Guest Martin Phipps 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. > 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. Follow the evidence, Jason. Follow the evidence. It doesn't lead to creationism. It doesn't lead to ancient astronauts. The evidence has been posted, Jason. See for yourself where it leads. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Jun 15, 3:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I found this on the web. Feel free to comment. Am I free to say whatever I want? Really? Okay. You're an asshole and you're wasting our time. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Jun 15, 3:33 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <s4m9k4-7cg....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [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? > > That is a excellent question. My answer is that I believe that God created > the universe; the earth; some plants; some animals and mankind. After the > creation process was finished, Natural Selection took over. I have yet to > see any posts or new information that has caused me to change my mind. I > have seen no evidence to indicate that abiogenesis is how life came to be. > Even if every scientist in the world was convinced that abiogenesis was > how life came to be--that would mean nothing to me. The only thing that > would cause me to believe that abiogenesis was how life came to be is if > various scientists done experiments to prove that all of these steps could > happen in a lab. > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction) > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for survival) > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to function) > > Back in the days of Copernicus, the scientists were in agreement that > Copernicus was incorrect. It turned out that Copernicus was correct and > all of those scientists were wrong. Just because the majority of > scientists believe that abiogenesis is how life came to be on this planet, > it does not mean they are correct. So now you're telling us the Earth does not go around the sun? Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 In article <s4m9k4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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? That is a excellent question. My answer is that I believe that God created the universe; the earth; some plants; some animals and mankind. After the creation process was finished, Natural Selection took over. I have yet to see any posts or new information that has caused me to change my mind. I have seen no evidence to indicate that abiogenesis is how life came to be. Even if every scientist in the world was convinced that abiogenesis was how life came to be--that would mean nothing to me. The only thing that would cause me to believe that abiogenesis was how life came to be is if various scientists done experiments to prove that all of these steps could happen in a lab. STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction) STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for survival) STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to function) Back in the days of Copernicus, the scientists were in agreement that Copernicus was incorrect. It turned out that Copernicus was correct and all of those scientists were wrong. Just because the majority of scientists believe that abiogenesis is how life came to be on this planet, it does not mean they are correct. Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Jun 15, 3:23 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Fools get indulge in religion. And look at the text here, Christians and Moslems want to take over the world. This is the evilness of RELIGION.....! Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Jun 15, 3:27 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 3:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > I found this on the web. Feel free to comment. > > Am I free to say whatever I want? Really? > > Okay. You're an asshole and you're wasting our time. > > Martin I have already mention earlier Jason is a useless "pain in the ass" person who post to irritate others. Your kind hearted message to him will be argued back with no logical resons...! Try argue a valid topic with a "philosopher" and he could twist you until you see stars. They don't rely upon evidence, or sense, or reasons, or logics, or nothing... Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com 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! > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So, Jason, you want US to return to a kingdom rule, an authoritarian government and not a demon-cracy rule? You can have that for all the Anglo-saxon people but not other races, we see to it. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:57:57 -0700, hhyapster@gmail.com wrote: - Refer: <1181897877.356110.10050@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com> >On Jun 15, 3:27 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jun 15, 3:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > I found this on the web. Feel free to comment. >> >> Am I free to say whatever I want? Really? >> >> Okay. You're an asshole and you're wasting our time. >> >> Martin > >I have already mention earlier Jason is a useless "pain in the ass" >person who post to irritate others. >Your kind hearted message to him will be argued back with no logical >resons...! >Try argue a valid topic with a "philosopher" and he could twist you >until you see stars. They don't rely upon evidence, or sense, or >reasons, or logics, or nothing... Spot on. -- Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On 14 Jun., 18:11, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > <gudl...@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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On 14 Jun., 21:20, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f4rbvv$46...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike snip > > > 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- Now that is interesting. I wonder if the above response means that Jason is candidly dishonest or terminally stupid. Any opinions? Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On 15 Jun., 00:37, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:34:56 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > - Refer: <1181831696.476643.218...@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. > > What? White Pointers? Huh? > > >That really upsets me. In fact my entire body shivers and I > >breathe fast and I....Oh never mind. > > --- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f4rc1o$46b$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <WgYbi.3170$s8.2400@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Jason-1306071303300001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>> The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God are evidence that >>>>> there is a God. Even when Jesus was on this earth, he did not heal >>>>> everyone that needed to be healed. >>>> Mighty convenient Jason, your god doesn't heal all just select ones. > I guess >>>> you need it that way to fit what we all know to be reality. >>> If God healed all people of all medical problems--people would never die. >> Then why heal ANY of them? Your "logic" just doesn't pass muster. > > Because he enjoys answering the prayers of his servants--such as Christian > farmers praying for rain. And what about the xian farmers that pray for rain and don't get it? Are you saying god is capricious and arbitrary? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <pue373hcaj30bj1jcgp9lfvpf27cuklsab@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:44:42 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >>> In article <k9h273p8806sfnq9i3hevsje8qufrapnca@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >>> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:24:58 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >>>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>>>> If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your >>>>> explanation Remember this. There will be a test later on. >>>> 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. > > Did your teachers in high school and professors in college respond to > every answer you gave on every test or exam? Test time. He responded. Now try to point out the "obvious problems with [his] explanation." Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f4s36c$se9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f4rce1$54j$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> Cheryl Prewitt told me that she was healed by God. She stated that she saw >>>>> her leg bone grow two inches. I believed her testimony. She has gave her >>>>> testimony at many different churches. Her name is mentioned on over 700 >>>>> websites. >>>> "UFO" is mentioned on 37,800,000 websites. Are they real? >>>> >>>> The words "Jason" "owes" and "money" match to 467,000 websites. Does >>>> that mean you're a deadbeat? >>>> >>>> The phrase "pigs fly" matches to 432,000 and "flying pigs" match to >>>> 204,000 sites. Are pigs now flying? >>>> >>>> "Jason is smart" matched to 3,560 sites. Well, that proves the number of >>>> sites google matches is worthless for proving something. >>>> >>>> Oh, wait, "Jason is an idiot" matched 6,490 sites. Maybe there really IS >>>> something to this whole "mentioned on over XXXXX sites" thing. >>> Google your full name and determine if it is mentioned on over 700 websites. >>> >>> >> Personalized Results 1 - 100 of about 577,000 English pages for "Michael >> Anderson". >> >> Your point is, again? > > Your first name and last name are common names. > > One more try--I found this name in the phone book-try it: > John Pietrzak Again, your point is? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <BIhci.6$C31.1@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1406071417560001@66-52-22-66.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <f4s36c$se9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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? >>> 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? 288. So what does that prove? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Ralph wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1406071420340001@66-52-22-66.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> In article <5ddithF340ot4U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >>> "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? >> In this case, it played a role. I don't trust all people that are >> Christians such as Jimmy Swaggart. I trust the members of my family and >> one of them is a Moslem--my niece married a man that is a Moslem and she >> decided to become a Moslem. > > How do you know which Christians to trust and which ones not to? Jason: Do they agree with what I already think? If so, I trust them. If not, I don't. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f4s386$se9$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> Then by what logic are those who ARE healed "evidence for god?" > > It's a case by case basis. In the case of Cheryl Prewitt and William Kent, > it is my opinion that it is evidence of God. That does not mean that all > healings are evidence for God. For example, if someone develops a common > cold and the man prays--and the cold goes away in three weeks---that is > not evidence for God. I.e. "If I think it's evidence for god, then it's evidence for god. If I don't, then it's not." Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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? No, YOU only believe others when it fits your preconceived notions (you admitted that when you said you believe some xians and even respect them when they've been shown to be outright liars and yet you don't respect/believe other xians.) I, on the other hand, believe the evidence. Got any? Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f4rd13$5bc$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f4otjc$j2u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> I was referring to these two steps: >>>>> >>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > reproduction) >>>> And leaving out the millions of steps that came before and between. >>>> >>>>> Testimony is considered as evidence in court. Someone pointed out that >>>>> physical evidence (eg gun, bloody knife) is more important than testimony. >>>>> I agreed with that person that made that statement. >>>>> >>>>> Let's say that the neighbors in an apartment building hear a married >>>>> couple having an argument. They hear the husband say, "I'm going to kill >>>>> you". The argument ends and the police are not called. The following day, >>>>> the wife was shot as she was walking home from work. The husband took a >>>>> shower after he shot his wife and washed his hands with bleach to remove >>>>> any evidence. There were no witnesses present when the husband shot his >>>>> wife. The police are not able to find a gun when they search the apartment >>>>> and all surrounding areas. They arrest the husband and charge him with the >>>>> murder. All of the neighbors provide testimony at the murder trial. >>>>> >>>>> The jury members convict the husband of first degree murder--based upon >>>>> the testimonies of the people that heard the argument and heard him say, >>>>> "I'm going to kill you." >>>> No, they wouldn't. You'd never even find a DA that would even think >>>> about arresting the guy to begin with, much less prosecuting him, based >>>> on simply an "I'm going to kill you." Was there even a body? >>>> >>>>> Do you now understand that TESTIMONY is evidence--even if there is no >>>>> physical evidence? >>>> Testimony is simply evidence that the person says he >>>> saw/heard/tasted/smelled/felt something but NOT evidence that the >>>> something actually exists.. But if the neighbor claimed "Yeah, I saw him >>>> shoot her and bury her body right here" and yet there was no body found >>>> (or better yet, the wife is actually standing there, alive and well) the >>>> testimony would likely be ignored. >>> Let's try again: >>> A woman's husband is observed by 8 witnesses going inside their apartment >>> with a gun in his hand and shouting, "I am going to kill that woman." The >>> witnesses hear a gunshot and see the man running from the building. The >>> husband had watched over a hundred episodes of CSI and followed his plan: >>> He was able to get rid of all physical evidence--including the gun. The >>> only evidence at the murder trial is the testimony of the witnesses. The >>> body of the woman is found. >>> >>> If you was on the jury, would you find him guilty? I would >> Let's try again: >> >> Several people say they overheard a man say "I'm going to kill my wife." >> No shot is heard, no gun is found, no bullet, no blood, no body, no wife >> has ever been seen (dead OR alive,) there's no woman's clothes in the >> apartment, there's a single twin bed, the guy is a flaming gay man. >> >> Would you convict him of murder. Yes, YOU would but any sane person >> wouldn't. > > 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. And there has been "no body found" in the case of god. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1181875577.541042.27200@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> You missed the point: a dead body IS physical evidence. >> >> Martin > > A leg bone that grows two inches IS physical evidence. It's evidence that the leg was healed (assuming that such even happened) just like the dead body was evidence someone died. NOW work your way with OTHER evidence from "the leg was healed" to "goddidit." Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > Martin, > Not until Jesus comes back to establish his kingdom on the earth. You really think that's going to happen? Oh my. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >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. It is not enough that a majority of [relevant] scientists believe something, for it to be a scientific theory. What is believed has to meet the criteria of "theory". The principle criterion of a theory is its predictive accuracy, followed by its parsimony, then by its internal consistency, then by its coherence with established theories, then finally by its fruitfulness. If von Danikan's theory can be used by scientists to make predictions that are then shown to be accurate, and that cannot be predicted by a simpler theory, and are internally consistent, and are coherent with established theories, and can be used to open up new lines of study, then it will gain wide acceptance by the relevant scientific community. But you are putting the cart before the horse if you merely ask whether it is accepted by that community, as your only criterion. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >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. I suggest that you can find detailed criticisms of Behe's work on the web, too. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f4re3n$6nr$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> I heard the story on a Christian radio show. I found this story on the web: >>> >>> Vietnam Police Kill Christian Prisoners And Relatives, Investigators Say >>> Added: May 29th, 2007 2:47 AM >>> >>> By Stefan J. Bos, Chief International Correspondent BosNewsLife with >>> reporting from Vietnam >>> >>> HANOI, VIETNAM (BosNewsLife) -- Vietnamese security forces have tortured >>> and killed at least two Christian Degar Montagnards in Vietnam's Central >>> Highlands in recent months and allegedly murdered relatives of religious >>> prisoners, representatives said Monday, May 28. >> Amazing that this story never appeared on any reputable news site and >> even searching for the words "Christian Degar Montagnards vietnam killed >> tortured" in google (leaving out the quotes so it would search for the >> words individually) only finds 460 pages (by contrast the words >> "astronaut kidnapped" found 199,000 hits.) >> >> Oh, wait, it's that conspiracy at work again, trying to cover up this event. > > Stories like this are covered by Christian News organizations that are > broadcast on Christian radio shows. The regular news media does not > usually cover stories like this one. The national news media usually bury > stories about the genocide in Darfur. In the local newspaper, a story > about Darfur was on page 5--it should have been on page 1. Like I said, "It's the conspiracy, man!" Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1406072135090001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Tell me Jason, what is the scientific theory of intelligent design and how do we test it? 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.