Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:06:25 -0700, Jason wrote: > Several have told me they would not believe that she was healed by > God--regardless of the physical evidence. You're lying again. Why don't you try being honest for a change? Or is that simply beyond your ability? -- Don't take me for an idiot...please...because I am NOT an idiot. - Joanna Amren (Defending Christanic Creationism myths) Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:15:45 -0700, Jason wrote: > I understand your point. No, I can not produce a video tape showing God > coming down from heaven and healing her leg. Ah, so your evidence - if it exists at all - is just evidence of her being healed, not, as you said elsewhere, evidence of her being healed _by God_. Yes, we knew that. Nice to see you're finally getting it, though. -- Better haggis than Jesus. -- Glen Todd Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:25:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > Sorry--Neither Cheryl or I have such a tape. If you choose to believe that > Cheryl is lying--there is nothing I can do about it. I believe her. It's not necessary that she is lying. She could simply be mistaken, for example. Or overly credulous. I'll give you an example of that - the psychic surgeons. Lots of people swear these guys stuck a hand inside them and removed things. Investigation shows otherwise, that it's a sham. Were those people lying when they said the psychic surgeons actually inserted their hands? No, they were simply fooled into thinking it was real. Their reports were both completely honest (in some cases, at least) and wrong. So again, fine, she was healed. Fine, you've got X-rays of before and after. Fine, if we accept this is all on the up and up, then something interesting is going on and should be investigated further. All very well, but that is all that this evidence would tell us; it does nothing to establishing that gods exist or were involved, regardless of what she or you believe. Try again. -- Let go of your genatalia and grab a dictionary. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:34:42 -0700, Jason wrote: > I don't want to be argumentative re: to the Big Bang. Yes, you do; you demonstrate it regularly. > However, I > continue to believe that it is speculation that the big bang was the > beginning of time. Do you believe that it is speculation or a fact? I think you need to ponder what the very concept of "time" actually means, and how it is defined. You seem to think it is some sort of magic thing which exists independent of everything around us. What's even stranger is, you seem to think that time is some sort of absolute - that regardless of any other factors, it marches steadily on anyhow, unaffected by space, motion and the like. Yet we know this is simply not true, that time is, in fact, variable - and is, in fact, impacted by motion. > That leads to another question: > Is a mathematical model evidence or speculation? Mathematics can describe; it cannot prescribe. Or, put another way, someone creating a mathematical model of something can show us that it is valid mathematically without it ever having any basis in describing the real world. As an example of this, there's an odd little bit of math I once read about that says if you cut up an orange just right, then re-assemble the parts, the results could be larger than the sun - yet contain no holes. Perhaps, in mathematics, this would be true, but it is based on the concept of infinite divisibility and infinitely small spaces - and that is something which simply does not apply to the real world. Such a model needs to actually be compared to the real world to see if it is, in fact, a correct modeling of the world, or simply a nice little mathematical puzzle. -- Pi is equal to 3.0: God has a nasty habit of using base 10.472. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:50:27 -0700, Jason wrote: > Speculation is not evidence. The advocates of creation science have fossil > evidence. Sigh. Okay... your continuing science education. Here's a rock (find any handy one, the specific rock doesn't matter). Is it evidence of: 1) Me being the King of Spain 2) Me being the supreme creator of all things 3) Me being left-handed 4) Me causing rocks to form in your vicinity 5) None of the above Correct answer: 5. Here's the question: why is it not evidence of those things? The reason it's not evidence of those things is that there is no mechanism on the table which relates the rock in any way to those claims. There is no theory which predicts that if a rock is found, this supports my claim to the Spanish throne. There needs to be some sort of testable, falsifiable, causal link between the two things. So let's take fossils. Got lots of 'em. Not all of 'em, and while there are plenty of exemplars of transitional forms, these don't account for 100% of all cases we've got so far. All very good. Now, is that evidence that I'm the King of Spain? No, because there's no mechanism involved which explains the relation between those two ideas; I can say the fossils prove my claim, but my saying it doesn't make it so. You say the fossils somehow support creation science, yet, like my claim they support my ascension to the throne, you fail to demonstrate any actual link between the ideas. You might, for example, claim that the fossils represent subsequent waves of creation. Very good, except for one minor issue: you haven't shown the process of creation, so you can't say anything meaningful about how it works. This is about like me asserting the fossils are evidence of fairies; until I show how fairies explain the fossils, how fairies cause the fossils to come to be, and in the manner we find them, then I have no basis to assert that the fossils support my claim, as I've shown no manner in which they _can_ support my claim. I haven't shown the mechanism the fairies used, so I can't show the fossils are consistent with that mechanism. SO you say the fossils support creation science... well, okay, maybe they do. What is the mechanism of creation? Without it, we cannot make any predictions about what we should find in the fossil record, so we can't very well say the fossils match the predictions of the mechanism and thus support creation science. So, what is the mechanism of creation? You must have this, as you assert that the fossils support creation science, and this is what you'd need to make such an assertion. Feel free to trot out this mechanism, we'd all love to see it. -- Even if she WAS going to beam me aboard her spaceship and make a present of me to her leather-clad butch dyke master to vivisect me like a lab rat for her species' tests and her sadistic pleasure, any friend is better than none. - David Rice Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:12:24 -0700, Jason wrote: > Have any experiments been done which have indicated that a single cell Have any experiments been done which demonstrate God exists? Apparently not, as you can't seem to show them. Funny you believe that claim, though. Why is that? Oh, right - you demand evidence only on one side of the equation; the other you're happy to just believe. -- Rest asured that I __will__ hack and chop by way through as many innocents as it takes to restore my religions' good name! - Fred Rice Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:26:44 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1506071826440001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <bi2673ln94q4lj2t081r2pq6q27l1bhkas@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:20:32 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1506071220320001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <ped573tr7gn2ml76ors2aaiq7b5oqmctb6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> >I believe that Allah is a false God. If you believe they are the same >> >God--that is up to you. >> > >> Once again, you refuse to address the point. Allah is the Arabic name >> for God. It is the name that Arabic Christians use for God. Your >> opinion, once again, is based on ignorance and lies. Yours is a >> worthless opinion, one a Christian would be ashamed to hold. > >I hope those Arabic Christians realize that the true God is very different >than a false God. If they have a copy of Bible, they already know that the >true God is very different than the God that is mentioned in the Quran. I don't mind if people are ignorant, but they should never be proud of being ignorant like you are, nor should they be unwilling to get rid of their ignorance as you are. Read what Augustine said below and learn from it. Your ignorant prattle is hateful and an offense to all Christians. -- "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 Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:34:37 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1506071834370001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <lh3673du7ih3djcq80783nt85hl8i6olef@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:20:45 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1506071520450001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <4672fa8c$0$20560$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher >> >Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1506071227220001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <NDyci.165$W9.27@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Someone was trying to convince me that Allah and Jehovah were the same >> >> > God. My point was that the Bible clearly states that Israel is the >> >> > homeland for Jews. The Muslims believe that Israel should be under the >> >> > control of Muslims. If they had the same God, they would only have one >> >> > holy book. In this case, they have the Koran and we have the Old >Testament >> >> > and the New Testament. >> >> > jason >> >> > The >> >> > >> >> >> >> Jason has been pointed out to you Allah is the Arabic word for God nothing >> >> more nothing less. The Jews do not say the name of God at all, and >> >> Christians just use the generic term God. Both the Christian and the >Muslim >> >> are offshoots of Judaism so you both have Jewish roots and all three >groups >> >> are in fact worshipping the same God. Furthermore you are also all >> >> worshiping the same Ultimate God of all other Faiths as well as St. >> >> Augustine said in "The City of God" the God we worship " is the God whom >> >> Porphyry, the most learned of philosophers, although the fiercest of enemy >> >> of the Christian, acknowledges to be a Great God..." Furthermore, the >Pagan >> >> Maximus of Tyre wrote: "In the midst of such contention and strife, and >> >> disagreement you would see in all the earth one harmonious law and >principle >> >> that there is one God, king and father of all, and many gods, sons of God, >> >> fellow rulers with God. The Greek says this and the barbarian says it, the >> >> mainlander and the seafarer, the wise and the unwise." >> > >> >We have a different point of view related to this subject. I have read >> >some of quotations from the Quran and found out that there are MAJOR >> >differences between the Koran and the Bible. Here is just one example: >> > >> >From the Quran: >> >Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, >> >beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war). >> >Surah 9:5 >> > >> >"...cutting off of hands and feet...." Surah 5:33 >> > >> >Needless to say, you will not find words like that in the New Testament. >> > >> >Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself". Jesus never taught his >> >followers to cut off the hands and feet of pagans or to slay pagans. >> >Jason >> >> It is clear that you worship your interpretation of the Bible instead of >> worshipping the God of Abraham. Since that is the case, I agree that >> Moslems do not worship what you worship. > >I worship the God mentioned in the Holy Bible. I don't worship the God >that is mentioned in the Quran. > You are making a false distinction. That is because you are proud of your ignorance and worship only youself and the things you say about the Bible, science, and God. None of your claims are true but you are too full of yourself to ever try to learn. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:59:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1506071859200001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1v3673dt5lsaeeelj2sevnbsmorev24hhu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:40:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1506071540340001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1wCci.267$P8.79@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1506071200360001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> ... >> >> > We don't know. We are hoping that it will be soon. >> >> >> >> Well read the damn verses Jason, they say it will be soon. Just for your >> >> information, two thousand years isn't 'soon'. Before you go into a >'we don't >> >> know how soon it is in god's time' defense, read the verses and tell >me when >> >> you think Jesus said he would come. Just one more of literally >thousands of >> >> reasons to conclude that your god doesn't exist. >> > >> >Some of the prophecies related to the last days did not come true until >> >the past 10 to 20 years. Here is one of them: >> >2 Tim 4:3-5 >> > >> >For the time will come when [Christians] will not endure sound doctrine; >> >but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers [and >> >preachers]. Those [preachers] will teach them not what the truth is but >> >instead what they want to hear >> > >> >My comment: That prophecy has come true in my life time. There is one >> >church in California called Unity Fellowship. The preachers are more like >> >psychologists than real preachers. There is a television show that is >> >broadcast on Sunday morning called the "Hour of Power". The preacher never >> >discusses Bible doctrines. He teaches messages related to psychology and >> >sociology. I have never heard him preach messages from the Bible. >> >Jason >> >> Jason, Christians have been claiming that they were in the last days >> ever since Christianity began. Your ignorance of history betrays you and >> gives you the foolish idea that only recently have these 'signs' been >> fulfilled. Once again I have to wonder if you are really a Christian. > >My father (in the 1950's) believed that he was living in the last days. Which is one example of your claim being wrong. >According to the Bible, the deciples of Jesus hoped Jesus would return >during their life times. Another example. I see that you don't have the integrity to acknowledge your error or tell us that you will make an effort to not make this mistake again. >I have never claimed to be a Bible scholar. Yet you accept the claims of people you believe are Bible scholars, even when they are wrong. >I learn new things every time I listen to another sermon. No, I don't think you do. You would learn something if you followed up on the references that you have ignored here. Your ignorance would not be so breathtaking if you didn't insist on having opinions on so many subjects that you don't understand and refuse to learn about. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:48:48 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1506071848480001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <rg4673t02p5k6qdd1qh2i4jm4b20gr8sc2@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:03:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1506071503110001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> ... >> >> >I doubt that is true. Who makes them sign the pledge? >> >> Ask the ICR, CRS and AIG. >> >> The ICR tells us that they won't let something as silly as facts get in >> the way of their teaching of doctrine: <http://icr.org/home/faq/> and >> scroll down a bit. > >Thanks--I would like to read that pledge. > Read it. Are you for real or are you just someone who hates Christians so much that he spends hours creating a parody Christian who is more stupid than anyone ever thought possible? Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:56:49 -0700, Jason wrote: > I can't speak for any religions except for Christianity. I do believe that > testimony is evidence. You have the statements - testimony - of several people here that you're an idiot. Are you going to now do the honest thing and agree, based on the testimony, that you are, in fact, an idiot? Somehow I think you'll disagree... but wait, you can't , as you yourself say that testimony is evidence, and therefore you have overwhelming evidence that you are, in fact, an idiot. So which is it? Are you an idiot? Or do you finally realize that this "testimony is evidence" line of yours is complete and utter tripe? -- Oh come on Kim. You can't possibly be that intractibly stupid. - Gary Glunz Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:42:06 -0700, Jason wrote: > 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. You need to read your history. -- We got you, Jesse. You belong to us now. - David Rice Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:55:49 -0700, Jason wrote: > If it really did happen the way the advocates of abiogenesis claim that it > happened, scientists should be able to design an experiment to make it > happen. Do you think that scientists will ever be able to perform such an > experiment? So let's see if we have this right. Science demonstrates that, on a small scale, water causes erosion of rock. We know water exists, we know rock exists, we know water can erode rock. By anyone else's standard, this would be sufficient to explain, oh, the formation of the Grand Canyon, as long as sufficient time is available for the process to work. According to your standards, we cannot conclude this, as we have all the requisite components but we haven't made an experiment that actually recreated the Grand Canyon - despite such an experiment requiring something on the order of a few million years to carry out. This, to you, is a sensible requirement is it? I suspect even you wouldn't think so... yet it is almost exactly what you're asking above. We have all the key elements, we have a pretty good idea - several, actually - of the steps to go from A to B... but we're also quite certain that in the best of cases, it would require hellishly long times to duplicate the result. Yet you blithely expect it, as if such an expectation made any sense whatsoever. -- You can believe that cheese sandwiches hold political convictions for all anyone cares. - Simon Ewins Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Jun 16, 9:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1v3673dt5lsaeeelj2sevnbsmorev24...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:40:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1506071540340...@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <1wCci.267$P8...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > ><mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Jason-1506071200360001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > ... > > >> > We don't know. We are hoping that it will be soon. > > > >> Well read the damn verses Jason, they say it will be soon. Just for your > > >> information, two thousand years isn't 'soon'. Before you go into a > 'we don't > > >> know how soon it is in god's time' defense, read the verses and tell > me when > > >> you think Jesus said he would come. Just one more of literally > thousands of > > >> reasons to conclude that your god doesn't exist. > > > >Some of the prophecies related to the last days did not come true until > > >the past 10 to 20 years. Here is one of them: > > >2 Tim 4:3-5 > > > >For the time will come when [Christians] will not endure sound doctrine; > > >but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers [and > > >preachers]. Those [preachers] will teach them not what the truth is but > > >instead what they want to hear > > > >My comment: That prophecy has come true in my life time. There is one > > >church in California called Unity Fellowship. The preachers are more like > > >psychologists than real preachers. There is a television show that is > > >broadcast on Sunday morning called the "Hour of Power". The preacher never > > >discusses Bible doctrines. He teaches messages related to psychology and > > >sociology. I have never heard him preach messages from the Bible. > > >Jason > > > Jason, Christians have been claiming that they were in the last days > > ever since Christianity began. Your ignorance of history betrays you and > > gives you the foolish idea that only recently have these 'signs' been > > fulfilled. Once again I have to wonder if you are really a Christian. > > My father (in the 1950's) believed that he was living in the last days. > According to the Bible, the deciples of Jesus hoped Jesus would return > during their life times. I have never claimed to be a Bible scholar. I > learn new things every time I listen to another sermon.- Hide quoted text - Jason, Don't lie. All sermons are the same, you don't learn any thing new. And in human studies, we have physics, Chemistry, maths, biology, medicine, etc etc The topics are many, the advance is progressive, the research is daily, and small discovery(or big one) on each area is expected. This is the new things that we human are doing whereas you and your IDers are just trying fruitlessly to look for a non-existing creator/ god/supernatural being. This is the difference between you and real human. What you and your > > - Show quoted Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <qgvbk4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:34:42 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > I don't want to be argumentative re: to the Big Bang. > > Yes, you do; you demonstrate it regularly. > > > However, I > > continue to believe that it is speculation that the big bang was the > > beginning of time. Do you believe that it is speculation or a fact? > > I think you need to ponder what the very concept of "time" actually means, > and how it is defined. You seem to think it is some sort of magic thing > which exists independent of everything around us. > > What's even stranger is, you seem to think that time is some sort of > absolute - that regardless of any other factors, it marches steadily on > anyhow, unaffected by space, motion and the like. Yet we know this is > simply not true, that time is, in fact, variable - and is, in fact, > impacted by motion. > > > That leads to another question: > > Is a mathematical model evidence or speculation? > > Mathematics can describe; it cannot prescribe. Or, put another way, > someone creating a mathematical model of something can show us that it is > valid mathematically without it ever having any basis in describing the > real world. > > As an example of this, there's an odd little bit of math I once read > about that says if you cut up an orange just right, then re-assemble the > parts, the results could be larger than the sun - yet contain no holes. > Perhaps, in mathematics, this would be true, but it is based on the > concept of infinite divisibility and infinitely small spaces - and that > is something which simply does not apply to the real world. > > Such a model needs to actually be compared to the real world to see if it > is, in fact, a correct modeling of the world, or simply a nice little > mathematical puzzle. Let's say that a mathematician develops a mathematical model. Several years later, another mathematician develops a new mathematical model that disproves the first mathematical model. Is that possible? If your answer is yes, does not mean that mathematical model should never become a theory? Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <mWEci.1194$s9.431@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1506071641330001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <tvDci.289$P8.76@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1506071520450001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <4672fa8c$0$20560$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher >> >> > Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:Jason-1506071227220001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> > In article <NDyci.165$W9.27@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Someone was trying to convince me that Allah and Jehovah were the >> >> >> > same >> >> >> > God. My point was that the Bible clearly states that Israel is the >> >> >> > homeland for Jews. The Muslims believe that Israel should be under >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > control of Muslims. If they had the same God, they would only have >> >> >> > one >> >> >> > holy book. In this case, they have the Koran and we have the Old >> >> >> > Testament >> >> >> > and the New Testament. >> >> >> > jason >> >> >> > The >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason has been pointed out to you Allah is the Arabic word for God >> >> >> nothing >> >> >> more nothing less. The Jews do not say the name of God at all, and >> >> >> Christians just use the generic term God. Both the Christian and the >> >> >> Muslim >> >> >> are offshoots of Judaism so you both have Jewish roots and all three >> >> >> groups >> >> >> are in fact worshipping the same God. Furthermore you are also all >> >> >> worshiping the same Ultimate God of all other Faiths as well as St. >> >> >> Augustine said in "The City of God" the God we worship " is the God >> >> >> whom >> >> >> Porphyry, the most learned of philosophers, although the fiercest of >> >> >> enemy >> >> >> of the Christian, acknowledges to be a Great God..." Furthermore, the >> >> >> Pagan >> >> >> Maximus of Tyre wrote: "In the midst of such contention and strife, >> >> >> and >> >> >> disagreement you would see in all the earth one harmonious law and >> >> >> principle >> >> >> that there is one God, king and father of all, and many gods, sons of >> >> >> God, >> >> >> fellow rulers with God. The Greek says this and the barbarian says it, >> >> >> the >> >> >> mainlander and the seafarer, the wise and the unwise." >> >> > >> >> > We have a different point of view related to this subject. I have read >> >> > some of quotations from the Quran and found out that there are MAJOR >> >> > differences between the Koran and the Bible. Here is just one example: >> >> > >> >> > From the Quran: >> >> > Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, >> >> > beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war). >> >> > Surah 9:5 >> >> > >> >> > "...cutting off of hands and feet...." Surah 5:33 >> >> > >> >> > Needless to say, you will not find words like that in the New >> >> > Testament. >> >> > >> >> > Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself". Jesus never taught his >> >> > followers to cut off the hands and feet of pagans or to slay pagans. >> >> > Jason >> >> >> >> Ever read the Old Testament. That is part of your bible, isn't it? >> > >> > Yes >> >> Well then,you should know that it is replete with incidents just like the >> ones you are ascribing to the Muslims! > >I have read the Old Testament. It discusses various covenants. However, >Christions are part of a different covenant called the "New Covenant". I >heard one preacher refer to the New Testament as the Handbook for the New >Covenant. I have learned a lot from the Old Testament. We do not need to >sacrafice animals or do any of the other things related to older >covenants. > But is it the same god, in old and new? (Please forgive my lack of capitolixation.) Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: <...> >That was interesting. In this case, Cheryl Prewitt saw her leg bone grow 2 >inches. Could you provide evidence that this happened? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <760ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:50:27 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > Speculation is not evidence. The advocates of creation science have fossil > > evidence. > > Sigh. Okay... your continuing science education. > > Here's a rock (find any handy one, the specific rock doesn't matter). Is > it evidence of: > > 1) Me being the King of Spain > 2) Me being the supreme creator of all things > 3) Me being left-handed > 4) Me causing rocks to form in your vicinity > 5) None of the above > > Correct answer: 5. Here's the question: why is it not evidence of those > things? > > The reason it's not evidence of those things is that there is no mechanism > on the table which relates the rock in any way to those claims. There is > no theory which predicts that if a rock is found, this supports my claim > to the Spanish throne. There needs to be some sort of testable, > falsifiable, causal link between the two things. > > So let's take fossils. Got lots of 'em. Not all of 'em, and while there > are plenty of exemplars of transitional forms, these don't account for > 100% of all cases we've got so far. All very good. > > Now, is that evidence that I'm the King of Spain? No, because there's no > mechanism involved which explains the relation between those two ideas; I > can say the fossils prove my claim, but my saying it doesn't make it so. > > You say the fossils somehow support creation science, yet, like my claim > they support my ascension to the throne, you fail to demonstrate any > actual link between the ideas. > > You might, for example, claim that the fossils represent subsequent waves > of creation. Very good, except for one minor issue: you haven't shown > the process of creation, so you can't say anything meaningful about how it > works. This is about like me asserting the fossils are evidence of > fairies; until I show how fairies explain the fossils, how fairies > cause the fossils to come to be, and in the manner we find them, then I > have no basis to assert that the fossils support my claim, as I've shown > no manner in which they _can_ support my claim. I haven't shown the > mechanism the fairies used, so I can't show the fossils are consistent > with that mechanism. > > SO you say the fossils support creation science... well, okay, maybe they > do. What is the mechanism of creation? Without it, we cannot make any > predictions about what we should find in the fossil record, so we can't > very well say the fossils match the predictions of the mechanism and thus > support creation science. > > So, what is the mechanism of creation? You must have this, as you > assert that the fossils support creation science, and this is what you'd > need to make such an assertion. > > Feel free to trot out this mechanism, we'd all love to see it. Kelsey, Thank you for your well written report. I read the book entitled, "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish. As you know, my memory is poor so I don't recall everything that I read in his book. If you read the first chapter of the Bible, you will know the basics of creation science. I summarize it this way: God created mankind; some plants and some animals. After the creation process was finished, Natural Selection kicked in. D.T. Gish had all of the above information in mind when he wrote his fossil book. After discussing lots of different fossils, his conclusion was that the fossil evidence indicated that abiogenesis was not how life came to be. His other conclusion was that the fossil evidence indicated that intelligent design was how life came to be on this planet. I have never conducted any research related to fossils. I agree with at least one of your points: I don't believe the fossil evidence reveals what you call the "mechanism of creation." D.T. Gish does believe the fossils supports creation science. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <ooe673hjcqqcdmcpt8dg6886228le3tfve@4ax.com>, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:34:39 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >In article <coe5735hper0t715cgkusb7l7i8i7lfb4f@4ax.com>, John Baker > ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > > >We discussed this in another post. > > Not really. We outline what would constitute acceptable evidence. You > make excuses why you won't (or rather, can't) produce any. That isn't > a discussion. > > >My conclusion was that since I don't > >have a video tape showing God coming down from heaven and healing her > >foot--it would be a waste of time to prove to you that her leg bone was > >healed. I also discussed the story mentioned in Luke 16:19-31. It was the > >story of a rich man that died and ended up in the place of torment. He > >requested permission to return to the earth and warn his brothers about > >the place of torment so they would not have to go there when he they > >died. Abraham told the rich man: "If your brothers did not listen to Moses > >and the prophets, nither will they be persuaded by someone that rose from > >the dead." My conclusion was that if atheists would not listen to man that > >returned from the dead, > > Of course, you realize that citing a Bible story as "evidence" won't > fly here... > > >it's only logical they would not listen to Cheryl > >Prewitt, William Kent or myself. > > Of course I'm not going to believe Prewitt's story without some solid > proof. And you shouldn't either. Being a good Christian does not > require that you also be a gullible fool. > > Just because someone professes to be a Christian doesn't mean they're > incapable of telling a lie. We need only look at the whoppers told by > the ICR, Discovery Institute and AIG, among others, for proof of that. I don't believe every Christian. Charles Tex Watson (part of the Manson gang) now claims to be a Christian. Let's say that he was released from prison and became a traveling evangelist. If he was invited to give his testimony at my church, I would walk out. Part of the Christian doctrine is to love people and have trust in people. I had no reason not to trust Cheryl Prewitt. Unlike Tex Watson, she had never committed any crimes. I had to serve on Jury Duty. If the trial had taken place, I would have to use the sort of judgement that you mentioned in your post. I would want to see all physical evidence and hear every testimony before finding him guilty or not guilty. That was NOT the case when Cheryl was presenting her testimony in our church. We viewed her as a fellow Christian and loved her and trusted her. She was not on trial before a court and I was not on her jury. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <1181957075.037051.261000@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 7:06 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1iv573117ivs5agfgk2di9kjs5qim6j...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:12:37 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > > > >In article <pue373hcaj30bj1jcgp9lfvpf27cukl...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > ><ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > > > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:44:42 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > > > > >> >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? > > > > > Yes. Now respond to my answers. > > > > Do you want me to write "excellent answer" next to each answer. I'll do > > that if you want me to do it. My first grade teacher made use of check > > marks and x marks. > > The difference between you and your first grade teacher is that she > was probably literate. > > Martin Martin, You are a college professor despite the fact that you are not acting like one. Do you make a comment next to every answer on every test or exam that you have graded? Did you state in a recent post that you done that? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <i5sbk4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:57:36 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > Is a testimony evidence? > > No, it's testimony. Nor does your exemplar even qualify; even the people > involved don't claim to have seen God, or seen how the healings were > performed; they only assert "God dunnit" with no foundation whatsoever. > > Anyone can make claims. Finding someone else making the same claim > doesn't back it up; it just means there are two people failing to provide > evidence of their claims. > > By your logic, if Free Lunch claimed he was the president of the United > States and I said the same thing, this is "evidence" that he is, in fact, > the president. Obviously this is not true, so there's something wrong > with your logic. Try again. I now understand why atheists do not believe Cheryl Prewitt's testimony. Do you understand why most of the Christians that listen to her testimony believe her testimony? (Hint: it's related to a person's belief system) Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <rvrbk4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:55:12 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > In article <000n631hvib3v2j76s842tj4oidvr28o8f@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:12:28 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-0906072012290001@66-52-22-86.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <1181434413.076366.288560@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Jun 10, 3:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > In article <1181371287.388122.242...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > Martin > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > > On Jun 9, 7:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > > > In article <Kdjai.670$s9....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> >> > > >> >> > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> > > > >news:Jason-0706072112310001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> > > > > > In article <sueh63h0slh8d0oudf83vl7vb8d6tq1...@4ax.com>, > > Free Lunch > >> >> > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:12:54 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> > > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> > > > > >> <Jason-0706072012540...@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> > > > > >> >In article > >> >> > > > > >> > >> >><DipthotDipthot-63ED4F.18324107062...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > >> >> > > > > >> >655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> >> In article > >> >> > > > > >> >> <Jason-0706071647400...@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > >> >> > > > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > I requested that you google "miracle healings" and if > >> >you had done > >> >> > > > > >> >> > that, > >> >> > > > > >> >> > you would know that God is healing people today in much the > >> >> > same way > >> >> > > > > >> >> > that > >> >> > > > > >> >> > God healed people while Jesus was on this earth. > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> >> You are a sucker for a smooth-talkin' salesman, aren't > >> >you? If you > >> >> > > > > >> >> had > >> >> > > > > >> >> been raised in a Hindu community, what do you think you'd > >> >believe > >> >> > > > > >> >> about > >> >> > > > > >> >> who/what was responsible for "miracle healings"? > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> >God can heal anyone regardless of their religions. > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> There is no evidence that God healed anyone, no matter > > what their > >> >> > > > > >> religion. > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > > I disagree. I know people that have been healed. I know > >> >someone that had > >> >> > > > > > one leg that was about 3 inches shorter than other other > > leg. God > >> >> > healed > >> >> > > > > > her and now both of her legs are the same size. That is evidence > >> >> > to me but > >> >> > > > > > I know that you would not consider it as evidence--even if you > >> >seen her > >> >> > > > > > X-rays and medical records. > >> >> > > > > > Jason > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > How is it evidence that god did it? > >> >> > > >> >> > > > I know a lady that had one leg that was longer than the other leg. > >> >She was > >> >> > > > a teenage girl and her parents were too poor to buy her special > >> >shoes. The > >> >> > > > children in her school teased her on a daily basis. She begged God > >> >to heal > >> >> > > > her. > >> >> > > >> >> > > God doesn't exist. > >> >> > >> >> > What caused that leg to get longer if God did not heal her?- Hide > >> >quoted text - > >> >> > >> >> Your question is out of date. A simple web search has proven that > >> >> this never happened. You've swallowed other people's lies, Jason. As > >> >> a liar yourself, you'd think you'd be able to tell when others are > >> >> lying. > >> >> > >> >> Martin > >> > > >> >Post the evidence. I heard her testimony at my church. > >> > > >> You have offered no evidence. Learn what evidence is before you make > >> your claims. > > > > Since testimony is considered as evidence in court > > > <import> > The chronicles of legal history are filled with tragic cases of mistaken > identity. The tale of Berson and Morales echoes that of hundreds of > thousands of others. In the 1970s, Lawrence Berson was accused of several > rapes and George Morales was accused of robbery. Both men were picked out > of police lineups by victims of the respective crimes and both men were > innocent. Berson was cleared when another man, Richard Carbone, was > arrested and implicated in the rapes. Carbone was convicted on the rape > charges and later confessed to the robbery, clearing Morales. > </import> > > There's an example of testimony - someone saying "Is too!". They were > even in a position to look at the person they were fingering, yet > still got it wrong. Your case doesn't even have someone to look at; > just sheer assertion. > > <import> > However, witnesses generally overestimate time and have great difficulty > gauging the duration of an event. For example, Professor Buckhout, a > cognitive psychologist, staged an assault during one of his classes. The > assault actually lasted 34 seconds, but the average estimate of time by > 141 witnesses to the event was overestimated by a factor of almost two and > one half to one (2.5:1). > </import> > > There's another example. 141 people, yet the average response was more > than twice the actual fact of the matter - and, being average, it means > that at least some answers said the event took longer still. Testimony... > and completely worthless. > > <import> > Violence also affects a witness' acquisition of information. In 1978, an > experiment was conducted in which subjects viewed violent and non-violent > tapes of an event. The subjects who viewed the violent version of the > event had more difficulty perceiving and recalling the event than those > subjects who had seen the non-violent version. > </import> > > Again, testimony. Same event, yet an entire group had difficulty > remembering the details. > > <import> > As early as 1909, it was noted that expectation has a profound effect upon > perception: "observation is peculiarly influenced by expectation, ... we > tend to see and hear what we expect to see and hear." Modern science can > now account for the relationship between expectation and perception. As > noted earlier, the human mind can only process a fragment of the physical > stimuli digested by the senses. The mind compensates by integrating the > stimuli with concepts based upon a fund of general knowledge acquired over > time or, put more simply, with expectation. In this manner, individuals > subconsciously reconstruct events from what they assume must have occurred. > </import> > > "We see what we expect to see". In fact, humans are exceptionally good > pattern-matchers, but they are lousy discriminators. We can spot a > familiar person blocks off just by the way they walk, yet we also have a > tendency to see patterns where there really aren't any - faces on Mars or > on grilled cheese sandwiches, for example. > > <import> > In 1976, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus conducted an experiment to demonstrate how > post-event information in the form of questioning can affect memory. In > this experiment, subjects viewed a videotaped auto accident and were > questioned about what they observed. The question about how fast the cars > were going when they smashed into each other elicited significantly higher > estimates of speed than those questions posed with words such as > "collided," "bumped," "hit" and "contacted" instead of "smashed." > </import> > > So even the way a question is asked can significantly impact upon the > result obtained. > > <import> > A week later the subjects were again questioned. They were asked "did you > see any broken glass?" The videotaped accident in fact did not involve > broken glass, but those subjects who had been questioned earlier with the > verb "smashed" were more likely to assert that they had seen broken glass > in the video tape. A memory was formed when the subjects viewed the tape, > but it was later augmented and altered by the suggestive questions of the > interviewers. The implications of this study on police questioning > techniques and general investigative procedures is obvious. > </import> > > And it turns out that being asked the question a particular way can > actually alter recollection of facts. > > <import> > Though the American judicial system has been slow to accept the lessons of > modern psychology, there does appear to be a growing group of judges > willing to accept the logic of the premise of the unreliability of event > witnesses and permit expert testimony on that topic. > </import> > > So even the courts are rejecting event witness testimony - because it's > such a completely unreliable thing. > > > So let's see. Modern psychology has shown that testimony is a very > unreliable thing at the best of times, and that's even true when they're > doing something as straightforward as picking someone out of a lineup. et > you want us to accept, on its face value alone, the testimony of someone > who doesn't even claim to have seen the actors in the event, who simply > asserts, as "is too", that the actors were involved, as being somehow > demonstrative of the notion the actors actually exist. > > I'm sure all of this is going to go over your head, and I'm equally sure > that the bits that don't, you'll simply filter out. SO I'll make it > simple for you: we no more take her word when she says "God dunnit" than > we take yours or anyone else's; what is required is evidence. Pointing to > someone else saying the same thing doesn't validate your claim, it simply > means someone else makes the same claim - and so far, neither has produced > a shred of evidence that the claim is valid. > > > > Imports from: > http://www.law.wayne.edu/Faculty/Fac_web/moran/Excerpt%20from%20Scientific%20Evidence%20in%20Civil%20and%20Criminal%20Cases.htm Kelsey, That was interesting. In this case, Cheryl Prewitt saw her leg bone grow 2 inches. Due to your belief system, I now understand the reason that you do not believe that she was healed by God. Your belief system is probably the main reason you accept all aspects of abiogenesis despite the lack of evidence. In relation to your post, I saw some information in the newspaper related to various men that have been released from prison due to DNA evidence that proved that they were not guilty. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <tisbk4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:49:50 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > Would you at least acknowlege that testimony is evidence? > > And based on your logic, if Free Lunch says he's the president of the > United States and I also say he is, then I have provided evidence of his > claim - he is the president. > > Not gonna wash, Jason. Try again. Are you stating that testimony is not evidence? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <arubk4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:25:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > Sorry--Neither Cheryl or I have such a tape. If you choose to believe that > > Cheryl is lying--there is nothing I can do about it. I believe her. > > It's not necessary that she is lying. She could simply be mistaken, for > example. Or overly credulous. > > I'll give you an example of that - the psychic surgeons. Lots of people > swear these guys stuck a hand inside them and removed things. > Investigation shows otherwise, that it's a sham. Were those people lying > when they said the psychic surgeons actually inserted their hands? No, > they were simply fooled into thinking it was real. Their reports were > both completely honest (in some cases, at least) and wrong. > > So again, fine, she was healed. Fine, you've got X-rays of before and > after. Fine, if we accept this is all on the up and up, then something > interesting is going on and should be investigated further. All very > well, but that is all that this evidence would tell us; it does nothing > to establishing that gods exist or were involved, regardless of what she > or you believe. > > Try again. Good points. I now understand your point of view. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <1rsbk4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:32:06 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > I posted a report related to her testimony--that is all of the evidence > > that I have. > > So you have no evidence - yet you believe anyways. > > Meanwhile, you also have "testimony" of many of us - plus many researchers > - that evolution is real, but you reject that, demanding absolute proof of > every step. Why isn't the testimony good enough? You buy into her > story based on nothing but her say-so... why do you suddenly demand a > different and more rigorous standard when it comes to evolution? > > Oh, right, because even you aren't deluded enough to think that just > because someone says so is enough to establish something as real... yet > you expect us to do just that with your "healing" example. > > Why, Jason, do you think we are all so stupid we would accept a standard > of justification which you, yourself, refuse to use? It's related to my belief system. It's usually easy to get small children to change their minds. That is the reason that dictators control the school system. It's very difficult to get adults (esp. older adults) to change their minds related to their belief systems. I'm sure there are exceptions but this is usually true. I'm explained in other posts how I believe that life came to be on this planet. I accept the aspects of Natural Selection. It makes perfect sense to me. However, since atheists do NOT believe in God, they have to accept all aspects of abiogenesis despite the lack of evidence. Some atheists in this newsgroup became very upset when I pointed out the lack of evidence in relation to abiogenesis. It's probably because they accept abiogenesis (despite the lack of evidence) because it explains how life came to be on this planet. They like abiogenesis since God is not a part of 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.