Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 11 Jun., 19:39, 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. They do not if they are sane, logical and honest. > That is true for atheists and is also true for Christians. See above >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. You have produced no evidence that she was healed by god. >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? > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 11 Jun., 19:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181574735.623825.62...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 11 Jun., 05:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1181528064.340925.207...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin snip > > > 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 questi= > > on.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > I hope you do. No doubt he/she could use a laugh. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 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 is your childish misrepresentation of evolution, and, since you have been told many times now, it is a very tedious lie. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 11 Jun., 19:59, 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: > > > In article <0%Zai.1096$R9....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" snip > > > 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.- No. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 11 Jun., 20:19, 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? > > 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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 11 Jun., 20:19, 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 In that case you have been lying. In other words your "I agree" is meaningless. 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? I am already perfectly willing to admit the possibility that she was healed. Many have told you the same thing. You continue to ignore the actual issue, which is what evidence is there that god healed her? > > Perhaps the film showing her walking normally at the Miss America contest > would be proof that she was healed. What would it take for you to respond honestly to what is posted? She was healed; let us agree that that is true. Now, where is the evidence that god heald her? 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? I will just as soon as you provide evidence that god was involved in the healing. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 11 Jun., 21:54, 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. If you google > miracle healings you will see even more evidence of God by reading about > those healings that were done by God.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:37:58 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <qlqr63pkfl90q9hcv7atbl6clortarenph@4ax.com> >On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:22:11 -0700, in alt.atheism >Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in ><Jason-1106071822110001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>In article <asmr63hd2ffo7a6mih3epsn3mtgeit6pj8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >>I was refering to a Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual >>reproduction). I seem to recall (if I understood it correctly) that they >>added something like that to the bacteria--in the experiment that I read >>about. >>Jason >> >Nope, you're still not making any sense. Could you explain what you >mean? Do you have any idea what you are saying? He knows that he is lying. -- Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun., 02:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181601324.493083.251...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > bramble <leopoldo.perd...@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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:12:28 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <1181614348.455145.11330@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> >On Jun 12, 9:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <1181604194.743582.114...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > On Jun 12, 1:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > 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. > >> An atheists swallow everything the scientists tell them if it supports >> their belief system. > >When your assertions have been corrected and yet you repeat them >anyway they can now be fairly called lies. You know better than to >say atheists believe ANYTHING and yet you continue to repeat that lie. Jason is a Christian. What more do you expect than deliberate fraud? -- Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun., 02:37, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181603881.651499.322...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. God is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing; that makes him responsible for everything period. > > 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. He would still be responsible. > > Free will explains many things--howwever, most people--even Christians--do > not understand free will. We have a hard time with square circles too. > > 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. Gosh, do you think that might be it? Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun., 02:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181601347.999940.35...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > the alternative is "she told the truth to a lot of people then." For which you have absolutely no objective evidence. You have even pretty well made it clear that you believe it because you want to. If one is a rational being, objective evidence is something that has to be accepted, whether we like what it supports or not; but you believe because you want to and, supposedly, reject evidence that does not support what you like. This makes you irrational and dishonest. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun., 02:51, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:29:29 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:57:59 -0400, Al Klein wrote: > >> And how can he argue with common descent? He didn't descend from > >> his parents? > >Well, there's that, but I was thinking more like this: if you take common > >descent out of the picture, WTF is left? > > That we've all been here since the beginning? Even fundies don't > reject the notion of reproduction. But they disapprove of it. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun., 04:00, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:40:21 -0700, John <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > - Refer: <1181598021.541237.169...@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. > > So what? > > -- He wants you to know that he can count all the way to 36. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun., 03:59, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:16:27 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > - Refer: <1181567787.694952.172...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > > > > > > >On 11 Jun., 02:55, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> In article <f8euj4-umv....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > >> <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > [snips] > > >> > On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 20:55:07 -0700, Jason wrote: > > >> > >> You forgot to point out how God was involved. > > >> > >> I assume that is because you have absolutely no evidence that God was > >> > >> involved. > > >> > > How do you explain why her legs are now the same size? > > >> > Because I said they should be, and caused them to magically grow to > >> > equal length. > > >> > My proof? The very same you give for your claim that God dunnit > > >> That is not true. The evidence that she gave to me was her testimony. In > >> her testimony--she mentioned that God healed her. Her evidence (testimony) > >> did not mention you or that you had healed her. > > >And his testimony did not say that god healed her. Why is his > >testimony not evidence? Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could > >actually provide a sensible response to the above? Pray, maybe god > >will perform a miracle and make you sane. > > Even the most powerful of mythical gods would consider that miracle > far too hard. > > --- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:41:51 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: - Refer: <5d74idF31s8h5U1@mid.individual.net> > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > >snip >> >> 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. > >LOL! I honestly can't believe an adult believes this crap. Jason is adult in body alone. -- Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 12:52 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181614348.455145.11...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 12, 9:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1181604194.743582.114...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 12, 1:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > An atheists swallow everything the scientists tell them if it supports > > > their belief system. > > > When your assertions have been corrected and yet you repeat them > > anyway they can now be fairly called lies. You know better than to > > say atheists believe ANYTHING and yet you continue to repeat that lie. > It's a lie to state that I swallow every lie that my fellow Godbots tell > me. No, it's not. You've demonstrayted time and time again that you are willing to believe anything you are told EXCEPT when the person who says it is a non believer. That is your prejudice. Don't ever accuse me of lying again. You wouldn't like me when I am angry. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 12:53 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <utqr63he40hh9n29rh2c80f0p1v05gj...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:39:16 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1106071839160...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <kkor63tinbmus479tfljt5ib6lmn7o9...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-1106071731380...@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? > > > >The first chapter of the book of Genesis states that God created mankind, > > >some plants and some animals. > > > So what? You know there's no evidence that the Bible came from God or is > > scientifically accurate. You also know that there is evidence that many > > of the stories in Genesis are scientifically in error. > > > > I believe that evolution kicked in after the > > >creation process was finished. > > > I don't care. You have already demonstrated that your opinion in this > > area is worthless. > > > >It's my opinion, after reading the last > > >paragraph of Darwin's book, that Darwin agrees that God created life on > > >this planet. > > > Even if he did, he does not agree with your false doctrine. > > > >I read the last chapter of his book which was posted on a > > >website and Darwin used the term CREATOR at least once in that chapter. In > > >other words, the founder of evolution theory agrees that an intelligent > > >designer was involved and actually "breathed [life] into a few forms or > > >into one." > > > He had very little evidence to go on, so there was no reason for him to > > speculate about what happened. We have far more, so it is foolish to > > continue to refer to the God of the Gaps. > > > If God exists, He must hate you for telling so many lies about what He > > did. > > Imagine how God feels about atheists. You're much better at imagining God than we are. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 1:00 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181614412.939840.97...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 12, 9:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <kkor63tinbmus479tfljt5ib6lmn7o9...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > <Jason-1106071731380...@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? > > > > The first chapter of the book of Genesis states that God > > > You keep talking about your imaginary friend as if he were real. You > > need to be commited for psychiatric observation. > They will have to build a lot of mental hospitals. According to the 2005 > Time Almanac, there are 1.9 billion Christians in the world. (page 359). Yes, the rational people of the world have a lot of work to do. You don't think we know that? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 1:06 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-9E058D.18284311062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > In article > > <Jason-1106071747150...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > the alternative is "she told the truth to a lot of people then." > > > If that were the case, reliable corroborating evidence would be > > plentiful. > > > You, being so determined to demonstrate the veracity of this little > > story, should be able to provide same. > > > You cannot; ergo, there's no reason to believe you. > > Several have told me they would not believe that she was healed by > God--regardless of the physical evidence. 1) There's no physical evidence. 2) There's no God. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 1:10 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181613813.848759.320...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 12, 8:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1181601575.339680.162...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 11, 2:07 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > Dr. Gish, Dr. Morris and Cheryl Prewitt are preaching to the choir. > > > It's a sign of progress that you can recognize this. > > > > She > > > does not need to carry her medial records and X rays with her when she > > > gives her testimony. We believed her when she gave her testimony and > > > enjoyed hearing her sing various songs. Perhaps she does carry the medical > > > records with her in case she speaks to a group that includes skeptics but > > > I doubt that she speaks to such groups of people. > > > No, of course not. Which is precisely why rational people would not > > believe her. Why wouldn't she want to convince people who don't > > believe? We _are_ calling her a liar, after all. > > > > She would not enjoy > > > giving her testimony to people that took turns calling her a liar. > > > Tough. That's what people do in science. Scientists do not accept > > anything without evidence. That's just the way it is. My high school > > math teacher, for one, would be terribly offended by your willingness > > to believe what people say without evidence, let alone proof. You > > Godbots don't seem to be willing to accept that, let alone be able to > > deal with it. > If I provided physical evidence that indicates that her leg bone grew 2 > inches, would you believe that God healed her leg? How can I believe in the existnace of something that you yourself have demonstrated not top exist? Do you also believe in Zeus, Allah and Amun Ra? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 1:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181611488.232237.92...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 12, 8:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > God > > > God doesn't exist. > > > created mankind, he > > > gave us free will. > > > Free will doesn't exist. > > > You're 0 for 2. > > I disagree--Free Will does exist. Once a person understands free will, > many Bible doctrines and even issues related to life; sociological and > psychological issues--make sense. For example, I now understand why some > people do wonderful thing such as doctors that spend a month each year in > third world countries. I also understand why some people do terrible > things such as becoming murderers or rapists. Are you still telling us that you would be capable of killing ten people a day if you didn't believe in God? What about the men who killed 3000 people on September 11th because they believed in their god? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 6:00 pm, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > On 11 Jun., 19:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:> In article <1181574735.623825.62...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 11 Jun., 05:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1181528064.340925.207...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > snip > > > > > > > > > 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 questi= > > > on.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > I hope you do. No doubt he/she could use a laugh. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > 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 is your childish misrepresentation of evolution, and, since you > have been told many times now, it is a very tedious lie. As cactus has already pointed out, as bacteria is alive it is correct to talk about the (biological) evolution of bacteria into animal cells. The ameoba is a single celled animal, for example. Martin Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1106072153560001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <utqr63he40hh9n29rh2c80f0p1v05gj976@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:39:16 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1106071839160001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <kkor63tinbmus479tfljt5ib6lmn7o9kv7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> 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? >> > >> > >> > >> >The first chapter of the book of Genesis states that God created >> >mankind, >> >some plants and some animals. >> >> So what? You know there's no evidence that the Bible came from God or is >> scientifically accurate. You also know that there is evidence that many >> of the stories in Genesis are scientifically in error. >> >> > I believe that evolution kicked in after the >> >creation process was finished. >> >> I don't care. You have already demonstrated that your opinion in this >> area is worthless. >> >> >It's my opinion, after reading the last >> >paragraph of Darwin's book, that Darwin agrees that God created life on >> >this planet. >> >> Even if he did, he does not agree with your false doctrine. >> >> >I read the last chapter of his book which was posted on a >> >website and Darwin used the term CREATOR at least once in that chapter. >> >In >> >other words, the founder of evolution theory agrees that an intelligent >> >designer was involved and actually "breathed [life] into a few forms or >> >into one." >> >> He had very little evidence to go on, so there was no reason for him to >> speculate about what happened. We have far more, so it is foolish to >> continue to refer to the God of the Gaps. >> >> If God exists, He must hate you for telling so many lies about what He >> did. > > Imagine how God feels about atheists. I would imagine he holds them in higher esteem than lying creationists that make him look bad :-)). Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1106072222450001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1181611488.232237.92830@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 8:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > God >> >> God doesn't exist. >> >> created mankind, he >> > gave us free will. >> >> Free will doesn't exist. >> >> You're 0 for 2. >> >> Martin > > I disagree--Free Will does exist. Once a person understands free will, > many Bible doctrines and even issues related to life; sociological and > psychological issues--make sense. For example, I now understand why some > people do wonderful thing such as doctors that spend a month each year in > third world countries. I also understand why some people do terrible > things such as becoming murderers or rapists. > jason If that is true, then you would be god. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1106072210170001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1181613813.848759.320390@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 8:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1181601575.339680.162...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 11, 2:07 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > > 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. >> >> > Dr. Gish, Dr. Morris and Cheryl Prewitt are preaching to the choir. >> >> It's a sign of progress that you can recognize this. >> >> > She >> > does not need to carry her medial records and X rays with her when she >> > gives her testimony. We believed her when she gave her testimony and >> > enjoyed hearing her sing various songs. Perhaps she does carry the >> > medical >> > records with her in case she speaks to a group that includes skeptics >> > but >> > I doubt that she speaks to such groups of people. >> >> No, of course not. Which is precisely why rational people would not >> believe her. Why wouldn't she want to convince people who don't >> believe? We _are_ calling her a liar, after all. >> >> > She would not enjoy >> > giving her testimony to people that took turns calling her a liar. >> >> Tough. That's what people do in science. Scientists do not accept >> anything without evidence. That's just the way it is. My high school >> math teacher, for one, would be terribly offended by your willingness >> to believe what people say without evidence, let alone proof. You >> Godbots don't seem to be willing to accept that, let alone be able to >> deal with it. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > If I provided physical evidence that indicates that her leg bone grew 2 > inches, would you believe that God healed her leg? > Jason God doesn't exist, Jason. He can't do anything! 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.