Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:39:34 -0700, Jason wrote: > I agree that people just choose to believe whatever they want to > believe. Some people just choose - you, for example. The rest of us expect sound, reasoned arguments backed with evidence. Got any evidence God exists? No? Fine; so you're a fanatic who believes complete and utter tripe with no actual reason whatsoever. This isn't news; fanatics who believe without support have been with us for millenia. The real news will be when one of them grows enough functioning neurons to show the evidence that their beliefs refer to something real. -- Scientific experiments and various extrapolation methods tell me that the earth is young. Nothing to do with any religious anything. -- Anonymous Creationist liar Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 In article <1181559874.955632.231140@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 10 Jun., 21:16, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <9ijtj4-umv....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > snip > > > > > 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. > > > > > I'm not aware of anyone who is confused that bacteria are animal cells, > > > other than apparently you. > > > > I was referring to these two steps: > > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction) > > > Yes, you are referring to your ignorant understanding of evolution. > > > > > > Testimony is considered as evidence in court. > > It is not considered evidence in science. That has already been > pointed out to you, and you have, true to form, ignored it. > > > Someone pointed out that > > physical evidence (eg gun, bloody knife) is more important than testimony. > > I agreed with that person that made that statement. > > > > Let's say that the neighbors in an apartment building hear a married > > couple having an argument. They hear the husband say, "I'm going to kill > > you". The argument ends and the police are not called. The following day, > > the wife was shot as she was walking home from work. The husband took a > > shower after he shot his wife and washed his hands with bleach to remove > > any evidence. There were no witnesses present when the husband shot his > > wife. The police are not able to find a gun when they search the apartment > > and all surrounding areas. They arrest the husband and charge him with the > > murder. All of the neighbors provide testimony at the murder trial. > > > > The jury members convict the husband of first degree murder--based upon > > the testimonies of the people that heard the argument and heard him say, > > "I'm going to kill you." > > > > Do you now understand that TESTIMONY is evidence--even if there is no > > physical evidence? > > Only physical evidence is acceptable in science. A woman simply > stating that she believes there was a miracle is expressing an > opinion. The fact that she does not understand how she was healed > does not mean it was a miracle. If nobody around her understands it, > that also does not prove it is a miracle. And (this may be hardest > for you to accept) the fact that she is a former Miss America is > totally irrelevant. You explained your point of view very well. I agree that the fact that she is a former Miss America is totally irrelevant. If she produced X-Rays, medical records and the written statements of the medical staff that were present when a doctor removed two sections of her leg bone, would you be convinced that God healed her? Perhaps the film showing her walking normally at the Miss America contest would be proof that she was healed. A person that has one leg that is two inches shorter than the other leg has a limp--unless platform shoes are worn. The Miss America film would show that she was not wearing a platform shoe. An option would be to have a medical doctor measure both of her legs to determine if they were the same size. After you examined all of the above evidence which proved that her legs were now the same size---would you conceed that God caused her leg to grow two inches? Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:10:09 -0700, Jason wrote: > I will answer it but already know that you will not be satisfied with my > answer. Of course not, because your answers are never based in reason or evidence; they';re the product of the credulous mind, fit only for the terminally deluded. > There is a scripture in the Bible but I don't know the exact > verse. You don't even know the book which, presumably, is the most important single guide to your beliefs? How odd. Here, let an atheist help you out in your own freakin' belief system: Isaiah, 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." > It says something like this: "God's ways are not our ways." See above. > In > other words, in many cases, it's impossible to understand God's ways or > God's thinking processes. So God hides and deceives and plays games, and you find this sort of thing respectable. Figures. > For example, two people can request healing > but only one of the two people would be healed. God knows the reason for > his action but it's impossible for us to know the reason. This, of course, presumes God is involved at all - which requires that God exists. I'm sure you'll post the evidence that God actually exists, right? Oh, no, you always seem to forget that step. > The most we > can do is guess. For example, the lack of faith in God's power may be > the reason. Other possible reasons: unforgiven sin; failing to forgive > people; not asking God for a healing. Or God simply not existing, which is far and away the simpler explanation. Do feel free to show us the evidence that God exists. Any time. Come on, you can do it - you must be able to, because otherwise you'd be basing your entire belief system on nothing more than "Is too!", the empty rantings of the spoiled child - hardly a basis for defining one's very moral foundation and the like. So... where's the evidence? -- Welcome to our Star System. Now Go Home. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 In article <5d5eo0F32480lU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1106071119040001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <1181559874.955632.231140@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 10 Jun., 21:16, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <9ijtj4-umv....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >> snip > >> > >> > > > 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. > >> > > >> > > I'm not aware of anyone who is confused that bacteria are animal > >> > > cells, > >> > > other than apparently you. > >> > > >> > I was referring to these two steps: > >> > > >> > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > >> > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > >> > reproduction) > >> > >> > >> Yes, you are referring to your ignorant understanding of evolution. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Testimony is considered as evidence in court. > >> > >> It is not considered evidence in science. That has already been > >> pointed out to you, and you have, true to form, ignored it. > >> > >> > >> Someone pointed out that > >> > physical evidence (eg gun, bloody knife) is more important than > >> > testimony. > >> > I agreed with that person that made that statement. > >> > > >> > Let's say that the neighbors in an apartment building hear a married > >> > couple having an argument. They hear the husband say, "I'm going to > >> > kill > >> > you". The argument ends and the police are not called. The following > >> > day, > >> > the wife was shot as she was walking home from work. The husband took a > >> > shower after he shot his wife and washed his hands with bleach to > >> > remove > >> > any evidence. There were no witnesses present when the husband shot his > >> > wife. The police are not able to find a gun when they search the > >> > apartment > >> > and all surrounding areas. They arrest the husband and charge him with > >> > the > >> > murder. All of the neighbors provide testimony at the murder trial. > >> > > >> > The jury members convict the husband of first degree murder--based upon > >> > the testimonies of the people that heard the argument and heard him > >> > say, > >> > "I'm going to kill you." > >> > > >> > Do you now understand that TESTIMONY is evidence--even if there is no > >> > physical evidence? > >> > >> Only physical evidence is acceptable in science. A woman simply > >> stating that she believes there was a miracle is expressing an > >> opinion. The fact that she does not understand how she was healed > >> does not mean it was a miracle. If nobody around her understands it, > >> that also does not prove it is a miracle. And (this may be hardest > >> for you to accept) the fact that she is a former Miss America is > >> totally irrelevant. > > > > You explained your point of view very well. I agree that the fact that she > > is a former Miss America is totally irrelevant. > > > > If she produced X-Rays, medical records and the written statements of the > > medical staff that were present when a doctor removed two sections of her > > leg bone, would you be convinced that God healed her? > > Of course not. There's no evidence that god(s) exist. Thanks--that is what I expected you to state. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1106071134290001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <5d5eo0F32480lU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1106071119040001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1181559874.955632.231140@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> > >> >> On 10 Jun., 21:16, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <9ijtj4-umv....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> >> snip >> >> >> >> > > > 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. >> >> > >> >> > > I'm not aware of anyone who is confused that bacteria are animal >> >> > > cells, >> >> > > other than apparently you. >> >> > >> >> > I was referring to these two steps: >> >> > >> >> > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >> >> > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual >> >> > reproduction) >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, you are referring to your ignorant understanding of evolution. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Testimony is considered as evidence in court. >> >> >> >> It is not considered evidence in science. That has already been >> >> pointed out to you, and you have, true to form, ignored it. >> >> >> >> >> >> Someone pointed out that >> >> > physical evidence (eg gun, bloody knife) is more important than >> >> > testimony. >> >> > I agreed with that person that made that statement. >> >> > >> >> > Let's say that the neighbors in an apartment building hear a married >> >> > couple having an argument. They hear the husband say, "I'm going to >> >> > kill >> >> > you". The argument ends and the police are not called. The following >> >> > day, >> >> > the wife was shot as she was walking home from work. The husband >> >> > took a >> >> > shower after he shot his wife and washed his hands with bleach to >> >> > remove >> >> > any evidence. There were no witnesses present when the husband shot >> >> > his >> >> > wife. The police are not able to find a gun when they search the >> >> > apartment >> >> > and all surrounding areas. They arrest the husband and charge him >> >> > with >> >> > the >> >> > murder. All of the neighbors provide testimony at the murder trial. >> >> > >> >> > The jury members convict the husband of first degree murder--based >> >> > upon >> >> > the testimonies of the people that heard the argument and heard him >> >> > say, >> >> > "I'm going to kill you." >> >> > >> >> > Do you now understand that TESTIMONY is evidence--even if there is >> >> > no >> >> > physical evidence? >> >> >> >> Only physical evidence is acceptable in science. A woman simply >> >> stating that she believes there was a miracle is expressing an >> >> opinion. The fact that she does not understand how she was healed >> >> does not mean it was a miracle. If nobody around her understands it, >> >> that also does not prove it is a miracle. And (this may be hardest >> >> for you to accept) the fact that she is a former Miss America is >> >> totally irrelevant. >> > >> > You explained your point of view very well. I agree that the fact that >> > she >> > is a former Miss America is totally irrelevant. >> > >> > If she produced X-Rays, medical records and the written statements of >> > the >> > medical staff that were present when a doctor removed two sections of >> > her >> > leg bone, would you be convinced that God healed her? >> >> Of course not. There's no evidence that god(s) exist. > > Thanks--that is what I expected you to state. Whatever. It's still not evidence that god(s) exist. Maybe an alien lifeform healed her. It's only your assumption that a god did it. What makes you think you're right? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote snip> I pointed out two miracle healings that were done by God as evidence for > God. No, you didn't. You pointed out two cases which appeared to be miraculous and then claimed that a god did it. I also suggested that people google "miracle healings" to see even > more evidence for God by reading about miracle healings that were done by > God. > > If you choose to disregard or not believe that evidence--that is not my > fault. > > So... my answer is --I have provided the evidence. No, you just think you did. That's not my fault, but it certainly is yours. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 In article <0de0k4-blk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:46:46 -0700, Jason wrote: > > >> You really ought to stop digging yourself in deeper; you just look more > >> foolish with every attempt. > > > > I am not digging myself in deeper. I attended a murder trial. They did > > have physical evidence but most of the time was spent interviewing all of > > witnesses. > > Indeed. And did any of them claim that the Ha-ne-go-ate-geh swooped in, > resplendent in his invisibility, to kill the victim(s), leaving behind not > a single trace of evidence? > > No. So, they're testifying about events which are already known to have > occurred, using purely natural explanations for purely natural occurrences. > > See, we know this. The question is why aren't you smart enough to figure > out that this has nothing at all to do with establishing gods? > > Besides, your entire use of "testimony" is fundamentally flawed. We don't > take your word that God exists just because you say so. Why do you > think we'd take her word? You haven't offered anything more than two > people now making the same unfounded claim. > > Why you think showing us more people without a shred of evidence makes for > a compelling case isn't clear, but it doesn't; it just shows more gullible > people. > > Got any evidence of gods? Nope, didn't think so. The evidence that they were healed is evidence for God. If you google miracle healings you will see even more evidence of God by reading about those healings that were done by God. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 In article <4fg0k4-blk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:10:09 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > I will answer it but already know that you will not be satisfied with my > > answer. > > Of course not, because your answers are never based in reason or > evidence; they';re the product of the credulous mind, fit only for the > terminally deluded. > > > There is a scripture in the Bible but I don't know the exact > > verse. > > You don't even know the book which, presumably, is the most important > single guide to your beliefs? How odd. Here, let an atheist help you out > in your own freakin' belief system: > > Isaiah, 55:8 > > "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, > saith the LORD." > > > > It says something like this: "God's ways are not our ways." > > See above. > > > > In > > other words, in many cases, it's impossible to understand God's ways or > > God's thinking processes. > > So God hides and deceives and plays games, and you find this sort of thing > respectable. Figures. > > > For example, two people can request healing > > but only one of the two people would be healed. God knows the reason for > > his action but it's impossible for us to know the reason. > > This, of course, presumes God is involved at all - which requires that God > exists. I'm sure you'll post the evidence that God actually exists, > right? Oh, no, you always seem to forget that step. > > > The most we > > can do is guess. For example, the lack of faith in God's power may be > > the reason. Other possible reasons: unforgiven sin; failing to forgive > > people; not asking God for a healing. > > Or God simply not existing, which is far and away the simpler explanation. > Do feel free to show us the evidence that God exists. Any time. Come on, > you can do it - you must be able to, because otherwise you'd be basing > your entire belief system on nothing more than "Is too!", the empty > rantings of the spoiled child - hardly a basis for defining one's very > moral foundation and the like. > > So... where's the evidence? I pointed out two miracle healings that were done by God as evidence for God. I also suggested that people google "miracle healings" to see even more evidence for God by reading about miracle healings that were done by God. If you choose to disregard or not believe that evidence--that is not my fault. So... my answer is --I have provided the evidence. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:54:54 -0700, Jason wrote: >> Got any evidence of gods? Nope, didn't think so. > > > The evidence that they were healed is evidence for God. No, it's evidence they were healed. Anything more than that has to be established and demonstrated and you have not done so. Got any evidence of gods? Nope, didn't think so. -- HolySmoke: Fundys knee-deep in gasoline throwing matches at infidels. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:03:25 -0700, Jason wrote: > I pointed out two miracle healings that were done by God You pointed out two healings - and nobody denies people get healed. You failed to demonstrate that God exists, let alone was involved. Got any evidence of gods? Nope, thought not. -- If thinking is too hard, quote Scripture! Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:39:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1106071039350001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181566794.910552.107450@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: .... >> In all seriousness I think his position is that people just choose to >> believe whatever they want, so testimony is evidence for any claim; if >> one wants to believe the claim - but not if one does not want to >> believe it. That provides the reason atheists do not believe it, i.e. >> they don't want to believe it; so they accept other evidence which is >> (in Jason's opinion) no better than his, after all they can both be >> called "evidence". Jason does not seem to accept the existence of a >> physical reality separate from and regardless of what he believes. >> Not all dogmatic theists come across quite as insane as he does, but, >> at least in the compartment of their mind in which they keep their >> dogma, they are all quite mad. > >I agree that people just choose to believe whatever they want to believe. >That is true for atheists and is also true for Christians. One athiest >actually told me that even if I produced the physical evidence (eg >X-Rays), it would NOT cause him to believe that God healed her since he >did not believe in God. Once again, you lie. The problem you have is that you have absolutely no way to show that the healing, even if it happened, is in any way related to a god, one you worship or one you despise. There is exactly as much evidence that Beelzebub healed her as there is that the God of Abraham healed her: zero. >Do you believe there is evidence that a single >cell (example: bacteria) evolved into a single animal cell (with DNA >nucleus capable of sexual reproduction)? Is it speculation or evidence? You still falsely try to equate two different meanings of believe. You are still proud to be a liar and proud to be ignorant. Read the Parable of the Talents. -- "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 Free Lunch Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:59:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1106071059480001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1181567105.704649.246460@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 11 Jun., 01:05, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <0%Zai.1096$R9....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > >news:Jason-1006071256480001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > > In article <70mtj4-umv....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > >> [snips] >> > >> > > >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:48:39 -0700, Jason wrote: >> > >> > > >> > Kelsey, >> > > >> > In response to another post, I decided to google this term: BEFORE= >> THE >> > > >> > BIG >> > > >> > BANG. >> > >> > > >> And you found one as-yet unverified mathematical model. One which, I >> > > >> should note, says that if the concept of "before the BB" is establis= >> hed >> > > >> as >> > > >> meaningful, it tosses you right into another universe... thus negati= >> ng >> > > >> the >> > > >> need for God to explain the BB or the cosmic egg. >> > >> > > >> Bully for you; you've just removed yet another gap to sneak God into. >> > > >> Not >> > > >> sure the point you were trying to achieve, but somehow I suspect that >> > > >> wasn't it. >> > >> > > > Do you still believe that no experts believe that time did not exist = >> prior >> > > > to the Big Bang? >> > >> > > I still know the scientific consensus is that there was no time before = >> the >> > > big bang. >> > >> > That is true. There will be even better theories in the years to come. >> > Scientists know that the only way to win a Nobel Prize is by coming up >> > with a newer and better theory.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> > >> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> One with evidence - not testimony. > >or speculation based on a mathematical model. I see that you will never stop telling lies about science. -- "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 John Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 1, 8:37 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote: > "Given everything we know, the only viable alternative to the Theory > of Evolution is PWF: the Practice of Willful Ignorance." What is the Theory of Evolution and where was it established and by whom? Darwin used Theory of Natural Selection 36 times and Theory of Evolution only once. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 "John" <sawireless2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1181598021.541237.169840@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 1, 8:37 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote: >> "Given everything we know, the only viable alternative to the Theory >> of Evolution is PWF: the Practice of Willful Ignorance." > > What is the Theory of Evolution and where was it established and by > whom? Darwin used Theory of Natural Selection > 36 times and Theory of Evolution only once. Well John or backspace, whatever your trolling name is. You have asked that question many times and it has been answered for you. If you didn't read one of the earlier replies you need to do your own research. A helpful hint, you aren't going to find scientific definitions in wikipedia or any of the other references you have searched. Try a search in Science or Nature. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:03:51 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-0906071503510001@66-52-22-98.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >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. Look up neurofibromatosis. Or malaria. Or Chingas. Or TB. Then tell me that most of those bad things happen because people expressed 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. But does not act in the world? Or do you not blame God for the bad things, but give him credit for the good things. >In most cases, those things are natural and are not caused by God. Sort of like evolution? >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. So if it rains for praying Christian then that is from God. If it does not rain for praying Christians, that is not God's fault. If it rains for praying Hindus, that is natural, and if it does not rain for praying Hindus that is either not God's fault or it is their fault. Have I correctly stated your position? -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 11, 9:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <dieuj4-umv....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [snips] > > > On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 14:42:20 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > >> Gish is a liar and you believe him. Why would I believe your story > > >> about Prewitt? What evidence is there that her story, if you relayed it > > >> correctly, is correct? > > > > Her testimony is enough evidence for me. > > > That wasn't the question. You are a known liar, and you hold up as > > respect-worthy other known liars, meaning that nobody can take anything > > you say as valid. Since you are, in fact, known to associate with known > > liars and even accept lying as perfectly acceptable behavior, this > > suggests that anyone you report on may well also be just as much of a liar > > as you or your other cohorts. > > > Hence the question - why should we believe her ? > > Because she is telling the truth. You mean, just like you have been? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 11, 11:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181525212.126087.136...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 11, 1:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <f4gu9b$a4...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > In article <mkorj4-ugf....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> [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? > > > > > > Kelsey, > > > > > In response to another post, I decided to google this term: BEFORE > THE BIG > > > > > BANG. I did not write down the number of sites that showed up but it was > > > > > over 10. I copied and pasted this from one of the sites that I found: > > > > > > What happened > > > > > before the Big Bang long has frustrated cosmologists, both amateur and > > > > > professional. > > > > > Though Einstein's theory of general relativity does an excellent job of > > > > > describing the universe almost back to its beginning, near the Big Bang > > > > > matter becomes so dense that relativity breaks down, says Penn State > > > > > physicist Abhay Ashtekar. "Beyond that point, we need to apply quantum > > > > > tools that were not available to Einstein." > > > > > > Now Ashtekar and two of his post-doctoral researchers, Tomasz Pawlowski > > > > > and Parmpreet Singh, have done just that. Using a theory called loop > > > > > quantum gravity, they have developed a mathematical model that skates > > > > > right up to the Big Bang -- and steps through it. On the other side, > > > > > Ashtekar says, exists another universe with space-time geometry > similar to > > > > > our own, except that instead of expanding, it is shrinking. "In > place of a > > > > > classical Big Bang, there is in fact a quantum Bounce," he says. > > > > > > Loop quantum gravity, one of the leading approaches to the > unification of > > > > > general relativity with quantum physics, was pioneered at the > Institute of > > > > > Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Penn State, which Ashtekar > directs. > > > > > The theory posits that space-time geometry itself has a discrete > "atomic" > > > > > structure, Ashtekar explains. Instead of the familiar space-time > > > > > continuum, the fabric of space is made up of one-dimensional quantum > > > > > threads. Near the Big Bang, this fabric is violently torn, and these > > > > > quantum properties cause gravity to become repulsive, rather than > > > > > attractive. > > > > > A few points. > > > > > 1: That still doesn't help your ideas of "can a time traveller go back > > > > in time, could they observe the big bang?" idea since there's still no > > > > way to be OUTSIDE of the universe to observe it. > > > > > 2: That doesn't show that anything could survive intact through the big > > > > bang (so we still can't travel past it back in time.) > > > > > 3: This idea is still in the very initial stages of being developed and > > > > might not even pan out. > > > > > 4: Many mathematical models can be run in reverse and yet not reflect > > > > reality. Relativity equations don't prohibit time travel, for example, > > > > but there's other models that show time travel is probably unlikely. > > > > > 5: This actually eliminates any need for your god since it gives a valid > > > > answer to "what caused the big bang to 'bang'?" Are you REALLY so sure > > > > you want to eliminate the last gap your "god of the gaps" existed in? > > > > People in this newsgroup seemed to believe that time and physics did not > > > exist prior to the Big Bang. They implied that anyone that believed that > > > did not know anything about science. I googled "What Happened Before the > > > Big Bang" and found out that several different experts believed that time > > > and physics did exist prior to the Big Bang. > > > Let me get this straight. You googled "What happened before the Big > > Bang" and you got articles about what might have happened before the > > big bang? That's amazing. > The result could have been: NOTHING FOUND And your conclusion would have been that there was a massive cover up to suppress the truth. I've heard that argument before. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 11, 11:47 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181528064.340925.207...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 11, 3:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article > > > <DipthotDipthot-421910.10183210062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <Jason-0906072006580...@66-52-22-86.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > In article > > > > > <DipthotDipthot-E33034.16000109062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > <Jason-0906071313520...@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > Was I unclear? I repeat: You are assuming that we accept your telling > > > > > > of the alleged story. > > > > > > > > If not, how do you explain why her legs are now the same size? > > > > > > > I guess I was unclear. > > > > > > > Look, fellow: You have not proven yourself a reliable source of fact > > > > > > about anything. You have shown yourself to be a fan of liars. Why > > > > > > should anyone trust that you have a story about a beauty queen and her > > > > > > magic leg? > > > > > > I copy and pasted the story from a website. > > > > > Ooooooh, I am impressed. If it's from a Web site, then it must be true. > > > > I read about the Flying Spaghetti Monster from a Web site too. (May you > > > > be blessed by his noodly appendages.) > > > > >http://www.venganza.org/ > > > > > You're welcome. > > > > > > If you think that I am not > > > > > telling the truth about Cheryl Prewitt--google that name. > > > > > It ain't my job to do your proving, boy. > > > > > Besides, elsewhere in this thread, someone already did said search and > > > > learned that you are a lying idiot. Or extremely gullible. > > > > > Or both. > > > > > > One of the of > > > > > members of this newsgroup told me that he googled her name and the > result > > > > > was over 700 websites. Cheryl Prewitt is a former Miss America. > > > > > But that poster was still not impressed by your claims about a divine > > > > leg-lengthening. > > > > > Of course you chose not to mention that. > > > > > I wonder why. > > > > I am no longer shocked when atheists do not believe the testimonies of > > > people that have been healed by God. Atheists do not believe there is a > > > God so therefore they automatically reject any evidence (testimonies) > > > indicating that God was responsible for the healings. Those same atheists > > > automatically believe that a single cell (example: bacteria) evolved into > > > single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). They > > > don't even need evidence in order to believe it since it fits their belief > > > system. > > > Again you neglected to look up and confirm that evidence for this > > process DOES exist and is well known to biologists. > > > Martin > > Martin, > I have a question for you. Has an experiment like this been done: > > The scientists place bacteria (and nothing else) on a lab table. They can > mix any elements or combinations of elements with the bacteria. They can > mix amino acids with the bacteria. > I mentioned the above items since they were probably present before life > forms were on this earth. > > Have the scientists done an experiment like the one mentioned above? If > so, was the result: bacteria that evolved into an: > > Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). > > If so, refer me to a website that mentions the experiment. > > I may ask a biology professor at the local state college this same question. Tell you what, Jason, why don't you read about the details of experiments that actually _have_ been done. You are hardly qualified to design your own experiments and then ask real scientists why they haven't worked. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 11, 12:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I heard her testimony but as you know--my memory is bad Nor is it particularly trustworthy. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 11, 12:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I do remember that she said that her leg was damaged in a car > accident. The doctors had to remove a portion of the leg bone which was > the reason one leg was two inches shorter than the other leg. In the case > of your injuries and the injury of your wife--sections of bone did not > have to be removed--unless you left something out of your story. You are > intelligent enough to know that all broken bones are not the same--if the > bone is crushed--the bad section of bone is removed and the remaining two > sections are put back together with pins. In her case, about 2 inches of > leg bone was removed. My friend lost about 5 inches of leg bone as a > result of an injury. He wears a platform shoe on one foot and walks with a > limp. This would all be very easy to confirm if it were true. It would be published in a medical journal somewhere. How do you explain the fact that it hasn't been? Are all doctors liars? Do you think they destroyed her x-rays in some mad cover up? Do you realize just how insane you'd have to be to believe this? Martin Quote
Guest bramble Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On 10 jun, 01:03, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <466b2252$0$4701$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher > --------------------- > > > 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. Yes, Jason. If there were a god, he is responsable for all the evil in this world. Unless, there would be many gods fighting each other, and making a mess of this world. But as there is not a god, all the people that had became criminal because of their particular lives, we put them in prison, or kill them, because we have not means to change their behavior. Not they are responsable, or they ar guilty or any other thing. It is just because we have not means to change their behavior. Think for a moment that we were intelligent enough to prevent the future criminal career of any child or adolescent. If we were that intelligent, we would act upon this child or this adolescent, to prevent their bent to crime. So, in a way, the responsible for the crimes of all human beings is our ignorance. So, if there were an omniscient god, a god the were truly benevolent, he would act upon the children that would act as criminals in the future. That is so simple, that I cannot understand why you do not realize it, dear Jason. Criminals, act their evil ways, because they had been conditioned by other humans to behave this way. If parents of these children were intelligent enough to understand "operant conditioning" they would be acting in a way as to keep the kids away from disobedience, laziness and aggression. They would drive their lives on the proper track and working hard in the pursuit of commendable endeavors. So our lack of power to predict and to change the behavior of so many kids is the real culprit of all the evils of this world. So, the straightforward solution is to keep the criminals caged in prisons, and in some criminal countries to kill them in the electic chair, a letal injection, or just hanging, or beheading them with a sword. Dear, Jason. Do you want to chat a little more about this? Bramble Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 > In article > <Jason-1006071559590...@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > She has > > witnessed to thousands of people. Wow. She's lied to a lot of people then. I find that completely and utterly morally reprehensible. It is also typical Godbot behaviour. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 11, 1:57 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181533728.193830.191...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > You forgot to include a crucial element: millions of years of time, > > because that's how long it took in the first place. Please get back > > to me when enough time has passed for the experiment to be valid. > > But are you 100% sure that it happened that way? Please don't state: > > "We now have animal cells so that is evidence that it happened that way." Again you are lying. You've been told how it happened. Perhaps you just never followed the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 11, 2:07 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-6093DF.21080710062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > > > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > In article > > <Jason-1006071559590...@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article > > > <DipthotDipthot-FBD374.13472010062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > <Jason-1006070954070...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > I still believe she is telling the truth. > > > > > Of course you do. The voices in your head told you to. > > > > She came to our church and gave her testimony. She was a teenage girl. The > > > other students teased her because she limped when she walked. That is the > > > reason she asked God to heal her. She wanted to have a normal life. Is > > > there anything wrong with a teenage girl wanting to have a normal life? > > > What about those people in places where having a life beyond 15 is > > normally too much to ask for? > > > > The beauty contests came later in her life. She knows that she would never > > > have won any of those beauty contests if God had not healed her. As a > > > result of becoming Miss America, many doors were opened to her. She has > > > witnessed to thousands of people. > > > Or, it could all be a delusion. Repetition is not evidence. > > > I'll say it again. > > > Repetition is not evidence. > > > Understand? > > > No? > > > Maybe one more time. > > > Repetition is not evidence. > > > > I could not help but laugh when someone > > > told me that she lied about the healing. > > > Or, she's just as deluded as you are. There's no way of telling until > > reliable evidence is presented. > > > Or you are still feeding us a line. > > > Ever hear of the phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary > > evidence"? > > > Think about it. > > > Of course, you have yet to provide 'ordinary' evidence. > > > > Of couse, she is telling the truth. > > > See above. > > > > Do you think that she faked a limp so that she could later claim > > > that she was healed? > > > That kind of stuff is commonly known to have happened. > > > I won't address this story of your seriously unless you can provide a > > reliable, corroborating source with no bias toward believing that some > > sort of "miracle" happened. > > > You have proven yourself highly unreliable. You have admitted that you > > willingly swallow lies when you "respect" the liar. > > > So try again. > > > > The bottom line is that atheists would never believe > > > that she was healed by God even if she produced a mountain of physical > > > evidence to prove it. > > > The bottom line is that you have not produced PIECE ONE of physical > > evidence... you've just repeated the same story and asked stupid > > questions. > > > "A girl at my church" sets up warning flags. > > > > The reason is because a healing by God does not > > > "fit" their belief system. > > > Liar. You know that you have not produced one tiny shred of reliable, > > empirical evidence that this story is even partly true. > > > > However, they need no evidence to believe that > > > a single cell (example: bacteria) evolved into a single animal cell (with > > > DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). > > > More lies about science. > > > Nice work, dimwit. Care to try again? > > Cheryl Prewitt could provide a mountain of physical evidence and you still > would not believe that God healed her. Presumably. But she didn't. It's called "preaching to the choir". If there was really some cover up to hide the evidence that she had been cured then surely she would have called for an investigation by now. In the meantime, all we have is the word of a Godbot. And that is worth the same as a bucket of shit. You prove that lately with every other post you make here. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 > On 10 Jun., 22:07, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:> In article <1181481347.104079.235...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > Dr. Gish and Dr. Morris also have probably not lost any sleep over the > > fact that atheists don't agree with them. No, because after a while lying becomes easy. You'd know that better than I would Jason because you've got a lot of experience in that area. 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.