Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <hdtbk4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:39:23 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > I am no longer shocked when atheists do not believe the testimonies of > > people that have been healed by God. > > Now if you'd learn why they don't, you'd be on to something. I'll give > you a hint... Pons and Fleischmann. Blondlot. > > I'm guessing you don't know any of those names. The first two were the > ones who reported a breakthrough in cold fusion. They said - offered > testimony - that they'd done it. Yet nobody managed to duplicate their > work, including them. It was, in short, complete and utter hogwash. > > The other guy - Blondlot - claimed to have discovered a new ray, like > X-rays, but different. Nobody could duplicate his work, either. Finally, > they sat him down and put him to the test: we'll set up things which are > (according to him) N-ray emitters, and things which aren't, but do it so > you can't see the materials. You tell us which boxes contain N-ray > emitting materials, which don't. He couldn't. Debunked. > > Both of these cases involved someone offering testimony of something, > asserting that yes, they had experienced an event, discovered a > phenomenon, what have you. The truth is, when push came to shove, it was > all shown to be crap. > > The list goes on. Uri Geller would, I'm sure, happily give testimony that > he bends spoons with his mind - yet he's been soundly debunked. And on > and on and on and on and on. > > We don't accept testimony because testimony is a lousy standard of > evidence, one which should be relied on only in the most carefully limited > senses and with strict analysis of the results. As noted elsewhere, even > you don't accept claims based on testimony, yet for some reason you > expect us to buy outlandish claims based on nothing more than someone's > say-so, when we know such say-so is a wholly unreliable foundation for > making any conclusions. > > Please stop treating us like we're idiot children, Jason, we're not. > We're smart enough to see the problems in your offerings, and we're even > smart enough to see that you yourself do not accept the standard you're > asking us to. > > So kindly stop it. Thanks for your post--I recalled reading about the cold fusion experiments. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <b1ubk4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:45:47 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > The title of the article was > > WAS DARWIN WRONG? > > the answer was: > > No--the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. > > > > I read the article and my conclusion was: > > the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming but the > > evidence for abiogenesis and common descent is underwhelming. > > > Please show where, in Darwin's works, he details his theory of abiogensis. > He must have, otherwise to mention it in the context of an article titled > "Was Darwin Wrong" would be bringing up a subject completely irrelevant to > the article - in short, it would be dishonesty. > > So, please, show us Darwin's theory of abiogensis. You must have one, > unless you're just a scummy little lying bag of putrescence, or you > wouldn't have mentioned abiogenesis in this context. Good points--actually, in the last chapter--in at least in one of the editions of his book--he indicated that "the creator breathed into a few forms or into one." In other words, he seemed to believe that the Creator created life on this planet. source: the last paragraph of Darwin's book. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <iep673h7lp4rvca4bmsgb6hgn848cmhned@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > 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.) That is true--but the New Covenant is vastly different than any of the other covenants. God sent his son to establish it. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <hpk6731d9jbq59bsjeffaplv04tqotjdb3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. Yes, prior generations believed they were living in the last days. They were wrong. We could be right. I believe the rapture will happen in this generation. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <1181967452.648060.146980@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, hhyapster@gmail.com wrote: > 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 Believe it or not, there are Christians that have Ph.D degrees that know as much about those subjects as you do. Some of them are science professors at Christian colleges and state colleges. I once talked to a biology professor that was an advocate of creation science. He knew as much about evolution as any of the other biology professors that worked at that college. He understood the difference between evidence and speculation. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <j3q673prfj1o29r93rcvskvij24k79dkrj@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > 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? Only her testimony--I posted a summary version of her testimony about 5 days ago. She stated in that summary version that she watched her leg bone grow two inches. Can I produce evidence (other than her testimony)--the answer is No. Jason Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:48:38 +0930, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:53:36 -0700, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> >wrote: > - Refer: <atg5739lur6fsekm6c580tubbl9odh846l@4ax.com> >>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. > >Don't you know that Jason studied Omniscience 101 at Liberty >"University"? Jason is the complete opposite of omniscient. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <mc1ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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? I served on jury duty and have testified in court. Testimony is evidence. It's up to the jury members and/or a judge to determine which testimony to accept and which testimony to reject. In the case of the testimony of people that called me childest names--I reject that testimony. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <981ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. I was told that a chemical process was what caused life to develop from non-life. If that is correct, it seems to me that scientists should be able to duplicate that process. If scientists are not able to do it, it means that abiogenesis will continue to be based more on speculation than on evidence. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On 16 Jun., 04:22, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:33:59 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > - Refer: <1181910839.488132.244...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> > > > > > > >On 15 Jun., 00:37, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:34:56 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >> - Refer: <1181831696.476643.218...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com> > > >> >On 14 Jun., 16:25, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in > > >> >> snip > > >> >> > No--not really. I now avoid going to the beach. It was easier in the old > >> >> > days when women wore 1 piece bathing suits. Have you been to a beach or > >> >> > swimming pool in recent years? > > >> >> Are you turned off by women's bodies? > >> >> -- > >> >> Robyn > >> >> Resident Witchypoo > >> >> BAAWA Knight! > >> >> #1557 > > >> >I wonder how the poor schmuck would act on our beaches. Nudity is not > >> >the rule, but it is very common. Of course it is very dangerous. One > >> >hears that men have gotten er you know one of those really nasty > >> >things. > > >> What? White Pointers? > > >Huh? > > Australian beaches. > White pointers = huge sharks (as seen in Jaws) > White pointers = first time male nudist bathers untanned penises. > > (It's got a bit sad when I have to explain my jokes!) > > --- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects By: Phillip E. Johnson Think (The Royal Institute of Philosophy) February 19, 2007 The individuals who make up the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) came together in the aftermath of the publication of my book Darwin on Trial (Regnery 1991, IVP 1993). The defining purpose of the IDM is to advance the argument that neo-Darwinism has failed to explain the origin of the highly complex information systems and structures of living organisms, from the first cells to new body plans. This makes it reasonable to infer that the evidence of biology, if not the philosophy that dominates this science, suggests the need to consider that some intelligent cause may have played an indispensable role in the origin and development of life. The claim that evolutionary science has discovered and verified a mechanism which can account for the origin of biological information and complexity by involving only natural (unintelligent) causes is supported by an immense extrapolation from limited evidence of minor, cyclical variations in fundamentally stable species. The current leading textbook example of the standard neo-Darwinian mechanism involves a species of finch on an island in the Galapagos chain. Two scientists named Grant published a famous study of variations of the beaks of these birds, later popularized in a book titled The Beak of the Finch, by journalist Jonathan Weiner. The Grants had been measuring finch beaks over many years. In 1977 a drought killed most of the finches, and the survivors had beaks slightly larger than before. The probable explanation was that larger-beaked birds had an advantage in being able to eat the last tough seeds that remained. A few years later the rains returned, and the average beak size went back to normal. No new organs appeared and there was no directional change of any kind, just a back-and-forth cycle from small beaks to slightly larger beaks and back to small. Nonetheless, that is the most impressive example of natural selection actually observed making changes that Darwinists have been able to substantiate after nearly a century and a half of searching for evidence that the mechanism of random variation with differential survival has the transformative power that it would need to have to accomplish everything that the textbooks ascribe to it. To make the story look better, the National Academy of Sciences improved on some the facts in its 1998 booklet on Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. This version of the story omits the beaks Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:32:37 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: - Refer: <1181982757.807399.255590@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> >On 16 Jun., 04:22, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:33:59 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> - Refer: <1181910839.488132.244...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On 15 Jun., 00:37, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:34:56 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> - Refer: <1181831696.476643.218...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com> >> >> >> >On 14 Jun., 16:25, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> snip >> >> >> >> > No--not really. I now avoid going to the beach. It was easier in the old >> >> >> > days when women wore 1 piece bathing suits. Have you been to a beach or >> >> >> > swimming pool in recent years? >> >> >> >> Are you turned off by women's bodies? >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Robyn >> >> >> Resident Witchypoo >> >> >> BAAWA Knight! >> >> >> #1557 >> >> >> >I wonder how the poor schmuck would act on our beaches. Nudity is not >> >> >the rule, but it is very common. Of course it is very dangerous. One >> >> >hears that men have gotten er you know one of those really nasty >> >> >things. >> >> >> What? White Pointers? >> >> >Huh? >> >> Australian beaches. >> White pointers = huge sharks (as seen in Jaws) >> White pointers = first time male nudist bathers untanned penises. >> >> (It's got a bit sad when I have to explain my jokes!) >> >> --- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f4u3vf$hf$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f4rc1o$46b$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <WgYbi.3170$s8.2400@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >>>>> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:Jason-1306071303300001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>> The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God are > evidence that >>>>>>> there is a God. Even when Jesus was on this earth, he did not heal >>>>>>> everyone that needed to be healed. >>>>>> Mighty convenient Jason, your god doesn't heal all just select ones. >>> I guess >>>>>> you need it that way to fit what we all know to be reality. >>>>> If God healed all people of all medical problems--people would never die. >>>> Then why heal ANY of them? Your "logic" just doesn't pass muster. >>> Because he enjoys answering the prayers of his servants--such as Christian >>> farmers praying for rain. >> And what about the xian farmers that pray for rain and don't get it? >> >> Are you saying god is capricious and arbitrary? > > There is a scripture that says something like this: > God's ways are not our ways. God's thoughts are not our thoughts. There's also one that says "Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin." You, Jason, are a disaster area. > The point is that God has a reason for every action he takes. We don't > know his reasons. The most that we can do is to make guesses based upon > various situations. Examples: rainstorm; the healing of Cheryl Prewitt and > William A. Kent. I.e. you don't have any possible way of telling what healing was done by some god and which wwasn't but you'll still claim that one was and another wasn't based on your whims. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <YfCci.259$P8.189@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1506071232280001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <f4u6pm$3i7$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <f4s386$se9$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>> Then by what logic are those who ARE healed "evidence for god?" >>>>> It's a case by case basis. In the case of Cheryl Prewitt and William >>>>> Kent, >>>>> it is my opinion that it is evidence of God. That does not mean that >>>>> all >>>>> healings are evidence for God. For example, if someone develops a >>>>> common >>>>> cold and the man prays--and the cold goes away in three weeks---that is >>>>> not evidence for God. >>>> I.e. "If I think it's evidence for god, then it's evidence for god. If I >>>> don't, then it's not." >>> Each person has to come to their own conclusions. >> Each person needs to examine the evidence before coming to their own >> conclusions. I realize this is counterintuitive for you but you really need >> to try it. > > The advocates of abiogenesis should do the same thing. Some of the > advocates of abiogenesis know the difference between speculation and > evidence. However, it became apparent to me from reading various posts > that some of the advocates of abiogenesis do NOT know the difference > between speculation and evidence. One person stated something like this: > > "We now have living cells so it is logical to conclude that they evolved > naturally". No, you misread it as being something like that. The statements actually made along those lines have been something like: "We had a time when there was no life. We now have life. Thus some type of abiogenesis (the formation of life from non-life) happened." It even happened in the bible when god produced man from "the dust of the ground." The issue at hand is "what caused this abiogenesis?" or "was this abiogenesis natural or was it supernatural/from god?" > That is NOT evidence--it's speculation. No, abiogenesis is a fact (unless life has been around forever.) > Extra-ordinary claims need extra-ordinary evidence--it's not present in > regard to abiogenesis. No, extraordinary evidence isn't present or even needed because it's not an extraordinary claim. > There are at least two other possibilities about how living cells came to be: > intelligent design It's still a form of abiogenesis. > and ancient astronauts. Where did they come from? Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:45:03 -0700, Jason wrote: > You know that it is uncommon for major mutations to take place. What defines a "major" mutation? Of the 100-odd mutations each of us is walking around with, which are "major" ones, which are "minor"? How is "major" defined? > In many > cases, the major mutations cause more harm than good. If your theory is > true, many major "positive" mutations would have had to occur. On the contrary; all that is required is many small mutations. Nice try, though. > I read an > article in National Geographic about research that had been done in > relation to fruit flies. The researchers spent lots of time and energy > trying to make mutations happen. They succeeded. Yup. Very much so. > The end result was a > new species of fruit flies. What do you know? Mutation leading to speciation. Exactly as evolution predicts. Well, we're not surprised. > The ICR newsletter had an article about a > creation science versus evolution debate. There is no debate, and won't be until the CS types get off their asses and actually produce a scientifically meaningful theory of creation - something they've never done. > The staff member from ICR was > shocked when the science professor stated in the debate that he had done > some research on fruit flies and was able to cause a mutation that > caused at least one fruit fly to have two sets of wings. Golly gee... genes controlling structural development. What a shock. > After the > debate was over, the staff member found out the science professor was > telling the truth about the fruit fly that had two sets of wings. Also ones growing legs out of their heads instead of antennae, and all sorts of other novel twists. > He > also found out that the fruit fly was not able to fly. Hardly surprising. > My point was that > even when those researchers used X-Ray machines to create mutations in > fruit flies--that in all cases--the fruit flies continued to be fruit > flies and never evolved into some other type of insect. Are you really so completely ignorant of the science involved you think that expecting something other than fruit flies is reasonable? Are you really that stupid? -- The comments by some people on this echo are such that God shows mercy by not striking them dead. - Phil Morrison Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:58:34 -0700, Jason wrote: > I did not conduct the poll. Several people in various posts implied that I > was ignorant for not believing that humans evolved from a living cell. Correct. > My point was that millions of people agree with me. So? Who said ignorance is limited to small numbers? -- “Your attempt at humour is pathetic! Get a life in Christ.” -- Frank Hudson “I always thought that ‘get a life’ was an incredibly stupid cliche’. I had no idea that you could make it even stupider.” --- J.J. Hitt Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fHyci.169$W9.109@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1406072012490001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> 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. > > The advocates of creation science are able to do the same thing. What? They are able to "[not] see the splinter for the log"? Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:53:29 -0700, Jason wrote: >> > 1. Where did the space for the universe come from? >> >> That question shows a profound lack of understanding of cosmological >> origins. > > not an answer--try again. Actually, it is an answer. You appear to think "space" is what the universe expands into. It's not. Space is what we see inside . Your notion posits some sort of "outside" yet as far as we can tell, the very notion of an "outside" is meaningless. >> > 2. Where did matter come from? >> >> It's a form of energy and is a result of the Big Bang. > good answer--but where did the energy re: Big Bang come from? There isn't any - or aren't you aware that the universe appears to have a net zero energy? >> > 3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, >> > etc.)? >> >> Like the first question, the question betrays be a misunderstanding of >> physics so deep that it would be impossible to clarify it. > not an answer Actually, it is. One might point out here that what we see as gravity and the other forces are simply how things turned out in our spacetime. If one buys the "oscillating universe" notion, then at each iteration there could well be completely different rules, as things condense in a random way. >> > 6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter? >> >> 3.5 to 4 billion years ago on earth, almost certainly on other planets >> as well. It happened because it was a natural result of the environment >> in which the chemical reactions were taking place. We don't know the >> details how, yet, but we know there are a number of valid possible >> paths. The matter wasn't dead. > > You answer is based on speculation Many answers in science are. The question is, does the speculation hold with what we know of how the universe operates? So far, the answer on this one appears to be yes. >> > 7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? >> >> Learn? What a strange characterization. Life never learned to reproduce >> itself, it happened as a result of biochemical reactions. > > Speculation--do you have evidence? Umm... yes. Unicellular organisms lack the neural structures to learn much of anything, let alone the complexities involved in determining the advantages to reproduction from a net-gain-for-the-species cost factoring basis. Oddly, they reproduce anyways. >> > 8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction >> > reproduce? >> >> You are also misinformed about sexual reproduction. For what it's >> worth, there are still a huge number of organisms that swap genetic >> material even though they don't really reproduce sexually and there are >> a fair number of complex organisms that can reproduce sexually or not. > > I did not write the questions Nor, apparently, did you understand them. -- The 11th Commandment: “Killing in God’s name is OK” Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:07:44 -0700, Jason wrote: > Martin, > Is this a natural law: > The total energy of an isolated system can not change. > > If it is a natural law, it seems to be in conflict with this statement > that you made: > "It is possible to get something from nothing". Both are correct. Since the universe is thought to be a zero-energy system, it is perfectly legitimate to have a surplus of "positive" energy - heat, matter and the like - as long as there is sufficient "negative" energy - eg gravity - to balance the equation. The net result remains zero, but you can still get energy and matter - something from nothing - as long as the equation is balanced. Where's the problem? -- If we believe absurdities, then we shall commit atrocities. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506071819540001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <QbFci.4085$c06.4024@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 > <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >> > The article that I read indicated that various Mullahs are encouraging >> > various followers to move to Spain. After Muslims become the majority >> > of >> > the population, they will vote in Muslim politicians that will >> > eventually >> > establish Spain as a Muslim country and establish the same sorts of >> > laws >> > that they now have in Iran. >> >> Are you actually concerned about this? In what source did this article >> appear? What political agenda does the author have? >> >> -- >> 655321 > > > I stated that it was from an article but later remembered the source: > A Christian television preacher named John Hagee. He wrote a book > entitled, "Jerusalem Countdown". It's his opinion that the president of > Iran plans to fire a nuclear missle at Israel. He pointed out that the > president of Iran made this statement, "Israel must be wiped off the map > of the world." He either made the statement about Spain in his sermon or > discussed that subject in his book. He probably has a website. I watch his > television show every Sunday. > jason If you watch John Hagee then you are in worse shape than I thought. I watch him occasionally but for me it is a comedy show. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Free Lunch 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. Jason: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp Very last line: "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." Free Lunch: You can lead a horse to water but sometimes you have to beat the horse upside the head and shove the hose down its throat before you can make it drink the water. And even then, it often just comes out the other end in the form of very liquid shit. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <j3q673prfj1o29r93rcvskvij24k79dkrj@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> 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? > >Only her testimony--I posted a summary version of her testimony about 5 >days ago. She stated in that summary version that she watched her leg bone >grow two inches. Can I produce evidence (other than her testimony)--the >answer is No. >Jason > Doesn't that seem quite odd. When my legs were a different length (for about 4 years) my parents, siblings, doctor, some lawyers, and a shoe store employee knew it and my shoes were physical evidence (different sized heels) and X-ray images were evidence. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > I was told that a chemical process was what caused life to > develop from non-life. If that is correct, it seems to me that > scientists should be able to duplicate that process. Study up on Miller-Urey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment > If scientists are not able to do it, it means that abiogenesis > will continue to be based more on speculation than on > evidence. Although that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is based on the fact that species have changed over time. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects > By: Phillip E. Johnson > Think (The Royal Institute of Philosophy) > February 19, 2007 > > > The individuals who make up the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) came > together in the aftermath of the publication of my book Darwin on Trial > (Regnery 1991, IVP 1993)...... That's a pretty egotistical statement. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f4u916$5me$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1181875577.541042.27200@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> You missed the point: a dead body IS physical evidence. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> A leg bone that grows two inches IS physical evidence. >> It's evidence that the leg was healed (assuming that such even happened) >> just like the dead body was evidence someone died. NOW work your way >> with OTHER evidence from "the leg was healed" to "goddidit." > > The dead body is evidence and the leg bone that grows two inches is > evidence. In both of those cases, the next step is to listen to the > testimony of witnesses. As stated, the dead body is simply evidence that someone is dead. All the testimony in the world isn't going to add to that. Now if you show that the person died of a gunshot (by showing the actual hole in the body) AND show that the person had bought a gun (by showing a receipt) AND show that the gun matched the hole (i.e. the hole wasn't a .22 sized and the gun a shotgun) AND that the person was in town that day (testimony might be helpful here but hard evidence, such as him being filmed by CNN in Japan on the night of the murder in NY would overwhelm any testimony that someone simply "saw him on Broadway that night), etc, etc. Simple testimony without any hard evidence rarely gets far at all (it might work for a speeding ticket but that's about it.) > In the case of the dead woman, the main witnesses would be the neighbors > that heard the murderer state, "I am going to kill that woman." And without a body, etc. that won't even make it into court. > In the case of Cheryl Prewitt, the main witness would be Cheryl Prewitt. I > believed the testimony of Cheryl Prewitt. However, as many have pointed > out, they did not believe the testimony of Cheryl Prewitt or William Kent. > Abraham said that atheists would not even listen to a man that returned > from the dead to warn his brothers about the place of torment. Who cares what Abraham claimed? 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.