Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:19:37 -0700, Jason wrote: >> So far, relativity has not been refuted. The Big Bang started with a >> singularity. Within a singularity, there is no time. Since there was >> nothing outside (not even space), there was no time.\ > > Scientists may have a consensus about this subject but I doubt that they > have evidence that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. He just explained to you exactly why it is concluded that time is a meaningless concept as applies to the singularity itself, never mind any supposed "before". You have yet to explain the basis by which you conclude there was a "before", nor have you concluded how you determine that it _was_ "before". "Before" implies a temporal relationship, so to support this notion you're going to have to come up with a whole new definition of time, one not based on the entropic interaction of things or events within spacetime, not based on concepts of space, motion or measurement as we define them, and come up with a whole new body of knowledge explaining how such things apply in, let alone before, a singularity. I'm sure you'll be happy to provide this entire body of work to support your thesis that "before the big bang" is meaningful and that "time" somehow applies in this situation. Until you do that, have have nothing upon which to assert that "before" even exists, or that time does in those conditions. I'll look forward to reading your thesis in one of the refereed journals. -- Even the smallest of candles burn the brightest in the dark. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:57:51 -0700, Jason wrote: > Martin, > 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. Yet you offer no testable, falsifiable theories on the matter and thus cannot offer evidence; therefore anyone interested in science - i.e. actual intelligent examination of the subject - is forced to discard your notions as devoid of value. You can believe that it was all done last Thursday by a magic space slug for all we care; what matters is what you can support with evidence. It's actually kind of funny watching you flap about like a fish out of water on this. You seem to likewise expect evidence, except when it comes to your own claims. You try to poke holes - the 20(?) questions - yet those are, on the whole, questions seeking evidence and examining the evidence we have. You seem to grasp - to a limited degree - that science is about asking questions and finding answers, yet when it comes to your own views, you don't even ask the questions, never mind trying to find the answers. One wonders if you're actually stupid enough to simply be not aware that you're demanding of one side a standard you fail to apply to the other side, or if it's simply that you're willfully dishonest in applying such a different standard. Doesn't really matter either way, I suppose, as the result is the same - a double standard - but it would be nice to know whether it's simply stupidity or actually dishonesty; the particular manner in which we tear to shreds the fallacy of your position is affected by such details. -- "Millions murdered by Christians are unable to call it a death cult"FR Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:01:13 -0700, Jason wrote: >> 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. So have I. The question is when are you going to turn on your brain and let that information filter in, then process it and deal with the consequences of it? -- Disbelief in religions does not constitute a religion any more than disbelief in UFOs constitutes a space program. - Larry Haftl. 1:152/11 Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:52:07 -0700, Jason wrote: > Google "miracle healings" We have , you driveling idiot. Every time we do, we see claims of a healing. What we do not see is any evidence that gods were involved. Once again, you fail to grasp that very simple point. -- IF God doesn't like how I live, let Him tell me, not YOU! Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:53:00 -0700, Jason wrote: > I look at it a different way. God can heal anyone that he wants to heal. This assumes that God exists; since you have not demonstrated this to be the case, there is no foundation for making any claims about what God can or cannot, does or does not do. Feel free to demonstrate that God exists, then we'll examine the question of what he wants or doesn't want to do. -- What percenatge of Muslems worship Islam? - Don Ward Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:06:02 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0906071706030001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <0g9m63t8iakctu9orvkjpa1msg390daulc@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:06:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0906071506020001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <li3m63djdskll0r6g1am2pr4mm92vela03@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 14:13:26 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0906071413260001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <j8vl63dgeb7gaek2iucf548hn3td0kqicc@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:19:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-0906071219110001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >What caused that leg to get longer if God did not heal her? >> >> >> >> >> >> Natural processes. >> >> >> >> >> >> God has never claimed credit for anything. People make unsupported >> >> >> assertions on His behalf. >> >> > >> >> >Do you have any evidence that anyone else (other than Cheryl Prewitt) has >> >> >had a leg that was 2 or more inches shorter than the other leg grow to the >> >> >point that it was identical to the size of the other leg. I know someone >> >> >that has one leg that is shorter than the other leg. One of his shoes is a >> >> >platform shoe. Despite wearing that special shoe, he limps when he walks. >> >> >Why has his short leg not grown to the point that it is identical to the >> >> >size of his other leg? >> >> >> >> I don't have evidence that Cheryl Prewitt had a leg that was 2 inches >> >> shorter and grew to the same length. I have an assertion about something >> >> that happened under what are described as unusual circumstances. >> >> >> >> If God did this, as you assert, why is He so evil to other people? Why >> >> does He refuse to answer their prayers? Why doesn't He allow you to >> >> learn about science? >> > >> >Do you believe that Cheryl Prewitt is lying about her healing? >> > >> I have no evidence that she actually said this or that anything about it >> was true. > >This information was taken from the report that I posted yesterday: That's not the same as evidence. Don't keep repeating it. I asked for evidence. You've offered stories. >> >> >After a car accident at age 11, Cheryl Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:15:44 -0700, Jason wrote: >> 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. No, you posted evidence of a man that was healed. You completely failed to demonstrate that God exists and that God was involved with, let alone was the causal factor in, the healing. Try again. -- Christianity: A house of cards lacking a first floor. -- gr Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:26:21 -0700, Jason wrote: >> > That is true but is unrelated to abiogenesis. According to evolution >> > theory, the first living cells evolved naturally. >> > Jason >> >> Evolution theory doesn't address that point. > > The advocates of abiogenesis "abiogenesis". Does that look the same as "evolution theory"? No, it doesn't. Different subject. Different mechanisms. Different tests. Different bodies of evidence. Different people involved in the study of it. Gods, you really are too fucking stupid to tell the difference, aren't you? -- If he were a lawyer, he'd work for the Enquirer. - Hector Plasmic Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:33:05 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-0906071733050001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <h7mrj4-ugf.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 11:58:31 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > Any yet you swallow all of aspects of evolution and abiogenesis despite >> > the lack of evidence. >> >> Actually, you cannot conclude this, for at least two very simple reasons; >> first, because most of the folks in this discussion seem quite aware - >> unlike you - of the difference between evolution and abiogenesis and as a >> result also seem quite aware that while evolution is an established >> reality, the mechanics of abiogensis are, at least as far as we are aware >> of them, still very shaky, so it would be wholly dishonest of you, though >> completely in character, to lump them together and draw such conclusions, >> and second because, once they have been thus correctly separated, the one >> which is being held up as a reasonably well-understood and very >> well-supported idea, namely evolution, has endless reams of evidence. >> >> So, two significant errors in one sentence; well done, Jason, but you'll >> have to do better than that to win the record. >> >> > For example, you believe that a single cell >> > (example: bacteria) >> > evolved into a single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual >> > reproduction). >> >> Nope. Individuals don't evolve, populations do. >> >> > One of the members of this newsgroup told me in a post something like >> > this: We now have living cells so it's only logical to conclude that >> > they naturally evolved. >> >> Perhaps he, unlike you, is capable of thinking and thus correctly >> formulating a statement along those lines, as opposed to your incorrect >> formulation. >> >> > There are two other possibilites >> >> False conclusion. Let's see... "God dunnit." "Aliens dunnit." >> "Abiogenesis and evolution dunnit" - that's three options. "Some as-yet >> unknown and unexplained process dunnit". There's a fourth, but that >> fourth actually encompasses the possibility of hundreds, thousands of >> possible alternate explanations. "Two other possibilities" my aunt's >> fanny. >> >> > My point is that if you (and others) had a "skeptical instinct" >> >> We do, which is why we demand evidence of claims, something which you >> fail, consistently, to do. The difference is we're actually smart enough >> to figure out what sort of evidence is both relevant and necessary, >> something else you seem unable to do. > >Most atheists believe that the Big Bang was how the solar system and earth >came into be. No. The Big Bang is how the universe came to be. It has nothing to do with religion. >They believe that abiogenesis and evolution is how all life >came into be. The evidence shows this to us. >They believe that humans evolved from othr life-forms >without any involvement from God. There is no evidence that any god had anything to do with it. >When someone like myself provides evidence (testimonies) that indicates >two people were healed by God, they reject the evidence since it does not >"fit" their belief system. On the other hand, they believe aspects of >evolution or abiogenesis--even if there is NO evidence or very little >evidence. Testimonies are not scientific evidence. The testimonies themselves are dishonest because the witnesses have no reason at all to claim that God had anything to do with it. You already know that you are lying when you claim there is no evidence or very little evidence related to abiogenesis or evolution. >For example, these are the first two steps in the evolution of man: >STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual >reproduction) > >There has been lots of research related to bacteria. None of those >research projects have provided evidence which has indicated that bacteria >evolved into an animal cell. If it happened naturally millions of years >ago, it should be easy for scientists to cause it to happen again. In >other words, there is NO evidence that animal cells evolved from bacteria. >However, that does not stop athiests and the advocates of evolution and >abiogenesis from believing that it happened. > >Perhaps animal cells were created by God. I don't have evidence but >neither do you have evidence that animal cells evolved naturally from >bacteria. > >Perhaps ancient astronauts made a trip to earth millions of years ago and >left behind people, plants and animals. I doubt that it happened that way >but some people do believe that it happened that way. They have no >evidence but neither do you have evidence that animal cells evolved >naturally from bacteria. > You never read what people tell you. You just persist in your lies. Why do you hate the God you claim to worship? Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:51:53 -0700, Jason wrote: >> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual >> reproduction) >> STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for >> survival) >> STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to >> function) >> STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish) >> STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog) >> STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard) >> STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse) >> STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee) >> STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you) >> >> Martin > > Calculate the millions of positive mutations that would have been required > to get from step 1 to step 10. Since we lack a complete genetic mapping of each, it is impossible to determine the exact numbers involved. > As you know, most mutations do not result > in a new species. No freakin' kidding. > Lots of research has been done related to fruit flies. > They can cause mutations to happen with the use of an X-Ray machines. As > far as I know, the most they have accomplished is the creation of a new > species of fruit flies. Umm... okay, so fine, in a very short duration, new species can arise via mutation, by your own argument. "Short time" here being a matter of a decade or so, as opposed to, oh, three billion years and change. > The fruit flies have never had mutations that > caused them to be a different type of insect. Small-scale mutations on a time scale of a decade? Not freakin' surprising, that, as nobody other than a creationist could be retarded enough to think that this was a predictable outcome. > With that information in > mind, how do you think it would be possible for a amphibian to evolve > into a reptile? By means of evolution, just not over the time frame of dinner. You are aware that nobody other than driveling idiots such as yourself thinks this is a rapid process, right? > How do you think it would be possible for a reptile to > evolve into a mammal? You know much more about math than I know. So does the average bivalve; this is not a significant difficulty. > It's > shocking to me that someone that knows as much about math as you know > would actually believe that it would be possible for a bacteria to > evolve into a man. Since you haven't seen the numbers involved - I say this with some certainty as nobody else has either - you have no basis for expressing any shock based on the numbers. > Lots of research has been done with bacteria. Can you > tell me about an experiment that proved that a bacteria evolved into a > "single animal cell with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction"? Offhand? No. I'm sure there was a point there, but whatever it was is unclear. So, let's see if we can sum up your argument (speaking _as_ you): "I don't know what the numbers even are, so I'm shocked anyone can accept them, they're so amazing. Except you're not accepting the numbers because there aren't any, you're accepting a process which explains the numbers, which is shocking because I don't see how it can explain numbers I don't even have. oh, yeah, and you haven't shown development of sex in the lab, so it's shocking to think it could happen anywhere else, because I don't have any numbers to show how difficult this is." What say you shut up now and come back when you actually have something to say? -- Get thee behind me Satan. - Kenneth Mcabee Bend over. - Satan Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:03:06 -0700, Jason wrote: > It would be great if more of the advocates of evolution had skeptical > instincts You mean we should adopt your approach of simply believing something is real with no supporting evidence at all, then proceed as if this were an absolute truth? You, Jason, have no basis to criticize anyone for lack of skeptical instincts or poor standards of evidence - you keep telling us how God healed people, yet haven't established God exists or that he was involved. What's even more funny is that - ignoring your fundamental dishonesty for a moment - you seem to be completely ignorant of science. I don't just mean that you don't have a deep grasp of the intricate details of a particular branch of science, you seem completely clueless about the very basics of it. As has been explained, we know evolution exists. This is not a matter for discussion or debate; it does exist. If you wish to argue that point, the only possible response is "Go read a book", as by arguing the point you demonstrate you fail to grasp simple cold, hard, reality. Once you grasp that point, the only significant question left is whether or not evolution is sufficient to explain the historical development of life as we see it, both now and in the fossil record. The answer to that question is that it appears to be. Note that: it appears to be. Science has not answered every single possible question on the subject, nor does it claim to have. You don't get how sexual reproduction could have evolved? Bully for you; a number of others have asked that same question. The thing is, lacking an answer is not actually a problem. More specifically, if we find that evolution is sufficient to explain the development of life as we see it _except for answers to a few questions_ then we are still left with a perfectly viable explanation until one of two things occurs: either we answer those questions or we demonstrate that the process is not, in fact, capable of the events implied by those questions. So, you ask "How did sexual reproduction come about"? Perhaps the answer is "we don't know". So what? Unless you can demonstrate that sexual reproduction cannot come about by these means, then the issue is at most an unanswered question, rather than a difficulty to the explanation. Your complete lack of understanding of science is demonstrated in your very approach; you seem to think that if it doesn't have all the answers now, then none of the answers are acceptable. Yet science doesn't work this way. It examines some questions, proposes a possible explanation, then examines the implications of that explanation . That process takes time - a lot of time, in some cases. Quantum theory, for example, was proposed early last century; we're still working on it, trying to sort out details. Does this mean that just because we don't have every answer to every question, the entire body of knowledge on the subject is wrong? No, it simply means we do not have all the answers - yet. Sciences is not a process of magic; it does not say "Here is an answer - and it includes all possible answers to all possible questions ". It is a process of ongoing study and testing and learning and refinement, answering more and more questions as time goes on. I know the theistic mind has trouble with this, as that mindset seems to require some weird sort of oracular proclamation: "This is the book, and all answers are in it". That might be fine in religion, but that is not how science works, and to try to examine science in this manner simply does not work; it is an attempt to make science into something it is not, or to examine it in terms of something which is simply not applicable. So. We get that you don't even understand how science works, even at the most basic level. What we don't get is why you think your ignorance of this in any way suggests you are competent to point out flaws, particularly when your attempts to do so are based in treating science as something other than what science is, expecting it to work in a manner which science simply does not work in. This makes as little sense as trying to explain the operation of an internal combustion engine by quoting Bible passages; the Bible simply does not work that way and trying to force it to would simply be a stupid waste of time - yet you persist in doing the same sort of thing when examining science. -- "Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 In article <466b2252$0$4701$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-0906071503510001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <4ODai.777$s9.295@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-0906071313520001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article > >> > <DipthotDipthot-294445.11505509062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > >> > 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> In article > >> >> <Jason-0906071219110001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > What caused that leg to get longer if God did not heal her? > >> >> > >> >> Ahem. > >> >> > >> >> You are assuming that we accept your telling of the story. > >> >> > >> >> I, for one, do not. Provide an authoritative source to support it. > >> >> Otherwise, my position is one of doubt. > >> > > >> > Do you believe the lady (a former Miss America) was lying when she > >> > stated > >> > that she was healed by God? > >> > > >> > If not, how do you explain why her legs are now the same size? > >> > >> It certainly wasn't god, since he doesn't exist. Tell me Jason, you are > >> quick to ascribe all good things to god, what do you do with the many bad > >> things? Are those also in the province of your god? > > > > Good and bad things happen. People have free will and in most cases, good > > things and bad things happen as a result of people expressing their free > > will. > > > > In relation to natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes--I > > don't blame God. It's my opinion that God created the solar system and the > > earth. In most cases, those things are natural and are not caused by God. > > However, I do believe God can intervene in relation to those sorts of > > things if he chooses to do so. In those cases, they could be considered to > > be "acts of God". For example, a group of Christian farmers may pray for > > rain--God could intervene and cause it to rain. > > Jason > > > Your God accepts the repsonsibity for all the evil in the world look to Amos > 3:6 for instance. Since God created the world and all life forms--God is indirectly responsible for everything that happens--even if it is evil. Does that mean that a murderer can blame God for the murder--I don't think so. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 In article <0g9m63t8iakctu9orvkjpa1msg390daulc@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:06:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-0906071506020001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <li3m63djdskll0r6g1am2pr4mm92vela03@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 14:13:26 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-0906071413260001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <j8vl63dgeb7gaek2iucf548hn3td0kqicc@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:19:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-0906071219110001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > >> ... > >> > >> >> >What caused that leg to get longer if God did not heal her? > >> >> > >> >> Natural processes. > >> >> > >> >> God has never claimed credit for anything. People make unsupported > >> >> assertions on His behalf. > >> > > >> >Do you have any evidence that anyone else (other than Cheryl Prewitt) has > >> >had a leg that was 2 or more inches shorter than the other leg grow to the > >> >point that it was identical to the size of the other leg. I know someone > >> >that has one leg that is shorter than the other leg. One of his shoes is a > >> >platform shoe. Despite wearing that special shoe, he limps when he walks. > >> >Why has his short leg not grown to the point that it is identical to the > >> >size of his other leg? > >> > >> I don't have evidence that Cheryl Prewitt had a leg that was 2 inches > >> shorter and grew to the same length. I have an assertion about something > >> that happened under what are described as unusual circumstances. > >> > >> If God did this, as you assert, why is He so evil to other people? Why > >> does He refuse to answer their prayers? Why doesn't He allow you to > >> learn about science? > > > >Do you believe that Cheryl Prewitt is lying about her healing? > > > I have no evidence that she actually said this or that anything about it > was true. This information was taken from the report that I posted yesterday: > >> >After a car accident at age 11, Cheryl Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:24:19 -0700, Jason wrote: > Scenario: > An atheist attends an open casket funeral. You can repeat this until you're blue in the face; it still doesn't show that God exists, nor demonstrate that he was involved in any healings. When are you going to grow up enough to at least pretend to be honest? -- Stewie: Augh! What the hell do you think you're doing? Brian: I'm cleaning myself. Stewie: You were clean fifteen minutes ago, now you're just on vacation. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:34:13 -0700, Jason wrote: >> 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: You'll need to demonstrate that God even exists before you can claim he heals people. Then you'll have to demonstrate that he was, in fact, involved with the healings you claim he was involved with. We're quite happy to accept some people got healed; this neither demonstrates God nor his involvement. So, where was your evidence? Oh, right, you didn't have any. Funny thing... no evidence, no support, no nothing, yet you buy it completely - and then have the temerity to say we lack sufficient skepticism. The irony of that could power several large cities for millenia. -- We wore cyanide detectors but by the time those things went off the alarm was only useful for locating your body. - George Rudzinski Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:34:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > The problem is that evolutionists do not have answers that are backed up > with evience related to issues about the how life began on this planet. Look, you lying little shitbag, you've been told, time and time again, that evolution does not address the origins of life. Why is it that you theistic types feel compelled to lie through your teeth on an ongoing basis? -- From beginning to end, there's one unfolding story of God's plan of salivation for mankind. - Marguerite Kendall Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:04:25 -0700, Jason wrote: > If you have read the other posts, you will know that the advocates of > evolution don't really know how the energy that expanded during the Big > Bang came to be. Look, you lying little shitbag, you've been told, repeatedly, that evolution does not encompass the big bang. Why do you feel compelled to lie through your teeth at every possible opportunity? -- Fundamentalism (n.): fund = give cash to; amentalism = brainlessness Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On Jun 10, 2:58 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181371371.821396.211...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 9, 7:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <Qjjai.676$s9....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > >news:Jason-0706072057150001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > In article <p37h6310qvbml7o4ugpurslof5iek4a...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:03:20 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > >> <Jason-0706071803200...@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >> >In article <tv5h63p152eiq5lkke28hqjbr3qmes9...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> ... > > > > > >> >> I didn't stop learning when I left college. Why did you? > > > > > >> >I did not stop learning. My interests were different than your > > > > >> >interests. > > > > > >> Then why do you continue to make false claims about areas of science > > > > >> that you are ignorant of? > > > > > > My interests were not in subjects like quantum physics. > > > > > Then why do you attempt to disparage the results of such subjects? > > > > I have a skeptical instinct > > > And yet you swallow all the bullshit that Gish, Morris and your > > preachers spew. > Any yet you swallow all of aspects of evolution and abiogenesis despite > the lack of evidence. Stop being a lying scumbag, Jason. The evidence was posted and you ignored it. Tell you what, Jason: what you are is someone who can't do math or even perform simple reasoning. Human beings can perform math and do simple reasoning. Prove to me that you are related to the human race and have shown that the human race did evolve from a lower life form. Are you related to the rest of humanity, Jason? If that is your claim then where is your evidence? What is the missing link between Jason and mankind? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On Jun 10, 3:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-17A670.09060209062...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > > > > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > In article > > <Jason-0806072102410...@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article > > > <DipthotDipthot-4AA6C5.19390408062...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > > > I repeat: If you had been raised in a Hindu community, what do you > > > > think you'd believe about who/what was responsible for "miracle > > > > healings"? > > > > I don't know. > > > Of course you don't. > > > > The only foreign country that I have visited is Mexico. > > > Talk about limited horizons! > > > > There are Christians in almost every country in the world so I would hope > > > that I would become a Christian. > > > You are hoping now that you would have been a Christian back then ? > > > What sort of convoluted hypothetical wishful thinking is that? > > > The fact is, you would likely have been raised a Hindu, and, if you came > > upon what you would perceive as a "miracle healing," you would see it > > from the Hindu perspective, not the Christian one. > > > This is where your whole argument in favor of Christianity falls apart, > > even if you could somehow make a case for a "miracle" event. > > > Something supposedly miraculous happens, and you react based on your > > current prejudices, not based on any reasoned analysis of the occurrence. > > I believe that God God doesn't exist. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On Jun 10, 3:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181371287.388122.242...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 9, 7:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <Kdjai.670$s9....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > >news:Jason-0706072112310001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > In article <sueh63h0slh8d0oudf83vl7vb8d6tq1...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:12:54 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > >> <Jason-0706072012540...@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >> >In article > > > > >> ><DipthotDipthot-63ED4F.18324107062...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > > > > >> >655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> In article > > > > >> >> <Jason-0706071647400...@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > >> >> > I requested that you google "miracle healings" and if you had done > > > > >> >> > that, > > > > >> >> > you would know that God is healing people today in much the > same way > > > > >> >> > that > > > > >> >> > God healed people while Jesus was on this earth. > > > > > >> >> You are a sucker for a smooth-talkin' salesman, aren't you? If you > > > > >> >> had > > > > >> >> been raised in a Hindu community, what do you think you'd believe > > > > >> >> about > > > > >> >> who/what was responsible for "miracle healings"? > > > > > >> >God can heal anyone regardless of their religions. > > > > > >> There is no evidence that God healed anyone, no matter what their > > > > >> religion. > > > > > > I disagree. I know people that have been healed. I know someone that had > > > > > one leg that was about 3 inches shorter than other other leg. God > healed > > > > > her and now both of her legs are the same size. That is evidence > to me but > > > > > I know that you would not consider it as evidence--even if you seen her > > > > > X-rays and medical records. > > > > > Jason > > > > > How is it evidence that god did it? > > > > I know a lady that had one leg that was longer than the other leg. She was > > > a teenage girl and her parents were too poor to buy her special shoes. The > > > children in her school teased her on a daily basis. She begged God to heal > > > her. > > > God doesn't exist. > What caused that leg to get longer if God did not heal her?- Hide quoted text - Your question is out of date. A simple web search has proven that this never happened. You've swallowed other people's lies, Jason. As a liar yourself, you'd think you'd be able to tell when others are lying. Martin Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:44:01 -0700, Jason wrote: > I know that God exists. Prove it, or, at the very least, provide evidence to back the claim. Oh, wait, you can't. Very good, so "God" is relegated to nothing more than a product of your diseased mind, until such evidence is forthcoming. Thus any claims based on the supposition God exists will be summarily dismissed as the drivel of an idiot. Carry on... > I know a person that had Parkinson's Disease. > That person prayed and asked God to heal her. She was healed by God Whoops, there you go, driveling like an idiot. You've not shown God even exists, so cannot claim God healed anything. Thanks for playing, be sure to return again after you graduate third grade and thus acquire some basic reasoning skills. -- "I want you the fuck off of my doorstep" -- Smith & Wesson .44 Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On Jun 10, 3:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181371247.516219.73...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 9, 6:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <bdjai.669$s9....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > >news:Jason-0706072310450001@66-52-22-66.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > In article <1181276848.770709.166...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Martin > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jun 8, 12:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > >> > In article <sueh63h0slh8d0oudf83vl7vb8d6tq1...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > >> > > On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:12:54 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > >> > > <Jason-0706072012540...@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >> > > >In article > > ><DipthotDipthot-63ED4F.18324107062...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > > > > >> > > >655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> In article > > > > >> > > >> <Jason-0706071647400...@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > > > >> > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > I requested that you google "miracle healings" and if you had > > > > > done that, > > > > >> > > >> > you would know that God is healing people today in much the > > > > > same way that > > > > >> > > >> > God healed people while Jesus was on this earth. > > > > > >> > > >> You are a sucker for a smooth-talkin' salesman, aren't you? If > > > > >> > > >> you had > > > > >> > > >> been raised in a Hindu community, what do you think you'd > believe > > > > >> > > >> about > > > > >> > > >> who/what was responsible for "miracle healings"? > > > > > >> > > >God can heal anyone regardless of their religions. > > > > > >> > > There is no evidence that God healed anyone, no matter what their > > > > >> > > religion. > > > > > >> > I disagree. I know people that have been healed. I know someone that > > > > >> > had > > > > >> > one leg that was about 3 inches shorter than other other leg. God > > > > > >> God doesn't exist. You proved that yourself. > > > > > >> Martin > > > > > > I read the following in another thread in this newsgroup. It made > me think > > > > > of the people in this thread that appear to not believe in God. > > > > > >> Professional atheists who've dedicated themselves > > > > >> to eradicating the Lord do so because they hate Him. > > > > >> They're the God-haters. > > > > >> To which they'll invariably reply: 'How can we hate > > > > >> something we don't believe in ?'. > > > > >> Exactly ! It's their belief in God which drives them to > > > > >> relentlessly attack Him. > > > > > You must have stolen this from your Christian brother, Stooge. Take > it from > > > > me, I'm an atheist and you can't hate what doesn't exist. You can hate his > > > > ignorant followers and there I just might dislike a few of them intensely. > > > > Your brother Rayturd, for example, I wouldn't lift a finger to help him. > > > > I have detected the presence of the spirit of hate in some of the posts in > > > this thread. > > > You must have gone back and read your own posts then and noticed what > > you wrote about Mexicans, communists, atheists and pregnant women who > > want abortions. There's nothing but pure hatred coming from you. I'm > > glad to see you finally recognize that. > I don't hate anyone. Once again you are making a statement contrary to all evidence. I'm supposed to believe you don't hate anyone even though the God you worship would condemn so many people to your imaginary Hell? Forgive me for being a bit sceptical. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On Jun 10, 3:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f4ec7t$56...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > I have detected the presence of the spirit of hate in some of the posts in > > > this thread. However, not all atheists have developed the spirit of hate. > > > It's possible that they attack me since I am a follower of God. > > > No, they attach you because you're so willfully stupid. > > > I don't > > > really worry about it since I stop reading after the first sentence and > > > click to the next post. I don't hate anyone. I would add a line to above-- > > > > It's their belief in God which drives them to relentlessly attack Him AND > > > THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HIS FOLLOWERS. > > > See? That's example of how you're so willfully stupid. It's been told to > > you, in the very post that you were responding to, that "[an atheist] > > can't hate what doesn't exist" and yet you ignore that and claim that we > > "attack Him." CAN you attack or hate Zeus? CAN you attack the fairies in > > your garden? CAN you attack the pink elephant on your desk? > > Can you attack the people that are the followers of God? To tell you the truth, Jason, I feel sorry for you, I've done all I can to cure your mental illness and now it's up to you to get a clue all by yourself. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On Jun 10, 4:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181411474.240935.254...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 8 Jun., 22:54, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1181331557.751428.128...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > > > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 8, 12:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > Whether God was involved or not cannot be judged scientifically > > > > > > because His interference would be magical, and need not leave a > > > > > > physical trace. What we do know is that humans have common ancestors > > > > > > with chimps, cheetahs and chives. The physical evidence is > > > > > > overwhelming. If there was a separate "creation" for human beings, > > > > > > that creations was of a spiritual nature, because our physical beings > > > > > > clearly show that we are the same kind of creature as the other Great > > > > > > Apes. > > > > > > > - Bob T. > > > > > > I was asked about this once before. My answer is that God created > mankind > > > > > and apes. He used some of the features in mankind and apes such as tooth > > > > > patterns. Perhaps God should have apes to be vastly different than > humans > > > > > so as not to confuse the advocates of evolution. > > > > > "Some of the features"??? You clearly don't understand. Humans and > > > > chimps share 97% of our DNA. Gorillas are only slightly less related > > > > to humans, then the other apes are slightly less similar, then the > > > > other primates are still slightly less similar, etc. etc. All of life > > > > on this planet is clearly related, including humans. There was no > > > > separate creation of the humans species - our relatedness to the other > > > > apes is clearly established by the facts. > > > > > Why are you clinging so tightly to the Genesis myth? There is no need > > > > to believe in it in order to believe that God created everything. > > > > Humans are clearly apes who passed a certain threshold of intelligence > > > > and became self-aware and able to think abstract thoughts like "who > > > > created us". If you want to believe that God nudged evolution so as > > > > to produce beings intelligent enough to believe in Him, that's fine - > > > > but to believe in a separate Creation for humans you have to leave > > > > logic and reason behind. > > > Only about 12 percent of Americans would agree with you. > > > So what? What possible relevance does that have? Surprise me and > > answer the question. Overwhelme me by answering the question honestly. > > I will tell you the reason I mentioned the 12 percent figure in several posts. We know why. It's because you're an idiot who doesn't know what evidence means. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 10, 2007 Posted June 10, 2007 On Jun 10, 4:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-294445.11505509062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > In article > > <Jason-0906071219110...@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > What caused that leg to get longer if God did not heal her? > > > Ahem. > > > You are assuming that we accept your telling of the story. > > > I, for one, do not. Provide an authoritative source to support it. > > Otherwise, my position is one of doubt. > > Do you believe the lady (a former Miss America) was lying when she stated > that she was healed by God? It never happened. It's been proven that it never happened. Now go cry to your mommy. Martin 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.