Guest Martin Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 7:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181683568.769547.221...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 12 jun, 15:20, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 12 Jun., 08:12, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > But the parents are not responsible for the behavior of an adult > > > > > competent child. They may regret have given birth to that child, but > > > > > they are not legally responsible for his actions after attaining > > > > > majority. They may have raised him in a way that led him to commit his > > > > > crimes, but that is a psychological issue rather than a legal one. It > > > > > might be a moral issue, depending on how they raised him. > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > cactus, > > > > My point was that God is like the parents. > > > > What utter nonsense! The parents are not all-powerful. They cannot > > > possibly be responsible for everything the child does. > > > > In much the same way the > > > > > parents were indirectly responsible for the murder since the murder would > > > > not have happened if the son had never been born--God is indirectly > > > > responsible for evil, since evil would never have happened if God had not > > > > created the solar system and life. > > > > Your analogy is transparently invalid. > > > If parents would had the ability to change for the better the behavior > > of his son, he would surely do it. We want that he would be free, but > > free to drive a reasonable life. We, as parents, do no want our kids > > to fall into a pool of shit. > > But, sometimes, we are too busy or we are not enough vlever, and our > > kids began to show bad a attitude, and we do not know how to change or > > reverse this. > > If we were like gods, our kids would have freedom to behave in a nice > > manner and to keep out of trouble. But we are not gods. > > So, go is a very bad parent. And this analogy posited by Jason is not > > valid. > > If there is a god, he would surely change all that. And this is one > > of the proves that there is not any god. > > God He just proved that God doesn't exist and you still talk about him as if he does? Are you insane? Apparently! Martin Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:21:04 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >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. No, they only disapprove of using it for pleasure. They approve of it for making more fundies. Or if the man enjoys it when he's doing it with his wife. Or, if his wife has been turned into a pillar of salt, with his daughters. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 7:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I rejected abiogenesis and common sense We agree. Seconds? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 7:11 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:07:52 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1206071207530...@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >b) Single-celled animals evolve? > > Please tell us what you mean by a single-celled animal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameoba Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:37:55 -0700, in alt.atheism Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in <1181698675.788332.193710@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>: >On Jun 13, 7:11 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:07:52 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1206071207530...@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >b) Single-celled animals evolve? >> >> Please tell us what you mean by a single-celled animal. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameoba > >Martin That could be what he means. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 7:58 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Martin Phipps" <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1181691449.474813.233740@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 1:41 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-1206071021200001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> > In article <1181646992.799917.21...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > >> > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >> >> 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. > > >> > Do you have objective evidence that time and physics did not exist > >> > prior > >> > to the Big Bang? > > >> Mathematics says it didn't. > > > It's more than mathematics. The big bang apparently happened and > > inflationary theory explains how it happened. Even without > > inflationary theory we have the second law of thermodynamics which > > tells us that the big bang was the beginning of time. Even with all > > this, it is still reasonable to suppose that it wasn't a "first cause" > > in that one would suppose that there had to be existing preconditions > > that made the big bang possible in the first place. > > I understand what was involved. I just don't intend to waste my time and a > willful fool like Jason. Answering his stupid questions is fun. It's when he accuses him of not answering him that I get pissed off. That plus the fact that he never bothers to answer any of OUR questions, saying "I don't have my chemistry text anymore" or "I donated that book to a second hand book store". > >> > Do you have objective evidence that these are two of the steps involved > >> > in > >> > the evolution of mankind: > >> > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > >> > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > >> > reproduction). > > >> Those aren't the steps of evolution. Why do you continue to be so > >> ignorant? > > > Okay, look, I have to say that it is a bit ironic for you to claim > > that the gradual change over several generations of a bacteria like > > cell into an ameoba like cell is not evolution in action. > > Simple Martin, because it wasn't STEP 1 and STEP 2. STEP 1.0 and STEP 2.0? It's a recipe for mankind. Just add heat and water and wait 3.5 billion years. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 8:13 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:53:55 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1106072153560...@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >Imagine how God feels about atheists. > > I never make any claims in His name and He never says anything, if He > exists. I haven't told lies about Him. That is what you do. The people who lie about God are the people who claim he exists. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 8:27 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:38:49 -0000, in alt.talk.creationism > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in > <1181691529.495499.305...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > > >On Jun 13, 1:42 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>news:Jason-1206071036370001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >> > Have any experiments been done that has indicated that it is possible for > >> > a single cell (bacteria) can be induced to evolve into a single animal > >> > cell (with DNA nucleus cabable of sexual reproduction)? > > >> > If possible, provide a yes or no answer. > > >> No one has that. I'm not even sure that it is possible. I think you might > >> have forgotten a few steps. > > >It's possible. It happened billions of years ago. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis > > I wouldn't try to guess what Jason means by his distinction between > bacteria and single celled animals with a DNA nucleus capable of sexual > reproduction. I doubt that Jason does. Well, there are ameobas and other protozoa (ie one celled animals). Our ancesters obviously had to be capable of sexual reproduction. (We are not directly descended from ameobas.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protozoa Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 8:33 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:50:33 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in > <1181613033.399853.282...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>: > > >On Jun 12, 7:48 am, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >> 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. > > >Not Yahweh anyway. > > Of course it is. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Bahai all agree that > they worship the same God, the God of Abraham. Sure, they all tell > different stories and claim the others are wrong, but they're all pretty > clear that they worship the same God. > > If there is a God, it appears that He enjoys the confusion, because He's > made no effort to clear it up. Genesis 1 talks of the Elohim. It is Genesis 2 that speaks of Yahweh. According to Exodus, Yahweh insisted that he be worshipped ahead of "other gods". Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 10:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1k8u63p8g5ekm82c78psrvmlh24v5qb...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:07:52 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1206071207530...@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > 3.5 to 4 billion years ago on earth, almost certainly on other planets > > as well. It happened because it was a natural result of the environment > > in which the chemical reactions were taking place. We don't know the > > details how, yet, but we know there are a number of valid possible > > paths. The matter wasn't dead. > > You answer is based on speculation That's a lie. As usual. > > > 7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? > > > Learn? What a strange characterization. Life never learned to reproduce > > itself, it happened as a result of biochemical reactions. > > Speculation--do you have evidence? Of course he does and he posted a link to it: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ > > You are also misinformed about sexual reproduction. For what it's worth, > > there are still a huge number of organisms that swap genetic material > > even though they don't really reproduce sexually and there are a fair > > number of complex organisms that can reproduce sexually or not. > > I did not write the questions--it's my guess the question was related to > life forms that reproduce as a result of males and females having sex. > With that in mind, try again. He answered your question. DNA swapping occured first: it was the simpler process. Martin Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <Jason-1106072206250001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-9E058D.18284311062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > In article > > <Jason-1106071747150001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > Jason@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 Oops.... I'd better get ready for another lie... >they would not believe that she was healed by > God--regardless of the physical evidence. Whew. Good thing I was prepared. > So--why should I waste my time finding physical evidence. So... you hate science. All that proving gets in the way of making a guess and calling it a fact. You know, like becoming a Christian. > I already know that she was healed by God so I don't need to find physical evidence. So... you hate logic. Nice thing to know. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <Jason-1206072015450001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <cvdu63l6rvv5sadoco7rih3bt3vjejschk@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:06:25 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1106072206250001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article > > ><DipthotDipthot-9E058D.18284311062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > >655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > > > >> In article > > >> <Jason-1106071747150001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > >> Jason@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. So--why should I waste my time > > >finding physical evidence. I already know that she was healed by God so I > > >don't need to find physical evidence. > > > > Once again, you are lying to us. We will accept evidence that she was as > > severely impaired as you say and that she was healed. We will not accept > > your unsubstantiated assertion that this healing, if it happened, came > > from God. > > > > You need to provide evidence of the healing AND you need to provide > > evidence that the healing came from God. You haven't made the slightest > > attempt to provide such evidence. Why not? Is it because you know that > > you have absolutely no evidence that God had anything to do with it? > > I understand your point. No, I can not produce a video tape showing God > coming down from heaven and healing her leg. It appears that is the sort > of evidence that you are looking for---Sorry--I was wrong--you would > probably say that was not good enough since those evil Christians hired an > actor to play the role of God. You're an idiot. You haven't even tried to produce the smallest amount of unbiased witness testimony, so why are you whining about not being able to produce a videotape? -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <bh8u6392nggiaah9q242nudpl2v4vhruuu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:36:31 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1206071136310001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <v88t63pod2hnvrp1qs37joi09ogmqo4ner@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:24:17 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> > >> >In article <omsr63lbc8asb8qs5gghasksvaqesjamfi@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> In alt.atheism On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:23:39 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com > >> >> let us all know that: > >> >> > >> >> >On 11 Jun., 15:38, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> >> >> In alt.atheism On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:28:00 -0700, J...@nospam.com > >> >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >12 percent agree with you related to one aspect of evolution theory. > >> >> >> >88 percent agree with me related to that same aspect of > >evolution theory. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Wrong. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Now then: what about my responses to the 20 questions? I'll > >> >> >> keep asking until you give me something more substantive than "thank > >> >> >> you for answering". > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >How many years do you intend to dedicate? > >> >> > >> >> Until he gives up and leaves. > >> >> > >> > >> >You want to try again. > >> > >> > >> You want to actually respond to my answers? Or do you want to > >> continue to be a coward? > >> > >> > >> Don > >> --- > >> aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > >> Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > >> > >> "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > >> Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" > > > >Upon your request, we will try again--do you want me to post 10 more questions? > > > Are you actually interested in the answers, or will it be like the rest > of your questions, an attempt to deflect from the fact that you believe > a bunch of religious lies and refuse to look at physical evidence? I will read your answers. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 12, 8:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181690674.590547.210...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 13, 1:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1181646992.799917.21...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Do you have objective evidence that time and physics did not exist prior > > > to the Big Bang? > > > > Do you have objective evidence that these are two of the steps involved in > > > the evolution of mankind: > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). > > > Are you implying that we don't? > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis > > > Martin > > Martin, > It is based on speculation. I have been told by two people (yourself > included) that scientists have not conducted an experiment which had a > result that showed that a single cell (example: bacteria) evolved into a > single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproductin). It's been explained to you before that this is a poor choice of questions, and not really meaningful. > > I realize that scientists believe it happened millions of years ago. If it > happened naturally millions of years ago, scientists should be able to > make it happen again in a well designed experiment. Right... and scientists who understand how our Sun was formed should be able to create a new star in the laboratory to prove it in a well- designed experiment, right? In other words, no - there is no reason to expect scientists to be able to recreate the early history of life, which occurred gradually over millions of years. (This has also been pointed out to you before, of course.) - Bob T. > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <1k8u63p8g5ekm82c78psrvmlh24v5qbs6t@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:07:52 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1206071207530001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >> > You want to try again. I'll find 10 or 20 more questions for you.- Skjul = > >> tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >> > >> Yes, we all know that you are not capable of being embarrassed by your > >> dishonesty. It is odd that you are proud of it though. > > > > > >Questions for Evolutionists > > > >BlueBar > > > > > > 1. Where did the space for the universe come from? > > That question shows a profound lack of understanding of cosmological > origins. not an answer--try again. > > > 2. Where did matter come from? > > It's a form of energy and is a result of the Big Bang. good answer--but where did the energy re: Big Bang come from? > > > 3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)? > > Like the first question, the question betrays be a misunderstanding of > physics so deep that it would be impossible to clarify it. not an answer > > > 4. How did matter get so perfectly organized? > > You assume a fact not in evidence. Where did you get the idea that > matter is (perfectly) organized. good answer. > > > 5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? > > Like the first question, the question betrays be a misunderstanding of > physics so deep that it would be impossible to clarify it. Energy and > matter are the same. > > > 6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter? > > 3.5 to 4 billion years ago on earth, almost certainly on other planets > as well. It happened because it was a natural result of the environment > in which the chemical reactions were taking place. We don't know the > details how, yet, but we know there are a number of valid possible > paths. The matter wasn't dead. You answer is based on speculation > > > 7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? > > Learn? What a strange characterization. Life never learned to reproduce > itself, it happened as a result of biochemical reactions. Speculation--do you have evidence? > > > 8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? > > You are also misinformed about sexual reproduction. For what it's worth, > there are still a huge number of organisms that swap genetic material > even though they don't really reproduce sexually and there are a fair > number of complex organisms that can reproduce sexually or not. I did not write the questions--it's my guess the question was related to life forms that reproduce as a result of males and females having sex. With that in mind, try again. > > > 9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind > >since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of > >survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? > >How do you explain this?) > > It's how life works. Don't try to impute motive when there is none. > > > 10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any > >new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce > >Chinese books.) > > Mutations are not recombining of the genetic code. Once again, you ask a > defective question. > > > 11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different > >animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? > > If there were any evidence that there were a creator, common descent > would not be in conflict with that idea, but there is no evidence for a > creator so the question is meaningless. > > > 12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information > >available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain > >the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if > >evolution were true? > > Your misunderstanding of genetics. First, the complexity of the observed > chromosomes of any organism is not particularly correlated with the > apparent complexity of the organism itself. Second, almost all organisms > have huge amounts of noncoding strands of DNA which can be used by other > organisms. Third, viruses have found there way into chromosomes and > remained there. good answer > > > 13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become > >multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) > > There are many such forms of simple associated cell organisms: > cell-colonies and diplococcus are two such examples. > > >b) Single-celled animals evolve? > > Please tell us what you mean by a single-celled animal. > > >c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians > >change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, > >reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are > >all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live? > > <http://evolution.berkeley.edu/> is easy enough to understand for > someone who wants to learn. > > > 14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea > >horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, > >skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve? > > <http://evolution.berkeley.edu/> is easy enough to understand for > someone who wants to learn. > > > 15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the > >others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, > >the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:42:26 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <598u63h6roisvahm7r403qevrl451fr95v@4ax.com> >On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:24:29 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in ><Jason-1206071024300001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>In article <5d7uaoF331s2lU2@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in >>> >>> snip >>> > >>> > Martin, >>> > If I provided physical evidence that indicates that her leg bone grew 2 >>> > inches, would you believe that God healed her leg? >>> > Jason >>> >>> Of course not. Most importantly, you'd have to prove that your god exists >>> and does anything. >> >>That's the reason that I did not try to find the information on the web. >> >Because you know that you cannot provide any evidence that your God >exists. > >Despite that, you reject actual evidence. Why? Who taught you to be so >dishonest? The criminals in charge of the Christian Church. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <1181694856.629434.14120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 3:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Questions for Evolutionists > > > > BlueBar > > > > 1. Where did the space for the universe come from? > > The space for the universe presumably started as a singularity that > expanded in an inflationary manner. > > > 2. Where did matter come from? > > Presumably the total energy of the universe adds up to zero because > gravitational potential energy is negative. An excess of baryons over > anti-baryons were created due to some kind of symmetry breaking > process. > > > 3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, et= > c=2E)? > > Presumably the four forces (gravity, electromagnetism and strong and > weak nuclear forces) are a single force at the temperature scale of > the big bang and they separated out as the universe cooled: it was a > kind of phase transition. Inertia is really the conservation of > momentum and is due to the symmetry of space which results in the laws > of physics being the same everywhere. > > > 4. How did matter get so perfectly organized? > > Who says it is organized? It sounds like you're assuming an > organizer? The truth is that matter is attracted to other matter > because of gravity. > > > 5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? > > Gravitational potential energy. > > > 6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis > > "The RNA world hypothesis is a theory which proposes that a world > filled with RNA (ribonucleic acid) based life predates current DNA > (deoxyribonucleic acid) based life. RNA, which can store information > like DNA and catalyze reactions like proteins (enzymes), may have > supported cellular or pre-cellular life. Some theories as to the > origin of life present RNA-based catalysis and information storage as > the first step in the evolution of cellular life." > > > 7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex > > "The most primitive organisms known to reproduce sexually are protists > (primitive unicellular eukaryotes) such as those that cause malaria. > > "Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient > and reliable manner. The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of > the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction. > Diploid individuals can repair a mutated section of its DNA via > genetic recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the > cell and one copy is presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in an > haploid individual, on the other hand, is more likely to become > resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the > original undamaged sequence was.[18] The most primitive form of sex > may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged > strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself.[19] > > "Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish > parasitic genetic elements that exchange genetic material (that is: > copies of their own genome) for their transmission and propagation. In > some organisms, sexual reproduction has been shown to enhance the > spread of parasitic genetic elements (e.g.: yeast, filamentous fungi). > [20] Bacterial conjugation, a form of genetic exchange that some > sources describe as sex, is not a form of reproduction. However, it > does support the selfish genetic element theory, as it is propagated > through such a "selfish gene", the F-plasmid.[19] > > "A third theory is that sex evolved as a form of cannibalism. One > primitive organism ate another one, but rather than completely > digesting it, some of the 'eaten' organism's DNA was incorporated into > the 'eater' organism.[19] > > "A comprehensive 'origin of sex as vaccination' theory proposes that > eukaryan sex-as-syngamy (fusion sex) arose from prokaryan unilateral > sex-as-infection when infected hosts began swapping nuclearized > genomes containing coevolved, vertically transmitted symbionts that > provided protection against horizontal superinfection by more virulent > symbionts. Sex-as-meiosis (fission sex) then evolved as a host > strategy to uncouple (and thereby emasculate) the acquired symbiont > genomes.[21]" > > > 8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reprod= > uce? > > Bacteria today are capable of swapping DNA. This would have been the > first step. > > > 9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind > > since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of > > survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? > > How do you explain this?) > > It is an instinct that allows the genes to survive even as the parent > organism eventually dies. > > > 10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any > > new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce > > Chinese books.) > > Ah but if you knew any linguistics then you would know the fallacy of > this argument: written language has indeed evolved over time. (See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_language ) > > > 11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different > > animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? > > There are no similarities in "design" because no designer exists. > Gorillas and chimpanzees share genetic traits because they are > genetically related to mankind. > > > 12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information > > available and tends only to keep a species stable. > > This is a lie. Mutations do occur. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muta= > tion > ) > > > How would you explain > > the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if > > evolution were true? > > Mutations occur. Natural selection selects out the harmful > mutations. It is that simple. > > > 13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become > > multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) > > No. There were colonies first. > > > b) > > Single-celled animals evolve? > > 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." > > > c) Fish change to amphibians? > > The fossil record does have fish with lungs. > > > d) Amphibians > > change to reptiles? > > Quite simply, mass extinctions would have resulted in those who could > live on land preferably surving. > > > e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, > > reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are > > all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live? > > The fossil record does have reptiles with feathers. As you point out, > a reptile is very different from a bird so it wasn't a bird. > > > 14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? > > The fossil record does have whales with legs. And we still have > seals. > > > b) Sea > > horses evolve? > > You're joking, right? A seahorse is a type of fish. It only _looks_ > like a horse. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seahorse ) > > > c) Bats evolve? > > >From mice. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat and > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_mouse ) > > > d) Eyes evolve? > > Eyes are essentially light sensitive sensors attached to the brain. > They have improved over billions of years, starting with fish eyes. > > > e) Ears evolve? > > Ears are essentially sound sensitive sensors attached to the brain. > They have improved over billions of years, starting with fish ears. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish#Sensory_and_nervous_system > > "Fish have well-developed nervous systems that organize around a > central brain, that is divided into different parts. The most > anterior, or front, end of the brain are the olfactory bulbs, which > are involved in the fish's sense of smell. Unlike most vertebrates, > the cerebrum of the fish primarily processes the sense of smell rather > than being responsible for all voluntary actions. The optic lobes > process information from the eyes. The cerebellum coordinates body > movements while the medulla oblongata controls the functions of > internal organs. Most fishes possess highly developed sense organs. > Nearly all daylight fish have well-developed eyes that have color > vision that is at least as good as a human's. Many fish also have > specialized cells known as chemoreceptors that are responsible for > extraordinary senses of taste and smell. Although they have ears in > their heads, many fish may not hear sounds very well. However, most > fishes have sensitive receptors that form the lateral line system. The > lateral line system allows for many fish to detect gentle currents and > vibrations, as well as to sense the motion of other nearby fish and > prey." > > > f) Hair, > > skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve? > > These were all evolutionary advantages. Note that only mammals have > hair and only birds have feathers. Your "almighty God" didn't choose > to create an animal that was part bird and part mammal. > > > 15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the > > others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, > > the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body= > =B9s > > resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? > > You've asked this question before so I refer you back to my previous > answer. Obviously food existed first in the form of amino acids, > bacteria have the ability to find and eat their food and worms have a > primitive digestive system which is just a tube with two ends but > worms eat constantly and probably aren't aware of being hungry. The > body obviously became resistant to digestive juices as digestive > juices became stronger, enabling people to eat different kinds of > food. Don't forget that we also chew our food before swallowing. > > > b) The > > drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? > > As viruses and bacteria reproduce, this question is monumentally > stupid. > > > c) The lungs, the mucus > > lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be > > breathed into the lungs? > > Again, a monumentally stupid question: the lungs evolved to adapt to > the atmosphere; it wasn't the atmosphere that was created for teh sake > of our lungs. > > > d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell > > parts? > > RNA (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis ) > > > e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually > > digest the cellulose? > > The termite is an insect so it evolved from other insects. The > flagella in its intestines formed a symbiotic relationship with the > termites, allowing them both to prosper and reproduce: this is > evidence supporting natural selection. > > > f) The plants or the insects that live on and > > pollinate the plants? > > Plants came first. They can easily be pollinated by the wind, > especially when they are close together. > > > g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or > > muscles to move the bones? > > The muscles and nervous system came first. We know this because there > are plenty of animals who DON'T have bones. In fact, 97% of all > animal species do not have a spinal column. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invertebrate > > > h) The nervous system, repair system, or > > hormone system? > > These are separate systems that evolved separately. > > > i) The immune system or the need for it? > > Obviously animals would die more easily without their immune system > but they could survive long enough to reproduce. Natural selection > favours animals with more advanced immune systems. > > That was easy. > > Martin Martin, Your grade is A--I did not write the questions. I googled "Questions for evolutionists" I had a hard time understanding some of the questions since they were poorly written. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:12:23 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: - Refer: <1181657543.772882.233290@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com> >On 12 Jun., 07:06, 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. > >Gosh are you still telling that lie? Seriously, what is the point of >lying to the people you are lying about? What do you think you >accomplish. I am really curious about that. > >>So--why should I waste my time >> finding physical evidence. I already know that she was healed by God so I >> don't need to find physical evidence. > >And we have no logical reason to believe you, especially since you lie >nearly every time you post. > "nearly" every time? Every single time! -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <qqeu635h7ulvvfjmnft37ibo5qd85nm45r@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:25:04 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote in > <1181647504.431996.43770@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>: > >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. > > No, he wants you to know that he can repeat what he's told by his > religious leaders. Jason never read The Origin of Species. I read the last chapter since it was posted on the net. The last paragraph of the book is very interesting. Darwin even used the term "creator" in the last chapter. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:02:52 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: - Refer: <5d7ucgF2vsijtU2@mid.individual.net> > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >snip >> Martin, >> An atheists swallow everything the scientists tell them if it supports >> their belief system. > >Why are you lying? Why change a habit of a lifetime? -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <1181691529.495499.305700@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 1:42 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1206071036370001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > Have any experiments been done that has indicated that it is possible for > > > a single cell (bacteria) can be induced to evolve into a single animal > > > cell (with DNA nucleus cabable of sexual reproduction)? > > > > > If possible, provide a yes or no answer. > > > > No one has that. I'm not even sure that it is possible. I think you might > > have forgotten a few steps. > > It's possible. It happened billions of years ago. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis > > Martin Martin, Thanks for your answer. Jason Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:25:04 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: - Refer: <1181647504.431996.43770@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com> >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. He probably has to use his sister's toes to perform that feat. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <nocu63t7m5lckkpctjabhghvrbj10nrdap@4ax.com>, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:53:45 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >In article <598u63h6roisvahm7r403qevrl451fr95v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:24:29 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1206071024300001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <5d7uaoF331s2lU2@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> ><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > >> >> > >> >> snip > >> >> > > >> >> > Martin, > >> >> > If I provided physical evidence that indicates that her leg bone grew 2 > >> >> > inches, would you believe that God healed her leg? > >> >> > Jason > >> >> > >> >> Of course not. Most importantly, you'd have to prove that your god exists > >> >> and does anything. > >> > > >> >That's the reason that I did not try to find the information on the web. > >> > > >> Because you know that you cannot provide any evidence that your God > >> exists. > >> > >> Despite that, you reject actual evidence. Why? Who taught you to be so > >> dishonest? > > > >I do not reject all evidence. You reject evidence (testimony) that > >Cheryl's leg bone grew 2 inches. > > This isn't evidence. It's a claim, made by you, that you have thus far > not supported. You've lied about so many other things, I think it's > safe to assume you're most probably lying about this as well. Would you like for me to post her testimony again. She stated that she watched her leg bone grow two inches? > > > >I accepted the evidence related to > >natural selection. I rejected abiogenesis and common sense due to the lack > >of evidence. It's mainly based on speculation. I already know that you > >disagree with me. > >Jason > > Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <1181690674.590547.210390@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 1:21 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181646992.799917.21...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Do you have objective evidence that time and physics did not exist prior > > to the Big Bang? > > > > Do you have objective evidence that these are two of the steps involved in > > the evolution of mankind: > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). > > Are you implying that we don't? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis > > Martin Martin, It is based on speculation. I have been told by two people (yourself included) that scientists have not conducted an experiment which had a result that showed that a single cell (example: bacteria) evolved into a single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproductin). I realize that scientists believe it happened millions of years ago. If it happened naturally millions of years ago, scientists should be able to make it happen again in a well designed experiment. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <cvdu63l6rvv5sadoco7rih3bt3vjejschk@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:06:25 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1106072206250001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article > ><DipthotDipthot-9E058D.18284311062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > >655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > > >> In article > >> <Jason-1106071747150001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > >> Jason@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. So--why should I waste my time > >finding physical evidence. I already know that she was healed by God so I > >don't need to find physical evidence. > > Once again, you are lying to us. We will accept evidence that she was as > severely impaired as you say and that she was healed. We will not accept > your unsubstantiated assertion that this healing, if it happened, came > from God. > > You need to provide evidence of the healing AND you need to provide > evidence that the healing came from God. You haven't made the slightest > attempt to provide such evidence. Why not? Is it because you know that > you have absolutely no evidence that God had anything to do with it? I understand your point. No, I can not produce a video tape showing God coming down from heaven and healing her leg. It appears that is the sort of evidence that you are looking for---Sorry--I was wrong--you would probably say that was not good enough since those evil Christians hired an actor to play the role of God. 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.