Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 8:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The facts are in this book. If you choose not to read the facts--that's > not my fault: > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > A thorough examination of all the pre-human fossils Did _you_ read this book? Present just _one_ pertinent fact then. That is the whole point of this debate. There's no point saying "There's a book somewhere that supports my viewpoint" becasue there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of books supporting evolution theory. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178944566.218962.104970@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 9:58 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > I am sorry--I have never taken any classes or read any books related to the > > Code ofHammurabi. Based upon what you posted, there does seem to be some > > similarities between many of the laws mentioned in the Bible and The Code > > ofHammurabi. Perhaps God also spoke to Hammuriabi. There is evidence in > > the Bible that God spoke to a Pharaoh that was not a Jew in order to save > > the life of Abraham --see Genesis 12: 11-20. God also spoke to a false > > prophet named Balaam--see Numbers 23: 5-12. Therefore, it's possible spoke > > to Hamuriabli. God can do anything that he wants to do. Of course, I am > > just guessing. > > No, no, Hammurabi _said_ that God spoke to him. His name for God was > "Anu". This predates anything Biblical and shows that the laws that > God supposedly gave to Moses were already known to Semetic people. At > best you could argue that they were a reminder. > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, I recall learning about that from a television special. As far as I know, there is NO proof that Moses was familiar with the Hammurabi code. God could have spoken to both Moses and Hammurabi. I'm just guessing. You can choose to believe whatever you want to believe. Several months ago, National Geographic Magazine published "The Judas Gospel" or whatever it was called. I found out from that so called gospel was written about two or three centuries after Judas died. It's my guess that most of the people that read that gospel actually believed that Judas wrote it. People will believe almost anything. jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On 11 Maj, 23:59, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > <snip> > > > >It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he > > >had a plan prepared. > > > But if they were created perfect, they wouldn't sin. > > Good point. They were NOT created perfect. The Bible says they were. >God did not want programmed > robots that would be programmed to worship him. One can only be perfect if one is a robot? God must be a robot. >Instead, God created > people that had free will. He was hoping that people would choose to love > him. How could he possibly hope that, when he knew what would happen? >Millions of people love and worship God. Free will is an important > doctrine. Yes it is. It's impossibility is a strong mark against your beliefs. > > > > > > His plan was to send Jesus but it took several > > >thousand years for him to implement the plan. During those years, he > > >prepared the hearts and minds of the people. The animal and bird > > >sacrifices were part of that process of teaching the people that blood > > >needed to be shed for the remission of sins. When Jesus died on the cross > > >and shed his blood--that was the last sacrifice that needed to be made. > > > Wrong. It violated Levitical law. It was an invalid sacrifice. > > I disagree. It was a valid sacrifice. God can establish his own > laws- In that case all of those sacrifices including Jesus' were unnecessary. >-remember the 10 commandments. I am not an expert related to > Levitical law--is it true that those laws were established by people? No doubt they were, but the Bible says they came from god. snip Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 8:36 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or > not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and > 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s > and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's There are no 8s and 9s in the 2000's. There aren't even any 6s and 7s. How can you lie so boldly when you yourself are posting the statistics??? Note that the murder rate peaked in 1991 and has been dropping steadily ever since. Martin > Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950 Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 8:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5akd8hF2oeg1...@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > > > > > > <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect or > > > imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised his free > > > will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God does not > > > want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He wants > > > angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love and > > > worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine of free > > > will. Books have been written about that subject. > > > >> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created > > >> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can be > > >> no free will. It's not possible. > > > > I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. > > > Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. > > You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an > > omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen in the > > future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of creation- > > there can be no free will, as God will already know what you will do before > > you were even created- IOW, no free will. > > You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, by your > > own statement, there is no God. > > That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we have free > will. Translation: "The debate could go on forever if I actually had an argument to back up my assertion of free will." Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 9:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Good point--another factor is related to illegal immigrants that have > committed murders. Back in the 1950's the numbers of illegal immigrants in > America was much less than it now is. I read that 20 percent of the > inmates in federal prisons are illegal immigrants. This is rascist! You don't have any evidence that these illegal immigrants are in jail because they have commited murder! Until you have statistics stating why they are in jail you can't assume that! A lot of them could be in jail for _being_ illegal immigrants. http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html "Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who: "Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or "Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or "Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; has committed a federal crime. "Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison." The fact that illegal immigrants are in jail should not be interpreted as evidence that illegal immigrants commit any more murders on average than any other group in the United States. In fact, they would be expected to commit _fewer_ murders because commiting murder is an excellent way to draw the attention of immigration officials to your case! Even if statistically more murders were commited by illegal immigrants, most illegal immigrants are from Latin American countries and, thus, are predominently Catholic and not atheist. This goes a long way to explaining why only 0.2% of the prison population is atheist. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 9:40 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he wants to > do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? Can God see what He will do tomorrow and then change his mind? > If you reply, please > don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that the > last time. Stop typing these "Do not snip" sentences if you don't want them snipped. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 9:48 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > I do notice that you happened to select 1950 to make your claims. What > do you think the murder rate was in 1935? 1925? 1915? 1890? Other > earlier years? Murder rates change over time. Your 55 years is a fairly > small tracing. Going back to 1890 would make things worse. What sort of records did they keep back then? If a man was caught red handed commiting murder and hanged within a week then would there be records about it let alone statistics that survive to this day to tell us about it? And what about unsolved cases? How many murders never got recorded as murders because there was no conclusive forensic evidence to indicate foul play? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 1:47 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178942351.345553.104...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 12, 2:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1178878950.032555.171...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 11, 4:15 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > According to that famous chart that is posted on the walls of > almost every > > > > > biology classroom in America, Neanderthals are a step in the > evolution of > > > > > man. Have you seen that chart? Perhaps it is no longer displayed like it > > > > > was when I was in college. That chart begins with a creature that looks > > > > > like a chimp. and ends with a modern man. I believe that > Neanderthals were > > > > > the step before Cro-Magnums. I believe the chart was very inaccurate. > > > > > Such charts are a bit misleading. Modern man and Neanderthals are > > > > 99.5% identical genetically, although expert geneticists claim that > > > > this is not enough for us to be the same species. (Humans and > > > > chimpanzees are 98.4% identical.) Based on the results so far, > > > > scientists estimate that we shared a common ancestor from 700,000 > > > > years ago (a Homo Erectus). Neanderthals first appeared > > > > 350,000-130,000 years ago and became extinct only 24,000 years ago > > > > (during the ice age). Homo sapiens appeared 200 000 years ago and > > > > began to outnumber neanderthals 45,000 years ago. Humans Cro Magnon > > > > man is the name given for homo sapiens during the Paleolithic Period > > > > (40,000-10,000 years ago). Cro-Magnon man had a smaller brain than > > > > modern humans whereas neanderthals actually had bigger brains. Cro > > > > Magnon man may have been smarter than neanderthals, however, because > > > > Cro Magnon man knew how to do "sculpture, engraving, painting, body > > > > ornamentation, music and the painstaking decoration of utilitarian > > > > objects". > > > > There are assumptions in the above report that may not be correct. > > > Jason, you don't know how science works. I will copy and paste what I > > wrote above with emphasis. > > > > > Such charts are a bit misleading. Modern man and Neanderthals are > > > > 99.5% identical genetically, although expert geneticists CLAIM that > > > > this is not enough for us to be the same species. (Humans and > > > > chimpanzees are 98.4% identical.) BASED ON THE RESULTS SO FAR, > > > > scientists ESTIMATE that we shared a common ancestor from 700,000 > > > > years ago (a Homo Erectus). Neanderthals first appeared > > > > 350,000-130,000 years ago and became extinct only 24,000 years ago > > > > (during the ice age). Homo sapiens appeared 200 000 years ago and > > > > began to outnumber neanderthals 45,000 years ago. Humans Cro Magnon > > > > man is the name given for homo sapiens during the Paleolithic Period > > > > (40,000-10,000 years ago). Cro-Magnon man had a smaller brain than > > > > modern humans whereas neanderthals actually had bigger brains. Cro > > > > Magnon man MAY have been smarter than neanderthals, however, because > > > > Cro Magnon man knew how to do "sculpture, engraving, painting, body > > > > ornamentation, music and the painstaking decoration of utilitarian > > > > objects". > > > As a scientist, I am fully capable of identifying assumptions: I don't > > need you to point them out for me. You, however, constantly need to > > have your assumptions pointed out to you: this entire thread is an on > > going example of that. > > I am sure that you believe everything that is stated above. You know more > about science than I know and I respect your knowledge. However, I have > read conflicting information in other sources. Do you concede that 50 > years from now, scientists will know more about genetics than they > presently know? Yes, of course. They can never say for certain that Neanderthals were a separate species. But I have to respect their judgement when they say that human / neanderthal offspring would probably be infertile. > Do you concede that there are people that know as much > about science that you know that have different opinions than you related > to this subject? You snipped the links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro_Magnon http://www.answers.com/topic/cro-magnon http://www.answers.com/topic/neanderthal The different sources do not provide wildly different information. > Please comment on this statement: > When I was in college, a biology professor that was an advocate of > evolution told my class that it would be possible to dress a Neanderthal > man in a business suit; cut his hair and give him a shave--and that > Neanderthal man could walk down the street in a large city and most people > would not pay any attention to him? Was that a true statement? We don't know. Seriously. For all we know Neanderthals had orange skin. We can only guess what they would have looked like from their bones. > Have you read the news reports indicating that scientists have found > evidence indicating that Cro-Magnums and Neatherthals mated and produced > offspring? Did you notice that those reports were referenced in the links I provided? > Did you know that in 1972--scientists at that time believed that it was > impossible for Neantherthals and Cro-Magnums to produce offspring when > they mated due to vast genetic differences? Neanderthals and modern humans (let alone Cro Magnon man) are 99.5% identical. Even so, the offspring they produced might have been sterile. What would need to be shown is that there were genes that originated in neanderthals that then got passed to modern humans through interbreeding with Cro Magnon man. Sort of makes you wish you were a graduate student in genetics and you could get involved in this research, doesn't it? The irony, of course, is that this research would be the final nail in the coffin of creationism because if modern man is descended from both Cro Magnon man and Neanderthals then modern man definitely was not created "as is" but formed as a result of interbreeding between two separate groups. > You mentioned in your above post that Neanderthals and Modern man are > 99.5% identical. Are all races (including pygmies) 100 percent identical? I can't find a website that gives me a straight answer. I know such research has been done: I remember reading that Japanese people share a lot of genetic markers with Europeans and that Polynesian ancestry can be traced back to Taiwan and the Philippines. There's even a _European Journal of Human Genetics_ that (obviously) specializes in human genetics but papers from it are not available on line. Problems arise because we are all part of the same species: race accounts for only 5% of our variation ( See http://en.wikipedia/wiki/race ) as variations in height, eye colour and skin colour within local populations are not considered racial differences. As the total variation between different people cannot be more than 0.5% then the difference between people of different races can only be 5% of 0.5% or 0.025% of our total genome, meaning that people belonging to different races (European and Japanese for example) can be up to 99.975% identical. You'd expect pygmies to be significantly different from white people genetically but researchers claim that "genetically there is no evidence that Pygmies are distinct from other Africans" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmies ) so it would appear that, genetically, we are very close indeed to being 100% identical. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 2:03 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178942839.714408.118...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 12, 3:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > Of course, mandantory sentencing played a role. It's my opinion that the > > > rise in atheism also played a role. > > > Another wrong assumption. > > > > I realize that many of the people are > > > atheists are kind and wonderful people. Many high school teachers and > > > college psychology professors are teaching courses in "situational > > > ethics". I took one of those stupid classes. The professor told us that in > > > some cases, it's alright for a straving person to steal food; for > > > relatives to kill elderly people that were disabled--I believe the term > > > was "euthanatize"; For women to kill their unborn babies--abortion. I > > > don't believe she told us that in some situations that it would be alright > > > to rob a bank or cheat on your taxes--but my memory is not perfect. > > > Situational Ethics means that people can violate the law if that person > > > has a good reason for violating the law. Those situational ethics classes > > > will cause the crime rate to go even higher in the years to come. Shop > > > lifting was not a major problem in the 1950's and 1960's. I challenge you > > > to google shoplifting statistics. Without any research, I know that it's > > > more of a problem now than it was in the 1960's or 1970's. > > > I think you missed the point. "Situational ethics" does not mean > > "It's okay to commit crimes". The point of situational ethics is for > > people to rationally consider whether their laws are in fact morally > > correct rather than just blindly following them. If you were in Nazi > > Germany and the law required you to turn in your neighbour (who just > > happens to be Jewish), would it still be morally right to follow the > > letter of the law? > Good points. I don't believe you have considered the consequences if > everyone practiced situational ethics. In the long run, people would no > longer obey laws unless they were advocates of those laws. Jason, I don't think you've considered the consequences of democracy. In the long run, laws will no longer exist if the majority of people are not advocates of these laws. > They would run > red lights if they were late for work; euthanatize elderly relatives; > steal food if they were hungry; steal clothing if they did not have money > to buy new clothing; murder unborn babies; go 20 mph above the speed > limit, etc etc--many of those things are already happening. I saw a > security guard patrolling inside a large grocery store earlier today. It's > my guess that in the 1950's and 1960's--none of the grocery store owners > had security guards patrolling the grocery store. And in Moslem countries, women will start to dress how they like, people will be free to follow whatever religion they choose and what people drink, read, listen to, watch on TV or do in the bedroom would be a matter of personal choice rather than legislation. "Situational ethics" enables us to remove ourselves from the situation we find ourselves in and ask ourselves if our laws are truly advocating morality or oppressing people who are doing no harm to anybody, perhaps not even themselves. Martin Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f22pim$42r$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no >>>>> proof that it ever happened. >>>> We do have proof that life happened, and it would be fair to asume that >>>> before life existed, there was no life. >>>> What other explanation do you have? >>>> Creationists believe the entire universe was waved into existence by a >>>> supreme and magicial invisible sky fairy. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Christians have faith that God exists and created life on this earth. >>>> So who created God? >>> I have been asked this question before: My answer is "That I don't know >>> how God came to be--when I get to heaven--I'll ask God or an angel how God >>> came to be." >> Which is hardly proof of anything. >> >>>> Be careful if you answer, "God has always existed" >>>> >>>> >>>>> Even Darwin believed that God created life and after he > finished--evolution >>>>> took over. >>>> Assuming that he did, what difference would that make? >> None, of course. Evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories. >> >>> Lots of evolutionists seem to idolize Charles Darwins---perhaps you are >>> one of the ones that don't idolize Darwin.I have never idolized Darwin. >> First, what the heck is an "evolutionist"? Someone who thinks evolution >> is a valid theory and not disproven to date? Sorry to diappoint you. >> That would be a rational human. And/Or a scientist. >> Second, "idolize"? Where did you get that notion? >> I might think he had a great mind to see what nobody before him saw. But >> I don't idolize him. What he did in his spare time is of no interest to me. >> (Side note, totally unrelated. Why it should be important how many times >> a politician did marry? He did not get the post of prime minister or >> chancellor or president because of his private life. But because what he >> stands for on political matters. Ex german chancellor was married three >> times (IIRC), once during his term. Ex foreign minister five times. >> Nobody cared.) >> So why should I care if Darwin liked blond women? Or obese ones? It has >> nothing to do with his work, namely evolutionary theory. This is far >> from "idolizing". >> >> >> Tokay > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Tokay, > I do believe there is proof (in the form of fossils) that God created life > on this earth. There have been at least two books about this subject. What books? I can explain the theory of evolution here without much trouble and have done so. I can point you to evidence that fits this theory. > There is NO proof that life evolve from non-life. That is not evolution. Again. It is not. That is abiogenesis. You are intelligent > enough to know that scientists could design an experiment that would > create life from non-life if indeed it was possible. They have tried to do > it but have always failed. The main reason those experiments always fail > is because life can NOT evolve from non-life. God created life. Einstein They did the experiments. The proved that you take the elements, add energy and get amino acids as well as parts of DNA and RNA. You take amino acids and add energy and you actually get reproducing "bubbles". They tried and they succeeded. > was asked about this subject. His reply was something like this: "A watch > needs a designer--life needed a designer". Of course, he was correct. > jason Even if Einstein was asked about this and said what you claim he said... He is an astrophysicist. Abiogenesis and evolution are fields of biology (not sure about the first one. Might be chemistry. Or biochemistry). You don't ask a plumber about your car based on his skills as a plumber, do you? But I am pretty certain that this quote is bogus. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f22oue$qdm$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>>>>> Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get >>>>>> caught. >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> >>>>> Steve, >>>>> That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related to >>>>> a major sin like murder or stealing. However, God knows about every sin >>>>> which is why Christians ask forgiveness for our sins. >>>> Provided of course, you can first of all demonstrate that a God exists. >>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no >>> proof that it ever happened. >> Facts support the theory. Could not be shown to be wrong so far which is >> one property of a valid scientific theory. >> >>> Christians have faith that God exists and created life on this earth. Even >>> Darwin believed that God created life and after he finished--evolution >>> took over. >> Facts do not support that theory. In fact it lacks all properties of a >> scientific theory. > > Please re-read your own words very carefully. My theory is that God > created life. Facts support my theory. Could not be shown to be wrong so > far wrong so far which is one property of a valid scientific theory. First, what facts? Show them. Point me to them. I will look at them. Second, it would be a property if it was falsifiable in theory. And it is not. Look up falsifiable. "There are "ETs" is not falsifiable. "There are no "ETs" IS falsifiable. One is a proper scientific hypothesis, the other one is not. Care to guess? > > The Facts that support my theory are in this book: "Bones of Contention" > by Marvin L. Lubenow. A thorough examination all the supposed pre-human > fossils. Also: "On The Seventh Day" by Editor J.F. Ashton. It's a > collection of essays of over 40 doctorate-holding scientists who have a > firm belief in God and explain how thier knowledge of science backs and > confirms their faith. I can type in the evidence for evolution here. You do the same with your "theory". I can type the facts for evolution here and if I had a little more time, I could give you the links. You do the same. If they are that easy, do it. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On 11 May 2007 21:48:47 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <1178945327.646519.184050@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> >On May 12, 6:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> There won't be any suicide bombers or nuclear bombs in heaven. > >Won't the suicide bombers themselves be horribly disappointed? That there is no such thing as the juvenile concept as heaven? I think it would be a tad too late for disappointment! -- Quote
Guest ZenIsWhen Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Plunging into the middle ............... "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in message news:f23vc8$q1g$02$1@news.t-online.com... > Jason wrote: >> In article <f22oue$qdm$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >> >>> Jason wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you >>>>>>> get >>>>>>> caught. >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve, >>>>>> That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught >>>>>> related to >>>>>> a major sin like murder or stealing. Wrong. They are major CRIMES. That they are "biblical sins" is merely coincidence. However, God knows about every sin >>>>>> which is why Christians ask forgiveness for our sins. What god? Which god? Whre is the evidence that this so called "god" even exists? >>>>> Provided of course, you can first of all demonstrate that a God >>>>> exists. >>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no >>>> proof that it ever happened. Obviously you don't understand the difference between faith and trust - or facts and proof. >>> Facts support the theory. Could not be shown to be wrong so far which is >>> one property of a valid scientific theory. >>> >>>> Christians have faith that God exists and created life on this earth. >>>> Even >>>> Darwin believed that God created life and after he finished--evolution >>>> took over. So? Faith is belief without facts. What "christians believe" is meaningless. >>> Facts do not support that theory. In fact it lacks all properties of a >>> scientific theory. >> >> Please re-read your own words very carefully. My theory is that God >> created life. Facts support my theory. Could not be shown to be wrong so >> far wrong so far which is one property of a valid scientific theory. "God created life" is not a theory - it is a religious belief. > > First, what facts? Show them. Point me to them. I will look at them. > Second, it would be a property if it was falsifiable in theory. And it is > not. Look up falsifiable. > > "There are "ETs" is not falsifiable. "There are no "ETs" IS falsifiable. > > One is a proper scientific hypothesis, the other one is not. Care to > guess? > >> >> The Facts that support my theory are in this book: "Bones of Contention" >> by Marvin L. Lubenow. A thorough examination all the supposed pre-human >> fossils. Also: "On The Seventh Day" by Editor J.F. Ashton. It's a >> collection of essays of over 40 doctorate-holding scientists who have a >> firm belief in God and explain how thier knowledge of science backs and >> confirms their faith. Scientific facts are validated and verified in scientific journals, not "popular" books where the claims are untested and unverified. Review of "Bones of contention": http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html "In fact, this argument is so weak that even Answers in Genesis has abandoned it; as they correctly point out, "... there's nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct."" When most "evolutionists" read a book sen tout by creationists, they read it, and many post or write rebuttals of the claims within. Most creationists don't even bother reading (scientifically accurate) books on evolution; and when they read books by creationists, they, apparently, latch on only to a few key phrases .....bellow an "Amen", and go no further. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1178943780.445609.142300@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 12, 5:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> Yes. However, I will not have to suffer for my sins since Jesus has >>> already suffered for my sins. Only Non-Christians will have to suffer for >>> their sins. That's why I wish that everyone was a Christian. >> I don't recall ever asking Jesus to suffer on my behalf. If I am >> truly doing something wrong by lusting after Angelina Jolie (and >> frankly I don't see how it's even anybody's business) then I will >> accept the punishment rather than expecting somebody else to suffer on >> my behalf. That's what being moral is all about. >> >> Martin > > That's your choice. I would prefer to not suffer for my sins. You do have > options. > > That's childish at best. You are fully responsible for what you do. To pass the blame and/or punishment to somebody else is ... ehm, no other word for it... EVIL. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <e0s943dd673i94od9t9k38caiteu39l9nv@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:59:38 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>>>> It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he >>>>> had a plan prepared. >>>> But if they were created perfect, they wouldn't sin. >>> Good point. They were NOT created perfect. >> How can a perfect being create something imperfect? > > God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect or > imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised his free > will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God does not > want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He wants > angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love and > worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine of free > will. Books have been written about that subject. Contradicts the "omniscient" part of that "omni-" stuff. He did it knowing what would come out of it. He did it on purpose. Either this cosmic zombie is omniscient and therefor guilty as charged, or he does not exist. > > . >> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created >> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can be >> no free will. It's not possible. > > I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. Therefor, there cannot be an omniscient and benevolent god. QED. Either that or you and I have no free will. Or, the third explanation, there is no cosmic zombie.... Or, the fourth explanation, there is a cosmic zombie and he is a monster. The ultimate monster, actually.... Tokay Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4prgc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:48 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >>> In article <5akd8hF2oeg1dU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" >>> <spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>> God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect or >>>>> imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised > his free >>>>> will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God > does not >>>>> want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He wants >>>>> angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love and >>>>> worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine of free >>>>> will. Books have been written about that subject. >>>>> >>>>> . >>>>>> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created >>>>>> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can be >>>>>> no free will. It's not possible. >>>>> I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. >>>> Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. >>>> You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an >>>> omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen in the >>>> future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of creation- >>>> there can be no free will, as God will already know what you will do > before >>>> you were even created- IOW, no free will. >>>> You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, > by your >>>> own statement, there is no God. >>> That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we have free >>> will. >> Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create >> everything. Which will it be? > > God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he wants to > do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, please > don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that the > last time. The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which just is not possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make your pick. Tokay >> >> 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" > > -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > I do believe there is proof (in the form of fossils) that God created life > on this earth. There have been at least two books about this subject. WOW! Two WHOLE books!!!! My, I'm impressed!!!! Not. > There is NO proof that life evolve from non-life. You are intelligent > enough to know that scientists could design an experiment that would > create life from non-life if indeed it was possible. They have tried to do > it but have always failed. The main reason those experiments always fail > is because life can NOT evolve from non-life. Bubba speaking to Billy Bob back in 1900: "There is NO proof that men can fly. You are intelligent enough to know that scientists could design a plane that could fly if indeed it was possible. They have tried to do it but have always failed. The main reason those experiments always fail is because man can't fly." (Hint: we had controlled, powered flight in 1903.) Bubba speaking to Billy Bob back in 1940: "There is NO proof that uranium can explode in a bomb. You are intelligent enough to know that scientists could design an uranium bomb if indeed it was possible. They have tried to do it but have always failed. The main reason those experiments always fail is because uranium can't explode." (Hint: we blew up the first atomic bomb in 1945.) Bubba speaking to Billy Bob back in 1960: "There is NO proof that you can have a whole computer on your desk. You are intelligent enough to know that scientists could design a computer that could fit on your desk if indeed it was possible. They have tried to do it but have always failed. The main reason those experiments always fail is because computers can't be made that small." (Hint: we had desktop-sized computers in the late 1960's.) Bubba speaking to Billy Bob back in 1965: "There is NO proof that we can transplant a heart. You are intelligent enough to know that scientists could design a heart transplant procedure if indeed it was possible. They have tried to do it but have always failed. The main reason those experiments always fail is because we can't transplant hearts." (Hint: the first successful transplant was in 1967.) Do I really need to go on here or do you finally get the point? God created life. Einstein > was asked about this subject. His reply was something like this: "A watch > needs a designer--life needed a designer". Of course, he was correct. And, of course, you can provide a citation for this crap? Quote
Guest Steve O Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1178958770.780961.192880@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On May 12, 1:47 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <1178942351.345553.104...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, >> Martin >> >> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > On May 12, 2:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > In article <1178878950.032555.171...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> > > Martin >> >> > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > > On May 11, 4:15 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> You mentioned in your above post that Neanderthals and Modern man are >> 99.5% identical. Are all races (including pygmies) 100 percent identical? > > I can't find a website that gives me a straight answer. I'm not a scientist, but as far as I am aware, two different people are not 100% identical when it comes to dna, let alone different races - otherwise there would be no such thing as dna identificion, surely? Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Martin wrote: > On May 12, 6:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from >> non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural >> materials and create life from that natural materials. > > Yes, the difference is that creationism requires one to believe in a > supernatural boogey man in the sky whereas evolution requires one to > only accept the very real evidence from genetics, paleantology, > anatomy and zoology. > >> It's much easier >> for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to >> believe. > > Actually, no, it isn't. > > Martin (not the one from the UK) > Obligatory joke time: Catholic speaking to a Baptist: Do you believe in infant baptism? Baptist: Believe in it? Hell, I dun seen it happen right before my very own eyes! And actually, that helps to illustrate a lot about the use of the word "believe." The religious believe in something because that's what they were taught or that's how they would like things to be or because they saw something and can't think of any other explanation for it, etc. Scientists believe in something because they "dun seen it happen right before my very own eyes!" Quote
Guest Steve O Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in message news:f247a9$n2t$01$2@news.t-online.com... > Jason wrote: >> In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4prgc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >>> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:48 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>> >>>> In article <5akd8hF2oeg1dU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" >>>> <spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>> God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect >>>>>> or >>>>>> imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised >> his free >>>>>> will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God >> does not >>>>>> want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He >>>>>> wants >>>>>> angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love >>>>>> and >>>>>> worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine of free >>>>>> will. Books have been written about that subject. >>>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>>> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created >>>>>>> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> no free will. It's not possible. >>>>>> I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. >>>>> Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. >>>>> You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an >>>>> omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen in the >>>>> future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of >>>>> creation- there can be no free will, as God will already know what you >>>>> will do >> before >>>>> you were even created- IOW, no free will. >>>>> You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, >> by your >>>>> own statement, there is no God. >>>> That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we have free >>>> will. >>> Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create >>> everything. Which will it be? >> >> God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he wants to >> do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, please >> don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that the >> last time. > > The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which just is not > possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make your pick. > I don't think he really understands the implications in order to pick one. He just doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand why free will and an omnipotent, omniscient creator God are contradictory. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack "The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long enough" Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > > There were 10 commandments written on that plate. > You mean these ones? Exodus 34 1 The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. #1 14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. #2 15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same. #3 17 "Do not make cast idols. #4 18 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt. #5 19 "The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons. "No one is to appear before me empty-handed. #6 21 "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest. #7 22 "Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. 23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God. #8 25 "Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning. #9 26 "Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God. #10 (26 continued) "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk." 27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <6e5a431pbl5bjls903shnga5l5pft1ictf@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 18:40:08 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >>> In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4prgc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >>> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >>>> Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create >>>> everything. Which will it be? >>> God is omniscient and omni powerful >> Then god didn't create everything. >> > > Don, > This were my exact words--Why did you snip four of my sentences?: Maybe because there was a contradiction in terms in the first part? Much as if you said "I was laying in my bed sleeping all night from dusk till dawn and never left it. I went to the store at midnight." There's no way for both statements to be true no matter how much you say about them. Likewise you can't have a god who's omniscient, omnipotent and creates everything and us have free will. Even an omnipotent god can't create a contradiction. I.e. even an omnipotent god can't create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. It's just a meaningless jumble of words. So was your statements. > >> God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he wants to >> do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, please >> don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that the >> last time. > > Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > Martin, > I recall learning about that from a television special. As far as I know, > there is NO proof that Moses was familiar with the Hammurabi code. God > could have spoken to both Moses and Hammurabi. I'm just guessing. That's the whole problem; all you is make wild-assed guesses. You can > choose to believe whatever you want to believe. Several months ago, > National Geographic Magazine published "The Judas Gospel" or whatever it > was called. I found out from that so called gospel was written about two > or three centuries after Judas died. It's my guess that most of the people > that read that gospel actually believed that Judas wrote it. People will > believe almost anything. Yep, you're perfect evidence of that. You'll believe all that crap the ICR dumps out. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 655321 wrote: > > Can you point out laws against blasphemy, covetousness, disrespecting > one's parents, being a non-Judeo-Christian, and the like? Unfortunately, there are STILL laws on the books in some areas against blasphemy (although they're rarely, if ever, even prosecuted these days.) Massachusetts Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior. The last person to be jailed in the US for blasphemy was Abner Kneeland in 1838, but there was a prosecution as recently as 1952 in the case of JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. v. WILSON, 343 U.S. 495 (1952) where the supreme court started with "Provisions of the New York Education Law which forbid the commercial showing of any motion picture film without a license and authorize denial of a license on a censor's conclusion that a film is "sacrilegious," held void as a prior restraint on freedom of speech and of the press under the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 497-506" 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.