Guest stoney Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 21:45:02 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism >On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:01:07 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> In article <lZZ9i.466$s9.117@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>> news:Jason-0706071142510001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> > In article <f4922n$gop$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: [] >>> They have enough evidence to show that the big bang happened. What is your >>> evidence that it didn't? Don't have any? I didn't think so. >> >> If you google "Big Bang Problems", you will find > >You will find - assuming you're finding _science_ and not more >creationist lies - problems which people have seen and are trying to >answer. That is, you'll find science doing science; examining our >theories, seeing where they lead, actually admitting where there do seem >to be unanswered questions and trying to answer them. Such examination is >what science is . > >On the other side, we have people such as yourself and your hero Gish who >don't appear to be able to approach the subjects honestly at all. I know >which side I'll support; give me honest questions over lies and bullshit >any day. Don't forget honest answers such as; "At this time we don't know." The honest answer could continue with; "We think 'this' or 'that' based on [evidence]." -- Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. Quote
Guest stoney Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 09:15:06 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in alt.atheism >Martin Phipps wrote: >> On Jun 8, 5:55 pm, "Christopher Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> >> wrote: >>> "Martin Phipps" <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> >>> news:1181258112.140122.199820@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >>> >>>> On Jun 8, 2:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> It's my opinion that colleges should not discriminate professors that are >>>>> advocates of creation science. >>>> No such thing. >>>> Look, Jason, why are you here. In this thread, it has been proven >>>> that >>>> 1) God doesn't exist. >>> Just to play devil's advocate: God cannot be proven not exist by science or >>> this thread since this is not within the realm of science or this thread so >>> this statement is false. A belief in any God or Gods does not require that >>> Science or anyone prove it to make it a valid belief for those that hold >>> this view. >> >> Jason himself proved that his god didn't exist when he listed a bunch >> of artifacts that showed how people used to believe in a wide variety >> of gods, including his own. Unless Jason also believes in Zeus, >> Shamash and Amon-Ra in addition to his own god then they must all be >> mythological. QED > >No, it just shows that they're LIKELY to all be mythological. Since there's no coherant definition for the key letter it's all bullshit. >It's >possible that there's really a god out there (but I'm not holding my >breath waiting for it to appear.) There's that effectively undefined g-o-d letter string again. >As long as the proposed god is >logically possible (doesn't have contradictory properties and ones like >Zeus don't that I can see) we can't completely rule out it's existence >(but we can show the odds are stacked greatly against it.) -- Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <6bv07390vhq91jq4nvov8p65b3sua2t96t@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >In article <kcl073dt9rn8ee6oi20du1gorav3m5g5i9@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> >It's >> >> >difficult not to think about sex when a young beautiful girl wearing a >> >> >bathing suit walks in front of me. >> >> >> >> Could you elaborate on that? >> > >> >No--not really. I now avoid going to the beach. It was easier in the old >> >days when women wore 1 piece bathing suits. Have you been to a beach or >> >swimming pool in recent years? >> >> I swam with the stingrays at Grand Cayman Island in February. There >> were women in bikinis, but they were not foremost in my mind. ;-) > >I did not have to deal with stingrays so my eyes wondered. I live near a >beach and no longer visit it. > I am glad that you have found a way to manage your problem with women in bikinis, without calling for them to be shrouded in burkas. Quote
Guest stoney Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 17:17:16 -0400, "Christopher Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >news:hvul63lblav54p1k1316os5hp201riplmi@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 09:10:23 -0400, in alt.atheism >> Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in >> <f4e8s0$ml$1@news04.infoave.net>: >>>Martin Phipps wrote: >>>> On Jun 8, 9:15 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>> Martin Phipps wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 8, 5:55 pm, "Christopher Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> "Martin Phipps" <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:1181258112.140122.199820@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>> On Jun 8, 2:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>>> It's my opinion that colleges should not discriminate professors >>>>>>>>> that are >>>>>>>>> advocates of creation science. >>>>>>>> No such thing. >>>>>>>> Look, Jason, why are you here. In this thread, it has been proven >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> 1) God doesn't exist. >>>>>>> Just to play devil's advocate: God cannot be proven not exist by >>>>>>> science or >>>>>>> this thread since this is not within the realm of science or this >>>>>>> thread so >>>>>>> this statement is false. A belief in any God or Gods does not require >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> Science or anyone prove it to make it a valid belief for those that >>>>>>> hold >>>>>>> this view. >>>>>> Jason himself proved that his god didn't exist when he listed a bunch >>>>>> of artifacts that showed how people used to believe in a wide variety >>>>>> of gods, including his own. Unless Jason also believes in Zeus, >>>>>> Shamash and Amon-Ra in addition to his own god then they must all be >>>>>> mythological. QED >>> >>>"Then they ALL must be mythological." >>> >>>>> No, it just shows that they're LIKELY to all be mythological. It's >>>>> possible that there's really a god out there (but I'm not holding my >>>>> breath waiting for it to appear.) As long as the proposed god is >>>>> logically possible (doesn't have contradictory properties and ones like >>>>> Zeus don't that I can see) we can't completely rule out it's existence >>>>> (but we can show the odds are stacked greatly against it.) >>>> >>>> God (spelled with a capital G) refers to the Christian God which has >>>> been proven to be mythological. >>> >>>THAT god might have been proven impossible but not all gods. >>> >>>I, personally, don't have a belief that any gods do exist. But that's >>>not the same as saying they've ALL (both the proposed gods and any god >>>that someone might propose in the future) been proven to be impossible. >> >> True, but so far, no gods at all have any evidence to support them. > > >My question would be who are you to demand proof of any Gods whatsoever? A person who expects theists to back up their nattering if they expect others to consider it as anything more than a child blathering about Santa Claus. > The Divine would have no need to prove it exists to you anymore than the wind >would have to do so. Theists are blowhards, yes, who talk out of their anal orfices. >You can choose to believe or choose not to believe, but >no proof is needed to be provided. Are you lying or are you simply ignorant? The lack of belief isn't a 'choice.' > No one is forcing you to believe as he or she does. Yet. >I know I would gain no benefit if you believed and I doubt very >much of anyone else would either. Not true. The silencing of those who lack belief would vastly aid the superstition pushers who prey on the sheep. Sheep is a very accurate description. >All are free to believe or not as they see >fit that is the beauty of belief. Not according to the Christian superstition. You might find the unrelenting horror of the Abrahamic superstition beautiful, but sane people don't. >Faith is not science one need to have >proof to believe in something and science does not speak to anything outside >the natural world. Correct. Too bad so many Christians are too fucking stupid and/or pig ignorant to understand that. -- Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. Quote
Guest stoney Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:23:30 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote in alt.atheism >On 9 Jun., 22:30, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:14:57 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote in >> alt.atheism >> >> >On 5 Jun., 03:10, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:04:04 -0700, AT1 <notyourbusin...@godblows.net> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism >> >> >> >Jason wrote: >> >> >> In article <1180717090.777257.145...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> [] >> >> >> >Holy shit are you stupid. You keep using a dubious, contradictory, >> >> >absurd collection of writings from backwoods, ignorant, >> >> >wipe-their-asses-with-corn-cobs, inbreeding fools as proof of something. >> >> > Get serious. >> >> >> 'Jason' is the smart one amongst his littermates. >> >Oh come now! They would not be able to learn how to breathe. >> >> I hadn't suggested such. That's why they all come equipped with 'iron >> lungs.' > >That sounds reasonable. The big question is; why bother supplying power to them. -- Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In alt.atheism On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:22:05 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <46n0735npa5v05vudinp6rpte4i50rr7p3@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:03:30 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <f4pa1r$vpv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <opc3k4-7or.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:42:26 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which indicated that >> >> >>> her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened? >> >> >> Honestly, by stating the cause - if any, you haven't validated >even this >> >> >> much yet - simply isn't known yet. >> >> >> >> >> >> "I don't know" is not the same as "Yes, there really is a super >being who, >> >> >> of all the thousands of such beings described, just happens to >match this >> >> >> particular one and he really does heal people, but does it magically >> >> >> without leaving any evidence he did it - or even that he exists." >> >> >> >> >> >> You see how those differ? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. >> >> > >> >> > Have you considered that God is giving you evidence that he exists by >> >> > healing people? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. >> >> >> >> Are all the people that aren't healed evidence that there is no god? >> >> >> >> BTW, if I went to a doctor that had as bad of a healing rate as your >> >> god, I'd sue him for malpractice. >> > >> >The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God >> >> She was healed by god because you say so. That doesn't fly. > >Cheryl Prewitt told me that she was healed by God. So what? And I reposted my responses to your 20 questions. Are you going to address them? 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" Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:52:02 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:38:09 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> >wrote: > - Refer: <n06073t9g4o38v4drmh1hi81pgcaos1cjc@4ax.com> >>On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:31:58 -0400, "Robibnikoff" >><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >>>in message >>>news:Jason-1206072004470001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>> 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: >>>>> >>>snip >>>> >>>> Would you like for me to post her testimony again. She stated that she >>>> watched her leg bone grow two inches? >>> >>>Go ahead. It still doesn't prove that this alleged incident was caused by a >>>god. >> >>Or that it even happened. > >Jason has done nothing but lie, fabricate, falsify and confabulate in >EVERY SINGLE post they he has vomited up. And he's utterly flabbergasted that we don't believe him. > >: Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <nge6k4-m3f.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:38:29 -0700, Jason wrote: > > >> 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. > > There is a difference between simply reading them and in understanding and > dealing with them - by refuting them, accepting they refute you core > arguments and so forth. > > Now, which will you do - deal with them? Or just read them? read them and I may comment. I won't comment if I believe you answered the questions correctly. Martin answered the questions correctly so I did not comment related to any questions. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <n53173drmq9bqbehe4oibd5ksik7pqq0qb@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:53:29 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1206071953300001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >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. > > Why would I bother to answer a question that contains a false > understanding of the universe? The universe made its own space, it > didn't come from anywhere. > > >> > 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? > > An infinite regress of mindless questions. > > If you don't like that answer, then consider the very strong possibility > that the net energy of the universe is zero. > > >> > 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 > > I cannot answer questions that are total nonsense. I have the choice of > guessing what you mean or just ignoring the question until you offer one > that makes sense. The universe behaves as it does. We observe that > behavior. There is no reason to think that the behavior of the universe > came from somewhere. > > >> > 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 > > That's what the evidence shows us. Stop trying to dismiss evidence as > speculation when you don't like the results. > > >> > 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? > > Learning has a meaning that you are misusing. > > >> > 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. > > Too bad you aren't competent to judge whether you should bother to > repeat these question. You posted them, you should take responsibility > for how bad they are. Did they come from the liars at the ICR? > > >> > 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 Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <1181790614.886041.18490@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 14, 7:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181767645.983506.69...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, bramble > > > > > > > > > > > > <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 13 jun, 21:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <7f50735gqg9n7ifa3ib8ucmhc2t0jd9...@4ax.com>, John Baker > > > > > > <n...@bizniz.net> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:48:04 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > >On 12 Jun., 19:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > >> In article <1181643770.817395.36...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > >> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > >> > On 11 Jun., 21:54, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > >> > > In article <0de0k4-blk....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > >snip > > > > > > > >> > A person that has been healed is evidence that he was healed. It is > > > > > >> > not evidence of a god. > > > > > > > >> Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which indicated that > > > > > >> her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened?- > > > > > > > >I would not be able to explain it, and that is not evidence that god > > > > > >did it. > > > > > > > But then, Jason isn't about to provide any evidence either..... > > > > > > Why bother--several have told me that if I provided physical evidence to > > > > prove that her leg bone grew two inches, they would still not believe that > > > > God healed her leg. > > > > > You are asking for imposibles, Jason. Dismissing the posibility of a > > > cooked fraude... yes, frauds happens all the times. Well, dismissing > > > the case of fraud, we are in front of an unexplained phenomenon. A > > > phenomenon that we cannot explain is not the prove of any divine > > > intervention. Just, we cannot yet explain the rain. We supose it is > > > a natural phenomenon, bur it cannot be explained yet. Well, there is > > > a lot of phenomenons we cannot explain. But these can be atributed to > > > god by some people. But others simple confess "we cannot understand > > > it or explain it." So, if this lady's leg really grew two inches, it > > > is all right. But this is not the prove of an action on the part of > > > God. > > > In the past, all calamites were called, acts of god. Hurricanes, > > > tornados, huge floods, persitent raining, droughts, earthquakes, > > > sunamies... you name them. > > > Acts of god. A very malevolent one, but the way. > > > Bramble > > > > If her leg bone grew two inches--how would you explain how it happened? > > No it didn't. She lied. > > Martin But how would you know if you have not seen any physical evidence? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <eig17358isldvc4vhf9pg2rromvhsrn7q2@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:22:05 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <46n0735npa5v05vudinp6rpte4i50rr7p3@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:03:30 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> > >> >In article <f4pa1r$vpv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> > In article <opc3k4-7or.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >> >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> [snips] > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:42:26 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which indicated that > >> >> >>> her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened? > >> >> >> Honestly, by stating the cause - if any, you haven't validated > >even this > >> >> >> much yet - simply isn't known yet. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "I don't know" is not the same as "Yes, there really is a super > >being who, > >> >> >> of all the thousands of such beings described, just happens to > >match this > >> >> >> particular one and he really does heal people, but does it magically > >> >> >> without leaving any evidence he did it - or even that he exists." > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You see how those differ? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. > >> >> > > >> >> > Have you considered that God is giving you evidence that he exists by > >> >> > healing people? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. > >> >> > >> >> Are all the people that aren't healed evidence that there is no god? > >> >> > >> >> BTW, if I went to a doctor that had as bad of a healing rate as your > >> >> god, I'd sue him for malpractice. > >> > > >> >The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God > >> > >> She was healed by god because you say so. That doesn't fly. > > > >Cheryl Prewitt told me that she was healed by God. > > So what? > > And I reposted my responses to your 20 questions. Are you > going to address them? > > > 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" Thank you for answering the questions. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <3141739t0lmpjt8n7o087rb2u93abpjga6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:12:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1306071312570001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1181756794.512040.211180@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 13 Jun., 00:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <opc3k4-7or....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > [snips] > >> > > >> > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:42:26 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > > >> > > > Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which indicated th= > >> at > >> > > > her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened? > >> > > >> > > Honestly, by stating the cause - if any, you haven't validated even th= > >> is > >> > > much yet - simply isn't known yet. > >> > > >> > > "I don't know" is not the same as "Yes, there really is a super being w= > >> ho, > >> > > of all the thousands of such beings described, just happens to match th= > >> is > >> > > particular one and he really does heal people, but does it magically > >> > > without leaving any evidence he did it - or even that he exists." > >> > > >> > > You see how those differ? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. > >> > > >> > Have you considered that God is giving you evidence that he exists by > >> > healing people? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in.- Skjul tekst i an= > >> f=F8r > >> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >> > >> You have already agreed in a response to one of my posts that being > >> healed is not evidence that god did the healing. You have no evidence > >> that anybody was healed by god only that they have claimed it. > > > >I understand your point. I do believe that a testimony is evidence. The > >members of a jury can decide which testimonies to believe. Those same jury > >members can decide which testimonies to not believe. The testimony of > >Chery Prewitt can be believed by some people (esp. Christians). On the > >other hand, her testimony is not believed by other people (esp. atheists). > > > Cheryl had absolutely no evidence that God had anything to do with it. > You refuse to acknowledge your intentional and repeated dishonesty. > > Does God really deserve your lies? Cheryl honestly believed that God healed her leg. I also believe that God healed her leg. Last week, I posted a story about the miracle healing testimony of William A. Kent. I also believe that God healed Mr. Kent. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <r341739dii650oscan5npn42p14d433ijk@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:06:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1206072106570001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <jbdu63dbf8uae5r7fv9mee2g40sb6q0ks1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:09:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1206071509130001@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <31d3k4-7or.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >> ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> [snips] > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:03:44 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> 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. > >> >> > >> >> "in America"? Oh, wonderful. Now someone's religion is invalidated > >> >> simply by where they live . > >> > > >> >I mentioned America since those 3000 people were killed in America. > >> >Millions of people in other countries also realize that the actions of > >> >those men were not pleasing to Jehovah. > >> > >> So you say. Apparently you never read the Old Testament. Jehovah was a > >> pretty bloodthirsty tyrant. He might love the murders of 9/11 and the > >> wars that happened afterward. > >> > >> >What is your opinion about those men that killed 3000 people on 9/11? > >> > >> They are evil. But I don't have to defend the evil acts that people do > >> in the name of God. > >> > >> 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. > >jason > > > Your ignorance of comparative religion is noted. > > Jews, Christians, Moslems, and Bahai all worship the same god. The word > for God in Arabic is Allah. It is exactly the same name that Christian > Arabs use when they pray to God. > > You are remarkably proud of your ignorance. Why do you think your god > will be proud of you or even tolerate you? There are vast differences between the Christian religion and the Moslem religion. One example: I know for a fact that the Christian Bible does not mention anything about Christians getting a bunch of virgins in heaven. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <1181790697.078786.266960@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 14, 7:36 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <i9Zbi.6114$K8.3...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >news:Jason-1206072106570001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > In article <jbdu63dbf8uae5r7fv9mee2g40sb6q0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:09:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > >> <Jason-1206071509130...@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >> >In article <31d3k4-7or....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > >> ><kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> [snips] > > > > > >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:03:44 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > > >> >> >> 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. > > > > > >> >> "in America"? Oh, wonderful. Now someone's religion is invalidated > > > >> >> simply by where they live . > > > > > >> >I mentioned America since those 3000 people were killed in America. > > > >> >Millions of people in other countries also realize that the actions of > > > >> >those men were not pleasing to Jehovah. > > > > > >> So you say. Apparently you never read the Old Testament. Jehovah was a > > > >> pretty bloodthirsty tyrant. He might love the murders of 9/11 and the > > > >> wars that happened afterward. > > > > > >> >What is your opinion about those men that killed 3000 people on 9/11? > > > > > >> They are evil. But I don't have to defend the evil acts that people do > > > >> in the name of God. > > > > > >> 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. > > > > jason > > > > > How can you? They are the same god. Ironic isn't it. > > > > If you choose to believe that Jehovah and Allah are the same God--that is > > up to you. I consider Baal and Allah to be false Gods. > > "Baal" is a Hebrew word meaning "Lord" and "Allah" originated from the > Hebrew word "Eloah" which you said was a name of your god. > > Martin Martin, I don't recall stating that. I may have stated that it may have been a name for God. I just checked my Concordance and the word "Eloah" is NOT mentioned in the Bible. Baal is mentioned in the Bible--Baal was a false God. If I stated in a post that Eloah was a name for Jehovah--I was wrong. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <DipthotDipthot-CCA16E.18144813062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > In article > <Jason-1306071628360001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Bramble, > > You are leaving out an important issue--several different posters told me > > that even if I produced info. about physical evidence that proved her leg > > bone grew two inches--they still would not be convinced that God healed > > her. > > First off, you are lying again. Skeptics respond to evidence. If > reliable evidence is produced of some claim, then the claim becomes more > credible as a result... and skeptics will take a step toward being > convinced of that claim. > > Second, you're mixing two things: > > 1. Whether the leg actually became longer, and > 2. Whether some god or gods caused it to happen. (Built into this > question is, of course, the question of whether any gods exist.) > > You believe both. At this point, you have provided reliable evidence of > neither . Your second-hand testimony about a verbal claim given in a > church is not reliable. > > Providing evidence for 1 is probably easier than providing evidence for > 2. > > Actually, a THIRD question comes up. Even if you show evidence for 1 > and 2, as hard as that will be, your next assignment would be to show > evidence for the following claim: > > 3. That your Biblical god (named "God") was the god that caused it to > happen. (Built into that claim, of course, is the claim that this > particular god exists.) > > Got that? Can you see the need to walk us through the evidence for all > three claims? > > Good luck with that. > > > I ask you Bramble > > I'm not Bramble, but.... > > >--what good would it do for me to spend time visiting > > websites in search of information about physical evidence? > > Well, for one, you might learn something yourself. > > > If you were in my shoes, > > ...and with your malfunctioning sense of logic? > > > would you waste time finding evidence? > > What would make finding evidence a waste of time? > > Maybe you'd learn that there is none, and that you were wrong all along. > > Don't be afraid that learning such a thing could shake your faith in > your god. I know that wouldn't happen. I asked at least two people a question like this: If I produced physical evidence that proved that Cheryl's leg bone grew two inches, would you agree that God healed her? Both posters told be that even if I proved that Cheryl's leg bone grew two inches, that it would NOT mean that God healed her. All of the various questions related to the THE MIRACLE HEALING TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM A. KENT AND CHERYL PREWITT reminded me of a story in the Bible. See Luke 16:19-31. The rich man was in the place of torment and requested permission to return to the earth so that he could warn his brothers about the place of torment. Abraham said to him, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them [Moses and the prophets]. The rich man said to Abraham: "No, father Abraham, but if one went from the dead, they will repent." And Abraham said to the rich man: "IF THEY HEAR NOT MOSES AND THE PROPHETS, NEITHER WILL THEY BE PERSUADED, THOUGH ONE ROSE FROM THE DEAD. I hope that you now get the point. If you don't believe the words of Moses and the Prophets, neither will you listen to William A. Kent, Cheryl Prewitt or myself. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <0c41731qbu3l8n3j7rhumqe3vmdvf5rvs7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:22:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1306070022570001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >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 > > ... > > >> > > 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 > > > The authors of your study bible note were making it up. They have no > evidence at all that their claim is correct. Should I believe you or the words of the W.A. Chriswell, Ph.D--the editor of my study Bible or yourself--take a guess on my choice. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <8f4173tmksbno3p7t9nf3h9hriue2vrlkl@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:13:58 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1206072113580001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <kgdu631ao4u245o7l0ekrvdt9kjvekggme@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:31:58 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1206071131590001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <1181649634.232900.8560@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Jun 12, 1:00 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > In article <1181614412.939840.97...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > On Jun 12, 9:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > > > In article <kkor63tinbmus479tfljt5ib6lmn7o9...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> > > >> >> > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> > > > > <Jason-1106071731380...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > ... > >> >> > > > > >Bramble, > >> >> > > > > >I agree with many of the points you made. When God created > >> >mankind, he > >> >> > > > > >gave us free will. He did not create robots that were > >> >programmed to do > >> >> > > > > >only good things. As a result of free will, people can decide > >> >to do great > >> >> > > > > >and wonderful things or can use their free will to decide to > >commit > >> >> > > > > >criminal acts. > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >God is indirectly responsible since he created the solar > >system and > >> >> > > > > >created life--including mankind. However, when people end up in > >> >prison > >> >> > > > > >it's not God's fault. It's the fault of the person that was > >> >> > exercising his > >> >> > > > > >or her free will. > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >Do you see my point? > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > Man came about as a result of evolution. That is what the > >> >evidence shows > >> >> > > > > us. If God created man, He used evolution. You refuse to > >accept that > >> >> > > > > fact. You prefer lies to the truth, ignorance to knowledge. > >You call > >> >> > > > > your God a liar. > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > Why? > >> >> > > >> >> > > > The first chapter of the book of Genesis states that God > >> >> > > >> >> > > You keep talking about your imaginary friend as if he were real. You > >> >> > > need to be commited for psychiatric observation. > >> >> > >> >> > They will have to build a lot of mental hospitals. According to the 2005 > >> >> > Time Almanac, there are 1.9 billion Christians in the world. (page 359). > >> >> > >> >> Yes, the rational people of the world have a lot of work to do. You > >> >> don't think we know that? > >> >> > >> >> Martin > >> > > >> >Martin, > >> >They place Christians in prisons and mental hospitals in communist > >> >countries. Do you want the government to do the same thing in America? > >> > >> You are a humorless fool. > >> > >> >A Christian in Viet Nam was recently murdered by prison guards. > >> > >> Christianity, Buddhism and other religions are tolerated in Vietnam. > >> Many in Vietnam are both Catholic and Buddhist, so the murder, if it > >> happened, wasn't motivated merely because the prisoner was a Christian. > > > >He was placed in prison because he was the preacher in an underground or > >secret church. They have official churches where they can easily keep > >track of the Christians. They don't want millions of people attending > >secret churches so they place the preachers in prison. > > > So you claim, but I've learned that your claims are not reliable. I > would be a total fool to accept something that you tell me without any > evidence or reference. I heard the story on a Christian radio show. I found this story on the web: Vietnam Police Kill Christian Prisoners And Relatives, Investigators Say Added: May 29th, 2007 2:47 AM By Stefan J. Bos, Chief International Correspondent BosNewsLife with reporting from Vietnam HANOI, VIETNAM (BosNewsLife) -- Vietnamese security forces have tortured and killed at least two Christian Degar Montagnards in Vietnam's Central Highlands in recent months and allegedly murdered relatives of religious prisoners, representatives said Monday, May 28. The US-based advocacy group Montagnard Foundation Incorporated (MFI), which has contacts in the region, told BosNewsLife that one of the Christian Degar Montagnard prisoners, 43-year-old Rahlan Lua from the village of Bon Toat in Gialai province, died last month, April 10. He died "from the effects of torture and maltreatment he received in prison," MFI stressed. A fellow believer, 53-year-old Y-Kuo Nie, from Buon Cu Mil village in the province of Daklak died the previous month, March 18, "after he was released from prison," and apparently tortured, the group added. Lua had been sentenced to several prisons since his first arrest in December 2001, on charges related to what MFI described as "his involvement in a peaceful demonstration calling for religious freedom and land rights," earlier that year. TORTURED AGAIN He was released in July 2005 but "re-arrested, tortured again and sent to the prison facility in the province of Tuy Hoa" several months later in November, MFI said. Lua's health reportedly started to deteriorate before he was released this year in February, but he eventually died April 10, 2007. "His village reports that the Vietnamese security police arrested and tortured him the second time to make sure that he would certainly die when he gets home," MFI claimed. He was buried on April 12, but it apparently took time before information of his death could reach the international community. Y-Kuo Nie had a similar experience since February 2001, when he was first "arrested, tortured and sent to the prison facility in Ha Nam province" for supporting a peaceful demonstration demanding religious freedom and land rights that year, according to MFI investigators. "Due to the severity and repeated torture he endured the Vietnamese security police knew hewas going to die, so, the police called his wife to go pick up her [dead] husband from Ha Nam prison," MFI claimed. However, Y-Kuo Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:56:22 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: - Refer: <vhb1731ot4ojc7suk3sanb74en26gctbtg@4ax.com> >On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:11:16 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> >wrote in alt.atheism > >>On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:26:34 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: >> - Refer: <d73m639m2lhkvk6a5csgp5b87ssk28ubkn@4ax.com> >>>On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:47:26 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> >>>wrote in alt.atheism >>> >>>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:54:55 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: >>>> - Refer: <j2d963teubu5nqcelrtiebcs74obad5m1q@4ax.com> >>>>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:32:20 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> >>>>>wrote in alt.atheism >>>>> >>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 23:55:30 -0700, George Chen >>>>>><georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> - Refer: <1180940130.734812.145150@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> >>>>>>>On Jun 4, 11:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <91q66392u07lc87upssrutbd25pvh9k...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Chemicals come from prior chemical processes. Atoms more complex than >>>>>>>> > hydrogen come from stellar fusion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How did the chemicals in the prior chemical processes come to be? You >>>>>>>> mentioned steller fusion--you need to explain what you mean. I was taught >>>>>>>> that steller refers to a star or stars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It does. That's why he shouldn't have to understand what he means. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_fusion >>>>>> >>>>>>Note that the village idiot said "steller". >>>>>>This is a reference to an extinct sea cow. >>>>>>Steller fusion is two extinct sea cows mating. >>>>> >>>>>That would be a neat trick. >>>> >>>>I "bags" the film rights, ok? >>> >>>Yeah, go ahead and milk it. >> >>You just volunteered as an extra. > >Extra extra read all about it. Oh, you will matey, if you can read after milking twenty 5 and a half tonne aggressive sea mammals in freezing conditions! Yes folks, it;s the stupidest home sea-cow milking video show! And please give a "warm" welcome to our very first contestant! What's your name, sonny? Speak up please, the Steller Bulls are making a lot of aggressive noise. Mr. Stonehenge? You should get the lactating cows "rocks off", eh? Have I told you that this show is presented by Red Bull? Ok, on your Marx; GO! -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:21:21 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: - Refer: <9jc17310lpricojk9b9ntk0uc8r9e72rto@4ax.com> >On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:45:02 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >>[snips] >> >>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:47 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>>> Am I? Have you considered how easily those of us here can refute >>>> creationist "arguments"? >>>> >>>> Hint: we are not all university professors here. >> >>> It's easy for you to refute my arguments. >> >>Correct, because you don't back up any of them and choose instead to >>simply run away screaming like a little girl when you get called on your >>bullshit. >> >>> My master's degree is not >>> related to biology or a related field. >> >>You don't need to tell us that; it is screamingly obvious. Jason has intimated this unbelievably bizarre proposition previously. Most likely, he is lying in his typical fucking Christian fabricating fraudulent fashion. He could, of course, provide us with sufficient evidence that he is not lying through his stinking purulent teeth, but my hopes are not high. Or it may well be that Liberty "University"(!) has instituted a Bachelor's degree in Outrageous Bullshit. (B.O.B.) -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:30:55 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: - Refer: <kgd173di087hoefsh5kjnis2f9rgp6j071@4ax.com> >On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 09:15:06 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> >wrote in alt.atheism > >>Martin Phipps wrote: >>> On Jun 8, 5:55 pm, "Christopher Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> >>> wrote: >>>> "Martin Phipps" <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> news:1181258112.140122.199820@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>>> On Jun 8, 2:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> It's my opinion that colleges should not discriminate professors that are >>>>>> advocates of creation science. >>>>> No such thing. >>>>> Look, Jason, why are you here. In this thread, it has been proven >>>>> that >>>>> 1) God doesn't exist. >>>> Just to play devil's advocate: God cannot be proven not exist by science or >>>> this thread since this is not within the realm of science or this thread so >>>> this statement is false. A belief in any God or Gods does not require that >>>> Science or anyone prove it to make it a valid belief for those that hold >>>> this view. >>> >>> Jason himself proved that his god didn't exist when he listed a bunch >>> of artifacts that showed how people used to believe in a wide variety >>> of gods, including his own. Unless Jason also believes in Zeus, >>> Shamash and Amon-Ra in addition to his own god then they must all be >>> mythological. QED >> >>No, it just shows that they're LIKELY to all be mythological. > >Since there's no coherant definition for the key letter it's all >bullshit. And that should be the starting point. Get the delusional idiots to explicitly define what they mean by their airy-fairy words. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <1181790915.741098.188320@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 14, 8:14 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181767025.697731.49...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, bramble > > > <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 13 jun, 20:49, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1181731971.306554.97...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 13, 3:45 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > > > > "Jason" <J...@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? > > > > > > > Of course if his god created mankind then his god should be able to do > > > > > it again. Don't hold your breath wanting for another species of man > > > > > to appear. > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > Martin, > > > > As of now, many of the aspects of abiogenesis are based on speculation > > > > instead of evidence. Experiments like the one mentioned above would > > > > produce evidence. > > > > jason > > > > > This experiments would produce evidence, eventually. But not at the > > > present state of our knowledge. This experiement is very difficult to > > > carry out, because if there is any lumps of molecules that are in the > > > path of becoming some sort of living microorganism, they cannot even > > > spot them. This sort of proto-organism perhaps is very slow to > > > develop, or otherwise, very difficult to identify. It is like looking > > > for a needle in a barn full of straw. > > > > > Anyway, abiogensis is nothing but a theory. A reasonable one, by the > > > way. But not all theories can be proved in a laboratory. Many of the > > > scientific assertions can be falsifiable, but not all. Anyway, > > > scientific theories can be pleasant to the mind, but not all of them > > > can be proved right. Some can be wrong. Humans are not gods, > > > remember? We are limited. > > > Without the experiments, abiogenesis will never be nothing more than > > speculations about how it might have happened. > > Good thing scientists have physical evidence to back them up then? > What physical evidence do you have? > > Nothing. And you've had a year and a half to provide something. > > Martin Do you honestly believe that someone that had a difficult time passing math 101 would enjoy reading a book about physics? I have read some books such as murder mysteries. Tom Clancy and John Grisham are my favorite authors. I may not know as much as you about science and math, but I know the difference between evidence and speculation. I doubt that most of the advocates of abiogenesis even realize that most of their concepts are based on speculation instead of evidence. Charles Darwin was on the right track in the first edition of his famous book. He taught the world about natural selection. In the last chapter of his book, he mentioned the term "Creator". He stated in the last paragraph of the first edition Darwin stated: "...having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one...." After the creation process was finished, it's my opinion that natural selection kicked in. I am not an expert on Darwin but based on what I read in the last chapter of his book, it appears to me that Darwin is in agreement with him. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:39:06 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: - Refer: <0ih1739cq0ljei2r72rsarln813kmsn27t@4ax.com> >On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:52:02 +0930, Michael Gray ><mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:38:09 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> >>wrote: >> - Refer: <n06073t9g4o38v4drmh1hi81pgcaos1cjc@4ax.com> >>>On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:31:58 -0400, "Robibnikoff" >>><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >>>>in message >>>>news:Jason-1206072004470001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>> 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: >>>>>> >>>>snip >>>>> >>>>> Would you like for me to post her testimony again. She stated that she >>>>> watched her leg bone grow two inches? >>>> >>>>Go ahead. It still doesn't prove that this alleged incident was caused by a >>>>god. >>> >>>Or that it even happened. >> >>Jason has done nothing but lie, fabricate, falsify and confabulate in >>EVERY SINGLE post they he has vomited up. > > >And he's utterly flabbergasted that we don't believe him. Abject moronic theistically induced stupidity does that to a "man". -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:03:27 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <rr4173l8f6mr3a0nr8fbnots3oakgmrig6@4ax.com> >On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:15:45 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in ><Jason-1206072015450001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: : >>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. >> >No, you are lying, again. You are refusing to understand the point. You >exaggerate it to make it quite clear that you have decided to ignore >what I said. You are a liar and a defamer. You are hateful. There is no >reason in the world that I should accept your claim that you are a >Christian. All of your behavior tells me that you are not Christian in >any sense. Jason's behaviour is manifestly Xtian. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <1181790030.592689.120820@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 14, 4:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f4pd81$3l...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > Bob, > > > > > Jason, > > > > > > There is a world of difference between conducting scientific experiments > > > > in labs compared to creating a star. > > > > > There is a world of difference between conducting scientific experiments > > > in labs compared to evolution on a worldwide scale that took billions of > > > years (or abiogenesis that took place on a planetary scale over possibly > > > thousands or millions of years.) > > > > > > 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. > > > > > "If forming a sun happened once--naturally--scientists should be able to > > > cause it happen again." > > > > > Maybe the odds are such that it would take a lab 10,000,000 years to > > > have the same thing happen again. But on a planetary basis, that might > > > mean it happens daily (we just don't happen to be there that one time it > > > does) or that it could have happened daily under those circumstances > > > that existed 3.5 billion years ago but not under the conditions we now have. > > > > > Just because it happened once doesn't mean we can always repeat it. The > > > lottery happened to hit 1-20-22-46-54-63 once. Does that mean you can > > > duplicate that "in a lab"? > > > > Do you acknowledge that many of the aspects of abiogenesis are based upon > > speculation and not on evidence--such at the results of experiments. > > Do you acknowledge that all religions have been based on speculation > and that there has never been a shred of evidence supporting the > supernatural aspects of any of them? > > Martin Martin, I can't speak for any religions except for Christianity. I do believe that testimony is evidence. When the various authors of various books (in the Bible) mention the things and events that they observed, "I believe them". If you are referring to physical evidence of supernatural events--you are correct. As far as I know--there is no physical evidence. It would be great if someone invents a time machine. We could use take video tapes of those miracles. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Jun 14, 3:21 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181790614.886041.18...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 14, 7:33 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1181767645.983506.69...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, bramble > > > > <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 13 jun, 21:01, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <7f50735gqg9n7ifa3ib8ucmhc2t0jd9...@4ax.com>, John Baker > > > > > > <n...@bizniz.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:48:04 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > >On 12 Jun., 19:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > >> In article <1181643770.817395.36...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > >> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > >> > On 11 Jun., 21:54, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > >> > > In article <0de0k4-blk....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey > Bjarnason > > > > > > >snip > > > > > > > >> > A person that has been healed is evidence that he was > healed. It is > > > > > > >> > not evidence of a god. > > > > > > > >> Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which > indicated that > > > > > > >> her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened?- > > > > > > > >I would not be able to explain it, and that is not evidence that god > > > > > > >did it. > > > > > > > But then, Jason isn't about to provide any evidence either..... > > > > > > Why bother--several have told me that if I provided physical evidence to > > > > > prove that her leg bone grew two inches, they would still not > believe that > > > > > God healed her leg. > > > > > You are asking for imposibles, Jason. Dismissing the posibility of a > > > > cooked fraude... yes, frauds happens all the times. Well, dismissing > > > > the case of fraud, we are in front of an unexplained phenomenon. A > > > > phenomenon that we cannot explain is not the prove of any divine > > > > intervention. Just, we cannot yet explain the rain. We supose it is > > > > a natural phenomenon, bur it cannot be explained yet. Well, there is > > > > a lot of phenomenons we cannot explain. But these can be atributed to > > > > god by some people. But others simple confess "we cannot understand > > > > it or explain it." So, if this lady's leg really grew two inches, it > > > > is all right. But this is not the prove of an action on the part of > > > > God. > > > > In the past, all calamites were called, acts of god. Hurricanes, > > > > tornados, huge floods, persitent raining, droughts, earthquakes, > > > > sunamies... you name them. > > > > Acts of god. A very malevolent one, but the way. > > > > Bramble > > > > If her leg bone grew two inches--how would you explain how it happened? > > > No it didn't. She lied. > But how would you know if you have not seen any physical evidence? The amazing thing is that YOU haven't seen any physical evidence either and yet you believe. Here's a clue, Jason: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Testimony is not enough. You believe despite the lack of evidence and expect us to believe too. Why then do you NOT believe in abiogenesis and common descent, concepts for which there IS plenty of physical evidence, evidence which we have repeatively provided links to? It's worse than a double standard, Jason: it's you being ignorant and expecting others to be ignorant too. Well, I'm sorry, Jason, but we're not ignorant and no matter how many lies you feed us we are not going to become ignorant. Martin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.