tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post998459323584223625..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolutionist Professor Quotes LaplaceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55312807067810439762013-04-08T22:18:02.973-07:002013-04-08T22:18:02.973-07:00give the words to the the bitterly satirical criti...give the words to the the bitterly satirical critique colors <a href="http://www.honeybuy.com/c/Wedding-Dresses-2013" rel="nofollow"><strong>wedding dresses 2013</strong></a>, people feel that the so-called revolution was the scene in the history of burlesque and Adger playing as funny as his mouth, he in sharp Bifeng soak into very painful feelings, people feel like Adger hit his mouth as sad. This objectively true description profound sharp anatomical characteristics of the a sober grim realism. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62868414032493874802013-02-20T15:27:52.846-08:002013-02-20T15:27:52.846-08:00The whole truth,
"Cornelius, why do you pers...The whole truth,<br /><br />"Cornelius, why do you persist in such deceitful distortions of the truth? Someone who does NOT believe in a god is NOT religious."<br /><br />While the term 'religious' is usually applied to those who believe in the existence of a god or gods, it is not exclusive to such beliefs. Any one can be deemed religious if he holds strictly to a set of beliefs. Therefore, one can be classified as religious if he is devoted to the teachings of Socrates for example.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86637615237901463432013-02-20T11:19:20.406-08:002013-02-20T11:19:20.406-08:00Ian H,
"For a Christian there can be no free...Ian H,<br /><br />"For a Christian there can be no free will. However much they believe they might be choosing freely, if their God exists then it is an illusion."<br /><br />This is logical nonsense. Knowledge of the future does not demand predetermination. Because an omnipotent being can know what choices will be made does not mean the individual making those choices does not possess free will.<br /><br />Also, knowing a future event does not mean that event already exists. The hammer analogy applies here as well. I know when I drop the hammer that it will fall. However, it does not fall until I do, in fact, drop it. Therefore, I know the future event of the falling hammer, but the event does not exist until I drop the hammer. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49830485544628105512013-02-20T11:04:15.825-08:002013-02-20T11:04:15.825-08:00velikovskys,
"And likewise He could use natu...velikovskys,<br /><br />"And likewise He could use natural mechanisms to achieve His goals,just like dropping the hammer."<br /><br />Logically, as he is the source of nature. It's evolutionists who try to do away with God by appealing to natural explanations for all phenomena. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3969340424363040302013-02-19T21:06:59.883-08:002013-02-19T21:06:59.883-08:00Nic,
However, it is not predetermined that I will ...<b>Nic,<br />However, it is not predetermined that I will indeed let go of the hammer. So I can in fact know future events will occur without them being predetermined.</b><br /><br />And likewise He could use natural mechanisms to achieve His goals,just like dropping the hammer.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81270076721059733722013-02-19T18:22:44.445-08:002013-02-19T18:22:44.445-08:00Ian H,
"In Genesis, God warns Adam that he w...Ian H,<br /><br />"In Genesis, God warns Adam that he will certainly die on the day he eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That doesn't happen. Adam and Eve are tossed out of Eden and he lives to be 900 or so."<br /><br />Yes, Ian, Adam does die as God said he would. True, it was 900 years later, but as Adam was created to live eternally, dying 900 years later does not alter the fact he did die. In fact he began to die the day he ate the fruit.<br /><br />"Apart from the fact the the two stories are contradictory concerning God's powers, the prediction concerning Peter is evidence of knowledge of the future which in turn implies that the future already exists, in other words, all is predetermined.<br /><br />They are in no way contradictory. Knowing the future does not mean the future is predetermined. I know if I let go of a hammer in a place where gravity is in play, it will fall to the ground. However, it is not predetermined that I will indeed let go of the hammer. So I can in fact know future events will occur without them being predetermined.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8123449291868302042013-02-17T15:23:29.937-08:002013-02-17T15:23:29.937-08:00If you felt differently I would be concerned,you a...If you felt differently I would be concerned,you are a perfect reverse barometer. Thanks.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83771476855408208932013-02-17T11:15:02.494-08:002013-02-17T11:15:02.494-08:00You are stupid as shit, Veli. Adios.You are stupid as shit, Veli. Adios.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57605281394516990482013-02-17T11:14:01.981-08:002013-02-17T11:14:01.981-08:00You are an idiot, Spedding. It's a good thing ...You are an idiot, Spedding. It's a good thing you are no longer a Christian. God knows Christianity can do without more idiots like you. LOL. And, by all means, be an evolutionist. They, on the other hand, welcome morons like you with open arms. LOL.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41583540524879677122013-02-17T08:32:31.579-08:002013-02-17T08:32:31.579-08:00Louis Savain February 16, 2013 at 12:22 PM
[...]...<i><b>Louis Savain</b> February 16, 2013 at 12:22 PM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />I am a Christian but that does not mean that I believe every stupid crap that some brain-dead Christians believe in. It's not just evolutionists that are stupid. I don't worship either Christians or Christianity. Hell, I don't worship the Bible either. That would be idolatry. I only worship the creator.</i><br /><br />You can call yourself a Christian but that does not mean that you speak for the whole or even the majority of Christians or that they share your beliefs.<br /><br />When I was a Christian, the doctrine was most certainly that omniscience and omnipotence were attributes of God. If you reject that, you are denying that God is the Supreme Being. That leads to two consequences: first, it demotes God to just one of an unknown number of other highly-advanced and powerful aliens and, second, it undermines any claim of supreme moral authority.<br /><br />Why someone would want to worship some extraterrestrial is beyond me. It's certainly not mainstream Christian belief.<br /><br /><i>This is hogwash. The Christian God certainly does not know everything.</i><br /><br />Really? He's confirmed this to you personally?<br /><br /><i>Genesis mentions that God regretted creating man at one point. How can you know everything and have regrets?</i><br /><br />You don't worship the Bible but you still cite it as an authority on what God thinks and feels?<br /><br /><i>If God gives us a prophecy about the future, it's not because he can see a future that is already predetermined, but because he has the power to make certain things happen if he so chooses.</i><br /><br />The problem for Christians is that the Bible is inconsistent, eve contradictory.<br /><br />In Genesis, God warns Adam that he will certainly die <i>on the day</i> he eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That doesn't happen. Adam and Eve are tossed out of Eden and he lives to be 900 or so.<br /><br />On the other hand, in the New Testament, Jesus predicts that Peter will disown him three times, which is what actually happens according to the story.<br /><br />Apart from the fact the the two stories are contradictory concerning God's powers, the prediction concerning Peter is evidence of knowledge of the future which in turn implies that the future already exists, in other words, all is predetermined.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25872484757337648832013-02-17T04:22:04.587-08:002013-02-17T04:22:04.587-08:00Louis,
If you know that X is not needed, it is pr...<b>Louis,<br /><br />If you know that X is not needed, it is precisely because you have a notion in your mind as to what X is. If X stands for God, that notion is a religious one. Again, get a effing clue</b><br /><br />Incorrect Louis, it doesn't matter what x is ,it is not needed. 1+1 +x= 2, now x might equal your IQ in which case the equation makes sense but it still is not needed.<br /><br />Now if Laplace said that God could not have created the solar system,that is a religious statement, he merely said adding god or anything else to the equation was unnecessary.<br /><br />Now of course if you can quantify the Power of God perhaps you can show Laplace incorrect after all you have refuted Einstein, Laplace should be a clinchvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25700926089034522042013-02-16T12:43:40.215-08:002013-02-16T12:43:40.215-08:00Veli, you stupid idiot,
If you know that X is not...Veli, you stupid idiot,<br /><br />If you know that X is not needed, it is precisely because you have a notion in your mind as to what X is. If X stands for God, that notion is a religious one. Again, get a effing clue.<br /><br />On the subject of determinism, let me just say that the universe is probabilistic because there is no time dimension. Why? Because a time dimension would make motion impossible. Surprise! This is the reason that those in the know, know that nothing can move in Einstein's spacetime. Sir Karl Popper called it Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens. Source: <a href="http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html" rel="nofollow">Conjectures and Refutations</a>.<br /><br />If there is no time dimension, it follows that nature cannot calculate temporal intervals. The only way to prevent violations in conservation principles in the long run is to use probability. You should thank me because I just taught you the reason that a subatomic particle like the neutron has a probabilistic decay. Physicists don't know this. So be grateful, goddammit. <br /><br />This is all I'm going to say on this topic. Those of you who are interested in understanding why a time dimension makes motion impossible can read <a href="http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/02/nothing-can-move-in-spacetime.html" rel="nofollow">Nothing Can Move in Spacetime</a> or <a href="http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-falsify-einsteins-physics-for.html" rel="nofollow">How to Falsify Einstein's Physics, for Dummies</a>.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60287994509784821552013-02-16T12:32:13.283-08:002013-02-16T12:32:13.283-08:00Just to be clear ,BA. The essence of God is indepe...Just to be clear ,BA. The essence of God is independent of man's belief. velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43781542399458654562013-02-16T12:22:26.993-08:002013-02-16T12:22:26.993-08:00Spedding, the religionist:
If you are a Christian...Spedding, the religionist:<br /><br /><i>If you are a Christian then you have no choice but to believe the future is already determined.</i><br /><br />I am a Christian but that does not mean that I believe every stupid crap that some brain-dead Christians believe in. It's not just evolutionists that are stupid. I don't worship either Christians or Christianity. Hell, I don't worship the Bible either. That would be idolatry. I only worship the creator.<br /><br /><i>One attribute of the Christian God is omniscience, He knows all that can be known. If God exhibits knowledge of the future then it must already exist - already be determined - in order for it to be known. God shows knowledge of the future in the Bible therefore it must already exist.</i><br /><br />This is hogwash. The Christian God certainly does not know everything. Genesis mentions that God regretted creating man at one point. How can you know everything and have regrets?<br /><br />If God gives us a prophecy about the future, it's not because he can see a future that is already predetermined, but because he has the power to make certain things happen if he so chooses.<br /><br />Use those two neurons between your ears and get a clue. Evolutionists are more pathetic in their religiosity than those that they accuse of being religious.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29234272864194326282013-02-16T10:28:11.276-08:002013-02-16T10:28:11.276-08:00First, BA your comment actually was interesting to...First, BA your comment actually was interesting to read as opposed to your usual style<br /><br /><b>As to physics, General Relativity had, even before the discovery of the Cosmic Background, forced science to consider the ex-nihilo creation of the entire universe (Lemaître</b><br /><br />As I understand it , not ex nihilo, from a singularity. You are correct,the good Jesuit father,did propose the " Big Bang"' in direct conflict with the ID hero Fred Hoyle.<br /><br /><b>But why does Vel present this issue of 'natural evil' as if belief in God is somehow diametrically opposed to belief in physics and/or Natural Law?? The reason why is simply because Vel, as with Darwin before him, has failed to reconcile the problem of 'natural' evil with the reality of a infinitely good God</b><br /><br />Except for the fact that I didn't even mention evil. My unanswered question is how does one separate the design from the natural when dealing with an unknown designer with unknown powers and unknown goals. Does everything require require primary causation by the designer/ god or can nature provide direct causation? And how do we know it?<br /><br /><b>But Christian Theists never claimed we were in heaven in the first place, but that we live in a fallen world. Thus why should vel presuppose heavenly perfection in a fallen world so as rail against God? He clearly has a distorted view of reality.,, </b><br /><br />Are you hallucinating BA? Nothing you are saying is remotely what I believe or said. Seriously provide evidence that I am arguing imperfect design equals no God, or railing against God. And Amy Grant? Ice pick in the eardrum is preferable<br /><br /><b>If you think of this world as a place intended simply for our happiness, you find it quite intolerable: think of it as a place of training and correction and it’s not so bad</b><br /><br />"It could be worse" , high praise for a design. "Your car may blow up and kill the occupants but just think of the good mileage it gets" <br /><br /><b>Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?<br />I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish</b><br /><br />Better be good and submissive or I will drop a ton of debris on you. Or maybe I will anyway. Nice Guy<br /><br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41983818743832420972013-02-16T06:26:52.846-08:002013-02-16T06:26:52.846-08:00Neal ,
This is certainly an interesting subject t...<b> Neal ,<br /><br />This is certainly an interesting subject that is enriched by belief in God. Atheists put it into a narrow and depressing straightjacket of scientism. Better to leave all the options are open.</b><br /><br />That is essentially my question,how does one separate out the " god effect" from the laws of nature effect? Is all unexplained phenomenon the " god effect" , per Newton? How can we measure God? After all that is what science does, measure things.Are you familiar with occasionalism, concurrentism and mere conservationism? <br /><br /><b>I think of this basic analogy. Through intelligent design man is able to craft an airplane that can overcome the law of gravity by utilizing the law of aerodynamics. I believe God is able to utilize the most fundamental laws, including the fabric of time itself.</b><br /><br />By definition God is capable of supernatural actions, whereas human intelligence is not. <br /><br /><b>We can see how a meteorite can be formed by consistent application of natural law. We do not see how life comes from non life by unguided chemical processes. In this analogy, life is the space ship, reproduction of life from life is the natural law. </b><br /><br /><br />We may be in exactly in Newton's place. He thought the natural law that governs motion was inadequate, He introduced X, the unknown power of God. Laplace found an answer to overcome the problem without the introduction of a Deus ex Machina. God was unharmed in the process.<br /><br />The problem is where does our proven ignorance,after al we are finite beings, account for the unknown and the unknown power of God start and stop? <br /><br />Is it helpful to further acquisition of knowledge or hinder it? <br /><br /><b>What in our universe required design beyond the operation of unguided physics? I think we know enough about biology to know that life does not come from non-life without intelligent guidance. I also think that genuine animal speciation doesn't appear to happen without guidance either. </b><br /><br />Just as Newton was convinced that God must be in the equation for celestial movements, just as those who believe disease was caused by the divine. So this is where we part, I think it is way too early to put God into the equation. It adds nothing. It is a factor which defies the laws that science studies. <br /><br />It is the easy way out. It also seems conceited to believe that our present knowledge of biology is definitive enough to require God's direct intervention as an answer. Unless our religious belief requires it.<br /><br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43385971267590413362013-02-16T05:21:22.072-08:002013-02-16T05:21:22.072-08:00Thank you ,BA . Perhaps with our knowledge today d...Thank you ,BA . Perhaps with our knowledge today determinism is untenable, was it in Newton's time,or Laplace's time or even in Einstein's? <br /><br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39116360254532757792013-02-16T04:50:32.157-08:002013-02-16T04:50:32.157-08:00Louis Savain February 15, 2013 at 7:41 PM
[...]
...<i><b>Louis Savain</b> February 15, 2013 at 7:41 PM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Laplace, like Einstein after him and Newton before him, believed in determinism. But we all know that determinism is pure unmitigated crackpottery, don't we now?</i><br /><br />If you are a Christian then you have no choice but to believe the future is already determined.<br /><br />One attribute of the Christian God is omniscience, He knows all that can be known. If God exhibits knowledge of the future then it must already exist - already be determined - in order for it to be known. God shows knowledge of the future in the Bible therefore it must already exist.<br /><br />For a Christian there can be no free will. However much they believe they might be choosing freely, if their God exists then it is an illusion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14515511032876769972013-02-16T04:33:06.097-08:002013-02-16T04:33:06.097-08:00One of those serendipitous little miracles that ha...One of those serendipitous little miracles that happen so often,,, This is one of the top Stories on Physorg this morning:<br /><br />Researchers demonstrate Heisenberg uncertainty principle at macro level - February 15, 2013<br />Excerpt: It was Heisenberg who famously noted that it was impossible to measure the momentum of an object and its position at the same time. As an example, he pointed out that using a microscope to look at a single electron, would require shining light on it. Those photons would cause the electron to move slightly, changing its momentum. Up till now, researchers testing or demonstrating this principle have worked at the micro level because attempting to do so with objects large enough to be seen with the naked eye seemed impossible due to the many variables at play. In this new research, the team in Colorado showed that this not necessarily the case. <br />They started by building a square drum frame out of silicon, with each side 0.5 millimeters long. They then stretched a thin film of silicon nitride over the skin to create the drum head. The drum was placed in a vacuum between two very tiny mirrors and was chilled to just 4 degrees above absolute zero to eliminate extraneous noise. The experiment was conducted by shooting a laser at the drum and measuring how much the head was distended by the photons striking it as they were bounced back and forth between the mirrors. As more photons struck the drum, greater fluctuations occurred in the measurements recorded, distorting the readings, and proving that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can indeed be demonstrated with objects large enough to be seen with the naked eye.<br />http://phys.org/news/2013-02-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle-macro.htmlbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23390591711069484642013-02-16T04:18:09.535-08:002013-02-16T04:18:09.535-08:00Notes of interest:
Uncertainty Principle - The &#...Notes of interest:<br /><br />Uncertainty Principle - The 'Uncertain Non-Particle' Basis Of Material Reality - video<br />http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109172<br /><br /> Breaking the limits of classical physics - June 2012<br /> Excerpt: In the quantum world objects can also have a position and a velocity, but not at the same time. At the atomic level, quantum mechanics says that nature behaves quite differently than you might think. It is not just that we do not know the position and the velocity, rather, these two things simply do not exist simultaneously.,,, In classical physics, light possesses both an electric and a magnetic field. “What our study demonstrated was that light can have both an electric and a magnetic field, but not at the same time. We thus provide a simple proof that an experiment breaks the classical principles. That is to say, we showed light possesses quantum properties, and we can expand this to other systems as well” says Eran Kot.<br /> http://phys.org/news/2012-06-limits-classical-physics.htmlbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59865003664825899382013-02-16T04:16:23.348-08:002013-02-16T04:16:23.348-08:00"But we all know that determinism is pure unm..."But we all know that determinism is pure unmitigated crackpottery, don't we now?<br /><br />Make your case,"<br /><br />The 'uncertainty principle' use to be the main argument for free will that had undermined a deterministic view of the world,,<br /><br />Why Quantum Physics (Uncertainty) Ends the Free Will Debate - Michio Kaku - video<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw<br /><br />Yet now, in the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices effect past material states:<br /><br /> Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012<br /> Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study.<br /> According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger.<br /> http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html<br /><br />In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7749108335658371392013-02-15T22:53:21.335-08:002013-02-15T22:53:21.335-08:00Louis,
What a dufus. Both statements, 'God is...<b> Louis,<br /><br />What a dufus. Both statements, 'God is needed' and 'God is not needed' are religious statements. </b><br /><br />Napoleon asks " Why no X? Laplace says" X is unecessary for my hypothesis". It is a simple statement of fact. It does not matter what x is,it is unecessary for his hypothesis,his mathematics. Now you may disagree then that is a religious belief since the existence of God is necessary for your disagreement .<br /><br />1+1= 2 is not a religious statement, saying that 1+1= 2 is a religious statement is a religious statement.Comprendre?<br /><br /> <b>Get a clue and, when you find it, share it among your fellow brain-dead evolutionists. They need it real bad. LOL</b><br /><br />You need to punch up your patter, it sounds like you are a sixteen year old valley girl. <br /><br /><b>Laplace, like Einstein after him and Newton before him, believed in determinism. But we all know that determinism is pure unmitigated crackpottery, don't we now?</b><br /><br />Make your case, preferably in non religious statements,else any response make be misinterpreted as religious<br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27808764982821637442013-02-15T19:41:11.510-08:002013-02-15T19:41:11.510-08:00Veli:
Was that Laplace's claim,the theory of ...Veli:<br /><br /><i>Was that Laplace's claim,the theory of everything? Or was his claim that Newton's Divine force was not needed to maintain the stability of the solar system? In other words God was not needed in his equation. <br /><br />After all if God was needed that is a religious statement and we all know your desire to keep science and religion separate</i><br /><br />What a dufus. Both statements, 'God is needed' and 'God is not needed' are religious statements. Get a clue and, when you find it, share it among your fellow brain-dead evolutionists. They need it real bad. LOL.<br /><br />Laplace, like Einstein after him and Newton before him, believed in determinism. But we all know that determinism is pure unmitigated crackpottery, don't we now?Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85921849375767831912013-02-15T18:13:34.074-08:002013-02-15T18:13:34.074-08:00Cornelius, the bullfight picture is priceless. ROT...Cornelius, the bullfight picture is priceless. ROTFLMAO<br /><br />ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75572427137965134822013-02-15T16:18:53.053-08:002013-02-15T16:18:53.053-08:00awstar: "No one knows, but those who believe...awstar: "No one knows, but those who believe the Bible (especially prophecy regarding the end times) aren't surprised when things fall from the heavens above."<br /><br />Stuff has been falling from the sky forever. For billions and millions of years. <br /><br />Where is your data to suggest that the frequency is now increasing? Same for volcanoes and earthquakes? If you can show some statistical significance in increased frequency, that might be interesting. But honestly, this sounds like the normal wishful thinking Christians like to do to convince themselves we are living in the "end times".TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.com