Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <DipthotDipthot-24078C.18333014062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > In article > <Jason-1406070132130001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > > And that is a sensible, logical response. > > If you actually paid attention to what I wrote above, you would > understand why. If you could see that claim #1 is separate from claim > #2, that proving #1 is not the same thing as proving #2, then you > would understand that the posters were answering you in a way that is > consistent with logic. > > But seeing as you are deliberately obtuse and dishonest, I cannot > imagine you would take the necessary steps to see that. > > > 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. > > Irrelevant. > > > See Luke 16:19-31. > > Bad start, Bible-Boy. Atheists don't consider the Bible a reliable > source of truth. > > > 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. > > Extremely irrelevant. > > > I hope that you now get the point. > > Yes. The point is that you value the irrelevant and discard the > inconvenient. > > All because you hate science, reason and logic with every fiber of your > being. > > > If you don't believe the words of Moses > > and the Prophets, > > You have to prove that these fellows existed and said anything . > > Your Bible lacks credibility. > > YOU lack credibility. > > Live with it. > > > neither will you listen to William A. Kent, Cheryl > > Prewitt or myself. > > That much is true. I am convinced that people only believe things that "fit" their belief system. That is the reason I believed Cheryl Prewitt and William A. Kent. It also explains the reason that atheists did not believe that God healed Cheryl Prewitt and William A. Kent. It also explains why the rich man's brothers (mentioned in Luke 16:19-21) would not have listened to the rich man--even if he had returned from the dead. Do you agree or disagree? Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On 6 15 , 6 43 , J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <BIhci.6$C3...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1406071417560001@66-52-22-66.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <f4s36c$se...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >> > In article <f4rce1$54...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > >> > <prabb...@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? > > > > Your first name and last name are common names. > > > > One more try--I found this name in the phone book-try it: > > > John Pietrzak > > > You can't just count web sites, you have to read them. I think I established > > that point very clearly in my prior post. > > What was the result related to John Pietrzak? Who cares? I just got 31,800,000 hits for "fuck you". I suggest you read every single one of those pages and come back when you are finished. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On 6 15 , 6 37 , Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:25:35 -0400, "Robibnikoff"<witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > - Refer: <5dd1e2F32hv5...@mid.individual.net> > > > > >"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? > > No, by their minds. Only if they dare to use them. To Jason, thinking is a sin. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <QNlci.3738$R9.378@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > 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. > >> > >> >thanks for your answers--you get a grade of A. > >> > >> That's nice. Now respond to my answers. > >> > >> > >> 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" > > > > Did your teachers in high school and professors in college respond to > > every answer you gave on every test or exam? > > > What does this have to do with the price of eggs? nothing Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On 6 15 , 10 10 , J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181855287.946802.104...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 14 jun, 20:40, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <5dd120F32b33...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > > "Jason" <J...@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. 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"? > > > No. But I felt much worse with the men asking Clinton that personal > > thing, than with the stupid answer of the president. Here, in Europe, > > we have the pervasive idea that Clinton should have said, "fuck off, > > jerk!" > > If the journalists insisted in the same question, he should have said, > > "go hell, bastard!" No any need to pay tribute to all the hypocrites > > that hoped him to say this stupid answer. > > Francois Mitterand was president of France for many years. He was > > living with a misses without being divorced, had a daughter with the > > facy woman he was cohabitating and nobody ever dared to ask him, "are > > you living in concubinage?" At the burying ceremony were present both > > women and all his children. This is a civilization. A civilization > > the fundies want to obliterate. > > This is a war, Jason. You digging the foundations for the next civil > > war in the US. It is sad to me. I loved much America, till I began > > to heard the fundies making war noises. > > Bramble > > Bramble, > Christians have very little power in America. If only that were true! Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On 6 15 , 10 12 , J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <pue373hcaj30bj1jcgp9lfvpf27cukl...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > > > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:44:42 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >In article <k9h273p8806sfnq9i3hevsje8qufrap...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > ><ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:24:58 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >> >In article <eig17358isldvc4vhf9pg2rromvhsrn...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > >> ><ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:22:05 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >> >> >In article <46n0735npa5v05vudinp6rpte4i50rr...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > >> >> ><ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:03:30 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > >> >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >> >> >> >In article <f4pa1r$vp...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > >> >> >> ><prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> 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 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. > > > >thanks for your answers--you get a grade of A. > > > That's nice. Now respond to my answers. > > > 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" > > Did your teachers in high school and professors in college respond to > every answer you gave on every test or exam? They do if they want to keep their jobs. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <cis373lg4s0abmv6siu17mkkj6vl21sds1@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:37:11 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1406071937110001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <l0c373tfbfr5u281gigmjrqo37di297epn@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > ... > >> That has absolutely nothing to do with the _fact_ that Jews, Christian, > >> Moslems and Bahai all agree that they worship the same God, the God of > >> Abraham. I don't know what god you worship. If you worship the God of > >> Abraham, you worship the same God that Moslems worship. > >> > >> Deal with reality sometime. I'm sick of the lies that you tell because > >> you indulge in so much wishful thinking and intentional ignorance. > > > >If you choose to believe it--that is up to you. It's my opinion that Baal > >and Allah are false Gods. > > Your opinion is wrong. I don't care how many opinions you have that are > derived from your intentional ignorance. Because you choose to be > ignorant and dishonest, you deserve to be chastised. > > Once again, the fact is that Allah is the Arabic word for God. You > basically said in your proud ignorance, that Christian Arabs worship > false gods because they call God Allah. You are a fool and a bigot. > > >I have not conducted any research related to > >Bahai. This sentence is from the Quran: > > > >"Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and sieze them, > >beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war)." > >(Surah 9:5) > > > >From Surah 5:33 > >"....cutting off of hands and feet..." > > > The doctrines of Islam may be considered heretical by Christians, but > they are not Pagan. Learn the difference and stop worshipping your own > ignorance. The president of Iran made this statement: "Israel must be wiped off from the map of the world." Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On 6 15 , 11 27 , J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <j2t373d3n0dafs1r9ffao27cp6i1hi7...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:47:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1406071947270...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <e4c37352rsu9akoeoi2jld8sdh7bpn2...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:35:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-1406070135150...@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >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. > > > >> I know that you would be mistaken to believe those who make things up > > >> like this, but I also know that you have a demonstrated willingness to > > >> be led astray by those who tell you what you want to hear. Chriswell > > >> does not have _any_ evidence that "this is in reference to the > > >> intermarriage among the Cainites and Sethites." > > > >> Deal with facts. > > > >I have no reason to doubt Dr. Chriswell. > > > That's because you reject the whole concept of evidence. Anyone can tell > > you any lie as long as they claim God wants it. > > > Still, I wouldn't be surprised if you misrepresented what Chriswell > > said, you do have a long track record of misunderstanding what others > > are trying to tell you and misrepresenting these things to others. > > Buy or read the Criswell Study Bible and see the evidence for yourself. No Bible has ever presented any evidence, Jason. All the Bible offers is lies. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <j2t373d3n0dafs1r9ffao27cp6i1hi7qft@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:47:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1406071947270001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <e4c37352rsu9akoeoi2jld8sdh7bpn28n3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:35:14 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1406070135150001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >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. > >> > > >> I know that you would be mistaken to believe those who make things up > >> like this, but I also know that you have a demonstrated willingness to > >> be led astray by those who tell you what you want to hear. Chriswell > >> does not have _any_ evidence that "this is in reference to the > >> intermarriage among the Cainites and Sethites." > >> > >> Deal with facts. > > > >I have no reason to doubt Dr. Chriswell. > > > That's because you reject the whole concept of evidence. Anyone can tell > you any lie as long as they claim God wants it. > > Still, I wouldn't be surprised if you misrepresented what Chriswell > said, you do have a long track record of misunderstanding what others > are trying to tell you and misrepresenting these things to others. Buy or read the Criswell Study Bible and see the evidence for yourself. Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On 6 15 , 8 10 , Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I have a theory: perhaps "Jason" is more than one person and they are > being paid to post here. That would explain how they have been going > for a year and a half without saying anything new and while they > continuously contradict themselves and don't remember what they've > said. Seriously, I believe we've had at least three Jasons in this thread: Jason said a month ago that he wasn't going to post here anymore. So who is this guy and why does he keep contradicting himself? Martin Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:30:35 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <1181878235.540111.36600@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com> >On 6 15 , 8 10 , Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> I have a theory: perhaps "Jason" is more than one person and they are >> being paid to post here. That would explain how they have been going >> for a year and a half without saying anything new and while they >> continuously contradict themselves and don't remember what they've >> said. > >Seriously, I believe we've had at least three Jasons in this thread: >Jason said a month ago that he wasn't going to post here anymore. So >who is this guy and why does he keep contradicting himself? Apart from his obvious mental problems, he has mutiple personality disorder too. -- Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <1181875279.712677.197190@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 6 15 , 3 02 , J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181819353.150364.70...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, bramble > > > > > > > > > > > > <leopoldo.perd...@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?. > > That's science, Jason. > > Tell me, Jason, do you consider "creation science" to be a theory to > be discarded when a better theory has been developed? Because you're > over a century behind the times. > > Martin Martin, Intelligent Design may turn out to be a good replacement. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <1181876768.410178.262080@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 6 15 , 6 15 , J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > > I dont know. Most of the people interested in science know that > > > theories can be discarded if there are reasons to do it. Many science > > > theories are defended > > > with passion, in a similar way religious people defend their dogmas. > > > But if the persona has a basic knowledge of how science works, then he > > > knows that any theory is a temporary way to explain something. We > > > like to have answers, theories that explain phenomena. Sometimes, we > > > have not the slightess idea about a subject, but sometimes it seems > > > that we have attractive ideas. We like them and put passion to defend > > > them. We are humans, remember? We like to have answers. > > > > > What you say about fundamentalist churches, I don't like it a little > > > bit. You are working a lot to create the party of god. You want to > > > reconquer the state, and to found a fundamentalist dictatorship. And > > > these are very bad news for me. > > > Hitler started with much less that you, and look at the misery and > > > death he begot. You are creating the very foundations for the next > > > civil war in the US. > > > Bramble > > > > Bramble, > > You have nothing to fear from Christians. You have much more to fear from > > the Moslems that want to take over the world. > > As if Christians don't want to take over the world! > > Martin Martin, Not until Jesus comes back to establish his kingdom on the earth. In the mean time, we have no plans to take over the world. The Muslims do plan to take over the world ASAP. They are in the process of taking over the Sudan. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <1181876283.159819.146400@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 6 15 , 5 17 , J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f4s36c$se...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <f4rce1$54...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > <prabb...@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? > > > > Your first name and last name are common names. > > Don't you think that a Miss Universe winner, not to mention one who > claims to have received a miracle, would have deserved more than 700 > sites? > > Martin I misspelled her name and found about 25 sites. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <1181875577.541042.27200@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 6 15 , 3 29 , J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f4rd13$5b...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <f4otjc$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 > > > > > 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. > > > > You failed to answer this question in relation to my scenario: > > If you was on the jury of the man that 8 witnesses claimed to have heard > > the husband state: "I am going to kill that woman", would you find him > > guilty him guilty? > > > > In relation to your scenario, I would find him not guilty since a dead > > body was not found. > > You missed the point: a dead body IS physical evidence. > > Martin A leg bone that grows two inches IS physical evidence. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <1181877117.558170.101880@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 6 15 , 5 37 , bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 14 jun, 21:00, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article <g71373dfcekim64ogjoeu0v9but8ngn...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > > J...@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 > > > > > Jim, > > > Thanks for your excellent post. It is one of the most informative posts > > > that I have read. I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. > > > Do you agree that abiogenesis will not become a valid theory unless > > > experiments such as the ones you mentioned are successful? > > > Jason > > > > You are confused with theories. Theories are theoretical. A therory > > is valid so far as a majority of scientists would favor them. > > Plus, on top of that, there is plenty of evidence for abiogenesis and > it has been posted repeatively. Jason (or the Jasons) refuse(s) to > acknowledge this. > > Martin Martin, So if a majority of scientists believed that a huge space ship landed on the earth 100 million years ago from the planet Xenita and left behind hundreds of animals; thousands of seeds and 1OO people--that would become a theory. The evidence would be the same evidence that is discussed in Erik Von Dannikan's book--such as Stonehenge, Pyramids and cave drawing of ancient astronauts and spaceships. Jason Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Jun 15, 1:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181877117.558170.101...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On 6 15 , 5 37 , bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 14 jun, 21:00, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <g71373dfcekim64ogjoeu0v9but8ngn...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > > > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > > > J...@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 > > > > > Jim, > > > > Thanks for your excellent post. It is one of the most informative posts > > > > that I have read. I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. > > > > Do you agree that abiogenesis will not become a valid theory unless > > > > experiments such as the ones you mentioned are successful? > > > > Jason > > > > You are confused with theories. Theories are theoretical. A therory > > > is valid so far as a majority of scientists would favor them. > > > Plus, on top of that, there is plenty of evidence for abiogenesis and > > it has been posted repeatively. Jason (or the Jasons) refuse(s) to > > acknowledge this. > > > Martin > > Martin, > So if a majority of scientists believed that a huge space ship landed on > the earth 100 million years ago from the planet Xenita and left behind > hundreds of animals; thousands of seeds and 1OO people--that would become > a theory. The evidence would be the same evidence that is discussed in > Erik Von Dannikan's book--such as Stonehenge, Pyramids and cave drawing of > ancient astronauts and spaceships. > Jason- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Can be a valid madeup story, but would you like to be the one to formulate a test to trace the spaceship, ancient astranauts.....? Without being capable to trace and test for the exitence of Xenita, there is no theory, period. >From all the post orginated from you, all of us will come to a conclusion that you are just a argumentative person who would not like logics, modern science or modern achievement, by making all sorts of statements and stories to go round and round. Martin seems to have the patience to entertain. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:21:32 -0700, Jason wrote: >> One is forced to wonder if you're not in full-out retreat mode now, since >> you seem to be running from anything and everything which might actually >> make you have to think. > > Not really--I usually only comment on things that stand out in a post. I > read all of the words in most posts unless people use derogatory language. > I stop reading at that point and click on the next post. Anything, as long as it means you don't have to face what you're being told, right? -- Creationist: 'Why yes. Rome _was_ built in a day.' - Fredric Rice Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 I found this on the web. Feel free to comment. Intelligent Design position statement The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines. By Michael J. Behe Black box: a system whose inner workings are unknown. Scientists use the term "black box" for a system whose inner workings are unknown. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure. We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm (as many nineteenth-century scientists believed), every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines. Does natural selection account for complexity that exits at the molecular level? How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Irreducibly complex systems: systems that seem very difficult to form by successive modifications. Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications -- I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working so irreducibly complex biological systems pose a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell. Constant, regulated traffic flow in cells is an example of a complex, irreducible system. Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of "signal" chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot. Molecular machines are designed. Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed. Advances in science provide new reasons for recognizing design. I am hopeful that the scientific community will eventually admit the possibility of intelligent design, even if that acceptance is discreet and muted. My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Jun 15, 12:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181875279.712677.197...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On 6 15 , 3 02 , J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1181819353.150364.70...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, bramble > > > > <leopoldo.perd...@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?. > > > That's science, Jason. > > > Tell me, Jason, do you consider "creation science" to be a theory to > > be discarded when a better theory has been developed? Because you're > > over a century behind the times. > Intelligent Design may turn out to be a good replacement. And how 1) is "intelligent design" a testable theory? 2) is "intelligent design" different from "creation science" except in name? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Jun 15, 12:42 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181876768.410178.262...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On 6 15 , 6 15 , J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > > I dont know. Most of the people interested in science know that > > > > theories can be discarded if there are reasons to do it. Many science > > > > theories are defended > > > > with passion, in a similar way religious people defend their dogmas. > > > > But if the persona has a basic knowledge of how science works, then he > > > > knows that any theory is a temporary way to explain something. We > > > > like to have answers, theories that explain phenomena. Sometimes, we > > > > have not the slightess idea about a subject, but sometimes it seems > > > > that we have attractive ideas. We like them and put passion to defend > > > > them. We are humans, remember? We like to have answers. > > > > > What you say about fundamentalist churches, I don't like it a little > > > > bit. You are working a lot to create the party of god. You want to > > > > reconquer the state, and to found a fundamentalist dictatorship. And > > > > these are very bad news for me. > > > > Hitler started with much less that you, and look at the misery and > > > > death he begot. You are creating the very foundations for the next > > > > civil war in the US. > > > > Bramble > > > > Bramble, > > > You have nothing to fear from Christians. You have much more to fear from > > > the Moslems that want to take over the world. > > > As if Christians don't want to take over the world! > Not until Jesus comes back Jesus never existed. He was supposed to come back almost 2000 years ago and yet he never showed up. Don't you remember Matthew 24:29-34? "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.." Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Jun 15, 1:21 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181875577.541042.27...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On 6 15 , 3 29 , J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <f4rd13$5b...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > In article <f4otjc$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 > > > > > 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. > > > > You failed to answer this question in relation to my scenario: > > > If you was on the jury of the man that 8 witnesses claimed to have heard > > > the husband state: "I am going to kill that woman", would you find him > > > guilty him guilty? > > > > In relation to your scenario, I would find him not guilty since a dead > > > body was not found. > > > You missed the point: a dead body IS physical evidence. > A leg bone that grows two inches IS physical evidence. Except it never happened. She lied to you. 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.