Guest Bob T. Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 12, 9:40 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181702651.987664.33...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > > > > > > > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > 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 - > > Bob, > There is a world of difference between conducting scientific experiments > in labs compared to creating a star. Jason - there is a world of difference between conducting scientific experiments in labs and re-creating the multi-million year processes that gave rise to life. > > The scientists believe that it happened naturally. It's very likely that > it involved elements (or a combination of elements) and amino acids. > > If it happened once--naturally--scientists should be able to cause it > happen again. Our Sun happened once - naturally - scientists should be able to cause it to happen again. In other words, your argument makes no sense. There is no more reason to expect scientists to be able to re-create the path from non-life to life in a laboratory than to expect them to re-create the birth of our Sun in a laboratory. - Bob T. > > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <1181707845.323257.53010@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 11:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181691834.624172.310...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 13, 1:54 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > If there was a court case related to this issue, Cheryl > > > > > Prewitt could produce her medical records (eg X-Rays). All of medical > > > > > staff that were present when a doctor removed two inches of a leg bone > > > > > would testify. > > > > > They would testify to the fact that she was a liar. I would LOVE to > > > see that. This is exactly why she "preaches to the converted", ie to > > > the naive and stupid. > > > Are you stating that all Christians are naive and stupid? I know that you > > would challenge me if stated the same thing about the advocates of > > evolution. > > You already are on record for implying that people who advocate > evolution are "fucking stupid", Jason. All I am doing is correcting > your error and telling you the truth. > > Martin Martin, I don't believe the advocates of evolution are stupid or naive. Atheists believe there is no God so they need a way to explain how the universe and life forms came to be. The Big Bang and Evolution theory are the best two theories available as of now. They believe those two theories despite the lack of evidence for abiogenesis. Many of the aspects of abiogenesis are based more on speculation than on evidence. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <1181708463.149330.322620@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 12:10 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181691015.300853.260...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 13, 2:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > They place Christians in prisons and mental hospitals in communist > > > > countries. Do you want the government to do the same thing in America? > > > > > No, there's probably some medication you could take. > > > > --or perhaps some medication for the people that believe their oldest > > known ancestor is bacteria. --just kidding > > I don't believe you. I think you are serious. I know I was. > > Martin Martin, No, I don't think that Christians or yourself needs medication. Perhaps, some of the advocates of evolution do need medication since they seem to get really angry when someone attacks their precious theory. It's my opinion that some of the advocates of evolution treat evolution as more of a religion than as a theory. However, there are other advocates of evolution that realize that it is a theory and that they would turn their back on evolution and/or the Big Bang if scientists developed even better theories. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <1181708780.876674.162530@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 12:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181699263.750690.39...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > It's speculation. Speculation is not evidence. There are two other > > possibilities: > > 1. intelligent designer > > With all due respect (and at this point we honestly affording you very > little) this is not a possibility because God does not exist. > > > 2. ancient astronauts from another planet. > > Which doesn't answer the question of where life ultimately came from. > Nor does God belief for that matter: do you believe God to be alive? > If life requires creation then who created God? > > > You choice is abiogenesis. > > My choice is an intelligent designer. > > Erick Von Dannikan's choice is ancient astronauts. > > You and Erick have a lot in common, You're both kooks who believe > things without evidence. Speculation is not evidence. The advocates of creation science have fossil evidence. Erik has Stonehenge, Pyramids, cave drawings of ancient astronauts and cave drawings of space ships. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <1181709086.619822.232820@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 12:40 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181702651.987664.33...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > > 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.) > > > There is a world of difference between conducting scientific experiments > > in labs compared to creating a star. > > And there's a world of difference between showing how life could have > arisen and actually duplicating the process that originally took 500 > million years. > > > The scientists believe that it happened naturally. It's very likely that > > it involved elements (or a combination of elements) and amino acids. > > The molecules necessary for life have already been created in > laboratory experiments. > > > If it happened once--naturally--scientists should be able to cause it > > happen again. > > And so they have been able to: just as protiens can be made from RNA > so can RNA be made from protiens. It would be a slow process, > however, if it took place outside of a living cell, however. If it really did happen the way the advocates of abiogenesis claim that it happened, scientists should be able to design an experiment to make it happen. Do you think that scientists will ever be able to perform such an experiment? Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 2:38 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181707845.323257.53...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 13, 11:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Are you stating that all Christians are naive and stupid? I know that you > > > would challenge me if stated the same thing about the advocates of > > > evolution. > > > You already are on record for implying that people who advocate > > evolution are "fucking stupid", Jason. All I am doing is correcting > > your error and telling you the truth. > I don't believe the advocates of evolution are stupid or naive. And yet... >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:05:09 -0700, J...@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >I will tell you the reason I mentioned the 12 percent figure in several >> >posts. >> >People (in various posts) were attempting to marginalize me. People in >> >various posts stated or at least implied that most people believed that >> >mankind evolved from lower life forms without involvement from God. I knew >> >that was not true but had no data to back it up. When I found out that >> >only 12 percent of Americans believed that mankind evolved from lower life >> >forms without involvement from God, I decided to post the figure everytime >> >someone else attempted to marginalize me and by opinions related to >> >abiogenesis. >> That's just means that 12% of the people are fucking morons. >Don, >I agree with you. >Jason Care to change your story, asshole? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 2:44 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181708463.149330.322...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 13, 12:10 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1181691015.300853.260...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 13, 2:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > They place Christians in prisons and mental hospitals in communist > > > > > countries. Do you want the government to do the same thing in America? > > > > > No, there's probably some medication you could take. > > > > --or perhaps some medication for the people that believe their oldest > > > known ancestor is bacteria. --just kidding > > > I don't believe you. I think you are serious. I know I was. > No, I don't think that Christians or yourself needs medication. Jason, What on Earth makes you think we are going to believe a single word you say from now on? You're finished. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <1181708413.361881.208590@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 12:06 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <jbdu63dbf8uae5r7fv9mee2g40sb6q0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > Remember, they worship the same God you do. > > > > They worship a God named Allah. There were some people in the Bible that > > worshipped a false God named Baal. Judges 2:13. I consider Allah to be a > > false God. I already know people will diagree with me. > > Indeed. And what did the Hebrews do to people who worshipped that > false god? > > "While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men defiled > themselves by sleeping with the local Moabite women. These women > invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, and soon the > Israelites were feasting with them and worshiping the gods of Moab. > Before long Israel was joining in the worship of Baal of Peor, causing > the LORD's anger to blaze against his people. The LORD issued the > following command to Moses: "Seize all the ringleaders and execute > them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn > away from the people of Israel." So Moses ordered Israel's judges to > execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor. Just then > one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp, > right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were > weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle. When Phinehas son of > Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and > left the assembly. Then he took a spear and rushed after the man into > his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man's body > and into the woman's stomach. So the plague against the Israelites > was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died. (Numbers 25:1-9 > NLT)" > > The Moslems also think that Jehovah is a false god and they believe > that Allah wants them to kill the followers of the false god. > > Now do you understand. It is RELIGION that is the problem. It > doesn't matter WHICH one. > > Martin Martin, The Muslims want to take over the world. They will do it by force. If people don't become Muslims, they will kill them. The president of Iran plans to start the next world war and he may succeed. Read the book, "The Last Jihad". I copied this quotation from a book entitled, "Jerusalem Countdown" A Muslim leader named Fayid Azzam made this statement in Brooklyn in 1989: "Blood must flow. There must be widows, orphans...hands and limbs must be severed and limbs and blood must be spread everwhere in order that Allah's religion can stand on it's feet." http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25136 Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 2:50 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The advocates of creation science have fossil > evidence. Stick your lies up your ass, Jason. You know this isn't true: you've already admitted that your precious ICR contains no evidence. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 2:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181709086.619822.232...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, George > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 13, 12:40 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1181702651.987664.33...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > > > 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.) > > > > There is a world of difference between conducting scientific experiments > > > in labs compared to creating a star. > > > And there's a world of difference between showing how life could have > > arisen and actually duplicating the process that originally took 500 > > million years. > > > > The scientists believe that it happened naturally. It's very likely that > > > it involved elements (or a combination of elements) and amino acids. > > > The molecules necessary for life have already been created in > > laboratory experiments. > > > > If it happened once--naturally--scientists should be able to cause it > > > happen again. > > > And so they have been able to: just as protiens can be made from RNA > > so can RNA be made from protiens. It would be a slow process, > > however, if it took place outside of a living cell, however. > > If it really did happen the way the advocates of abiogenesis claim that it > happened, scientists should be able to design an experiment to make it > happen. Do you think that scientists will ever be able to perform such an > experiment? Experiments have been performed to show that life began the way scientists say it did. Has any experiment been performed to show that Jason is anything but a fucking idiot? No. I told you you wouldn't like me when I am angry. That's what happens when you throw around lies and insults. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 3:10 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181708413.361881.208...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 13, 12:06 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <jbdu63dbf8uae5r7fv9mee2g40sb6q0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > Remember, they worship the same God you do. > > > > They worship a God named Allah. There were some people in the Bible that > > > worshipped a false God named Baal. Judges 2:13. I consider Allah to be a > > > false God. I already know people will diagree with me. > > > Indeed. And what did the Hebrews do to people who worshipped that > > false god? > > > "While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men defiled > > themselves by sleeping with the local Moabite women. These women > > invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, and soon the > > Israelites were feasting with them and worshiping the gods of Moab. > > Before long Israel was joining in the worship of Baal of Peor, causing > > the LORD's anger to blaze against his people. The LORD issued the > > following command to Moses: "Seize all the ringleaders and execute > > them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn > > away from the people of Israel." So Moses ordered Israel's judges to > > execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor. Just then > > one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp, > > right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were > > weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle. When Phinehas son of > > Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and > > left the assembly. Then he took a spear and rushed after the man into > > his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man's body > > and into the woman's stomach. So the plague against the Israelites > > was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died. (Numbers 25:1-9 > > NLT)" > > > The Moslems also think that Jehovah is a false god and they believe > > that Allah wants them to kill the followers of the false god. > > > Now do you understand. It is RELIGION that is the problem. It > > doesn't matter WHICH one. > The Muslims want to take over the world. So do you, Jason. That's entirely my point. You want to take over the world and force people to stop thinking. Guess what, Jason: we won't let you. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 3:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181708123.776350.23...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 13, 11:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1181695356.967104.238...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 13, 4:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <Xns994D94878C66Ffreddyb...@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > > > > > > <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > >news:Jason-1206071222580001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > > > > > > > > In article <5d83hcF31q6f...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > > > > > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > > > >>news:Jason-1206071128330001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > > >> > In article > > <1181649884.050718.194...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> 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 > > > > > > > >> > Martin, > > > > > > >> > Those people that do such things are not pleasing to God. > > > > > > >> > They may believe or think that their actions are pleasing to > > > > > > >> > God--but they are wrong. You can find many cases in history where > > > > > > >> > people done terrible things that they believed were pleasing to > > > > > > >> > God--but were not pleasing to God. > > > > > > > >> Who are you to judge? > > > > > > > > It's easy to judge the actions of the men that killed 3000 people on > > > > > > > 9/11. > > > > > > > It's easy to find people who will tell us what a blasphemous > infidel you > > > > > > are for saying that the 9/11 Jihadists were not pleasing Allah with > > > > > > their actions. > > > > > > You already know that millions of people in America agree that the > actions > > > > > of those men were not pleasing to Jehovah. > > > > > We'd let Jehovah and Allah fight it out amongst themselves if either > > > > of them existed. > > > > > By the way, Genesis 1 says "El" created the universe and mankind but > > > > Genesis 2 says it was "Yahweh". > > > > Do you have the verses? El may be one of the many names of God. > > > In fact, Genesis 1 talks about the Elohim, which means "gods", in > > plural. (e.g. Genesis 6:2, "... the sons of Elohim saw the daughters > > of men that they were fair; and they took them for wives... ,") > > > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim > This is in reference to the intermarriage among the Cainites and Sethites. > The Cainites were sinful, evil people and the Sethites were devoted and > consecrated to God. God became very upset with the Sethites for taking > Cainite women as their wives since God wanted them to only marry Sethite > women. No, Jason, "Elohim" refers to gods in plural. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim "Elohim acts as an ordinary plural of the word Eloah ( ), and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods (for example, Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.")." You are either lying or are painfully ignorant of your own religion and its origins. > I copied most of the above info. from a footnote in my study Bible. As usual, you've failed to distinguish between information and misinformation (ie lies). Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <1181708123.776350.23860@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 11:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181695356.967104.238...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 13, 4:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <Xns994D94878C66Ffreddyb...@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > > > > > > <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > >news:Jason-1206071222580001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > > > > > > > > In article <5d83hcF31q6f...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > > > > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > > >>news:Jason-1206071128330001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > >> > In article <1181649884.050718.194...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > >> > Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> 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 > > > > > > > >> > Martin, > > > > > >> > Those people that do such things are not pleasing to God. > > > > > >> > They may believe or think that their actions are pleasing to > > > > > >> > God--but they are wrong. You can find many cases in history where > > > > > >> > people done terrible things that they believed were pleasing to > > > > > >> > God--but were not pleasing to God. > > > > > > > >> Who are you to judge? > > > > > > > > It's easy to judge the actions of the men that killed 3000 people on > > > > > > 9/11. > > > > > > > It's easy to find people who will tell us what a blasphemous infidel you > > > > > are for saying that the 9/11 Jihadists were not pleasing Allah with > > > > > their actions. > > > > > > You already know that millions of people in America agree that the actions > > > > of those men were not pleasing to Jehovah. > > > > > We'd let Jehovah and Allah fight it out amongst themselves if either > > > of them existed. > > > > > By the way, Genesis 1 says "El" created the universe and mankind but > > > Genesis 2 says it was "Yahweh". > > > Do you have the verses? El may be one of the many names of God. > > In fact, Genesis 1 talks about the Elohim, which means "gods", in > plural. (e.g. Genesis 6:2, "... the sons of Elohim saw the daughters > of men that they were fair; and they took them for wives... ,") > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim > > Martin This is in reference to the intermarriage among the Cainites and Sethites. The Cainites were sinful, evil people and the Sethites were devoted and consecrated to God. God became very upset with the Sethites for taking Cainite women as their wives since God wanted them to only marry Sethite women. I copied most of the above info. from a footnote in my study Bible. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <1181709266.371667.313590@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 12:44 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181699847.672385.230...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 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". > > > They are different names for God. > > They are different gods. I > read on wikipedia some speculation that Yahweh is > based on the Sumerian god Ea / Enki. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahu > > "According to some, Yam was also called Ya'a or Yaw. > Damaged text in KTU 1.2 iv has been interpreted by > Mark S. Smith as describing a renaming of Yam from an > original name Yaw. The resemblance of the latter to > the Tetragrammaton YHWH led to speculation over a > possible connection between Yam and God of the Hebrew > Bible. However even if the reading is correct many > scholars argue the names have different roots and > reject the idea that they are related. Another > suggested reading of the name is Ya'a and it has also > been suggested as an early form of the divine name > Yah, Yahu. Earlier archaeologists like Theophilus G. > Pinches[1] quoted the research of Hommel, Professor of > Semitic languages at Munich, who suggested "that this > god Ya is another form of the name Ea...". By this > theory Ya'a thus appears to have been a God of the > waters, both salt (Yam) and fresh (Nahar), in some > ways similar to the Mesopotamian God Ea.[2] This view > has been supported in more recent times by > archaeologists like Jean Bottero[3] and others,[4] > although this is disputed by other scholars.[5][6]" > > In Sumerian mythology, Enki was the creator of > mankind. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enki > > "In Sumerian myth, Enki lay asleep in the depths of > the primeval ocean, unable to hear the lament of the > gods as they complained about the difficulty of > cultivating wheat and making bread. Eventually the > primeval sea, Nammu brought the gods' tears to Enki. > Enki, as the god of wisdom, was expected to devise a > solution, so he solicited Nammu and the birth-goddess > Ninmah to use clay to form the first men, who would > toil and farm so that the gods could relax. [7] > > [...] > > "Another myth, "Enki and Adapa", tells of how humanity > loses the chance at immortality. Adapa U-an (Berossus' > Oannes), who is Abgallu (Ab = Water, Gal = Great, Lu = > Man) (Akkadian Apkallu), Enki's advisor, to the first > king of Eridu, Allulim, inadvertently breaks the wings > of the South Wind, Ninlil (See Lilith) (Nin = Lady, > Lil = Air), daughter of Anu (the Heavens) and wife to > Enlil, king of the gods. In terror at the thought of > their retribution, Adapa seeks the advice of Enki. > Enki advises that Adapa make a deep and sincere > atonement, but advises Adapa to eat nothing given to > him by the gods, as he will probably be given the food > of death, out of their anger at his deeds. Adapa takes > Enki's advice, but the gods, so impressed by the > sincerity of Adapa's sorrow and grief as to what he > did, offered instead the fruit of immortality. Adapa > remembering Enki's words, refuses, and so misses out > on the chance of eternal life." > > So Enki created man and one of his creations was named > Adapa and Adapa angered the gods and ended up losing > his chance at eternal life. > > So who is Satan? "Satan" is a Hebrew word meaning > "adversary". > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan > > So who was the adversary of Yam? The adversary of Yam > was Baal ("Lord") Hadad. > > "Of all the gods, Yam holds special hostility against > Baal Hadad over the divine assembly. Yam is a deity of > the sea and his palace is in the abyss associated with > the depths, or Biblical tehwom, of the oceans. (This > is not to be confused with the abode of Mot, the ruler > of the netherworlds.) In Ugaritic texts, Yam's special > enemy Hadad is also known as the "king of heaven" and > the "first born son" of El, whom ancient Greeks > identified with their god Kronos, just as Baal was > identified with Zeus, Yam with Poseidon and Mot with > Hades. Yam wished to become the Lord god in his place. > In turns the two beings kill each other, yet Hadad is > resurrected and Yam also returns. Some authors have > suggested that these tales reflect the experience of > seasonal cycles in the Levant." > > Thus, we can see that Yahweh can be associated with > both the Sumerian god Enki and the Greek god Poseidon > while Hadad can be associated not only with the Greek > god Zeus (and the Roman god Jupiter) but also the > Akkadian god Adad, the Anatolian god Teshub, the > Egyptian god Set and the Sumerian god Ishkur. In > Sumerian mythology, Ishkur was sometimes refered to as > the son of Anu and brother of Enki and sometimes > refered to as the brother of Ishtar and a descendent > of both Enki and his brother Enlil. (See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadad > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adad ) > > That Ishkur was referred to as the son of Anu may be a > mistake based on the fact that he was considered one > of the Anunnaku, the race of beings descended from Anu > collectively known as the sons of Anu. (See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anu ) > > It is worth pointing out at this point that Anu was > known to the Hebrews as El (See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El ) and that the Annuaki > correspond to the Hebrew Elohim (See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim). The Islamic > name Allah is believed to be derived from the name El. > (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah ). > > Historically then El (the creator of the universe) > and Yahweh (the creator of mankind) were not the same > god. Judeo-Christian tradition combines the two gods > into one. It would appear as though Genesis chapter > one originally spoke about El and Genesis chapter two > originally spoke about Yahweh. In what Bible verse is El mentioned? Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 3:08 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 2:38 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1181707845.323257.53...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 13, 11:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > Are you stating that all Christians are naive and stupid? I know that you > > > > would challenge me if stated the same thing about the advocates of > > > > evolution. > > > > You already are on record for implying that people who advocate > > > evolution are "fucking stupid", Jason. All I am doing is correcting > > > your error and telling you the truth. > > I don't believe the advocates of evolution are stupid or naive. > > And yet... > >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:05:09 -0700, J...@nospam.com > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> >I will tell you the reason I mentioned the 12 percent figure in several > >> >posts. > >> >People (in various posts) were attempting to marginalize me. People in > >> >various posts stated or at least implied that most people believed that > >> >mankind evolved from lower life forms without involvement from God. I knew > >> >that was not true but had no data to back it up. When I found out that > >> >only 12 percent of Americans believed that mankind evolved from lower life > >> >forms without involvement from God, I decided to post the figure everytime > >> >someone else attempted to marginalize me and by opinions related to > >> >abiogenesis. > >> That's just means that 12% of the people are fucking morons. > >Don, > >I agree with you. > >Jason > > Care to change your story, asshole? Here it is again with the references included: In alt.atheism On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 21:14:26 -0700, J...@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <12pm63dcjnuunio4aknb4i84ruo5v05...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:05:09 -0700, J...@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >I will tell you the reason I mentioned the 12 percent figure in several >posts. >> >People (in various posts) were attempting to marginalize me. People in >> >various posts stated or at least implied that most people believed that >> >mankind evolved from lower life forms without involvement from God. I knew >> >that was not true but had no data to back it up. When I found out that >> >only 12 percent of Americans believed that mankind evolved from lower life >> >forms without involvement from God, I decided to post the figure everytime >> >someone else attempted to marginalize me and by opinions related to >> >abiogenesis. >> That's just means that 12% of the people are fucking morons. >Don, >I agree with you. >Jason Martin Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206072129510001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > It's speculation. Speculation is not evidence. There are two other > possibilities: > 1. intelligent designer There is no evidenec to support that speculation. There is much evidence to support evolution. > 2. ancient astronauts from another planet. Pretty much the same as 1 Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206072140050001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > Bob, > There is a world of difference between conducting scientific experiments > in labs compared to creating a star. > > The scientists believe that it happened naturally. It's very likely that > it involved elements (or a combination of elements) and amino acids. > > If it happened once--naturally--scientists should be able to cause it > happen again. So you think scientist should be able to create stars in the laboratory? And their failure to do so implies that there is a 'god' who created them instead? Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:50:51 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <1181699451.723070.196870@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com> >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. There is a certain haphazard logic to that aqctivity. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:10:45 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <1181707845.323257.53010@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> >On Jun 13, 11:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <1181691834.624172.310...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > On Jun 13, 1:54 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > > If there was a court case related to this issue, Cheryl >> > > > Prewitt could produce her medical records (eg X-Rays). All of medical >> > > > staff that were present when a doctor removed two inches of a leg bone >> > > > would testify. >> >> > They would testify to the fact that she was a liar. I would LOVE to >> > see that. This is exactly why she "preaches to the converted", ie to >> > the naive and stupid. > >> Are you stating that all Christians are naive and stupid? I know that you >> would challenge me if stated the same thing about the advocates of >> evolution. > >You already are on record for implying that people who advocate >evolution are "fucking stupid", Jason. All I am doing is correcting >your error and telling you the truth. It won't sink in. Not an yoctometre. You are fighting an impossible battle should you wish to educate Jason. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:34:33 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <qqeu635h7ulvvfjmnft37ibo5qd85nm45r@4ax.com> >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. Art Bullashit INSISTS that it is called "OriGin of tHe spECIes". -- Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On 12 Jun., 13:59, Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 12:53 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <utqr63he40hh9n29rh2c80f0p1v05gj...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch snip > > Imagine how God feels about atheists. > > You're much better at imagining God than we are. I prefer Lennon's imagination when it comes to god. > > Martin- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On 12 Jun., 18:01, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in > > snip > > > Martin, > > Dr. Gish, Dr. Morris and Cheryl Prewitt are preaching to the choir. 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. She would not enjoy > > giving her testimony to people that took turns calling her a liar. > > Jason > > Gee, really? What a profound revelation > -- > Robyn > Resident Witchypoo > BAAWA Knight! > #1557 One wonders why Jason enjoys being called a liar. Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 12, 3:58 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181630554.483544.317...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote: > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > When you say that "Imagine how god feels....", why do you state things > > for your god? > > Can't you own god say how he feels directly? > > Yes > > > By this inferance, aren't religious people like you always state > > opinion on behalf of someone else! > > No--I rarely state opinions on behalf of someone else. > > > On the other hand, wouldn't it the wish of your god for people like us > > to correct your mistake? > > I don't know. Has God told you to correct my mistake?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - All of us do not need your god to tell us what to do. Any mistake of a person is either self-conscious or in the eyes of other people. If your mistake is to hurt other people, that's no good. If your mistake is not to feed your own children, that's your own affair. For religious believe, we can point out your mistake but its up to you whether you want to accept it or not. For human to believe in god, what is the purpose? Some say it can lead to heaven, but who says? Or have you heard that "one man's meat is another man's poison"? If you rely upon ancient story book, there were thousands of them, but were they true? They were all merely story book, bed time fairy tales, for children, not for a full adult to digest and believe. The bible is full of false account and could not live up to scrutiny, yet you choose to believe. We can only say: "pity" Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On 12 Jun., 19:21, 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? Are you able to read? Have you read the many posts that explain the above? > > 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).- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On 12 Jun., 19:24, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5d7uaoF331s2...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@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. You are admitting that you cannot provide evidence of your 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.