Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Jun 14, 3:33 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <3141739t0lmpjt8n7o087rb2u93abpj...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:12:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1306071312570...@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <1181756794.512040.211...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > > >gudl...@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. Irrelevent. Your belief is not evidence. I believe, based on your own testimony, that you are a psycho who could snap at any time and kill ten people in one day, but I don't have any evidence that you've actually killed anyone, do I? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Jun 14, 3:48 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181790697.078786.266...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > 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. The old testiment was originally written in Hebrew, Jason, not English and Elohim, Eloah, Yahweh, etc. were all translated as "God" even if they originally refered to different gods. Frankly, Jason, I am amazed that you are so ignorant about the ONE subject where you should actually know more than me! Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Jun 14, 4:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-CCA16E.18144813062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > > > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > In article > > <Jason-1306071628360...@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > J...@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. The Bible is a collection of lies, myths and fairy tales, Jason. Go read a book for adults. You might learn something. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Jun 14, 4:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <0c41731qbu3l8n3j7rhumqe3vmdvf5r...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:22:57 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1306070022570...@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >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 > > > ... > > > >> > > 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 > > > >> 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. My guess is that you will choose the latter, ie the one who obviously either didn't have a clue what he was talking about or just made something up to hide the truth. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Jun 14, 5:01 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I heard the story on a Christian radio show. Ah, see, Jason, that's your problem: you keep listening to known liars. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Jun 14, 5:36 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181790915.741098.188...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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. > Do you honestly believe that someone that had a difficult time passing > math 101 would enjoy reading a book about physics? If you are not interested in learning anything then shut the f ck up and leave us grown ups alone. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Jun 14, 5:36 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181790915.741098.188...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmar...@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. > 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. Obviously not. Here's a clue, Jason: you claim that there's "no evidence" for abiogenesis, common descent or the big bang and then you admit that you know nothing about chemistry, biology or physics. Whom do you expect people to believe, you or the expert scientists? Martin Quote
Guest bramble Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On 13 jun, 22:13, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1306071326030001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > In article <f4otjc$j2...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > I was referring to these two steps: > > >> > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > >> > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > >> > reproduction) > > >> And leaving out the millions of steps that came before and between. > > >> > Testimony is considered as evidence in court. Someone pointed out that > >> > physical evidence (eg gun, bloody knife) is more important than > >> > testimony. > >> > I agreed with that person that made that statement. > > >> > Let's say that the neighbors in an apartment building hear a married > >> > couple having an argument. They hear the husband say, "I'm going to > >> > kill > >> > you". The argument ends and the police are not called. The following > >> > day, > >> > the wife was shot as she was walking home from work. The husband took a > >> > shower after he shot his wife and washed his hands with bleach to > >> > remove > >> > any evidence. There were no witnesses present when the husband shot his > >> > wife. The police are not able to find a gun when they search the > >> > apartment > >> > and all surrounding areas. They arrest the husband and charge him with > >> > the > >> > murder. All of the neighbors provide testimony at the murder trial. > > >> > The jury members convict the husband of first degree murder--based upon > >> > the testimonies of the people that heard the argument and heard him > >> > say, > >> > "I'm going to kill you." > > >> No, they wouldn't. You'd never even find a DA that would even think > >> about arresting the guy to begin with, much less prosecuting him, based > >> on simply an "I'm going to kill you." Was there even a body? > > >> > Do you now understand that TESTIMONY is evidence--even if there is no > >> > physical evidence? > > >> Testimony is simply evidence that the person says he > >> saw/heard/tasted/smelled/felt something but NOT evidence that the > >> something actually exists.. But if the neighbor claimed "Yeah, I saw him > >> shoot her and bury her body right here" and yet there was no body found > >> (or better yet, the wife is actually standing there, alive and well) the > >> testimony would likely be ignored. > > > Let's try again: > > A woman's husband is observed by 8 witnesses going inside their apartment > > with a gun in his hand and shouting, "I am going to kill that woman." The > > witnesses hear a gunshot and see the man running from the building. The > > husband had watched over a hundred episodes of CSI and followed his plan: > > He was able to get rid of all physical evidence--including the gun. The > > only evidence at the murder trial is the testimony of the witnesses. The > > body of the woman is found. > > > If you was on the jury, would you find him guilty? I would > > > Jason > > Let's try this again: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > If a man told me that space aliens gave him a ride in their spaceship, it > would require a hell of a lot more evidence than his 'testimony'! Banal claims, does not require special proves. By example, I am chatting with you on the phone. If I told you that here is now raining very hard, you have no any trouble to believe it. You just believe me because is something ordinary. You understand that I have no any interest in lying to you over this banal occurence. Bramble Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Jun 14, 5:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181790030.592689.120...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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: > > > > > 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? > I can't speak for any religions except for Christianity. I do believe that > testimony is evidence. So? You also believe in a god that created the universe, man and "some plants and animals". How much credibility do you think your beliefs have with us? Martin Quote
Guest bramble Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On 14 jun, 00:28, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181768484.517548.156...@e26g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, > > > > bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 13 jun, 21:26, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <f4otjc$j2...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > Testimony is simply evidence that the person says he > > > > saw/heard/tasted/smelled/felt something but NOT evidence that the > > > > something actually exists.. But if the neighbor claimed "Yeah, I saw him > > > > shoot her and bury her body right here" and yet there was no body found > > > > (or better yet, the wife is actually standing there, alive and well) the > > > > testimony would likely be ignored. > > > > Let's try again: > > > A woman's husband is observed by 8 witnesses going inside their apartment > > > with a gun in his hand and shouting, "I am going to kill that woman." The > > > witnesses hear a gunshot and see the man running from the building. The > > > husband had watched over a hundred episodes of CSI and followed his plan: > > > He was able to get rid of all physical evidence--including the gun. The > > > only evidence at the murder trial is the testimony of the witnesses. The > > > body of the woman is found. > > > > If you was on the jury, would you find him guilty? I would > > > > Jason > > > Jason, Jason: > > You are establishing an analogy with a court trial that is a wrong > > one. > > In general the cases studied in a trial are rather common criminal > > cases. > > In those cases, the personal testimonies are heard. But this is not a > > guarantee that the declaration of the jury corresponds with the > > truth. It is only a practical mechanism for judging an accused. It > > is not a guarantee of anything. > > > So, in the case of miracles, we need more than a simple jury. > > Extraordinary claims, demand extraordinary proves. And you have heard > > this many times in your life. But you do not care, for you are trying > > to fool others. > > I am begining to think that you are not honest, Jason. You are very > > good at positting your arguments, but they are worthless mostly. You > > have to know that. So you are playing the false prophet, Jason. A > > prophet that does not care for the truth of his words. > > Bramble > > 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. > > I ask you Bramble--what good would it do for me to spend time visiting > websites in search of information about physical evidence? If you were in > my shoes, would you waste time finding evidence? Very easy, Jason. You have a believe in God, and in Jesus. You have been tamed into believing that, otherwise you would not be believing anything. Then, one day you discover that "there are atheist". What the hell! What is that, an atheist? So, suddenly you feel a little angry. Why they don't believe? You cannot understand why someone refuses to believe in god. Then, you think you can convince some of these atheists, and bring them into the fold of god. Well, you have heard about the miracles. But that is not enough, all them happened very far in the past. But someone tell you, "no, you are wrong. Lots of miracles are hapening nowadays." And this someone tell you about some of the miracles that had happened in these times. Then, he told you, "you can look for them in the google. You can harvest lots of them." Well, these are not proves, dear Jason. These are news, testimonies, claims, etc. There is not any way that you can dig into the circumstances of these cases, to found if there is any fraud involved in the story. Even in the case that you would no find any fraud in this or that story... this is not even the prove of an act of God. Even if the person involved tell you so. So, you are playing the naif. You are talking as if you were sure these are real proves of true miracles. But you know deep down in you mind, that they are not proves. But "you are playing to win". You are playing to convince some atheists, because you have chosen this trade, to be a priest. If you are not a profesional priest, you are at least an amateur one. You cannot dupe us, Jason. You better look for more ignorant targets. Yours, Bramble Quote
Guest bramble Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On 14 jun, 01:14, 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. > > Bramble > > Bramble, > Without the experiments, abiogenesis will never be nothing more than > speculations about how it might have happened. > Jason Yes and not. Abiog Quote
Guest bramble Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On 14 jun, 04:17, Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 14, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > Even if Jesus himself > > > saiys not any word about this in the NT. > > > Yes, he does. He forgave a prostitute for her sins. He could have had her > > stoned to death--he did not do it. > > And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the Christian concept of a loving > god! > > Martin This Jason is supposing too much. The story tells about an adulterour woman that was going to be stoned for their deed, or even for less. For being accused of that. So Jesus stop the crowd by telling them, "anyone free of fault should throw the first stone" and the crowd stood quite, and noone did it anything. Jesus only said, "go out and do not sin more". So, there is not any single word about saving her because she was repented. What really mean, to be repented? Have Jason ever thought about this? To be repented, is only a verbal testimony we want to hear from someone, in exchange for not punishing him, or for stopping the punishment. This device, has not much meaning. If we ask someone "are you repented?" we want to hear him to say, "yes, sir. I am repented." It is a sort of ritual, to stop the punishment, because we are tired, or because we do not want maim him, or kill him. All this pertains to the social ritual of punishment. Bramble Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Michael Gray wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:40:35 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> > wrote: > - Refer: <f4os4k$hl7$1@news04.infoave.net> > > : > >> Jason, what were you before you were a fertilized egg? > > A tape-worm. Nah, that would have proven devolution is true. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f4pa1r$vpv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <opc3k4-7or.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> [snips] >>>> >>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:42:26 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which indicated that >>>>> her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened? >>>> Honestly, by stating the cause - if any, you haven't validated even this >>>> much yet - simply isn't known yet. >>>> >>>> "I don't know" is not the same as "Yes, there really is a super being who, >>>> of all the thousands of such beings described, just happens to match this >>>> particular one and he really does heal people, but does it magically >>>> without leaving any evidence he did it - or even that he exists." >>>> >>>> You see how those differ? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. >>> Have you considered that God is giving you evidence that he exists by >>> healing people? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. >> Are all the people that aren't healed evidence that there is no god? >> >> BTW, if I went to a doctor that had as bad of a healing rate as your >> god, I'd sue him for malpractice. > > The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God are evidence that > there is a God. Even when Jesus was on this earth, he did not heal > everyone that needed to be healed. Let's try to answer the question asked this time: "Are all the people that aren't healed evidence that there is no god?" Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <WgYbi.3170$s8.2400@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1306071303300001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God are evidence that >>> there is a God. Even when Jesus was on this earth, he did not heal >>> everyone that needed to be healed. >> Mighty convenient Jason, your god doesn't heal all just select ones. I guess >> you need it that way to fit what we all know to be reality. > > If God healed all people of all medical problems--people would never die. Then why heal ANY of them? Your "logic" just doesn't pass muster. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Jason wrote: > Cheryl Prewitt told me that she was healed by God. She stated that she saw > her leg bone grow two inches. I believed her testimony. She has gave her > testimony at many different churches. Her name is mentioned on over 700 > websites. "UFO" is mentioned on 37,800,000 websites. Are they real? The words "Jason" "owes" and "money" match to 467,000 websites. Does that mean you're a deadbeat? The phrase "pigs fly" matches to 432,000 and "flying pigs" match to 204,000 sites. Are pigs now flying? "Jason is smart" matched to 3,560 sites. Well, that proves the number of sites google matches is worthless for proving something. Oh, wait, "Jason is an idiot" matched 6,490 sites. Maybe there really IS something to this whole "mentioned on over XXXXX sites" thing. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f4otjc$j2u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> I was referring to these two steps: >>> >>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction) >> And leaving out the millions of steps that came before and between. >> >>> Testimony is considered as evidence in court. Someone pointed out that >>> physical evidence (eg gun, bloody knife) is more important than testimony. >>> I agreed with that person that made that statement. >>> >>> Let's say that the neighbors in an apartment building hear a married >>> couple having an argument. They hear the husband say, "I'm going to kill >>> you". The argument ends and the police are not called. The following day, >>> the wife was shot as she was walking home from work. The husband took a >>> shower after he shot his wife and washed his hands with bleach to remove >>> any evidence. There were no witnesses present when the husband shot his >>> wife. The police are not able to find a gun when they search the apartment >>> and all surrounding areas. They arrest the husband and charge him with the >>> murder. All of the neighbors provide testimony at the murder trial. >>> >>> The jury members convict the husband of first degree murder--based upon >>> the testimonies of the people that heard the argument and heard him say, >>> "I'm going to kill you." >> No, they wouldn't. You'd never even find a DA that would even think >> about arresting the guy to begin with, much less prosecuting him, based >> on simply an "I'm going to kill you." Was there even a body? >> >>> Do you now understand that TESTIMONY is evidence--even if there is no >>> physical evidence? >> Testimony is simply evidence that the person says he >> saw/heard/tasted/smelled/felt something but NOT evidence that the >> something actually exists.. But if the neighbor claimed "Yeah, I saw him >> shoot her and bury her body right here" and yet there was no body found >> (or better yet, the wife is actually standing there, alive and well) the >> testimony would likely be ignored. > > Let's try again: > A woman's husband is observed by 8 witnesses going inside their apartment > with a gun in his hand and shouting, "I am going to kill that woman." The > witnesses hear a gunshot and see the man running from the building. The > husband had watched over a hundred episodes of CSI and followed his plan: > He was able to get rid of all physical evidence--including the gun. The > only evidence at the murder trial is the testimony of the witnesses. The > body of the woman is found. > > If you was on the jury, would you find him guilty? I would Let's try again: Several people say they overheard a man say "I'm going to kill my wife." No shot is heard, no gun is found, no bullet, no blood, no body, no wife has ever been seen (dead OR alive,) there's no woman's clothes in the apartment, there's a single twin bed, the guy is a flaming gay man. Would you convict him of murder. Yes, YOU would but any sane person wouldn't. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On 13 Jun., 03:11, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:21:04 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > >On 12 Jun., 02:51, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:29:29 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason > > >> <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:57:59 -0400, Al Klein wrote: > >> >> And how can he argue with common descent? He didn't descend from > >> >> his parents? > >> >Well, there's that, but I was thinking more like this: if you take common > >> >descent out of the picture, WTF is left? > > >> That we've all been here since the beginning? Even fundies don't > >> reject the notion of reproduction. > > >But they disapprove of it. > > No, they only disapprove of using it for pleasure. They approve of it > for making more fundies. Or if the man enjoys it when he's doing it > with his wife. Or, if his wife has been turned into a pillar of salt, > with his daughters. I wonder if the police would believe that pillar of salt story - "Sir, can you explain why nobody has seen your wife lately?" I know child welfare would be more than sceptical about Lot's explanation of his daughters' pregnancies. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On 13 Jun., 03:57, 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". > > Martin- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. Amazing that this story never appeared on any reputable news site and even searching for the words "Christian Degar Montagnards vietnam killed tortured" in google (leaving out the quotes so it would search for the words individually) only finds 460 pages (by contrast the words "astronaut kidnapped" found 199,000 hits.) Oh, wait, it's that conspiracy at work again, trying to cover up this event. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 "Martin" <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1181791042.696607.245920@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 14, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > Even if Jesus himself >> > saiys not any word about this in the NT. >> >> Yes, he does. He forgave a prostitute for her sins. He could have had her >> stoned to death--he did not do it. > > And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the Christian concept of a loving > god! > > Martin Actually Jason the story about the prostitute was added to the bible. Jesus never had such an encounter. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On 13 Jun., 12:37, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:32:58 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > - Refer: <1181727178.118144.230...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> > > > > > > >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. > > It is the only attention that he can both seek and get, my son. > > --- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On 13 Jun., 17:47, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1181731109.336180.80870@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Jun., 21:22, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <5d83hcF31q6f...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > snip > > > > 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. > > > > Jason > > > > Who are you to judge? > > > It's easy to judge the actions of the men that killed 3000 people on 9/11. > >But you are judging god. > > Exactly - I was talking about that him judging what his god finds pleasing, > not the 9/11 hijackers. > -- > Robyn > Resident Witchypoo > BAAWA Knight! > #1557- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On 14 Jun., 04:46, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:20:42 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote in > alt.atheism > > > > > > >On 9 Jun., 22:22, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:05:17 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris > >> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote in alt.atheism > > >> >stoney wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 12:23:58 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris > >> >> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote in alt.atheism > > >> >>> Jason wrote: > >> >>>> In article <1180745678.345285.282...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >>>>> On Jun 2, 1:48 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> >>>>>> Please answer the questions that I found when I googled "10 questions for > >> >>>>>> evolutionists" > > >> >>>>>> 10 Questions for Evolutionists Home > > >> >>>>>> 1. When the "Big Bang" (big bunk!) supposedly began the universe - what > >> >>>>>> banged? Where did that first piece of matter come from, if not God? Where > >> >>>>>> did the energy come from that caused the bang? Where did the space come > >> >>>>>> from that the bang expanded into? > > >> >>>>> Where do you think your God came from? > > >> >>>> You answered a question with a question. Would you let your students get > >> >>>> away with that? > >> >>> I would EXPECT them to do that. If a student can come up with a good > >> >>> next question, he shows that he understood my question and took it a > >> >>> step further. That rates an "A" (or a "1" here, or "15 points", > >> >>> depending on what grade he is in.) > > >> >> Your point flew 20,000 metres above his bone ear spacers. > > >> >I know. You cannot imagine how glad I am that he lives in another > >> >country.... > > >> True, but I've got a damn good idea. I wish the brain dead fuckwits DID > >> live in another country. They're so damned uncivilized. > > >Don't try to dump your gene pool pollutants in other countries. > > I haven't. Well thank god for 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. > > -Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic's Dictionary- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On 14 Jun., 06:15, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:23:30 -0700, gudl...@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. > They are being groomed as quiz show hosts. > -- > 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. > > -Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic's Dictionary- Skjul tekst i anf 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.