Guest Michael Gray Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:32:56 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <hfde63dca58omfcv2llpie6a31salkrif1@4ax.com> >On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:32:07 -0700, in alt.atheism >Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in ><Jason-0506072132080001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>In article <vq7c635rnq3na6a6isbetaim0eog4bjqs9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >... > >>> Not one of those are evidence related to any gods at all. You are the >>> most stubbornly ignorant man I have ever had to deal with. >> >> >>The sun God Shamash is mentioned in the law code of Hammurabi. > >Do you believe in the sun God Shamash because it was mentioned in the >law code of Hammurabi? Of course not! Jason KNOWS in his last remaining brain cell that Minerva is the only true God. -- Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:15:44 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0606071815450001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <ofojj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:32:07 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >The point was related to evidence related to God. If there is evidence >> >> >from many different ancient civilizations that those people believed in >> >> >God or Gods >> >> > The sun God Shamash is mentioned in the law code of Hammurabi. >> >> All this shows is that some people believe in gods. We know that. The >> question at hand is not whether some people believe in gods, but whether >> there is evidence that gods actually exist. Try again. > > >I posted information about a man that was healed by God. My point related >to the sun God Shamash was that people from many different cultures >(during ancient times) believed in God. Have you ever wondered why that >was true? I wondered about it and came to the conclusion that it was >because people that were alive during ancient times learned about God from >what is known as "oral tradition". This simply means that people from the >first generation passed stories about God to their children and those >children (when they became adults) passed the stories to their children, >etc. There is a section in the back of my study Bible entitled, "The >Greatest Archeological Discoveries of the 20th Century and their effects >on the Bible". I read that section and learned that most of the people in >ancient times believed in God or Gods. My conclusion was that they >believed in God because of the messages they received from the first >generation of people that had actually known Adam, Eve and the children of >Adam and Eve. >Jason > I can see why you defend liars like the ICR. You have no interest in evidence or reality. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:13:09 -0700, Jason wrote: >> There is evidence that physics as we know it did not exist prior to >> Planck time. > I doubt that there is evidence that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Again, you persist in missing the points. I'll make it simple: 1) Please explain how you determine that "before the BB" even makes sense 2) Please explain how you would define "time" inside a singularity Note that point 2 applies even after the BB, but "before" Planck time - if even _that_ concept makes sense. -- ‘I’ll leave when you stop believing in evolution, and NOT before.’ - Deeann Gatchell Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:26:47 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0606071826480001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <s4ee63l7m06snhrejmi5amp02dvhia4bjq@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:04:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0606071304200001@66-52-22-15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1181115259.911064.176680@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics >> >> >> >> Aren't you embarassed by your lack of knowledge of physics? It's not >> >> something a normal person would flaunt. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >No--there are millions of us. >> > >> At times you seem to be proud of your ignorance. Apparently the Parable >> of the Talents is one of Jesus' parables that you do not know. > >Do you believe that everyone that has never taken a college physics class >is ignorant? > I never took a college physics class, but I didn't keep myself ignorant of physics just because I didn't learn about it in college. There are many ways to learn about science. If I hadn't bothered to keep up, even in a small way, the science I learned in high school and college would be completely out of date. You have chosen to remain ignorant. Your ignorance has nothing to do with college. You claim to have taken a biology class in college, yet remain shockingly ignorant of fundamental biological principles that were taught 40 years ago. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:11:29 -0700, Jason wrote: > So if scientists arrive at a consensus that time did not exist prior to > the Big Bang than people like yourself just accept it without question. No, we read about it, learn about it, understand why they say this and ask ourselves if it makes sense. It does. Since it does make sense, we have to accept it, like any other claim in science which is supported with evidence and/or sound reasoning, as provisionally valid. You seem to fail to grasp that science works by explaining things, not simply by asserting things. -- Noah’s Flood--- it just doesn’t wash . . . Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <ujojj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:16:58 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > In article <0u4hj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > >> > >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:10:58 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >> > Bob, > >> > Thanks for telling me your opinions on this subject. I have read about > >> > some of the problems with the theory. Do you know anything about the > >> > problems that the experts are having with the Big Bang theory? > >> > >> Here's one: it has been suggested that we are informationally isolated > >> from events "before" Planck time, as "before" this, the laws of physics as > >> we know them break down. > >> > >> What this means is that it may well be essentially meaningless to even > >> speak of "before this time" as we cannot be sure that time itself, let > >> alone any implied directionality thereof, was in effect, or, if it was, > >> what if any implications this has on anything from origins to expansion. > > > > Thanks for your post. > > Yes, well, the question isn't whether you thank me for it, but whether you > understand the concepts. Not as well as Martin, Jim and yourself understands them. Based on my limited understanding, the Big Bang theory is the best theory I have read about that explains how this universe may have began. I have always wondered how God done it and this may explain how he was able to do it. He created the mass of energy and he caused it to expand. I know that you disagree with me. There may be even better theories in the years to come. They did not have any theories like this when I was in college in the 1970's. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:42:32 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0606071842320001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <h1je63ptu4pdpgbsboi53vqgvscd4vv1rq@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:52:07 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0606071752070001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <l5rjj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:09:25 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Then how do you know that god DID come to be? >> >> > >> >> > I see the evidence when I look at the stars in the sky or visit a state >> >> > park. >> >> >> >> So do I - I see evidence that stars and parks exist. Nothing about gods, >> >> though. >> >> >> >> > I also know it when I see evidence that a person was healed of a >> >> > terrible disease or disorder. >> >> >> >> I see evidence they were healed; nothing implies gods, though. >> >> >> >> Oh, your cute little story, like all such, assumes God is a driveling >> >> idiot, so it's not the sort of thing I'd tend to spew if I were a >> >> believer. The notion God is such a complete fucking retard that he can't >> >> figure out - despite being all-knowing - who needs healing unless he has >> >> some snake-oil salesman to ring a bell and say "Here's one" makes God out >> >> to be an incompetent, useless fuckup. >> >> >> >> 'Course, the fact he's also supposed to be all-powerful yet can't snap his >> >> fingers and instantly heal people completely likewise makes him look like >> >> a complete fuck-up. >> >> >> >> Fine, you've got a story which, if we accept it, makes God out to be an >> >> incompetent idiot. Why you'd want to show us this isn't clear - giving up >> >> your religion, are you? >> >> >> >> One thing I find really amusing about all these is that they never - and I >> >> mean never - involve anything which would actually require a miraculous >> >> intervention to explain; they are all, without exception, cases where the >> >> most honest thing one can say about them is "Cure is currently >unexplained." >> >> >> >> Want to impress us? Show us someone who has actually had a leg amputated >> >> have it miraculously grow back, right there on stage. Oh, wait, never >> >> happens. God, if he exists and is even half of what he's cracked up to >> >> be, could do it in a heartbeat, yet it never ever EVER seems to actually >> >> happen. You'll never find a case where there's something actually >> >> interesting happening; it is always "Well, something happened, coulda been >> >> gods, coulda been the meds finally working, coulda been any of a thousand >> >> other things, who knows?" - yet we're supposed to conclude only one >> >> possible explanation is allowed - the one that _assumes_ gods exist. >> > >> >Google "miracle healings" and you may be able to find some testimonies >> >that will convince you that God is still healing people in much the same >> >way that he healed people while Jesus was on this earth. >> > >> The testimonies are not evidence. They merely reflect the state of mind >> of the people giving testimony. > >I disagree. If a man has been making use of a wheel chair for 10 years and >is healed and as a result no longer has to use a wheel chair that is >evidence that he was healed. His doctor confirmed that he was healed. That >is evidence that he was healed. If you choose to reject the evidence, that >is your choice. You can find even more evidence of miracle healings if you >google: "miracle healings". There is evidence that the person recovered. There is no evidence that any god, let alone the one you worship, had anything to do with it. Once again, you proudly base your erroneous opinion on ignorance and misunderstanding. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:17:39 -0700, Jason wrote: > We are advocates of different theories. Wrong. We are advocates of several theories; you are an advocate of none . Don't believe me? Fine; take any of your supposed "theories". Explain the testable and falsifiable mechanisms behind them. Explain the tests done to try to falsify them. Demonstrate the reasoning, based on observable phenomena and previously-validated theories which supports your claims in the cases where direct evidence is difficult to come by. Oh, whoops, you don't have that; you have "Is too!" and nothing more. > I realize that the advocates of > evolution and the Big Bang theory You realize those are two distinct groups, I hope. > believe they have all of the answers Wrong. What we have is _many_ answers; enough to conclude that we are, on the whole, on the right track. > and all of the evidence. Wrong again. Nobody ever said we have all the evidence. What we do say is that when push comes to shove, the opposition - notably the Godders and creationists - consistently fail to provide any evidence of their claims. The fact your side cannot provide evidence doesn't mean we have all the evidence, it means your side is incompetent. > However, if you removed your rose colored > glasses, you would realize that you do not have all of the answers and > all of the evidence. Golly gee, like we need you to tell us science isn't a solved problem? > For example, you do not know how the mass of energy > that expanded during the Big Bang came to be. What energy? No, seriously, what energy? You are aware that it is widely suspect that the sum total energy in the universe is zero, aren't you? > You seem to believe that > it just came about by chance. Wrong. We don't even claim it "came about" at all . To do so is to assert things about a situation before Planck time - even before the BB itself - for which we simply have no viable way to say anything . > I believe God caused it to happen and even > caused the mass of energy to expand. In order to put that forth as a viable explanation, you'll first have to demonstrate that God exists to be responsible for _anything_. You'll then have to demonstrate that the concept of time "before the BB" means anything, else you lack the temporal relationship necessary to allow God to have any interaction, causal or otherwise, with the BB. You will, of course, now provide your demonstrations of these, right? Right? Oh, no, I thought not. > make it happen. I know that God caused it to happen but don't know > exactly how he done it. No, you believe God did it, just as you believe God exists. Feel free to support this with some actual evidence that God exists... and that "before the BB" is meaningful.. and that "time" is a meaningful concept "before" Planck time and/or "before" the BB. And even if you do somehow manage to show this, don't forget to demonstrate how we can retrieve information from that point to determine the validity of the claims involved of God's interaction with events. -- “Real Men Love Jesus.” But wear a condom. -- Promise Keepers Motto Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <l5rjj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:09:25 -0700, Jason wrote: > > >> Then how do you know that god DID come to be? > > > > I see the evidence when I look at the stars in the sky or visit a state > > park. > > So do I - I see evidence that stars and parks exist. Nothing about gods, > though. > > > I also know it when I see evidence that a person was healed of a > > terrible disease or disorder. > > I see evidence they were healed; nothing implies gods, though. > > Oh, your cute little story, like all such, assumes God is a driveling > idiot, so it's not the sort of thing I'd tend to spew if I were a > believer. The notion God is such a complete fucking retard that he can't > figure out - despite being all-knowing - who needs healing unless he has > some snake-oil salesman to ring a bell and say "Here's one" makes God out > to be an incompetent, useless fuckup. > > 'Course, the fact he's also supposed to be all-powerful yet can't snap his > fingers and instantly heal people completely likewise makes him look like > a complete fuck-up. > > Fine, you've got a story which, if we accept it, makes God out to be an > incompetent idiot. Why you'd want to show us this isn't clear - giving up > your religion, are you? > > One thing I find really amusing about all these is that they never - and I > mean never - involve anything which would actually require a miraculous > intervention to explain; they are all, without exception, cases where the > most honest thing one can say about them is "Cure is currently unexplained." > > Want to impress us? Show us someone who has actually had a leg amputated > have it miraculously grow back, right there on stage. Oh, wait, never > happens. God, if he exists and is even half of what he's cracked up to > be, could do it in a heartbeat, yet it never ever EVER seems to actually > happen. You'll never find a case where there's something actually > interesting happening; it is always "Well, something happened, coulda been > gods, coulda been the meds finally working, coulda been any of a thousand > other things, who knows?" - yet we're supposed to conclude only one > possible explanation is allowed - the one that _assumes_ gods exist. Google "miracle healings" and you may be able to find some testimonies that will convince you that God is still healing people in much the same way that he healed people while Jesus was on this earth. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:04:19 -0700, Jason wrote: >> Aren't you embarassed by your lack of knowledge of physics? It's not >> something a normal person would flaunt. >> >> Martin > > No--there are millions of us. Historically, there are billions. However, associating oneself with a group that displays - and in many cases seems to actually flaunt - a near-complete lack of knowledge of the world about them strikes me as a bit bizarre. -- ‘Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a slaughter-house.’ - Thomas Jefferson, to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822 Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In alt.atheism On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:34:13 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <jbojj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:23:39 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> Nobody can prove "God does not exist". It is the null hypothesis. It is >> >> your job to falsify it. >> > >> > I know a woman that was healed by God of Parkinson's Disease. >> >> Prove it. Prove it was God, and not simply an unexplained remission. >> >> This is a problem with you God-deluded idiots; you can't tell the >> difference between "I don't know" and "God did it", so anything you can't >> explain somehow "points to God" even when there's not a single >> justification for such a conclusion. > >Evidence that God can heal people: >Google "miracle healings" Google David Hume and miracles. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:24:34 -0700, Jason wrote: > Let's say that you lived in a different city than your father lived. You > have a great deal of respect for your father. You meet someone that starts > to tell you how evil your father is and that he had all sorts of evidence > about your father. > > You would have two options: > option 1: Agree agree that man and agree with the evidence. > option 2: Continue to have respect for your father and disregard the evidence. > > I would choose option 2. And there's your problem. You would prefer to ignore the evidence and support a known liar and fraud, than to admit he might not be perfect. That makes you as intellectually bankrupt as he is - as if that's any sort of surprise. -- It is the absence of belief in GOD and MORALITY in this country andpeopel like YOU that are causing the proliferation of AIDS, Queers, and Abortion!! - Eric Lambeth Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <2hqjj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:57:51 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > I have stated in other posts that neither myself or other advocates of > > creation research know how God was able to do it but believe he did do it. > > You know more about math than I know but it did not pass the "common > > sense" test when someone stated that time and space did not exist prior to > > the Big Bang. That appeared to me to be an unproven concept. Do you > > believe that time and physics did not exist prior to the Big Bang? > > It's not a question of belief; it's a question of data. > > Space involves spatial dimensions, which implies a physical structure to > space - n dimensions, each so large, etc. Time involves measurement, > which implies both something _to_ measure, and a meaningful set of > mechanics by which to measure it. > > The whole point to a singularity is that the laws of physics as we know > them break down, so that we cannot assert there _is_ a structure, let > alone define it, nor can we assert there _are_ things to measure, let > alone how to measure them, inside a singularity. > > Thus to assert that space or time exist in or before the singularity is to > attempt to impose rules which apply _within_ a system, to something which > is not, itself, part of that system and for which there is no foundation n > which to build a case that it, too, follows the same or similar rules. Martin told me something about this in one of his posts. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:03:33 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0606071903330001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <040kj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:58:23 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> I'm not interested - I'm just proving you that you were wrong when you >> >> stated that a history of witchcraft was being taught as a college >course. A >> >> history class about the Salem witch trials is NOT the same thing. >> > >> > In one of the states, they want to teach a high school class entitled, >> > "The Bible as History". Would you be in favor of a state high school >> > teaching such a course? >> >> "The Bible _as_ history" suggests the usage of the Bible, rather than >> other texts, to define at least some portion of history; this strikes me >> as a poor idea. "The Bible _in_ History", however, would presumably >> examine what we do know of history - from many sources - and where the >> Bible's historical writings fit - or don't - within the rest. >> >> What matters is the content, though, not the name. Knowing just the >> title, we lack sufficient information to agree or disagree with the course. >> >> On the other hand, if a college wants to offer religious studies of >> whatever sort for the students who are religious - or curious - fine, go >> for it, as long as they're not required and don't impact on real subjects. > >I found the article about it on the web: > > > >Dear Friend > >A program is underway to serve the public through educational efforts >concerning a First Amendment right and religious freedom issue. This is to >bring a state certified Bible course (elective) into the public high >schools nationwide. > >The curriculum for the program shows a concern to convey the content of >the Bible as compared to literature and history. The program is concerned >with education rather than indoctrination of students. The central >approach of the class is simply to study the Bible as a foundation >document of society, and that approach is altogether appropriate in a >comprehensive program of secular education. > >The world is watching to see if we will be motivated to impact our >culture, to deal with the moral crises in our society, and reclaim our >families and children. > >Please help us to restore our religious and civil liberties in this nation. > >President's Signature > >Elizabeth Ridenour >President NCBCPS >To date, our Bible curriculum has been voted into 395 school districts in >37 states. Over 190,000 students have already taken this course >nationwide, on the high school campus, during school hours, for credit. I can't wait until they start teaching the children of these religious zealots that the Bible is only a book and that it has mistakes in it from page one. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <ofojj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:32:07 -0700, Jason wrote: > > >> >The point was related to evidence related to God. If there is evidence > >> >from many different ancient civilizations that those people believed in > >> >God or Gods > > > The sun God Shamash is mentioned in the law code of Hammurabi. > > All this shows is that some people believe in gods. We know that. The > question at hand is not whether some people believe in gods, but whether > there is evidence that gods actually exist. Try again. I posted information about a man that was healed by God. My point related to the sun God Shamash was that people from many different cultures (during ancient times) believed in God. Have you ever wondered why that was true? I wondered about it and came to the conclusion that it was because people that were alive during ancient times learned about God from what is known as "oral tradition". This simply means that people from the first generation passed stories about God to their children and those children (when they became adults) passed the stories to their children, etc. There is a section in the back of my study Bible entitled, "The Greatest Archeological Discoveries of the 20th Century and their effects on the Bible". I read that section and learned that most of the people in ancient times believed in God or Gods. My conclusion was that they believed in God because of the messages they received from the first generation of people that had actually known Adam, Eve and the children of Adam and Eve. Jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:14:21 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0606071914220001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <snke63pmk02p0duvs8voj8oaf4o9ejbjdc@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:15:44 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0606071815450001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <ofojj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:32:07 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >The point was related to evidence related to God. If there is evidence >> >> >> >from many different ancient civilizations that those people believed in >> >> >> >God or Gods >> >> >> >> > The sun God Shamash is mentioned in the law code of Hammurabi. >> >> >> >> All this shows is that some people believe in gods. We know that. The >> >> question at hand is not whether some people believe in gods, but whether >> >> there is evidence that gods actually exist. Try again. >> > >> > >> >I posted information about a man that was healed by God. My point related >> >to the sun God Shamash was that people from many different cultures >> >(during ancient times) believed in God. Have you ever wondered why that >> >was true? I wondered about it and came to the conclusion that it was >> >because people that were alive during ancient times learned about God from >> >what is known as "oral tradition". This simply means that people from the >> >first generation passed stories about God to their children and those >> >children (when they became adults) passed the stories to their children, >> >etc. There is a section in the back of my study Bible entitled, "The >> >Greatest Archeological Discoveries of the 20th Century and their effects >> >on the Bible". I read that section and learned that most of the people in >> >ancient times believed in God or Gods. My conclusion was that they >> >believed in God because of the messages they received from the first >> >generation of people that had actually known Adam, Eve and the children of >> >Adam and Eve. >> >Jason >> > >> I can see why you defend liars like the ICR. You have no interest in >> evidence or reality. > >I have a copy of the November 2004 issue of National Geographic magazine. >On page 6, poll results were mentioned. "According to a Gallup Pole that >was conducted in Feb., 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding US >adults agreed that God created humans pretty much in their present form >within the last 10,000 years or so." ...."Only 12 percent believed that >humans evolved from other life forms without any involvement from God." > >It appears to me that more people in America agree with me than agree with >you. In fact, only about 12 percent of Americans agree with you. > So what? If the question is one of fact, opinions are meaningless. I am disturbed that so many Americans are so ignorant, but their ignorance is not evidence for anything but their ignorance. The facts still prove you and them wrong. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:32:25 -0700, Jason wrote: >> That would be his collected lies, his foundation of dishonesty, or his >> outright frauds? The curious wish to know. > He was an author and excellent debater. He is a lousy debater. You really need to pay a little more attention to what goes on at these "debates". Let's examine but one case to make the point. <import> On Monday, March 21, 1994, over 100 people came to hear Dr. Duane T. Gish speak at Hill Center on the Busch Campus. The lecture was sponsored by Rutgers InterVarsity Chinese Christian Fellowship. </import> Okay, well, it's sponsored by a Christian Fellowship - people who, presumably, believe in God, the Bible and the like, complete with, presumably, a mindset that suggests "God dunnit" for a number of things. However, we'll assume for the nonce that the sponsoring body was, in fact, being completely aboveboard about everything... let's continue... <import> None of Gish's supporters that evening seemed to notice the numerous times he contradicted himself by changing his position on a subject when it suited the needs of his argument. For example, early on in the lecture, Gish stated that neither evolution nor creationism is scientific since, among other things, neither is falsifiable. Gish then spent the remainder of his lecture attempting to falsify evolution. Furthermore, he later stated emphatically that creationism is a scientific explanation, even though, as noted above, he earlier said that creationism was not scientific. </import> Hmm... Gish himself says creationism isn't science... then goes on to state that it is science. So he's argued both sides of the same subject, completely debunking his own position, yet neither he nor the audience seemed to even notice, let alone be bothered by this. Meanwhile, instead of supporting his own position, he instead chose to argue against evolution; whatever his rationale for doing this, it does not, for one single second, actually support his own argument - he may as well not say a single word, as he simply didn't support his own views. Yet again, neither he nor the audience seemed bothered by this. <import> Gish preached falsehoods about the fossil record. For example, Gish stated that there are no fossil precursors to the dinosaur Triceratops. Gish has been telling this myth for at least 12 years now. However, it is absolutely untrue. Ceratopsian precursors of Triceratops include, for example, Monoclonius and Protoceratops. This lineage appears in proper sequence in the fossil record. It shows the expected developmental change in body size, size of the bony frill, and number of horns. Unfortunately, it is likely that none of Gish's audience was aware that his statement was completely contrary to fact. Gish promulgated similar falsehoods about the fossil record all night long. </import> So, not only is Gish failing to support his own position, he is, in fact, resorting to outright falsehoods in order to attack the opposition. The audience, presumably, lacks sufficient expertise to know Gish is lying through his teeth, but that doesn't excuse him from doing it. <import> Gish also played subtle terminology games. He emphasized that there were no "transitional forms" in the fossil record but he did not explain what characteristics he would accept as "transitional" (with the exception of a ludicrous gloss on what one would expect to see in the horns of Triceratops). In the past, Gish has, for example, declared that the reptile-bird transition Archaeopteryx was not a transition because it had feathers and flew and was, therefore, a bird. To make the absurd assertion that Archaeopteryx did not show features of a reptile, Gish must conceal from his audience facts about Archaeopteryx such as that it possessed a pubic peduncle and a long bony tail. These are features found in reptiles that are never found in birds. </import> Here again, Gish fails to support his own position and instead attacks the opposition... yet again he is reduced to outright falsehoods in order to do it. Again, the audience, presumably, lacks the expertise to know one way or the other, but that doesn't excuse Gish lying through his teeth. <import> Gish showed either incredible ignorance or a stunning lack of integrity when he stated that Lord Solly Zuckerman, writing in 1970 that Australopithecus was probably not an ancestor of Homo sapiens, had more or less all the evidence that we have today. The field of physical anthropology underwent a revolution in the 1970s due to new discoveries and Gish's claim is patently ridiculous. Gish also told his audience that Neanderthals are now accepted as "fully human Homo sapiens just like you and me." Of course, Neanderthals were not "just like you and me". A Neanderthal had a longer and lower skull, a larger face and larger teeth, no chin or a slight chin, and a massive brow ridge in front of a differently shaped brain, as well as a distinctive skeletal structure. </import> So, Gish is now resorting to a favorite creationist tactic: ignore anything recent, as that would demolish a significant part of his "case" - not that he has much of a case. He compounds this with another outright lie. <import> Gish claimed that anti-creationist books "don't say a word" about the origin of fishes. I found this assertion peculiar, so I looked in the best anti-creationist book available. Allow me to highly recommend Arthur N. Strahler's Science and Earth History to anyone interested in all the information that Gish likes to pretend doesn't exist. Glancing through the table of contents, I found "Chapter 42. . . Invertebrates to Vertebrates." Flipping to the appropriate page, there was a section on the evidence for evolution from invertebrates to jawless fishes. Before that, there was also a section on precursors to Cambrian metazoans, which Gish also told his audience did not exist. </import> One might suggest Gish was simply ignorant of this work, rather than knowing it existed and pretending it didn't... but then in a formal setting such as this, he should not be asserting as fact that of which he is actually uncertain. <import> Lest anyone think this was a simple case of a crackpot outsider coming to Rutgers for a one-shot lecture of ludicrous assertions, allow me to point out that Rutgers InterVarsity seems to have actively participated in this campaign of misinformation. Before the lecture, a pamphlet was distributed to the audience. The pamphlet appears to be untitled and there is no apparent author listed. However, "Rutgers InterVarsity Chinese Christian Fellowship" does appear on the pamphlet and I will assume that they are at least indirectly responsible for the distribution of the pamphlet. The pamphlet is a classic pastiche of selective quotations and creationist nonsense. For example, the pamphlet states, "The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that there is a general tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder. . . A fundamental law of physics says that natural systems go from order to disorder; evolutionists say that these same systems will go from disorder to order." This is, of course, complete nonsense. Among other problems with this argument, the Second Law of Thermodynamics requires an increase in disorder only in systems that are thermodynamically closed. Living systems are not thermodynamically closed. Living systems can undergo an increase in order (and can be observed constantly doing so today) as long as there is a corresponding larger increase in disorder in the environment from which the living system obtains energy. </import> Aha. Now we see that the people behind the pamphlet - presumably the "Christian Fellowship" - actually promoted demonstrably false information before the debate even began. This is going to tend to have two effects; one, to suggest to anyone who knows better that these are a pack of crackpots, so why attend a lecture of lunatics, and second, to subtly (or not so subtly) induce an attitude of negativity towards the science side of things; in short, it is hardly fair and equal treatment, which is what one expects from an honest debate. So... in just one lecture, Gish has been caught spewing crap on at least three separate occasions. Nor is this an isolated incident... every single debate in which Gish has been involved, for which I've seen transcripts, has been the same thing... Gish lying through his teeth, distorting facts, completely failing to make a case for his own position and, in most cases, not even trying. This is your bastion of respectability... a liar, a fraud, a deceiver. Did we see the particular lecture _you_ saw? Perhaps not. Do we _need_ to? When every single case we have examined has shown Gish to be a liar and a fraud, there is very little reason to suspect he will suddenly change tracks to truth and honesty. If you want to convince us he was being truthful and honest for a change, fine, you do the legwork. We've already done our legwork, and it shows, quite clearly, that Gish simply cannot be trusted. [imports from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers.html] -- Knock yourself out, but it would be as meaningless to me as an earth that is ‘billions and billions’ of years old. - Jim Staal Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <3ude639n85rvgsph18v5hqb2rj8fpsvb7t@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:14:36 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0606071214370001@66-52-22-15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1181116197.466834.209470@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 6, 11:24 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1181089429.327200.94...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> > > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > On Jun 6, 3:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > >> > > > Written evidence (contracts, wills) are used in courts on a daily basis. > >> > > >> > > And written "evidence" that has not been authenticated or witnessed is > >> > > dismissed as fraudulent. Every day. > >> > > >> > Some archeologists and paleontologists are experts in regard to written > >> > evidence related to ancient civiliizations. > >> > >> And these experts are not on your side. > >> > >> See http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm > >> > >> Martin > > > >NO > >However, there is a section in the back of my study Bible entitled, > >"Archeology Discoveries". I was told (and I don't have the evidence) that > >most (or all) colleges that offer degrees in Archeology--require > >archeology students to take at least one course related to Bible History. > >They mainly concentrate on the portions of the Old Testament related to > >ancient cities. > > Are you aware that as a result of the archaeology that has been done in > the Holy Land that we know that many of the stories in the Old Testament > are not historically accurate? I just checked the back of my study Bible and found no information about that subject. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:23:36 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0606071923360001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <8f0kj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:22:10 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > Thanks for your post. It's my opinion that time did exist prior to the Big >> > Bang. >> >> Okay, fine. On what do you base your opinion? >> >> Let's see. We measure time by events - oscillations of an atom, for >> example. We measure that by its interaction with, say, photons, which in >> turn interact with sensors. Except there are no sensors, no atoms. So >> what are we measuring? >> >> For that matter, while we might posit there were photons or some >> equivalent, we cannot state that the rules by which they operate here and >> now also apply, so we cannot even correctly say we could use those to >> perform measurements, even if there were something to measure. >> >> So on what do you base your opinion that time did exist "prior" to the BB? >> On what basis do you assert that "before the BB" is even a sensible >> statement? > >Let's go about it a different way. Is it your opinion that time and >physics did not exist prior to the Big Bang?. Please explain your answer. >Perhaps you could convince me that I was wrong. You still refuse to acknowledge the facts that were presented to you and that your ignorant opinion about the Big Bang is completely worthless. No one needs to convince you that you are wrong. You are wrong. Your denial of that fact does not change it. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <a1ee63phjvcf04li1dk3rsst5iinh8q642@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:24:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0606071424340001@66-52-22-15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <prC9i.28164$JQ3.953@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-0506071933390001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <lkub639s9o4sq1h4n626gtsm5qasut32su@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:00:56 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-0506071300570001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <f441ch$9ch$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> >> > In article <oppej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >> >> >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> [snips] > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect > >> > for that > >> >> >> >>> professor. I do respect Dr. Gish. > >> >> >> >> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history > >> > of lies, > >> >> >> >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she > >> >> >> > rediculed > >> >> >> > several other Christians and myself. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> What part of "What part of his long and well-documented history of > >> >> >> lies, > >> >> >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect?" did you seem > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> not comprehend? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I.e. Kelsey wasn't asking why you didn't respect your professor but > >> >> >> was, > >> >> >> instead, asking why DO you respect Dr. Gish? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> (And you claim to have a masters degree? In what? Illiteracy?) > >> >> > > >> >> >I respect Dr. Gish because of his accomplishments. > >> >> > >> >> Claims like this cause me not to respect you because you are so easily > >> >> gulled, but refuse to admit it. > >> >> > >> >> >I was present when he > >> >> >debated a science professor from the local state college. In my opinion, > >> >> >he won that debate. > >> >> > >> >> You are wrong. Gish may have conned you, but he didn't win a debate. > >> > > >> > Unless you attended that same debate that I attended, how would you know. > >> > >> > >> Because he knows Gish. Gish is a liar and a fraud. You can see that here: > >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html > >> > >> >> >Those are two of the reasons that I respect him. I > >> >> >debated that same professor in his office the week before he debated Dr. > >> >> >Gish. He easily won the debate that he had with me. He probably believed > >> >> >that he could just as easily win the debate with Dr. Gish. However, Dr. > >> >> >Gish was an experienced debater and easily won the debate. > >> >> > >> >> Gish lied. You bought his lies. > >> > >> No comment Jason? We are asserting that Bullfrog Gish is a liar. We have > >> evidence to support that assertion. Yet you still respect him???? > > > >Let's say that you lived in a different city than your father lived. You > >have a great deal of respect for your father. You meet someone that starts > >to tell you how evil your father is and that he had all sorts of evidence > >about your father. > > > >You would have two options: > >option 1: Agree agree that man and agree with the evidence. > >option 2: Continue to have respect for your father and disregard the evidence. > > > >I would choose option 2. > >option 2: > > You have chosen to ally yourself with a liar and a con man who steals > from Christians by telling them lies that they want to hear. You are as > morally corrupt as Gish is. > > Are you actually paid by the ICR to be a shill for their lies? I don't > know of any other reason a supposed Christian would support a liar over > the truth. No--I am not paid by anyone. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <s4ee63l7m06snhrejmi5amp02dvhia4bjq@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:04:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0606071304200001@66-52-22-15.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1181115259.911064.176680@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > ... > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics > >> > >> Aren't you embarassed by your lack of knowledge of physics? It's not > >> something a normal person would flaunt. > >> > >> Martin > > > >No--there are millions of us. > > > At times you seem to be proud of your ignorance. Apparently the Parable > of the Talents is one of Jesus' parables that you do not know. Do you believe that everyone that has never taken a college physics class is ignorant? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <hfde63dca58omfcv2llpie6a31salkrif1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:32:07 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0506072132080001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <vq7c635rnq3na6a6isbetaim0eog4bjqs9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > ... > > >> Not one of those are evidence related to any gods at all. You are the > >> most stubbornly ignorant man I have ever had to deal with. > > > > > >The sun God Shamash is mentioned in the law code of Hammurabi. > > Do you believe in the sun God Shamash because it was mentioned in the > law code of Hammurabi? No--I was aswering a question--see the above two posts. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:24:37 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0606071924370001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <sjke63tantjqq2dpvsd7o5b9erjgcsu4m4@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:29:58 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0606071829590001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <hfde63dca58omfcv2llpie6a31salkrif1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:32:07 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0506072132080001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <vq7c635rnq3na6a6isbetaim0eog4bjqs9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> Not one of those are evidence related to any gods at all. You are the >> >> >> most stubbornly ignorant man I have ever had to deal with. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >The sun God Shamash is mentioned in the law code of Hammurabi. >> >> >> >> Do you believe in the sun God Shamash because it was mentioned in the >> >> law code of Hammurabi? >> > >> >No--I was aswering a question--see the above two posts. >> > >> The fact that people worshipped gods is not evidence that the gods >> existed. Is this really confusing to you? > >You missed my point. No. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 In article <h1je63ptu4pdpgbsboi53vqgvscd4vv1rq@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:52:07 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0606071752070001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <l5rjj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > >> > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:09:25 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >> >> Then how do you know that god DID come to be? > >> > > >> > I see the evidence when I look at the stars in the sky or visit a state > >> > park. > >> > >> So do I - I see evidence that stars and parks exist. Nothing about gods, > >> though. > >> > >> > I also know it when I see evidence that a person was healed of a > >> > terrible disease or disorder. > >> > >> I see evidence they were healed; nothing implies gods, though. > >> > >> Oh, your cute little story, like all such, assumes God is a driveling > >> idiot, so it's not the sort of thing I'd tend to spew if I were a > >> believer. The notion God is such a complete fucking retard that he can't > >> figure out - despite being all-knowing - who needs healing unless he has > >> some snake-oil salesman to ring a bell and say "Here's one" makes God out > >> to be an incompetent, useless fuckup. > >> > >> 'Course, the fact he's also supposed to be all-powerful yet can't snap his > >> fingers and instantly heal people completely likewise makes him look like > >> a complete fuck-up. > >> > >> Fine, you've got a story which, if we accept it, makes God out to be an > >> incompetent idiot. Why you'd want to show us this isn't clear - giving up > >> your religion, are you? > >> > >> One thing I find really amusing about all these is that they never - and I > >> mean never - involve anything which would actually require a miraculous > >> intervention to explain; they are all, without exception, cases where the > >> most honest thing one can say about them is "Cure is currently unexplained." > >> > >> Want to impress us? Show us someone who has actually had a leg amputated > >> have it miraculously grow back, right there on stage. Oh, wait, never > >> happens. God, if he exists and is even half of what he's cracked up to > >> be, could do it in a heartbeat, yet it never ever EVER seems to actually > >> happen. You'll never find a case where there's something actually > >> interesting happening; it is always "Well, something happened, coulda been > >> gods, coulda been the meds finally working, coulda been any of a thousand > >> other things, who knows?" - yet we're supposed to conclude only one > >> possible explanation is allowed - the one that _assumes_ gods exist. > > > >Google "miracle healings" and you may be able to find some testimonies > >that will convince you that God is still healing people in much the same > >way that he healed people while Jesus was on this earth. > > > The testimonies are not evidence. They merely reflect the state of mind > of the people giving testimony. I disagree. If a man has been making use of a wheel chair for 10 years and is healed and as a result no longer has to use a wheel chair that is evidence that he was healed. His doctor confirmed that he was healed. That is evidence that he was healed. If you choose to reject the evidence, that is your choice. You can find even more evidence of miracle healings if you google: "miracle healings". Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:34:13 -0700, Jason wrote: > Evidence that God can heal people: > Google "miracle healings" if you need more evidence about some of the > people that God has healed. Look, you drooling moron, we saw your cute story. What we did not see, as it was completely absent from the story, was the evidence that God was responsible. -- The so-called psychic powers are not of the person, but are manifested through an evil spititual entity to take control over people. - Rob Bamford Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.