other smaller details that are contradictory to
> > > >> reality as well, but could more easily be argued as lack of knowledge
> > > >> by transcribers.
>
> > > >> Al- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > So scientists can be proven wrong by
>
> > > Correct.
>
> > > Religious beliefs cannot be proven wrong, because they are �not a
> > > scientific theory: Since religion �predicts nothing that can be tested,
> > > its is never open to challenge on a scientific basis.
>
> > And while that sort of religious belief cannot be proved wrong by
> > science, it also cannot be proved right.
>
> > On matters of religion, as on many non-religious matters, science says
> > nothing.
>
> > However when the religious say that science is wrong, they usually have
> > no idea what they are talking about.
>
> > E.g., creationists and intelligent design freaks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, the fact is that scientists of today say that absolute time does
> not exist.  Except when they are talking about the length of time the
> earth has existed.  Then there is no relativity of time whatsoever.
> The Bible talks about relativity of time all the way through.  The sun
> stood still in the days of Joshua,  the sundial went backward in the
> days of Hezekiah, a day to God is a thousand years to man, etc.  I
> would have to lean toward relativity of time.  Everything I have
> encountered in life indicates that relativity of time exists.
> Robert B. Winn- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

I have noticed those bible places also,
I suppose the text as we see it now, is possible corrupted or is
perhaps trying to tell something else than it litterally says.
The effect of the sun "standing" still would be all of us speeding up
or breaking down 1500 km/h. As the passage about Joshua doesn't
mention any tidal effects, the sun couldn't really have stood "still".
A sundial going backwards would indicate a heavy earthquake or
something similar.
No way the earth's rotations is going to be backwards without all
humanity dying.

Time is relative but nont that relative:-)

Best to you,
and may tou sundial never go backwards!

Peter van Velzen
June 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands