Guest Bob T. Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 11, 4:46 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > 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? > > Because of my belief system and her testimony. Cheryl Prewitt stated in > her testimony that she actually watched that leg bone grow two inches. A > testimony is considered as evidence for judges so it's good enough for me. > I believed her testimony and it's very obvious that you did not believe > her testimony. What you don't seem to understand is a point we've made over and over: even if her leg really did grow two inches while she watched, it doesn't mean that "God" healed her, no matter how fervently she believes it to be true. It might have been space aliens. It might have been a time traveler from the future. It might have been Vishnu or Loki or Athena. Hell, it might even have been Satan, healing her for some nefarious purpose. Frankly, though, if she really is claiming that she saw the leg grow in front of her eyes the simplest explanation is that she is lying or deranged. - Bob T. > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1106071713400001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1181600808.174575.23410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > You failed to tell me whether or not such an experiment has been done. I > have read about some of those experiments in the November 2004 issue of > National Geographic magazine in an article entitled, "Was Darwin Wrong". I > recently visited a website that mentioned bacteria experiments. I did not > read about any experiment like the one that is mentioned above. I seem to > recall (if I understod it correctly) that they added DNA to bacteria. That > was not helpful since the theory states that bacteria evolved into a > single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). The > theory does not mention an intelligent designer adding DNA to bacteria. > Jason Jason, just out of curiosity do you remember the conclusion of the article in National Geographic as to whether or not Darwin was wrong? Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 12, 1:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181558587.524968.174...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 10 Jun., 15:56, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On 10 Jun., 02:03, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Jason will change his mind if he ever snaps and kills ten people in > > > one day as he's threatened to do. > > > It is amazing that he (and so many others) can serenely contradict > > themselves, apparently without it bothering them in the least. He > > tells us that god is responsible for everything, but he is not > > responsible for any crimes committed. He will, no doubt, attempt to > > justify it by mentioning free will, which, of course, also contradicts > > god being responsible for everything. A whirling dervish has nothing > > on Jason. > > There is no contradiction. I will simplify it for you by giving you an > example. Parents have a son that commits a murder when he is 30 years old. > Will the son or the parents be sent to prison? The answer is that the son > will be sent to prison since he was guilty of the murder. Yes, the parents > were indirectly responsible since the murder would not have been committed > if the parents had not had that son. But you're not claiming the parents to be omniscient or ominipotent. Nor have you established that anybody has free will to go beyond what their instincts and memories would have them do. All you've done is assert that the murderer was guilty and the parents had no direct responsibility. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 12, 1:29 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <cIbbi.3947$Da.1...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1006072104110001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1181528337.630645.326...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 11, 4:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > In article <smjo63luhj802uvt69su43het7vi2b1...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:57:36 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> > > <Jason-1006071257370...@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> > > >In article <bg8o63lsgkbuk6ioqc8gr4lcjga1ror...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> > > >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:47:58 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> > > >> <Jason-1006070947590...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> > > >> >In article > > > <1181469394.462447.51...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >> > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> > > >> >> On Jun 10, 1:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> > > >> >> > Since testimony is considered as evidence in court, I also > > >> > consider the > > >> > > >> >> > testimony of Cheryl Prewitt as evidence. If you do not > > > consider her > > >> > > >> >> > testimony as evidence, that is your choice. Have you provided > > >> > > >> >> > in > > >> > evidence > > >> > > >> >> > that indicates that it is possible for bacteria to naturally > > >> > evolve into > > >> > > >> >> > an animal cell? > > > >> > > >> >> Physical evidence trumps testimony, Jason. It's the only thing > > >> > > >> >> that > > >> > > >> >> can be double checked and verified. > > > >> > > >> >> Martin > > > >> > > >> >That is true but would you acknowledge that testimony is also > > > evidence? > > > >> > > >> Made up stories are not evidence. > > > >> > > >Is a testimony evidence? > > > >> > > Once again, your question demands a misleading answer. > > > >> > > People are not always allowed to testify in court about what they > > >> > > want > > >> > > to testify about. Ms. Prewitt's opinion about how her leg got longer, > > >> > > if > > >> > > in fact it did, is one such claim that would not be allowed in court. > > > >> > > Actual, corroborated, eyewitness testimony is allowed, but physical > > >> > > evidence will override claims of personal experience. > > > >> > > Science, of course, does not use testimony as evidence. > > > >> > Cheryl Prewitt could probably produce the physical evidence such as the > > >> > X-Rays that were done in relation to accident and surgery. For example, > > >> > a > > >> > leg bone may have been crushed. The doctor probably removed about two > > >> > inches of bone. > > > >> Amazing. You are now admitting you don't know the details of the > > >> case. > > > >> If nothing was removed then nothing grew back. I hurt my hand a few > > >> years ago. I got better. I feel down and hurt my side a year or so > > >> ago. I got better. My wife broke her arm while she was cleaning. > > >> She got better. Cheryl Prewitt got hurt in a car accident. She got > > >> better. And yet you are talking as though this is some great mystery. > > > >> Martin > > > > Martin, > > > I heard her testimony but as you know--my memory is bad--statin related > > > memory problems. I can no longer spell words that I once could easily > > > spell. 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. > > > jason > > > If you she said is true and what you believe is true there should be > > physical evidence of this event. Has she presented any evidence whatsoever? > > You know Jason. like x-ray's before and after. This would be such a simple > > thing to present at her many 'testimonies'. > > I don't know whether or not she has personal copies of her X-Rays and > medical records. She did not mention the medical records when she gave her > testimony at our church and medical records were not mentioned when I > found a summary version of her testimony on the internet. One of the other > members of this newsgroup googled Cheryl Prewitt and found out that her > name is mentioned in over 700 websites. Perhaps, you could find them by > conducting a google search for "Cheryl Prewitt medical records" or "Cheryl > Prewitt X-Rays". No, the onus is on YOU to find support for her lies. Do you expect rational people to take the word of a lying Godbot like you or Cheryl Prewitt. You people have proven yourselves to be morally reprehensible: you have to do more than simply prove that Cheryl Prewitt herself exists and is mentioned (presumably) on 700 websites. (For all we know there are 350 websites about Cheryl Smith and Bob Prewiit.) Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 12, 1:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181566794.910552.107...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 10 Jun., 23:36, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > >news:Jason-1006071257370001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > In article <bg8o63lsgkbuk6ioqc8gr4lcjga1ror...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:47:58 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > >> <Jason-1006070947590...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >> >In article <1181469394.462447.51...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > >> >Martin > > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> On Jun 10, 1:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > >> >> > Since testimony is considered as evidence in court, I also consid= > > er > > > >> >> > the > > > >> >> > testimony of Cheryl Prewitt as evidence. If you do not consider h= > > er > > > >> >> > testimony as evidence, that is your choice. Have you provided in > > > >> >> > evidence > > > >> >> > that indicates that it is possible for bacteria to naturally evol= > > ve > > > >> >> > into > > > >> >> > an animal cell? > > > > >> >> Physical evidence trumps testimony, Jason. It's the only thing that > > > >> >> can be double checked and verified. > > > > >> >> Martin > > > > >> >That is true but would you acknowledge that testimony is also evidenc= > > e? > > > > >> Made up stories are not evidence. > > > > > Is a testimony evidence? > > > > I'm sure as savvy as you are you have heard the old adage, extraordinary > > > claims require extraordinary evidence. No Jason, for someone to claim suc= > > h a > > > ridiculous story is true requires more than their oral testimony.- Skjul = > > tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > 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. Assertion. We know you swallow every lie that your fellow Godbots tell you. We don't. We rely on actual evidence. That's all there is to it and none of your lies will change the actual truth. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 12, 1:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > These are two of the steps in the evolution of mankind: > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). > > Is this speculation or is it evidence? It's an assertion. This is the evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis "Viral eukaryogenesis is the hypothesis, proposed by Philip Bell in 2001, that the cell nucleus of eukaryotic life forms evolved from a large DNA virus in a form of endosymbiosis within a mycoplasma cell. The theory has gained support as large complex DNA viruses capable of protein biosynthesis (such as Mimivirus) have been discovered. "A number of precepts in the theory are possible. For instance, a helical virus with a bilipid envelope bears a distinct resemblance to a highly simplified cellular nucleus (ie: a DNA chromosome encapsulated within a lipid membrane). To consider the concept logically, a large DNA virus would take control of a bacterial or archaeal cell. Instead of replicating and destroying the host cell, it would remain within the cell. With the virus in control of the host cell's molecular machinery it would effectively become a "nucleus" of sorts. Through the processes of mitosis and cytokinesis, the virus would thus hijack the entire cell-an extremely favourable way to ensure its survival. "[edit] References Bell, Philip John Livingstone. "Viral Eukaryogenesis: Was the Ancestor of the Nucleus a Complex DNA Virus?" Journal of Molecular Evolution, Volume 53, Issue 3, Sep 2001, pgs. 251-256" How about that, Jason: there's a whole journal on the subject! Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 12, 1:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Please explain what the researchers mean when they discuss "another > universe with space-time geometry similar to our own...." Did this > universe exist prior the Big Bang and would it have been possible to > measure time in that universe? We've been through this, Jason. I long ago said "It is reasonable to suppose that something happened before the big bang that led to the big bang". Just because it is reasonable to suppose, though, doesn't mean it is true: all the evidence suggests that the universe began with the big bang. If anything happened "before" then, yes, we would be talking about another universe. Why do you keep bringing this up as though it were new information? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 12, 1:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181567105.704649.246...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 11 Jun., 01:05, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > One with evidence - not testimony. > > or speculation based on a mathematical model. The reason you hate math is because you think it is boring (or so you've said yourself) not because you have any reason to believe that it is the best way to establish the truth about the world around us. Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:13:40 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1106071713400001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: .... >You failed to tell me whether or not such an experiment has been done. I >have read about some of those experiments in the November 2004 issue of >National Geographic magazine in an article entitled, "Was Darwin Wrong". I >recently visited a website that mentioned bacteria experiments. I did not >read about any experiment like the one that is mentioned above. I seem to >recall (if I understod it correctly) that they added DNA to bacteria. That >was not helpful since the theory states that bacteria evolved into a >single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). The >theory does not mention an intelligent designer adding DNA to bacteria. >Jason All living organisms have DNA. I have no idea what you have misunderstood here. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 12, 2:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181559874.955632.231...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > gudl...@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? People would be convinced that she was healed but we'd still know that God didn't exist. Don't you get it, Jason? There's absolutely no reason for doctors to cover this up. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 12, 3:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <0de0k4-blk....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > <kbjarna...@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. Too bad that there's absolutely no evidence for miracle healing then. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Jun 12, 4:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <4fg0k4-blk....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > <kbjarna...@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. Again, you are lying. You just can't stop, can you Jason? Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 > >> > 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? Because of my belief system and her testimony. Cheryl Prewitt stated in her testimony that she actually watched that leg bone grow two inches. A testimony is considered as evidence for judges so it's good enough for me. I believed her testimony and it's very obvious that you did not believe her testimony. Jason Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:05:19 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) in <Jason-1106071705190001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >In article <r5hr63hlksfebjjedg07dg4l3k31lu4a9o@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> 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? > >God makes decisions in relation to what actions to take. You had above said otherwise. How about you sit back and decide whether or not God is responsible for things. >His ways and >thoughts are not our ways and thoughts so it's not usually possible to >determine whether various things that happen are or are not the result of >God's intervention. And, yet, you know that when Christians pray and things happen it is because they pray. But somehow when Muslims pray and things happen it is not because God did it. >In some cases, it is possible such as when a dramatic >healing takes place. I mentioned the dramatic healing of Cheryl >Prewitt--former Miss America. Her leg bone grew two inches in size. Her >legs are now the same size. How are you able to tell the difference between God given stuff and just natural stuff. Is it the drama? And is God responsible for bad stuff with drama? >The reason that people die of various diseases is a direct result of the >sin of Adam and Eve. You said before that it was "a result of people expressing their free will. " Now you say it is punishment for Adam and Eve. I think you have a problem with consistency in your views. >That sin opened the door for sin, sickness and >disease to enter into the world. There was once a poem that children had >to learn to explain it, "In Adam's fall, fell we all." > >Insurance companies call naturual disasters "Acts of God". Which is a legal term, not a theological one. But you do realize that they are calling bad things Acts of God, not good ones. >God may cause >some natural disasters to take place (eg Noah's Flood) but in most cases, >the natural disasters happened naturally. Again, you seem to know this just because you know it. > Yes, I do believe that God has >caused it to rain in response to prayers. But only for Christians, right? And only some times, right? > There is evidence in the Bible >related to God causing it to rain or even causing a drought. You asked if >God could answer the prayers of people that are members of other religions >or even atheists--the answer is yes. The evidence is in the Bible. God >spoke to an atheist King in a dream and Jesus healed the servant of a >Roman soldier. Whatever. -- 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 Free Lunch Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:03:25 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1106071303260001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. No, you made claims about two unsubstanted events and asserted, without any evidence that these were miracles done by God. Once again, you repeat more lies rather than admit that you have been caught lying here. Since you have demonstrated your religiously-motivated willingness to lie repeatedly, could you tell us: How many more lies will you tell? Where does your God tell you to lie? Why is it okay for you to lie, when the Ten Commandments forbid it? >If you choose to disregard or not believe that evidence--that is not my fault. Of course it's your fault. You knowingly tell lies and falsely call them evidence. I choose to accept evidence, which is why I refuse to accept your lies. >So... my answer is --I have provided the evidence. So your answer is that you are a liar who will continue to lie and blame his God for the lies he tells. -- "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 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:45:47 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1106071745470001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <CJkbi.47$s8.46@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Jason, just out of curiosity do you remember the conclusion of the article >> in National Geographic as to whether or not Darwin was wrong? > >The title of the article was >WAS DARWIN WRONG? >the answer was: >No--the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. > >I read the article and my conclusion was: >the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming but the >evidence for abiogenesis and common descent is underwhelming. > Once again, you show how poorly educated you are and how arrogant you are. You should be ashamed to be so ignorant that you continue to spout this foolish opinion. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1106071731380001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: .... >Bramble, >I agree with many of the points you made. When God created mankind, he >gave us free will. He did not create robots that were programmed to do >only good things. As a result of free will, people can decide to do great >and wonderful things or can use their free will to decide to commit >criminal acts. > >God is indirectly responsible since he created the solar system and >created life--including mankind. However, when people end up in prison >it's not God's fault. It's the fault of the person that was exercising his >or her free will. > >Do you see my point? Man came about as a result of evolution. That is what the evidence shows us. If God created man, He used evolution. You refuse to accept that fact. You prefer lies to the truth, ignorance to knowledge. You call your God a liar. Why? -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <r5hr63hlksfebjjedg07dg4l3k31lu4a9o@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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? God makes decisions in relation to what actions to take. His ways and thoughts are not our ways and thoughts so it's not usually possible to determine whether various things that happen are or are not the result of God's intervention. In some cases, it is possible such as when a dramatic healing takes place. I mentioned the dramatic healing of Cheryl Prewitt--former Miss America. Her leg bone grew two inches in size. Her legs are now the same size. The reason that people die of various diseases is a direct result of the sin of Adam and Eve. That sin opened the door for sin, sickness and disease to enter into the world. There was once a poem that children had to learn to explain it, "In Adam's fall, fell we all." Insurance companies call naturual disasters "Acts of God". God may cause some natural disasters to take place (eg Noah's Flood) but in most cases, the natural disasters happened naturally. Yes, I do believe that God has caused it to rain in response to prayers. There is evidence in the Bible related to God causing it to rain or even causing a drought. You asked if God could answer the prayers of people that are members of other religions or even atheists--the answer is yes. The evidence is in the Bible. God spoke to an atheist King in a dream and Jesus healed the servant of a Roman soldier. Jason Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1106071745470001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <CJkbi.47$s8.46@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1106071713400001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1181600808.174575.23410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> 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 >> > >> > You failed to tell me whether or not such an experiment has been done. >> > I >> > have read about some of those experiments in the November 2004 issue of >> > National Geographic magazine in an article entitled, "Was Darwin >> > Wrong". I >> > recently visited a website that mentioned bacteria experiments. I did >> > not >> > read about any experiment like the one that is mentioned above. I seem >> > to >> > recall (if I understod it correctly) that they added DNA to bacteria. >> > That >> > was not helpful since the theory states that bacteria evolved into a >> > single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). >> > The >> > theory does not mention an intelligent designer adding DNA to bacteria. >> > Jason >> >> Jason, just out of curiosity do you remember the conclusion of the >> article >> in National Geographic as to whether or not Darwin was wrong? > > The title of the article was > WAS DARWIN WRONG? > the answer was: > No--the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. > > I read the article and my conclusion was: > the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming but the > evidence for abiogenesis and common descent is underwhelming. The rest of you can deal with this obtuse fool. I have neither the time nor the patience. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 7:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Because of my belief system and her testimony. Cheryl Prewitt stated in > her testimony that she actually watched that leg bone grow two inches. A > testimony is considered as evidence for judges so it's good enough for me. > I believed her testimony and it's very obvious that you did not believe > her testimony. We don't believe the lies of Godbots like you and Cheryl Prewitt. There may have been a time when we would have but we're simply not that naive now: we know better. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181600808.174575.23410@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 You failed to tell me whether or not such an experiment has been done. I have read about some of those experiments in the November 2004 issue of National Geographic magazine in an article entitled, "Was Darwin Wrong". I recently visited a website that mentioned bacteria experiments. I did not read about any experiment like the one that is mentioned above. I seem to recall (if I understod it correctly) that they added DNA to bacteria. That was not helpful since the theory states that bacteria evolved into a single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). The theory does not mention an intelligent designer adding DNA to bacteria. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 8:13 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181600808.174575.23...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > > You failed to tell me whether or not such an experiment has been done. Again you lie. I've provided countless links. You've only glanced at "a couple" (or so you claimned) and obviously never bothered to read them. You're fundamentally dishonest, Jason. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181601072.915645.85760@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, I was told that Cheryl Prewitt is mentioned in over 700 websites. Perhaps some of them do include information about her medical records. Try a google search for "Cheryl Prewitt medical records" or "Cheryl Prewitt X Rays". No, I do not think her X Rays and medical records were destroyed. She does not need to produce them when she gives her testimony in Christian churches. Christians have heard healing testimonies from lots of people. We have no problem believing that God is able to heal people. Even Darwin appeared to believe that God created life--read the last paragraph of his book. The last chapter of his book was at a website and I read it. Darwin mentioned the term "Creator" in that chapter. Was Darwin insane to believe that God created life--that is more incredible to believe than the healing of a leg bone. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181601324.493083.251210@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Bramble, I agree with many of the points you made. When God created mankind, he gave us free will. He did not create robots that were programmed to do only good things. As a result of free will, people can decide to do great and wonderful things or can use their free will to decide to commit criminal acts. God is indirectly responsible since he created the solar system and created life--including mankind. However, when people end up in prison it's not God's fault. It's the fault of the person that was exercising his or her free will. Do you see my point? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181603881.651499.322770@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 1:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181558587.524968.174...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 10 Jun., 15:56, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On 10 Jun., 02:03, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Jason will change his mind if he ever snaps and kills ten people in > > > > one day as he's threatened to do. > > > > > It is amazing that he (and so many others) can serenely contradict > > > themselves, apparently without it bothering them in the least. He > > > tells us that god is responsible for everything, but he is not > > > responsible for any crimes committed. He will, no doubt, attempt to > > > justify it by mentioning free will, which, of course, also contradicts > > > god being responsible for everything. A whirling dervish has nothing > > > on Jason. > > > > There is no contradiction. I will simplify it for you by giving you an > > example. Parents have a son that commits a murder when he is 30 years old. > > Will the son or the parents be sent to prison? The answer is that the son > > will be sent to prison since he was guilty of the murder. Yes, the parents > > were indirectly responsible since the murder would not have been committed > > if the parents had not had that son. > > But you're not claiming the parents to be omniscient or ominipotent. > Nor have you established that anybody has free will to go beyond what > their instincts and memories would have them do. All you've done is > assert that the murderer was guilty and the parents had no direct > responsibility. > > Martin As a result of free will, people can do good or do evil. God is indirectly responsible since he created mankind. If God had never created mankind, people would not do evil things. On the other hand, people would not be able to do wonderful things. Free will explains many things--howwever, most people--even Christians--do not understand free will. Insurance companies blame God for all natural disasters. Perhaps there reasoning is that God is responsible since those natural disasters would not have happened if God had not created the world. Jason 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.