Summations Only

You honestly believe this...?You think the devil is deceiving people be manipulating science, picking certain theories and channeling through specific scientist that bring the theories to the mainstream...?Holy shit, it's no wonder the US is failing in education, the people children are listening to are making claims like this.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi ICANT, Thats sad. I didn't say all scientist, Let be be more specific:Do you believe the devil selects specific scientist to advance certain fields of science (i.e. Darwin with evolution)...?Or does he wait till he sees a theory he can use then exploits it...?I'm just wondering why the devil will wait till Darwin had a break through to then jump onboard the evolution deception train...?Or am I confused, did the devil make Darwin see the evidence...?Because honestly, it just seems like this is an after thought of yours because you feel there is a link between certain theories and the removal of God, so you equate it to the work of the devil. Who else could it be, right...?However:If Straggler would have asked you if people who believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun where God denying or being deceived by the devil, you would have said no. Yet 500 years ago people would have said yes, it is God denying and you are being deceived by the devil if you believe the Earth revolves around the Sun. In fact Galileo was convicted of heresy for just that.So you seem to be using the same ignorant argument used to convict people 500 years ago. Funny, in another thread you wrote that "things change with time, there is no denying that", yet the reasoning of religious people when reviewing scientific evidence has stayed the same throughout time. As ignorant and pitiful as always.Just as they did you now do the same. You feel that accepting these theories removes God from the equation and as such the devil is using these theories to deceive man. Yet, they, like you, were absolutely wrong. In fact, they have been wrong on every issue concerning the devil and his avenues of deception, this is just your new and improved 21st century argument.500 years ago it was the Earth revolving around the Sun, today it's evolution and the BB, tomorrow it will be some other shitty argument that is borne of ignorance. And, there will be an ICANT in the future, as there is now, as there was 500 years ago, professing that the devil is using modern science to deceive mankind and lure us away from salvation. So, to fix it, you must believe in another invisible man that dwells in the unknown and trust in authors who lived thousands of years ago. And, in the future, as there is now, as there was 500 years ago, hopefully in greater numbers, will sit the rational people who understand science saying "What are you guys fucking crazy?".

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi ICANT, I know that for you these theories do not remove God from the equation, however, the point is not that it deceives you the point was that you feel the theories are being manipulated/guilded/promoted by the "devil" to deceive the rest of us.This was the same opinion of those who convicted Galileo(and other people of science). They too felt that the "devil" was deceiving us through the works of modern science and through the Godless theories that were, at that time, trying to explain the reality of our world/universe.They were wrong to hold to these opinions. So how do justify your current stance on certain theories being used by the "devil" to deceive mankind when throughout history it has been proven false...?What evidence can you provide that your current opinion is not equally unjustified as it was 500 years ago...?What method are you using differently from theirs...?Because to me, and perhaps to others who are reading this, it seems like the same fallacious argument that has always failed. Can you provide some evidence as to why you feel yours is better...? Perhaps... According to one specific religious text, yes. There is no evidence for that. This is just your assertion, but it's irrelevant, so whatever. This is even more irrelevant to the discussion.To sum up my questions, if my post is not addressing it properly, do you see the similarity between what you believe to be the work of the "devil" in current theories and what was believed to be the work of the "devil" in theories 500 years ago...?Do recognize that this sort of stance has failed repeatedly in the past because it is borne out of ignorence and fear...?Do you have better evidence to show for justify your stance that is different from the approach used to justify the conviction of certain scientist in the past...?- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi ICANT, I am not arguing the conditions FOR the conviction, I'm arguing against the logic that was used to determine that what he was doing was devilishly inspired, which was the position they held. As do you now, ICANT. Different theory, same fallacious logic. And since they both use the same fallacious logic, they are both wrong. But, simply in the sense that neither has objective evidence to support it. I'm only questioning the determining factors used by you, and as a comparative example, used by the churches conviction of Galileo. You have the right to believe whatever you want ICANT, in fact, thats the reason this forum exists. People have the right to express any and all opinions/beliefs. However, in a debate formate, such as this forum, you must present evidence to support your point, if not, then why debate...?You have the right to believe as you please, I have the equal right to challenge you. If you don't like it then, to quote you... I know you do, you have repeated this in a number of posts to me and others. The question is, what evidence do you have to make this determination that isn't the same as what has been used in the past to make the same assertions and yet were wrong...?How can you be sure that a method that has proven to be unreliable is now reliable when used by you...? Without Dark Energy...? Copernican model...? I think you are outside of your field of knowledge ICANT and are now grasping for anything that you can possibly use to justify your argument.This is off topic but since you like to pretend you have a grasp on physics I'll address it. Hopefully the mods aren't to rough on me for doing so., The Copernican model is not affected by Dark Matter, you have no clue what you're talking about.

• Heavenly motions are uniform, eternal, and circular or compounded of several circles (epicycles).
• The center of the universe is near the Sun.
• Around the Sun, in order, are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the fixed stars.
• The Earth has three motions: daily rotation, annual revolution, and annual tilting of its axis.
• Retrograde motion of the planets is explained by the Earth's motion.
• The distance from the Earth to the sun is small compared to the distance to the stars.

Source: Copernican heliocentrism - WikipediaDark Energy affects none of this. No, I'm not saying you are ignorant. What I'm saying is having the belief that the "devil" has infultrated modern science and is using theories to deceive mankind is borne out of ignorance and fear. It has no evidence to back it and has been proven wrong in the past when applied to other theories.What makes your belief that current theories are being devilishly advanced for the purpose of deceit valid if you have no objective evidence to back it...? AND when the same kind of belief, when applied to theories in the past, has never been right...?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi ICANT, They were limited in their knowledge, not deceived nor ignorant.However, had objective evidence to the contrary been presented to them and they rejected it flat out with no contradicting objective evidence - basically without reason other than personal belief - then YES they would be ignorant. He was limited in his knowledge, not deceived nor ignorant.However, had objective evidence to the contrary been presented to him and he rejected it flat out with no contradicting objective evidence - basically without reason other than personal belief - then YES he would be ignorant. Does not apply since they weren't being fooled, what are you even talking about? You have no objective evidence to support this statement and it does not address the logical fallacy of thinking people are being deceived through scientific theories. This makes no sense. Why would the devil need to deceive people who don't believe in God when a disbelief in God is already detrimental to eternal salvation?It would seem like only people who believe in God and eternal salvation are the target for the devils deception, right?Why waste time on those who don't believe, we are fucked anyways, right?So, it would then logically follow that NOT believing in God and eternal salvation actually spares you from the devils deception. Thanks, ICANT, for validating my atheism. - Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

You continue to completely miss the point - I assume it's some deep rooted arrogance that doesn't allow you to admit you might be wrong.No one has called YOU ignorant. What IS being said is that belief that the devil is manipulating sceintific theories is a belief BORNE of ignorance.To use the example you gave me of Einstein. If Einstein had been presented objective evidence that contradicted anything he said, anything, and it was supported by the entire scientific community, and had been counter tested and counter tested by teams of scientist who also verified the evidence as being correct, and he still held to a stubborn stance that he was right, having NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE himself to counter with, just a personal belief that everyone was wrong, then his belief would be borne of ignorance. While still being considered a genius in other fields.Eventually though, he would either have to admit he was wrong in view of the mountains of evidence against him, or, be considered a fool.If one is simply going to hold to a stubborn stance having nothing but personal belief vs objective evidence, then yes, eventually this person could be just plain ignorant. But I have more faith in you ICANT. I believe you do see the logical fallacy of your belief but are not willing to humbly admit it you are wrong.[ABE] Before I get accused of using the word ignorant wrong again, ICANT is not using the word ignorant to just mean "lack of knowledge", as can be seen when reading the highlighted portion of his post that I quoted in context. In context he seems to be equating ignorance and foolishness and I see no need to split hairs. Edited by onifre, : ABE

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

If you wanted to say hi you didn't have to split hairs to do it - lol.I knew I wasn't properly using it in that post but I was, and this was my mistake, using in the context that ICANT seemed to be using it.Thanks though. Ok I did not say they got the knowledge, as highlighted, I said they rejected the evidence. I believe ICANT does not have knowledge of the BB or evolution, not because it's not available, but because he has rejected the information thus denying himself the knowledge...making him, in this matter, ignorant.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi ICANT, You honestly feel no need to stop thinking the devil is manipulating science to deceive man? I will take a look at them and try to address them, when time permits - comedy is very exhausting. But surely you can't expect to understand this stuff with a limited knowledge - as you admit to having in these subjects - and my limited knowledge may also lead us BOTH down the wrong path. So, maybe it would be best to start off at a beginner level rather trying to solve ALL of the cosmological issues right off the bat. However, you, right here right now, can either admit that believing that the devil is manipulating science for the pupose of deceit has no objective evidence to support it, is simply a belief held by you, and in the past this type of belief has been continuously proven to fail. Or, you can explain why you feel that this time you're right, when every other time it has been wrong. As I asked before, what makes your method better than the methods used in the past?Then we can let time take care of the other stuff.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi ICANT, That, however, was not the portion I highlighted.You said: The highlighted portion, in context, sounds like you are saying, "If I am foolish for believe in God..."The second statement does mean "lack of knowledge".That is why I said you are not only using it to mean "lack of knowledge". Please do not feel the need to justify your beliefs to me, my mother is the most religious person I know and I would never try to degrade that belief, of hers, nor yours, or anyones for that matter. That it gives you personal satisfaction is not the subject. I'm simply arguing against your position of science being manipulated by the devil for the purpose of deceit.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi ICANT, But, above all you would have to rely on your ability to understand what is being said, this, with a limited knowledge of the field - that both you and I share - could cause you to completely misunderstand what is being explained. But, you approach it the way you think is better.Btw, I didn't know you were 69. I hope I make it to be that age, I really do. Seems like a cool experience. I have to slow down my life style if want to though. I've never fully gotten into this on this forum. Yes I do consider myself an atheist, BUT, and this is the part that is important, ONLY when it pertains to the discription of God(s) that have been given in scriptual/religous texts.I believe there is a driving force behind existance, of everything, not just a chosen few in a remote dessert. I believe that because we humans try so hard to have answers we just grasp at any and all answers that will satisfy the intitial curiosity and by doing so, man took what could have been an early assumtion of spirituality and turned it into the false religions that followed.This however, would take the conversation into the driving force behind the rise of consciousness and what awareness of existance does and how it connects one with the universe, AND, would be completely off topic.Long story short, Do I believe in God? Your version or that of any other religion/belief system that has ever existed, NO.Do I believe there exists another force that might be considered God for lack of a better word? YES Well, one, there isn't any subjective evidence for the existance of God either, by my standards. For a subjective experience to ring true for me I would have to be the one experiencing it. I have never experienced it that is why I neither see objective evidence for God or subjective evidence for God.But, contrary to what you think, I have never turned to science to prove or disprove God. I do not think you are deceived. You have faith in the Christian God. You believe this to be true. I have not argued against that. Again, ICANT, and I'd think you would have understood this by now, I have never asked for empirical evidence to prove or disprove God to me. God cannot be studied by science. Science cannot disprove or prove God. Understanding what theories are explaining neither makes one a believer or a disbeliever. So, no, empirical evidence is NOT what I seek.The only one who has claimed deceit is you. You said you believe the devil is manipulating certain theories in science to deceive mankind and draw him away from Gods salvation. This is the very same argument used long ago when claiming the devil was deceiving man into trusting those theories. This method proved to not hold up when empirical evidence proved what was being claimed. Yet, they like you claimed it as FACT - you are not saying maybe the devil is deceiving us through science - you are saying he IS, period, no maybe at all. The bible doesn't say the devil will use scientific theories to deceive you. It just says that he will try to deceive you. By what method do you deduce that science is one of the avenues he has used to deceive...?That is the question at hand here in this debate between you and I. You want to play this game? Ok. Then what OTHER scientific theories are being used to decieve man. Anything and Everything, right? Name one other.If you can't come up with another then why BB and evolution?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi ICANT, I believe Pecy wrote "alternate" manifestation.Also, as per Dictionary.com:

quote:

---

Manifestation: Man`i*fes*ta"tion\, n. [L. manifestatio: cf. F. manifestation.] The act of manifesting or disclosing, or the state of being manifested; discovery to the eye or to the understanding; also, that which manifests; exhibition; display; revelation; as, the manifestation of God's power in creation.

---

Satin would fall under this definition. "Creation" is one manifestation and angels are another. Because god created them. We would also be considered a manifestation of his power.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi ICANT, As it pertains to this discussion, yes. And since you said angels are created by god, they too are a manifestation of his. Agreed?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi ICANT, Gladly. Yes, and thus it would follow that anything that God has created is a manifestation of his power. "Creation" was the example used in the dictionary, I thought you'd see the correlation to the devil. If it's not a manifestation of God's power, then who?The devil, angels, etc, are created by God, yes? Yes, by the one example to give the word "manifestation" context in dictionary.com, it is "creation" that is a manifestation of His power. But, it would follow, using that example sentence of that definition, that saying "The devil and angels are a manifestation of Gods power" is also, correct. Because you are using the example as an absolute to only mean "creation", when the main focus of that sentence is "His power". His power in "creation", in creating angels, to include the one that went bad. In any other thing that we don't know about. It is the manifestation of His power, period. Hope I did.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

If satin is independent of god's will and power, then he(satin) himself is a god.Which would be Percy's original point that he made in Message 178 to jano,First Percy's definition for God: And he continues by saying... Where ICANT sums this up,Message 195 So, by ICANT's definition the angels, thus satin, is created by God's will. Satin is not independent of God, according to ICANT, so would be a manifestation of God's will and power.If satin however was independent of God then he would fall under the god-like definition.It can't be both.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Kelly, That is not possible. If you are a "creationist" then by definition you believe in some kind of creation story. What you are describing is someone who follows ID -(Intelligent Design). Not a "creationist". wiki definition
Creationist: Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of evolution as an explanation of origins.The theory of evolution explains only what has been observed. In fact science can ONLY explain what has been observed, therefore any mention of god is excluded from the equation since god has never been observed. You're confusing now 2 different theories. The whole cosmos is not explaining by the theory of evolution, one is cosmology the other is biology.Furthermore, there is no "creation model" that does not come with a religion attached to it, unless you have just made on up from scratch. If you are referencing a "creation model" you have no choice but to point to a specific religions creation story, OR, like I said, make one up from scratch.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky