Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1406072142060001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 When will he come, Jason? The bible says he will come 'soon'( my thanks to Jerry for this accumulation): LOL. Depends on what the definition of "is" is? Don't attempt to > parse words to wiggle out of what the verses mean and furthermore, what > they mean IN CONTEXT. > > Let's try this a little more in depth. If this doesn't work we can > take each one of these and break them down even more for you. > > > MATTHEW 16 (KJV) > 16:27 > For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his > angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. > > 16:28 > Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not > taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. > > 1 THESSALONIANS 4:15 (NIV) > According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that WE WHO ARE STILL > ALIVE, WE WHO ARE LEFT till the coming of the Lord, will certainly > not precede those who have fallen asleep. > > > Hebrews 10 (NIV) > 36 > You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you > will receive what he has promised. > > 37 > For in just a VERY LITTLE WHILE, "He who is coming will come and WILL > NOT DELAY. > > > JAMES 5:8 (KJV) > Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord > DRAWETH NIGH. > > > I PETER 4:7 (KJV) > But the END OF ALL THINGS IS AT HAND: be ye therefore sober, and watch > unto prayer. > > > I JOHN 2:18 (KJV) > Little children, it is the LAST TIME: and as ye have heard that > antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we > know that it is the last time. > > > REVELATION (KJV) > 1:1 > The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto > his servants things which must SHORTLY COME TO PASS; and he sent and > signified it by his angel unto his servant John: > > 1:3 > Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this > prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the > TIME IS AT HAND. > > 3:11 > Behold, I COME QUICKLY: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man > take thy crown. > > 22:7 > Behold, I COME QUICKLY: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the > prophecy of this book. > > 22:12 > And, behold, I COME QUICKLY; and my reward is with me, to give every > man according as his work shall be. > > 22:20 > He which testifieth these things saith, SURELY I COME QUICKLY. Amen. > Even so, come, Lord Jesus. > > ++++++++++++ > MATTHEW 10:23 (NIV) > When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I TELL YOU THE > TRUTH, YOU WILL NOT FINISH GOING THROUGH THE CITIES OF ISRAEL BEFORE > THE SON OF MAN COMES. > > COLOSSIANS 1:23 (NIV) > if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from > the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard > and THAT HAS BEEN PROCLAIMED TO EVERY CREATURE UNDER HEAVEN, and of > which I, Paul, have become a servant. > > Romans 10:18 > "Their voice has gone out into the all the > earth, their words to the ends of the world." > > Matthew 24:14 (NIV) > "And this gospel will be preached in the > whole world as a testimony to all nations, > AND THEN THE END WILL COME." > ++++++++++++ > Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1406072235510001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Not based on the above, that you call evidence. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1406072027180001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. I have many books on the study of the bible. I question each and every one when I read them. I then form my own conclusion on what I read. You could use a little objective analysis. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:19:53 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1406072019540001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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." > So what? That has nothing to do with whether he worships the same God you do. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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. You should approach everything with a skeptical eye. That is what I did for a living for 35 years. People told me what the circumstances of a particular situation were and then I asked for evidence. There are many people out there with credentials as good or better than Chriswell who have different opinions based on an objective review of the evidence. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 <gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1181909537.136427.148470@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... 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 Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1406072019540001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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." So??? Is that supposed to support your argument? If so, it doesn't! Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:27:18 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1406072027180001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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: .... >> >> 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. He isn't offering evidence. He is offering an interpretation, making excuses for the inconsistencies. The whole thing is silly since there is evidence that shows us that the Genesis stories are not historically or scientifically valid. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Martin" <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1181866254.662302.244500@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 14, 3:48 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <1181790697.078786.266...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, >> Martin >> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > On Jun 14, 7:36 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > In article <i9Zbi.6114$K8.3...@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > > >news:Jason-1206072106570001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > > > In article <jbdu63dbf8uae5r7fv9mee2g40sb6q0...@4ax.com>, Free >> > > > > Lunch >> > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > > > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:09:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > > >> <Jason-1206071509130...@66-52-22-111.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > > >> >In article <31d3k4-7or....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey >> > > > >> >Bjarnason >> > > > >> ><kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> [snips] >> >> > > > >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:03:44 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> >> It's easy to find people who will tell us what a >> > > > >> >> >> blasphemous >> > > > > infidel you >> > > > >> >> >> are for saying that the 9/11 Jihadists were not pleasing >> Allah with >> > > > >> >> >> their actions. >> >> > > > >> >> > You already know that millions of people in America agree >> > > > >> >> > that the >> > > > > actions >> > > > >> >> > of those men were not pleasing to Jehovah. >> >> > > > >> >> "in America"? Oh, wonderful. Now someone's religion is >> > > > >> >> invalidated >> > > > >> >> simply by where they live . >> >> > > > >> >I mentioned America since those 3000 people were killed in >> > > > >> >America. >> > > > >> >Millions of people in other countries also realize that the >> > > > >> >actions of >> > > > >> >those men were not pleasing to Jehovah. >> >> > > > >> So you say. Apparently you never read the Old Testament. Jehovah >> > > > >> was a >> > > > >> pretty bloodthirsty tyrant. He might love the murders of 9/11 >> > > > >> and the >> > > > >> wars that happened afterward. >> >> > > > >> >What is your opinion about those men that killed 3000 people on >> > > > >> >9/11? >> >> > > > >> They are evil. But I don't have to defend the evil acts that >> > > > >> people do >> > > > >> in the name of God. >> >> > > > >> Remember, they worship the same God you do. >> >> > > > > They worship a God named Allah. There were some people in the >> > > > > Bible that >> > > > > worshipped a false God named Baal. Judges 2:13. I consider Allah >> > > > > to be a >> > > > > false God. I already know people will diagree with me. >> > > > > jason >> >> > > > How can you? They are the same god. Ironic isn't it. >> >> > > If you choose to believe that Jehovah and Allah are the same >> > > God--that is >> > > up to you. I consider Baal and Allah to be false Gods. >> >> > "Baal" is a Hebrew word meaning "Lord" and "Allah" originated from the >> > Hebrew word "Eloah" which you said was a name of your god. > >> I don't recall stating that. I may have stated that it may have been a >> name for God. I just checked my Concordance and the word "Eloah" is NOT >> mentioned in the Bible. Baal is mentioned in the Bible--Baal was a false >> God. If I stated in a post that Eloah was a name for Jehovah--I was >> wrong. > > 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, > > Either that or Jason is completely senile. > > In any case, "Jason" needs to understand that the Old Testament was > NOT written in English: it was written in Hebrew and that it is > mindboggingly stupid of his to say "such and such a word is not in the > Bible" when the fact is that Elohim, Eloah, Yahweh were all translated > as "God" whether they refered to the same god or not. > > Once again, "Jason" demonstrates complete ignorance in a field which > he professes to know something about. > > Martin You mention that Jason has been around for a year and a half. In the group I read this he hasn't been here that long. From which group do you read his posts? Thanks, Tom Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:35:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1406072235510001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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 > Scientists would not believe such stories without evidence. The fantasy writers that you are referring to are not using evidence, they are bringing ancient artifacts into their story without regard for their actual provenance. Once again, you prove that you have no conception of what evidence is. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:08:30 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1506070008310001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. Michael Behe says that astrology is science. He also accepts common descent. He is also a fool. Except for number 2, it sounds like you would love him. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1406071952230001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <wgici.1412$ma.496@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1406071218540001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <%_aci.3526$s8.1518@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Martin" <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181791042.696607.245920@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Jun 14, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> > Even if Jesus himself >> >> >> > saiys not any word about this in the NT. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, he does. He forgave a prostitute for her sins. He could have >> >> >> had >> >> >> her >> >> >> stoned to death--he did not do it. >> >> > >> >> > And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the Christian concept of a loving >> >> > god! >> >> > >> >> > Martin >> >> >> >> Actually Jason the story about the prostitute was added to the bible. >> >> Jesus >> >> never had such an encounter. >> > >> > It was absent from the Alexandrian text but was in other >> > manuscripts--including in the writings of Augustine. >> > >> > I copied the above information from a footnote in my study Bible--the >> > editor was W.A. Criswell, Ph.D. >> >> This story is not part of the original story told by John. You are >> correct >> that it is found in some manuscripts but not necessarily in John. I think >> the fact that it isn't in the best texts we have and that when it is >> found >> it is found in various places makes it pretty certain that the story was >> a >> later inclusion by the followers of Jesus. Which brings us to the >> writings >> of Augustine. While we can get valuable information from the writings of >> the >> early church fathers as to the composition of the earliest bible, it must >> also be remembered that the early church fathers wrote many of the things >> in >> the bible to support their point of view. > > There are footnotes in study Bibles about those sorts of cases. Several > months ago, National Geographic published "The Book of Judas". It may have > been portions of the book of Judas. I heard a television preacher say that > he found out that the Book of Judas was actually written several hundred > years after Judas died. Have you read anything about the Book of Judas? I > have not read it. > Jason Why don't we stick to the point under discussion, was the story of the prostitute in the original writings of the bible? I have heard of the gospel of Judas but I haven't read it. I have read the gospel of Mary and I have the gospel of Thomas in my library. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1406072221370001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Yes, if it can be established by physical evidence that it grew two inches. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1406072012490001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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? Quit attempting to open secondary discussions, Jason, it is dishonest. Everyone examines anything in light of their worldview. Some of us are able to see the truth even though we might be looking at something that is diametrically opposed to our worldview. Others can't see the splinter for the log. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:35:09 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <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: .... >> > 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 > There is absolutely no chance that Intelligent Design will ever be a replacement. Ignoring for the moment the fact that ID is nothing but secular clothing for anti-science creationism, let's look at all of the problems it has: 1. The speculation does not provide any testable hypothesis. 2. It does not take the evidence that does exist into account. 3. It hypothesizes something that is completely unsupported by the evidence. It's just wishful thinking. It's a lie that Christians tell each other to make themselves feel better about their false teachings about the history of life on earth. I cannot see how any Christian could support such mendacious claims. Can you explain why you support lies? -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1406071927410001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <umc373lsri877gg44m59jqfkek8p2nj2an@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:32:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1406070132130001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article >> ><DipthotDipthot-CCA16E.18144813062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >> >655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> 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. >> >> Because it doesn't. It does not matter what you believe. Belief is not >> evidence. All you are doing is making an arrogant assertion and then >> whining because you are being asked to provide some evidence that God >> had anything to do with it, but you know you cannot. Stop whining. Stop >> lying. > > Belief is not evidence. In relation to abiogenesis, lots of people have a > belief that it happened that way. Belief is not evidence. Let me ask you a question, Jason. Are you aware of the research that is being done in the field of abiogenesis? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:21:37 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1406072221370001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. An unsupported claim about it growing two inches is not physical evidence. So far, you have no evidence, Jason, and you know it. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1406071924070001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <5ddu44F33sbabU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> >> snip >> > >> > I see it like this--and it's only my opinion--Weather is controlled by >> > natural weather patterns unless God intervenes such as by causing it to >> > rain to answer the prayers of Christian farmers. If God had not >> > intervened--the natural weather patterns would have determined the >> > weather. >> >> So, your god had no problem with Hurricane Katrina? > > Natural disasters happen--you could make a list of thousands of natural > disasters. Of course they do. Everything that happens in the world happens naturally unless man causes it. This includes the rains that come when they are needed as well as the droughts. The best explanation of the condition of the world is that no god or gods exist. That is the simplest and most logical conclusion that can be reached. No 'original' sin', no 'depravity' of man and no 'savior' needed. This is the world in which we live. Quote
Guest Christopher Morris Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 > > He isn't offering evidence. He is offering an interpretation, making > excuses for the inconsistencies. The whole thing is silly since there is > evidence that shows us that the Genesis stories are not historically or > scientifically valid. Let us not forget the ample evidence the story was lifted with a few minor changes from the Babylonian Stories much like the Deluge. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1406071919330001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <XCici.1423$ma.664@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1406071543010001@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <BIhci.6$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? >> >> I don't have a clue and it has no relevance to any discussion here. I >> answered that for you, you little coward but you have conveniently >> ignored >> it Here is the post again and it is highly relevant since you have used >> the >> statement Darwin made: >> >> Jason, you need to read the sites, not just count them. For example if >> you >> had done a little research you would have found this blurb from a >> Christian >> apologetic web site: >> >> "In the closing paragraph of certain editions of The Origin of Species, >> there appears a reference by Charles Darwin to a Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:33:23 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1506070033230001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >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. Do you have any evidence to support this belief? >After the creation process was finished, Natural Selection took over. In what way? >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. For what it's worth, even if a god created the first life-forms on earth, it would be an abiogenetic event, so you invent a distinction that doesn't exist. >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. Thank you for reiterating your bias against science and your proud desire to remain ignorant. You refuse to accept that you are too ignorant of science to start telling scientists what they have to do to persuade you -- though I don't think you would change your mind even if they did everything you demanded. You are a religiously-motivated liar, nothing else. >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. What scientists and what evidence did they use? >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. However life began on earth, we know that your teachings are false, so your objection is meaningless and fraudulent. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1406071515390001@66-52-22-102.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > 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. ROTFLMAO!! ROTFLMAO!! <snip> Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:01:05 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <7f50735gqg9n7ifa3ib8ucmhc2t0jd959k@4ax.com>, John Baker ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:48:04 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >On 12 Jun., 19:42, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> In article <1181643770.817395.36...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > On 11 Jun., 21:54, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > In article <0de0k4-blk....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> >snip >> > >> >> > A person that has been healed is evidence that he was healed. It is >> >> > not evidence of a god. >> >> >> > >> >> Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which indicated that >> >> her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened?- >> > >> >I would not be able to explain it, and that is not evidence that god >> >did it. >> >> >> But then, Jason isn't about to provide any evidence either..... > >Why bother--several have told me that if I provided physical evidence to >prove that her leg bone grew two inches, they would still not believe that >God healed her leg. One step at a time, Jason. First, prove that the event in question actually happened. A few undoctored before-and-after photos accompanied by the sworn testimony of at least two qualified medical professionals that the event did happen as described and is in fact medically unexplainable will do for that. Once that's done to everyone's satisfaction, then we'll discuss whether or not it's convincing evidence for the existence of a god. By the way, Jason ... second-hand "testimony" cribbed from some Christian web site is not evidence. > Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:27:40 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <umc373lsri877gg44m59jqfkek8p2nj2an@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:32:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1406070132130001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article >> ><DipthotDipthot-CCA16E.18144813062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >> >655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> 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. >> >> Because it doesn't. It does not matter what you believe. Belief is not >> evidence. All you are doing is making an arrogant assertion and then >> whining because you are being asked to provide some evidence that God >> had anything to do with it, but you know you cannot. Stop whining. Stop >> lying. > >Belief is not evidence. In relation to abiogenesis, lots of people have a >belief that it happened that way. Belief is not evidence. Actually, Jason, abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact. Whether it came about through divine intervention or by purely natural means, at some point in the planet's history, life did arise from non-life. We both agree on that. We just disagree about how it happened. > > >> >> >All of the various questions related to the THE MIRACLE HEALING TESTIMONY >> >OF WILLIAM A. KENT AND CHERYL PREWITT reminded me of a story in the Bible. >> >See Luke 16:19-31. The rich man was in the place of torment and requested >> >permission to return to the earth so that he could warn his brothers about >> >the place of torment. Abraham said to him, "They have Moses and the >> >prophets; let them hear them [Moses and the prophets]. The rich man said >> >to Abraham: "No, father Abraham, but if one went from the dead, they will >> >repent." And Abraham said to the rich man: "IF THEY HEAR NOT MOSES AND >> >THE PROPHETS, NEITHER WILL THEY BE PERSUADED, THOUGH ONE ROSE FROM THE >> >DEAD. >> > >> >I hope that you now get the point. If you don't believe the words of Moses >> >and the Prophets, neither will you listen to William A. Kent, Cheryl >> >Prewitt or myself. >> >> You completely missed the point of the Rich Man and Lazarus. > >I > Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> By that standard, the relevant judge of what Bill did is Hillary. > >He lied to her also. He did not admit the truth until Monica produced the >spotted dress. We do not know whether he lied to Hillary. 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.