Fred Williams goes down in flames... again

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLP:

​

As for JP, I don't kow where he trolls now, though I did notice that he reposted the same stuff he posted here at the Baptist Board site.

​

I try to stay away from him. He is a psychotic, probably dangerous individual. He posted my home address and the name of one of my family members (as well as doing this to at least one other person I know of and possibly a third).

​

He's a wack job.

---

John Paul:
Seeing that it is obvious SLP (slimey little prick) is having difficulties with reality so let me clarify a few things.When SLP says, "He posted my home address...", he doesn't mean that I posted "Hey, this is SLP's address (followed by the address)...". Because if he did, that would be a lie. Common sense would tell us an address is something you can put on an envelope and with proper postage it will be delivered to that specific residence. That being said, if someone wanted to send SLP a letter that could not have been done from what I posted, even if they could figure out that I did post anything related to SLP. I am very positive what I did post and how I posted it, was only detectable by people with that knowledge.As for,"...and the name of one of my family members"- I don't know any of his family member's names, so I could not have done so intentionally. Your middle intial is L, you act like a girl, with Johnny Cash's "A Boy Named Sue", in mind, I inferred that was YOUR middle name.Then we have this blatant lie pertaining to home addresses:..."(as well as doing this to at least one other person I know of and possibly a third)."Just pure fabrication.He also left out that an evolutionist posted the name, address, telephone number, and system admin's name- just like a postal label. Conveniently he forgot to mention that someone (an evo) called my company and spewed BS. About any alleged threats, you and your ilk should learn the difference between implied & inferred.But I'm the psychotic one. And if I am psychotic- what idiot would spew inflamatory BS about a psychotic person that knew where he worked and lived?And yes I am dangerous. I have a free and open mind. My search for the truth, which is what science is all about, will not be constrained by the narrow vision of materialistic naturalism.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Damm the tactic of selective quotation is a real habit former isn`t it, you forgot the bit about ".....but by a 2,000 year old religious text the veracity of which is assumed in an act of blind faith" that should go on the end......

---

John Paul:
First, Genesis is more than 2,000 years old. Second, my faith isn't blind. Third, I am not a Christian or a fundamentalist. Go figure.John Paul------------------
John Paul

SLP:
I fabricated nothing.John Paul:
Most of what you posted was a fabrication or a misrepresentation. As far as I can tell that is what you do.SLP:
True, you did not write "This is so-and-so's address".John Paul:
Thanks for verifying what I said.SLP:
You did not need to.John Paul:
Is that why you had to go out of your way to point it out to that board's administrator(s)? You are a joke huxter. Like I said only you, myself and anyone who already knew that information would have known what it pertained to.SLP:
It was apparent to everyone that read it what yu were doingJohn Paul:
Obviously not.SLP:
- and of course who can forget the crack about 'not everyone drives through my town to go skiing'...John Paul:
How many times do we have to over this? Those are not my words.SLP:
Thinly veiled threats are thinly veiled threats.John Paul:
And you still don't know the difference between inferred and implied. Some phd you are.Any alleged threat was inferred. If you weren't such an abusive prick perhaps you wouldn't be so paranoid.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff:
Does this mean you intend to push the envelope of Science ( the study of matter & Nature ) to include something OTHER THAN matter & nature ?

​

What could this be ?
How did you detect it ?

​

If your idea works, I'll renew my subscription to 'Nature' and scan every word, waiting for your work to arrive.

​

Or perhaps I'm mistaken as to WHAT science actually is...
Is it NOT the study of the material, physical, natural universe ?

​

regards,

---

John Paul:
Yes, you are mistaken. Science is the search for the truth."Science is the search for the truth," wrote chemist Linus Pauling, winner of two Nobel prizes. Bruce Alberts, current president of the US NAS, agrees. "Science and lies cannot coexist," said Alberts in May 2000, quoting Israeli statesman Shimon Peres. "You don't have a scientific lie, and you cannot lie scientifically. Science is basically the search for the truth." page 1 Icons of Evolution by Jonathon Wells.So yes, in that context, I have every intention of pushing the envelope of science.Just so we have this straight- I am all for science doing what it supposed to do- search for the truth. Why? Because it is out there and it will not be constrained by the narrow vision of materialistic naturalism.The way I see it, you and your ilk are doing as much damage (if not more) to science than the Church and Aristotelians (the group who black-balled Galileo) did centuries ago.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
For the third time JP it was the Ptolemaic model of a geocentric universe that the copernican model supplanted.....

​

So Ptolemaic would be a better term than aristotlean.....

---

John Paul:
I know what model it was, but there wasn't a group of people called the Ptolemaicians or would it be Ptolemyians.? There was, however, a very influential group- the Aristotelians- that promoted the Ptolemaic PoV. They were the ones who used there influence on the Church to oppose Galileo (who supported Kopernik).From "Refuting Evolution":"As many historians of science have noticed, the
first to oppose Galileo was the scientific establishment.
The prevailing scientific wisdom of his day was the
Aristotelian/Ptolemaic theory. This was an unwieldy
geocentric system; that is, with the earth at the center
of the universe and other heavenly bodies in highly
complex orbits around the earth. As Arthur Koestler
wrote:

​

"But there existed a powerful body of men
whose hostility to Galileo never abated: the
Aristotelians at the Universities.
Innovation is a twofold threat to academic
mediocrities: it endangers their oracular
authority, and it evokes the deeper fear that
their whole laboriously constructed edifice
might collapse. The academic backwoodsmen
have been the curse of genius it was
this threat not Bishop Dantiscus or Pope
Paul III which had cowed Canon
Koppernigk [i.e., Copernicus] into silence.
The first serious attack on religious groundscame also not from clerical quarters, but from
a layman none other than delle Colombe,
the leader of the [ardent Aristotelian] league.
The earthly nature of the moon, the
existence of sunspots meant the abandonment
of the [pagan!] Aristotelian doctrines on the
perfect and unchangeable nature of the
celestial spheres." 1

​

Conversely, at first the church was open to Galileo’s
discoveries. Astronomers of the Jesuit Order, the
intellectual spearhead of the Catholic Church, even
improved on them. Only 50 years later, they were
teaching this theory in China. They also protected
Johannes Kepler, who discovered that planets move in
ellipses around the sun. Even the Pope, Paul V, received
Galileo in friendly audience.

​

The leading Roman Catholic theologian of the day,
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine said it was excellent good
sense to claim that Galileo’s model was mathematically
simpler. And he said:

​

"If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the
centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the
third sphere, and that the Sun does not go
round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun,
then we should have to proceed with great
circumspection in explaining passages of
Scripture which appear to teach the contrary,
and we should rather have to say that we did
not understand them than declare an opinion
false which has been proved to be true."1. A. Koestler, The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the
Universe (London: Hutchinson, 1959), p. 427.------------------
John Paul

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SLP:
[B]As my AOL inbox remains empty, I conclude that JP is comfortable hiding behind his computer and using macho rhetoric. [/QUOTE]John Paul:
As usual you have a faulty conclusion. Why email you when you already said you (and Robert) were coming to see me in March? Did Robert cop out and you couldn't come without him?

quote:

---

slp:
Such is the life of the creationist, and I will not be responding to anything that he posts in the future, blah, blah, blah.

---

John Paul:
What's this? The 5th time you posted those words in the last year? 6th? 7th?------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by toff:
I always find it odd when creationists cite Galileo, thinking somehow it supports their case. In fact, it's a perfect example of what we see again today, in creationism. A few narrow minded people who have set beliefs (ie., 'unchangable') about their religion decide to 'black ball' someone/something discovered by science which they think contradicts that belief. Fortunately, Galileo's theory won out in the end, as evolutionary theory will...and creationists will go down in history with Galileo's oppressors.

---

John Paul:
Sorry toff, but I didn't site Galileo. I used what happened to him as an example of what materialsic naturalism is doing to today's science.------------------
John Paul