Guest Don Kresch Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:24:58 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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? >> >Thank you for answering the questions. > When will you address them? Here: let me repost them AGAIN. In fact, every response to you from now on will include those answers. Every. Single. Response. From. Me. > 20 Questions for Evolutionists > > 1. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html > What's the mechanism >for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? Mutation. Natural selection >How, for example, >could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? It transforms, dumbshit. > > 2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there >if your theory is right? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html > 3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC220_1.html > 4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could >ever assemble itself? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html > 5. How could organs as complicated as the eye http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html > or the ear http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html > or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB303.html > How could a bacterial motor evolve? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html > > 6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Oh for fucks sake, Hovind: this has nothing to do with evolution. 7 and 8 have nothing to do with evolution, either. That is in the field of COSMOLOGY and ASTROPHYSICS, moron. Stop believing Kent Hovind. He's a liar and a con-artist. > 9. How did sexual reproduction evolve? http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/dec98.html > > 10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information It's not information. > 11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends? Because the started near rivers. > > 12. Where did matter come from? Where did god come from? > What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics? > > 13. How did the first living cell begin? No one really knows, but it's not a miracle. How did god begin? Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. I'll keep repeating that until you understand that you can't special plead. > 14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did >it not have oxygen? Didn't. > > 15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks? We do find them there in their remnants. Search for "iridium layer" in google. You'll find something interesting. > > 16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take >vastly more intelligence to create a human? Why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence than that to create god? > Do you really believe that >hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? Only if you want to strawman evolution, which clearly you do. > > 17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can >only be produced by DNA? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html > > 18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got >there http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html >--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't >students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary >theories for the moon's origin? There AREN'T any evolutionary theories for it because IT'S NOT PART OF EVOLUTION, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. IT'S PART OF ASTROPHYSICS/COSMOLOGY, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. > 19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific >debate? Because they don't want to dirty themselves with the laughable bullshit of creationists. > > 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following >twenty-one features of the earth: No. I've humored you enough > If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your >explanation No, you won't. You will just point us to a place that closes its eyes and screams "gawddidit" over and over. --- 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 Mike Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f4pd81$3le$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@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 ever actually address the points made? Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote i snip > > Cheryl Prewitt told me that she was healed by God. So? You believe every thing you're told? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > > 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. Of course not. Because there's no evidence that god(s) exist. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote snip > > If I produced physical evidence that proved that Cheryl's leg bone grew > two inches, would you agree that God healed her? Of course not - You'd have to prove that your god exists first. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > If her leg bone grew two inches--how would you explain how it happened? I wouldn't because I couldn't care less. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> snip > 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. That's nice. So? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > 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? Are you turned off by women's bodies? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1306071744120001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Are you that much of a prude or just gay? (Not that there's anything wrong with that) -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 "Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message news:gid17317e8h82rq7qd9ebv5ddn7u28an04@4ax.com... > 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. Oh, give him time -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:vd9173lc4qpj3fg33nf33cqp9571c3em3p@4ax.com... > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:37:54 -0700, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> > wrote: > - Refer: <kcl073dt9rn8ee6oi20du1gorav3m5g5i9@4ax.com> >>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? > > You'll have to clean up the mess. Eeeewwww! -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:2j9173t64ef3kl37olcit13trahfjacm9o@4ax.com... > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:42:09 -0400, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > - Refer: <5dahhkF347kf0U1@mid.individual.net> >> >>"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> >>snip >>> Speculation is not evidence. The advocates of creation science have >>> fossil >>> evidence. >> >>They have a fossil of your god? Cool. Got a cite for that? > > In that esteemed Science Journal "The Watchtower"! Oh. Nevermind! -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > Cheryl honestly believed that God healed her leg. I also believe that God > healed her leg. That's nice, but it doesn't prove that god(s) exist. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On 14 Jun., 16:25, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in > > snip > > > 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? > > Are you turned off by women's bodies? > -- > Robyn > Resident Witchypoo > BAAWA Knight! > #1557 I wonder how the poor schmuck would act on our beaches. Nudity is not the rule, but it is very common. Of course it is very dangerous. One hears that men have gotten er you know one of those really nasty things. That really upsets me. In fact my entire body shivers and I breathe fast and I....Oh never mind. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On 14 Jun., 16:26, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1306071744120001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > > > In article <6bv07390vhq91jq4nvov8p65b3sua2t...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >> >In article <kcl073dt9rn8ee6oi20du1gorav3m5g...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > >> ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > >> >> J...@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. > > Are you that much of a prude or just gay? (Not that there's anything wrong > with that) He stays away after all those women complained to the police. > -- > 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., 16:26, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jim07D7" <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote in message > > news:gid17317e8h82rq7qd9ebv5ddn7u28an04@4ax.com... > > > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >>In article <6bv07390vhq91jq4nvov8p65b3sua2t...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > >><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > >>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >>> >In article <kcl073dt9rn8ee6oi20du1gorav3m5g...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > >>> ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > >>> >> J...@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. > > Oh, give him time > -- > Robyn > Resident Witchypoo > BAAWA Knight! > #1557- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 <gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1181831696.476643.218550@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On 14 Jun., 16:25, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> snip >> >> > 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? >> >> Are you turned off by women's bodies? >> -- >> Robyn >> Resident Witchypoo >> BAAWA Knight! >> #1557 > > I wonder how the poor schmuck would act on our beaches. Nudity is not > the rule, but it is very common. Of course it is very dangerous. One > hears that men have gotten er you know one of those really nasty > things. That really upsets me. In fact my entire body shivers and I > breathe fast and I....Oh never mind. LOL! You okay, hon? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:01:42 -0700, Jason wrote: >> "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? Nope. You see, it could be a natural process, simply one we haven't explained yet. Or it could be a fraud. There's but two explanations which don't need gods involved. If you want to include gods, it could be Ra or Odin or Coyote or any of a thousand others who actually did the healing. So, what we have is a _possible_ healing... which, if verified, tells us nothing more than the person was healed. Now, got any evidence of God? Or even just of gods in general? -- “You should be ashamed of your fucking language, Rob.” - God Dan Ceppa Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >Bramble, >You explained your point of view very well. Please tell me whether you >think the other members of this newsgroup view abiogenesis as a theory >that will be discarded when a better theory is developed? If no minds are changed in this discussion, at least they can be informed of what science does and doesn't do. As a chemist, I believe the idea that biological life came about by chemical reactions involving only energy and non-living matter interacting in accordance with their physical properties (what you call abiogenesis) is properly classified as a hypothesis, or a set of hypotheses. There are several different hypothetical models for how this might have happened, but none of them has been used in a laboratory experiment to yield living organisms. If abiogenesis happened on earth, it should not be particularly difficult to repeat in a lab setting, once the correct conditions are set up. One reason this field is moving slowly is that there are no obvious commercial applications that cannot be satisfied by starting with biological materials. Note: proving abiogenesis can happen will not prove it did happen. And even proving it did happen will not prove it was unguided or undesigned. quoting from: http://servercc.oakton.edu/~billtong/eas100/scientificmethod.htm Below is a generalized sequence of steps taken to establish a scientific theory: 1. Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain. 2. Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions. 3. After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data. Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis. 4. Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data. (That is called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method. A good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists," who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion - a geologically young, 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a much older earth.) 5. If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory. 6. A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth. unquote Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f4rce1$54j$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Google your full name and determine if it is mentioned on over 700 websites. > > Personalized Results 1 - 100 of about 577,000 English pages for "Michael Anderson". Your point is, again? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f4rbvv$46b$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f4pa1r$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?" > > no Then by what logic are those who ARE healed "evidence for god?" Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <1181819353.150364.70440@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > 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>, Ma= > rtin > > > > > > 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 a= > cids. > > > > > > > > > If it happened once--naturally--scientists should be able to ca= > use it > > > > > > > happen again. > > > > > > > > So you think scientist should be able to create stars in the labo= > ratory? > > > > > > 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=E9nesis is an expeculation, or a theory, with and > without any experiments. A theory is nothing more than an > expeculation accepted by a majority of scientists. It is nothing > more. It is valid in the intelligence that is nothing more than > that. An idea that we accept as "probably true", or an idea that > "looks pleasant or reasonable". Any real scientists knows that we > cannot be sure 100% of any theory. We know that anytime in the > future, this or that theory would be discarded. We cannot believe in > theories as if they were written in a holy book by someone inspired by > god. This is only the case of religious people. They think their > holy books are like a chest full of knowledge, with not any errors in > them. Other modern religious people, think that in the holy books are > mixed some human ideas, quite wrong, with some good ones, inspired by > god. This religious people are more sensible. They can evolve with > the times, and can correct their ideas as most people are doing. > Bramble Bramble, You explained your point of view very well. Please tell me whether you think the other members of this newsgroup view abiogenesis as a theory that will be discarded when a better theory is developed?. Believe it or not, Bible scholars do make revisions in regard to church doctrines as a result of mistakes made by Chrisitians in past generations. We no longer burn witches at the stake. Most churches no longer ex-communicate members that don't conform to a long list of church rules. I could discuss various other doctrines that are understood in a different way than they were understood in the 1700's and 1800's. I won't bore you by explaining how they understood those doctrines in the 1700's and 1800's versus how we now understand those same important doctrines today. Some denominiations (eg Unity) are now nothing more than social organizations and don't even preach about the Bible. You may think that is wonderful but many Christians believe that is harmful. There is actually a prophecy in the Bible that states that in the last days, people [Christians] would call to themselves teachers [and preachers] that will teach them not what the truth is but instead what they want to hear. That is already starting to happen. Watch a television show that is broadcast on Sunday called, "The Hour of Power". You will note that the preacher rarely if ever mentions Bible doctrines. He is more like a psychologist (like Dr. Phil) than a real preacher. Jason Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <%_aci.3526$s8.1518@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "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. It was absent from the Alexandrian text but was in other manuscripts--including in the writings of Augustine. I copied the above information from a footnote in my study Bible--the editor was W.A. Criswell, Ph.D. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In article <f4rbvv$46b$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f4pa1r$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?" no Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1406071240170001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <5dd120F32b338U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote i >> >> snip >> > >> > Cheryl Prewitt told me that she was healed by God. >> >> So? You believe every thing you're told? > > In relation to some people, including Chery Prewitt, I do believe what > they say. Why? Because they're christians? I don't believe everything that many people say---such as Bill > Clinton. Did you believe him when he stated, "I did not have sex with that > woman"? Irrelevant -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 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.