Guest Mike Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5dg7koF34ssfaU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> snip >>> In the case of Cheryl Prewitt, the main witness would be Cheryl Prewitt. I >>> believed the testimony of Cheryl Prewitt. >> Why? > > After hearing her entire testimony, I found no reason to not believe her. Hear my testimony and then come up with some valid reason not to believe it that won't also work for not believing hers. > She mentioned how the children in her school teased her because of her > limp. I had a limp as a child from a car wreck. I was severely injured. The doctors removed THREE inches from my leg. I was teased horribly as a child. My cat healed me. I asked my cat for healing and I watched my leg mysteriously grow 3 inches!!!!! One poster told me that she probably faked the limp so that she > could later claim that she was healed. That post made be laugh. People claimed I faked the limp. That was laughable. My cat healed it. Over the > years, I have heard lots of testimonies from people that were healed by > God. I recently heard a story about a man that was healed of brain cancer. > I did not need to see the brain scans to believe the story. You don't need any scans of my leg, either. I SAW it happen. My cat did it!!!!!!!!!!! Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:45:13 -0700, Jason wrote: > You stated the answer is...nobody knows. > That is not true. I know. God created the solar system and life. You know this, do you? The only way to know this is to know God exists, which would require tangible evidence that he does. I'm sure you will now provide such evidence. Oh, wait, you can't. All you've been able to do thus far is some rather lame hand-waving about healings and the like, as if you think that actually demonstrates anything. Try again. -- Keep it stupid, simple. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > 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? That's part of the problem with anti-evolutionists; when they use the word "mutation" they always think of an extra leg, two heads, or a catfish and a turtle mating to create a swamp monster. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f4u8s4$5me$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f4rd13$5bc$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <f4otjc$j2u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> I was referring to these two steps: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >>>>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual >>> reproduction) >>>>>> And leaving out the millions of steps that came before and between. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Testimony is considered as evidence in court. Someone pointed out that >>>>>>> physical evidence (eg gun, bloody knife) is more important than > testimony. >>>>>>> I agreed with that person that made that statement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's say that the neighbors in an apartment building hear a married >>>>>>> couple having an argument. They hear the husband say, "I'm going to kill >>>>>>> you". The argument ends and the police are not called. The > following day, >>>>>>> the wife was shot as she was walking home from work. The husband took a >>>>>>> shower after he shot his wife and washed his hands with bleach to remove >>>>>>> any evidence. There were no witnesses present when the husband shot his >>>>>>> wife. The police are not able to find a gun when they search the > apartment >>>>>>> and all surrounding areas. They arrest the husband and charge him > with the >>>>>>> murder. All of the neighbors provide testimony at the murder trial. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The jury members convict the husband of first degree murder--based upon >>>>>>> the testimonies of the people that heard the argument and heard him say, >>>>>>> "I'm going to kill you." >>>>>> No, they wouldn't. You'd never even find a DA that would even think >>>>>> about arresting the guy to begin with, much less prosecuting him, based >>>>>> on simply an "I'm going to kill you." Was there even a body? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you now understand that TESTIMONY is evidence--even if there is no >>>>>>> physical evidence? >>>>>> Testimony is simply evidence that the person says he >>>>>> saw/heard/tasted/smelled/felt something but NOT evidence that the >>>>>> something actually exists.. But if the neighbor claimed "Yeah, I saw him >>>>>> shoot her and bury her body right here" and yet there was no body found >>>>>> (or better yet, the wife is actually standing there, alive and well) the >>>>>> testimony would likely be ignored. >>>>> Let's try again: >>>>> A woman's husband is observed by 8 witnesses going inside their apartment >>>>> with a gun in his hand and shouting, "I am going to kill that woman." The >>>>> witnesses hear a gunshot and see the man running from the building. The >>>>> husband had watched over a hundred episodes of CSI and followed his plan: >>>>> He was able to get rid of all physical evidence--including the gun. The >>>>> only evidence at the murder trial is the testimony of the witnesses. The >>>>> body of the woman is found. >>>>> >>>>> If you was on the jury, would you find him guilty? I would >>>> Let's try again: >>>> >>>> Several people say they overheard a man say "I'm going to kill my wife." >>>> No shot is heard, no gun is found, no bullet, no blood, no body, no wife >>>> has ever been seen (dead OR alive,) there's no woman's clothes in the >>>> apartment, there's a single twin bed, the guy is a flaming gay man. >>>> >>>> Would you convict him of murder. Yes, YOU would but any sane person >>>> wouldn't. >>> You failed to answer this question in relation to my scenario: >>> If you was on the jury of the man that 8 witnesses claimed to have heard >>> the husband state: "I am going to kill that woman", would you find him >>> guilty him guilty? >>> >>> In relation to your scenario, I would find him not guilty since a dead >>> body was not found. >> And there has been "no body found" in the case of god. > > You failed to tell me if you would find the man guilty or not guilty. The only difference between your example and mine was "there was a shot heard." That STILL wouldn't be enough to even GET to court so there'd be no trial to begin with for me to decide "not guilty" in. So your question was about as meaningful as "if you could fly off into the sky and into the center of the sun, would you eat some ice cream there?" Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 14 Jun., 18:11, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >> <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1181831696.476643.218550@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 14 Jun., 16:25, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in >>>> snip >>>>> No--not really. I now avoid going to the beach. It was easier in the >>>>> old >>>>> days when women wore 1 piece bathing suits. Have you been to a beach or >>>>> swimming pool in recent years? >>>> Are you turned off by women's bodies? >>>> -- >>>> Robyn >>>> Resident Witchypoo >>>> BAAWA Knight! >>>> #1557 >>> I wonder how the poor schmuck would act on our beaches. Nudity is not >>> the rule, but it is very common. Of course it is very dangerous. One >>> hears that men have gotten er you know one of those really nasty >>> things. That really upsets me. In fact my entire body shivers and I >>> breathe fast and I....Oh never mind. >> LOL! You okay, hon? >> -- >> Robyn >> Resident Witchypoo >> BAAWA Knight! >> #1557- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > [snips] > > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:45:13 -0700, Jason wrote: > > >> You stated the answer is...nobody knows. That is not true. I >> know. God created the solar system and life. > > > You know this, do you? The only way to know this is to > know God exists, which would require tangible evidence that > he does. I'm sure you will now provide such evidence. > > Oh, wait, you can't. All you've been able to do thus far is > some rather lame hand-waving about healings and the like, as > if you think that actually demonstrates anything. Isn't it amazing how anti-evolutionists subject evolution to extreme questioning, as anyone should, but when it comes to their gods they have a different standard; they just "know". If they'd hold their god beliefs to the same standards they hold evolution to, their gods would disappear in a puff of smoke. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:06:24 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <1iv573117ivs5agfgk2di9kjs5qim6jsqn@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:12:37 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <pue373hcaj30bj1jcgp9lfvpf27cuklsab@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > >> >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:44:42 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >In article <k9h273p8806sfnq9i3hevsje8qufrapnca@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:24:58 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <eig17358isldvc4vhf9pg2rromvhsrn7q2@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> >> >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:22:05 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <46n0735npa5v05vudinp6rpte4i50rr7p3@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> >> >> >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:03:30 -0700, >Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <f4pa1r$vpv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> >> >> >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <opc3k4-7or.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey >> >Bjarnason >> >> >> >> >> >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:42:26 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which >> >> >> >indicated that >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it >> >> >happened? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Honestly, by stating the cause - if any, you haven't >validated >> >> >> >> >even this >> >> >> >> >> >> >> much yet - simply isn't known yet. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "I don't know" is not the same as "Yes, there really >is a super >> >> >> >> >being who, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of all the thousands of such beings described, just >happens to >> >> >> >> >match this >> >> >> >> >> >> >> particular one and he really does heal people, but does it >> >> >magically >> >> >> >> >> >> >> without leaving any evidence he did it - or even that he >> >exists." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You see how those differ? Maybe, some day, you'll let it >> >sink in. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Have you considered that God is giving you evidence that he >> >> >exists by >> >> >> >> >> >> > healing people? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Are all the people that aren't healed evidence that there is >> >no god? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> BTW, if I went to a doctor that had as bad of a healing rate >> >as your >> >> >> >> >> >> god, I'd sue him for malpractice. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> She was healed by god because you say so. That >doesn't fly. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Cheryl Prewitt told me that she was healed by God. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So what? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And I reposted my responses to your 20 questions. Are you >> >> >> >> going to address them? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Thank you for answering the questions. >> >> >> > >> >> >> When will you address them? Here: let me repost them AGAIN. In >> >> >> fact, every response to you from now on will include those answers. >> >> >> Every. Single. Response. From. Me. >> >> >> >> >> >> > 20 Questions for Evolutionists >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 1. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html >> >> >> >> >> >> > What's the mechanism >> >> >> >for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? >> >> >> >> >> >> Mutation. Natural selection >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >How, for example, >> >> >> >could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? >> >> >> >> >> >> It transforms, dumbshit. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should >be there >> >> >> >if your theory is right? >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC220_1.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in >DNA, could >> >> >> >ever assemble itself? >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 5. How could organs as complicated as the eye >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html >> >> >> >> >> >> > or the ear >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural >> >> >processes? >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB303.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > How could a bacterial motor evolve? >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin >backwards? >> >> >> >> >> >> Oh for fucks sake, Hovind: this has nothing to do with >> >> >> evolution. 7 and 8 have nothing to do with evolution, either. That is >> >> >> in the field of COSMOLOGY and ASTROPHYSICS, moron. Stop believing Kent >> >> >> Hovind. He's a liar and a con-artist. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 9. How did sexual reproduction evolve? >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/dec98.html >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information >> >> >> >> >> >> It's not information. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood >legends? >> >> >> >> >> >> Because the started near rivers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 12. Where did matter come from? >> >> >> >> >> >> Where did god come from? >> >> >> >> >> >> > What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 13. How did the first living cell begin? >> >> >> >> >> >> No one really knows, but it's not a miracle. >> >> >> >> >> >> How did god begin? Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. >> >> >> Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. I'll keep repeating that >> >> >> until you understand that you can't special plead. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen >or did >> >> >> >it not have oxygen? >> >> >> >> >> >> Didn't. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks? >> >> >> >> >> >> We do find them there in their remnants. Search for "iridium >> >> >> layer" in google. You'll find something interesting. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why >doesn't it take >> >> >> >vastly more intelligence to create a human? >> >> >> >> >> >> Why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence than that to >> >> >> create god? >> >> >> >> >> >> > Do you really believe that >> >> >> >hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? >> >> >> >> >> >> Only if you want to strawman evolution, which clearly you do. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can >> >> >> >only be produced by DNA? >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got >> >> >> >there >> >> >> >> >> >> http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't >> >> >> >students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary >> >> >> >theories for the moon's origin? >> >> >> >> >> >> There AREN'T any evolutionary theories for it because IT'S NOT >> >> >> PART OF EVOLUTION, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. IT'S PART OF >> >> >> ASTROPHYSICS/COSMOLOGY, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, >scientific >> >> >> >debate? >> >> >> >> >> >> Because they don't want to dirty themselves with the laughable >> >> >> bullshit of creationists. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following >> >> >> >twenty-one features of the earth: >> >> >> >> >> >> No. I've humored you enough >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your >> >> >> >explanation >> >> >> >> >> >> No, you won't. You will just point us to a place that closes >> >> >> its eyes and screams "gawddidit" over and over. >> >> >> >> >thanks for your answers--you get a grade of A. >> >> >> >> That's nice. Now respond to my answers. >> >> >> >> >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 respond to the questions like you said you would when you said you'd "point out some obvious problems with [your] explanation", yes. Failure to do so will result in your admission of being a coward. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <f50kke$l8t$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f4u3vf$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. There is a story in the Bible about a blind man that was healed by Jesus. The critics of Jesus asked him some questions since they probably believed there was no evidence that Jesus was responsible for the healing. The blind man stated: "Before I was blind and now I can see." Cheryl Prewitt could make a similar statement, "Before I limped and now I can walk normally." William Kent could state, "Before I had to use a wheel chair and now I can walk normally." Many Christians that have heard or read the testimonies of Cheryl Prewitt and William Kent believe they were healed by God. Of course, Cheryl Prewitt and William Kent believe they were healed by Go. Whether or not atheists believe that God healed Cheryl Prewitt and William Kent is probably not important to Cheryl Prewitt or William Kent. jason Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506072255010001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. You have been shown that even Christian apologists don't use that. Why do you still do so? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <f50pbf$q7j$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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? I now understand the primary reason that atheists refuse to believe that God healed Cheryl Prewitt. It related to their belief system and the fact that they don't believe in God. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <f50rdc$sbq$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f4u8s4$5me$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f4rd13$5bc$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <f4otjc$j2u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>> I was referring to these two steps: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > >>>>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > >>> reproduction) > >>>>>> And leaving out the millions of steps that came before and between. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Testimony is considered as evidence in court. Someone pointed out that > >>>>>>> physical evidence (eg gun, bloody knife) is more important than > > testimony. > >>>>>>> I agreed with that person that made that statement. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Let's say that the neighbors in an apartment building hear a married > >>>>>>> couple having an argument. They hear the husband say, "I'm going to kill > >>>>>>> you". The argument ends and the police are not called. The > > following day, > >>>>>>> the wife was shot as she was walking home from work. The husband took a > >>>>>>> shower after he shot his wife and washed his hands with bleach to remove > >>>>>>> any evidence. There were no witnesses present when the husband shot his > >>>>>>> wife. The police are not able to find a gun when they search the > > apartment > >>>>>>> and all surrounding areas. They arrest the husband and charge him > > with the > >>>>>>> murder. All of the neighbors provide testimony at the murder trial. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The jury members convict the husband of first degree murder--based upon > >>>>>>> the testimonies of the people that heard the argument and heard him say, > >>>>>>> "I'm going to kill you." > >>>>>> No, they wouldn't. You'd never even find a DA that would even think > >>>>>> about arresting the guy to begin with, much less prosecuting him, based > >>>>>> on simply an "I'm going to kill you." Was there even a body? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Do you now understand that TESTIMONY is evidence--even if there is no > >>>>>>> physical evidence? > >>>>>> Testimony is simply evidence that the person says he > >>>>>> saw/heard/tasted/smelled/felt something but NOT evidence that the > >>>>>> something actually exists.. But if the neighbor claimed "Yeah, I saw him > >>>>>> shoot her and bury her body right here" and yet there was no body found > >>>>>> (or better yet, the wife is actually standing there, alive and well) the > >>>>>> testimony would likely be ignored. > >>>>> Let's try again: > >>>>> A woman's husband is observed by 8 witnesses going inside their apartment > >>>>> with a gun in his hand and shouting, "I am going to kill that woman." The > >>>>> witnesses hear a gunshot and see the man running from the building. The > >>>>> husband had watched over a hundred episodes of CSI and followed his plan: > >>>>> He was able to get rid of all physical evidence--including the gun. The > >>>>> only evidence at the murder trial is the testimony of the witnesses. The > >>>>> body of the woman is found. > >>>>> > >>>>> If you was on the jury, would you find him guilty? I would > >>>> Let's try again: > >>>> > >>>> Several people say they overheard a man say "I'm going to kill my wife." > >>>> No shot is heard, no gun is found, no bullet, no blood, no body, no wife > >>>> has ever been seen (dead OR alive,) there's no woman's clothes in the > >>>> apartment, there's a single twin bed, the guy is a flaming gay man. > >>>> > >>>> Would you convict him of murder. Yes, YOU would but any sane person > >>>> wouldn't. > >>> You failed to answer this question in relation to my scenario: > >>> If you was on the jury of the man that 8 witnesses claimed to have heard > >>> the husband state: "I am going to kill that woman", would you find him > >>> guilty him guilty? > >>> > >>> In relation to your scenario, I would find him not guilty since a dead > >>> body was not found. > >> And there has been "no body found" in the case of god. > > > > You failed to tell me if you would find the man guilty or not guilty. > > The only difference between your example and mine was "there was a shot > heard." That STILL wouldn't be enough to even GET to court so there'd be > no trial to begin with for me to decide "not guilty" in. So your > question was about as meaningful as "if you could fly off into the sky > and into the center of the sun, would you eat some ice cream there?" Thanks for your post. I now understand why O.J. was found not guilty despite the fact that most people in America (according to polls) believe that he was guilty. His defense was that "Some other guy did it". If I had been on that jury, I would have found him guilty. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <f50ost$p7b$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 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. I visited that site and saw no evidence indicating that people have to sign that list of their beliefs. Perhaps the employees of ICR MAY have to sign such a pledge but I saw no evidence at that site indicating that people that have Ph.D degrees that are advocates of creation science have to sign a pledge. > > 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 Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <6lp7735c79btdr40iht4ppq9h4hsbppj57@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > 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. I stated that I could not produce evidence (such as X-rays) but it's possible that Cheryl Prewitt could produce evidence (such as X-rays and medical records). I have not seen that evidence. I believe you and I believe Cheryl so have no need to see physical evidence. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <r85dk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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? Thanks for your post. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <ja6dk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:45:13 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > You stated the answer is...nobody knows. > > That is not true. I know. God created the solar system and life. > > You know this, do you? The only way to know this is to know God > exists, which would require tangible evidence that he does. I'm sure you > will now provide such evidence. > > Oh, wait, you can't. All you've been able to do thus far is some rather > lame hand-waving about healings and the like, as if you think that > actually demonstrates anything. > > Try again. Would this work better: I believe that God created the solar system and life. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:00:26 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <ja6dk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:45:13 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > You stated the answer is...nobody knows. >> > That is not true. I know. God created the solar system and life. >> >> You know this, do you? The only way to know this is to know God >> exists, which would require tangible evidence that he does. I'm sure you >> will now provide such evidence. >> >> Oh, wait, you can't. All you've been able to do thus far is some rather >> lame hand-waving about healings and the like, as if you think that >> actually demonstrates anything. >> >> Try again. > > Would this work better: > I believe that God created the solar system and life. You're welcome to believe that it was created by goo you scraped out of your left armpit if it makes you happy. Has bugger all to do with anything real unless and until you demonstrate it, so you go ahead and believe, we'll go ahead and poke fun. -- I Am A Charter Member Of Mikey Hardly’s Truth Filter! Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f50rdc$sbq$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f4u8s4$5me$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <f4rd13$5bc$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article <f4otjc$j2u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>> I was referring to these two steps: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >>>>>>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual >>>>> reproduction) >>>>>>>> And leaving out the millions of steps that came before and between. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Testimony is considered as evidence in court. Someone pointed out that >>>>>>>>> physical evidence (eg gun, bloody knife) is more important than >>> testimony. >>>>>>>>> I agreed with that person that made that statement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let's say that the neighbors in an apartment building hear a married >>>>>>>>> couple having an argument. They hear the husband say, "I'm going > to kill >>>>>>>>> you". The argument ends and the police are not called. The >>> following day, >>>>>>>>> the wife was shot as she was walking home from work. The husband > took a >>>>>>>>> shower after he shot his wife and washed his hands with bleach > to remove >>>>>>>>> any evidence. There were no witnesses present when the husband > shot his >>>>>>>>> wife. The police are not able to find a gun when they search the >>> apartment >>>>>>>>> and all surrounding areas. They arrest the husband and charge him >>> with the >>>>>>>>> murder. All of the neighbors provide testimony at the murder trial. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The jury members convict the husband of first degree > murder--based upon >>>>>>>>> the testimonies of the people that heard the argument and heard > him say, >>>>>>>>> "I'm going to kill you." >>>>>>>> No, they wouldn't. You'd never even find a DA that would even think >>>>>>>> about arresting the guy to begin with, much less prosecuting him, > based >>>>>>>> on simply an "I'm going to kill you." Was there even a body? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you now understand that TESTIMONY is evidence--even if there is no >>>>>>>>> physical evidence? >>>>>>>> Testimony is simply evidence that the person says he >>>>>>>> saw/heard/tasted/smelled/felt something but NOT evidence that the >>>>>>>> something actually exists.. But if the neighbor claimed "Yeah, I > saw him >>>>>>>> shoot her and bury her body right here" and yet there was no body > found >>>>>>>> (or better yet, the wife is actually standing there, alive and > well) the >>>>>>>> testimony would likely be ignored. >>>>>>> Let's try again: >>>>>>> A woman's husband is observed by 8 witnesses going inside their > apartment >>>>>>> with a gun in his hand and shouting, "I am going to kill that > woman." The >>>>>>> witnesses hear a gunshot and see the man running from the building. The >>>>>>> husband had watched over a hundred episodes of CSI and followed > his plan: >>>>>>> He was able to get rid of all physical evidence--including the gun. The >>>>>>> only evidence at the murder trial is the testimony of the witnesses. The >>>>>>> body of the woman is found. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you was on the jury, would you find him guilty? I would >>>>>> Let's try again: >>>>>> >>>>>> Several people say they overheard a man say "I'm going to kill my wife." >>>>>> No shot is heard, no gun is found, no bullet, no blood, no body, no wife >>>>>> has ever been seen (dead OR alive,) there's no woman's clothes in the >>>>>> apartment, there's a single twin bed, the guy is a flaming gay man. >>>>>> >>>>>> Would you convict him of murder. Yes, YOU would but any sane person >>>>>> wouldn't. >>>>> You failed to answer this question in relation to my scenario: >>>>> If you was on the jury of the man that 8 witnesses claimed to have heard >>>>> the husband state: "I am going to kill that woman", would you find him >>>>> guilty him guilty? >>>>> >>>>> In relation to your scenario, I would find him not guilty since a dead >>>>> body was not found. >>>> And there has been "no body found" in the case of god. >>> You failed to tell me if you would find the man guilty or not guilty. >> The only difference between your example and mine was "there was a shot >> heard." That STILL wouldn't be enough to even GET to court so there'd be >> no trial to begin with for me to decide "not guilty" in. So your >> question was about as meaningful as "if you could fly off into the sky >> and into the center of the sun, would you eat some ice cream there?" > > Thanks for your post. I now understand why O.J. was found not guilty > despite the fact that most people in America (according to polls) believe > that he was guilty. His defense was that "Some other guy did it". > > If I had been on that jury, I would have found him guilty. What do you find so hard to understand about the difference between "evidence" and "no evidence"? In OJ's case, there was TONS of physical evidence produced (the jury just didn't accept it as proving what the DA claimed it did.) In your hypothetical above, there was NO (none, nadda, zilch, zero, null, squat) physical evidence. In the case of your god, there is................... (fill in the blank.) Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: <...> >Whether or not >atheists believe that God healed Cheryl Prewitt and William Kent is >probably not important to Cheryl Prewitt or William Kent. On the day that Christians like Prewitt and Kent do not care about the beliefs of those whose beliefs differ from theirs, pigs will fly and bones will grow. Kent speaks: http://www.christian-faith.com/testimonies/miraclehealingtestimony.html "In the meantime be blessed and relax in the Spirit of the Lord and I am looking forward to God blessing the masses through the blessing that He has bestowed upon me as I follow His directive to go forth and spread the Word and demonstrate the awesome power of the Lord as He has provided in me." Prewitt wrote a book on her alleged miracle. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <6q4dk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [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. Thanks for your answers. I do believe that some of the questions were poorly written. I have a follow-up questlon: Where did the energy that expanded during the Big Bang come from? Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >I stated that I could not produce evidence (such as X-rays) but it's >possible that Cheryl Prewitt could produce evidence (such as X-rays and >medical records). I have not seen that evidence. I believe you and I >believe Cheryl so have no need to see physical evidence. I would believe she recovered, on the testimony of a licensed physician specializing in her case, but I do not believe in miracles. If you read David Hume's "On Miracles" you will see why. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html "...The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. ..." Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. Now that you've shown ON YOUR OWN where he was wrong, are you going to quit quoting him? "Oh, but I didn't show him to be wrong!" you say? Sure you did. You stated that he claimed that "abiogenesis was not how life came to be." But you also wrote the following about 10 hours EARLIER yesterday: John Baker: Actually, Jason, abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact. Whether it came about through divine intervention or by purely natural means, at some point in the planet's history, life did arise from non-life. We both agree on that. We just disagree about how it happened. You: Excellent point So if John has an excellent point (that abiogenesis happened even if ti was god that caused it to happen) then Gish's point (that abiogenesis didn't happen) is bogus. 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. So why quote him if you don't agree with him? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <f50mv6$nlr$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <YfCci.259$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? I don't believe that you understood my point. It's probably because I done a poor job of explaining my point. I'll try again. Let's say (for the sake of discussion) a scientist (that is an advocated of evolution and abiogenesis) makes this statement in an article or a book: "We had a time when there was no life. We now have life. Thus, it is logical to conclude that life naturally evolved from non-life." Would you conceed that most of the advocates of abiogenesis and evolution theory agree with the above statement? If your answer is yes, this is the problem: There are at least three possible causes of life evolving from non-life: 1. abiogenesis 2. intelligent design 3. ancient astronauts The scientist (mentioned above) failed to take intelligent design or ancient astronauts into consideration. He just assumed that "life naturally evolved from non-life". I mentioned that many advocates of evolution and abiogenesis don't know the difference between speculation and evidence. This leads to another question: Is the statement of the above mentioned scientist based on evidence or speculation that life naturally evolved from non-life. Jason Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:30:28 -0700, Jason wrote: > Many Christians that have heard or read the testimonies of Cheryl Prewitt > and William Kent believe they were healed by God. They're welcome to believe they were healed by a race of hyper-intelligent space-borne mice if it makes them happy, but it doesn't do a thing for establishing the claims to be true. That would require evidence, not just a group of people chanting "Is too! Is too!" Evidence... got any? Nope, didn't think so. -- Origin: MARANATHA! NETWORK, KILLING FOR JESUS! (1:102/890) - FLR I Wonder if a Fido Policy complaint against your node would work? If not, prayer will. -- Martin Riley Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1606071202060001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <8KadnTbDRc_Jd-7bnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >> > 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? >> >> That's part of the problem with anti-evolutionists; when they use >> the word "mutation" they always think of an extra leg, two heads, >> or a catfish and a turtle mating to create a swamp monster. > > In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life > forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. > > example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus Hey Jason, where did you copy that? We all know that you haven't a clue as to what you said :-). Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1606071154440001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <564dk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [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? > > You totally missed the point. In order for living cells to have eventually > evolved into higher life forms, hundreds of lower life forms would have > had to evolve into higher life forms. For example, in the famous chart > that is posted on the walls of many biology class rooms shows a creature > that looks like a monkey on the far left side of the chart and a human > being on the far right side of the chart. That 'famous' chart, you say. I'll give you a clue, Jason, it wasn't hundreds it was thousands and thousands. 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.