Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:12:37 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >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? You actually think you're worthy to be his teacher? Oh, good Goat, I think I'm gonna hurt myself laughing. -- If we can have a school of fish, how about a church of idiots? -- SQ Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: <...> > >I disagree. In my scenario, there was NO physical evidence. However, there >were 8 witnesses that heard him say, "I'm going to kill that woman." They >observed him take a gun in the apartment and heard a gunshot. They found >the man's dead wife. I would have believed the testimony of the witnesses. >I would have found him guilty. > I recommend the movie "12 Angry Men". Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <981ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:55:49 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>> If it really did happen the way the advocates of abiogenesis claim that it >>> happened, scientists should be able to design an experiment to make it >>> happen. Do you think that scientists will ever be able to perform such an >>> experiment? >> So let's see if we have this right. >> >> Science demonstrates that, on a small scale, water causes erosion of rock. >> We know water exists, we know rock exists, we know water can erode rock. >> >> By anyone else's standard, this would be sufficient to explain, oh, the >> formation of the Grand Canyon, as long as sufficient time is available for >> the process to work. >> >> According to your standards, we cannot conclude this, as we have all the >> requisite components but we haven't made an experiment that actually >> recreated the Grand Canyon - despite such an experiment requiring >> something on the order of a few million years to carry out. >> >> This, to you, is a sensible requirement is it? >> >> I suspect even you wouldn't think so... yet it is almost exactly what >> you're asking above. We have all the key elements, we have a pretty good >> idea - several, actually - of the steps to go from A to B... but we're >> also quite certain that in the best of cases, it would require hellishly >> long times to duplicate the result. Yet you blithely expect it, as if >> such an expectation made any sense whatsoever. > > I was told that a chemical process was what caused life to develop from > non-life. If that is correct, it seems to me that scientists should be > able to duplicate that process. The lottery balls coming up 2-26-34-39-61-62 are a simple matter of randomness. Now let's see how long it takes you to have the lottery machine run to generate those specific numbers. Clue-time: just because something can happen doesn't mean we can make it happen in a short period of time. > If scientists are not able to do it, it means that abiogenesis will > continue to be based more on speculation than on evidence. So if scientists can't make a sun, then how the sun works is "based more on speculation than on evidence"? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1606071208090001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <P9Vci.2628$s9.1301@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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? > > Are you stating that the above quotation was NOT in at least one edition > of Darwin's book? No you lying sack of shit, I'm telling you exactly what I've told you previously! It wasn't in the first edition, it was a later add and the fact it was added later is discarded by Christian apologists who are a hell of a lot smarter than you. I am tired of your lying ways, and you call yourself a Christian. Now answer the god damn question!! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506072323560001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Then it didn't happen little man. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > Some of the prophecies related to the last days did not come true until > the past 10 to 20 years. Here is one of them: > 2 Tim 4:3-5 > > For the time will come when [Christians] will not endure sound doctrine; > but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers [and > preachers]. Those [preachers] will teach them not what the truth is but > instead what they want to hear That's been happening since the dawn of time and it still happens (your preachers "teach" you what you want to hear and not the truth.) > My comment: That prophecy has come true in my life time. There is one > church in California called Unity Fellowship. The preachers are more like > psychologists than real preachers. There is a television show that is > broadcast on Sunday morning called the "Hour of Power". The preacher never > discusses Bible doctrines. He teaches messages related to psychology and > sociology. I have never heard him preach messages from the Bible. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1606071048390001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. Unless AIG and the ICR have changed in the last two years they do. Here is the ICR statement: (A) PRIORITIES 1.. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 2.. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (B) BASICS 1.. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. 2.. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself. 3.. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. 4.. The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation. 5.. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect. 6.. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind. 7.. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506072305070001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <hpk6731d9jbq59bsjeffaplv04tqotjdb3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:59:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1506071859200001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1v3673dt5lsaeeelj2sevnbsmorev24hhu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:40:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-1506071540340001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <1wCci.267$P8.79@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:Jason-1506071200360001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> ... >> >> >> > We don't know. We are hoping that it will be soon. >> >> >> >> >> >> Well read the damn verses Jason, they say it will be soon. Just > for your >> >> >> information, two thousand years isn't 'soon'. Before you go into a >> >'we don't >> >> >> know how soon it is in god's time' defense, read the verses and >> >> >> tell >> >me when >> >> >> you think Jesus said he would come. Just one more of literally >> >thousands of >> >> >> reasons to conclude that your god doesn't exist. >> >> > >> >> >Some of the prophecies related to the last days did not come true >> >> >until >> >> >the past 10 to 20 years. Here is one of them: >> >> >2 Tim 4:3-5 >> >> > >> >> >For the time will come when [Christians] will not endure sound >> >> >doctrine; >> >> >but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers [and >> >> >preachers]. Those [preachers] will teach them not what the truth is >> >> >but >> >> >instead what they want to hear >> >> > >> >> >My comment: That prophecy has come true in my life time. There is one >> >> >church in California called Unity Fellowship. The preachers are more >> >> >like >> >> >psychologists than real preachers. There is a television show that is >> >> >broadcast on Sunday morning called the "Hour of Power". The preacher >> >> >never >> >> >discusses Bible doctrines. He teaches messages related to psychology >> >> >and >> >> >sociology. I have never heard him preach messages from the Bible. >> >> >Jason >> >> >> >> Jason, Christians have been claiming that they were in the last days >> >> ever since Christianity began. Your ignorance of history betrays you >> >> and >> >> gives you the foolish idea that only recently have these 'signs' been >> >> fulfilled. Once again I have to wonder if you are really a Christian. >> > >> >My father (in the 1950's) believed that he was living in the last days. >> >> Which is one example of your claim being wrong. >> >> >According to the Bible, the deciples of Jesus hoped Jesus would return >> >during their life times. >> >> Another example. I see that you don't have the integrity to acknowledge >> your error or tell us that you will make an effort to not make this >> mistake again. >> >> >I have never claimed to be a Bible scholar. >> >> Yet you accept the claims of people you believe are Bible scholars, even >> when they are wrong. >> >> >I learn new things every time I listen to another sermon. >> >> No, I don't think you do. >> >> You would learn something if you followed up on the references that you >> have ignored here. Your ignorance would not be so breathtaking if you >> didn't insist on having opinions on so many subjects that you don't >> understand and refuse to learn about. > > Yes, prior generations believed they were living in the last days. They > were wrong. We could be right. I believe the rapture will happen in this > generation. I don't give a damn what you believe. As you said, prior generations thought so and your generation is no different from the rest. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506071859200001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1v3673dt5lsaeeelj2sevnbsmorev24hhu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:40:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1506071540340001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1wCci.267$P8.79@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1506071200360001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> ... >> >> > We don't know. We are hoping that it will be soon. >> >> >> >> Well read the damn verses Jason, they say it will be soon. Just for >> >> your >> >> information, two thousand years isn't 'soon'. Before you go into a > 'we don't >> >> know how soon it is in god's time' defense, read the verses and tell > me when >> >> you think Jesus said he would come. Just one more of literally > thousands of >> >> reasons to conclude that your god doesn't exist. >> > >> >Some of the prophecies related to the last days did not come true until >> >the past 10 to 20 years. Here is one of them: >> >2 Tim 4:3-5 >> > >> >For the time will come when [Christians] will not endure sound doctrine; >> >but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers [and >> >preachers]. Those [preachers] will teach them not what the truth is but >> >instead what they want to hear >> > >> >My comment: That prophecy has come true in my life time. There is one >> >church in California called Unity Fellowship. The preachers are more >> >like >> >psychologists than real preachers. There is a television show that is >> >broadcast on Sunday morning called the "Hour of Power". The preacher >> >never >> >discusses Bible doctrines. He teaches messages related to psychology and >> >sociology. I have never heard him preach messages from the Bible. >> >Jason >> >> Jason, Christians have been claiming that they were in the last days >> ever since Christianity began. Your ignorance of history betrays you and >> gives you the foolish idea that only recently have these 'signs' been >> fulfilled. Once again I have to wonder if you are really a Christian. > > My father (in the 1950's) believed that he was living in the last days. > According to the Bible, the deciples of Jesus hoped Jesus would return > during their life times. I have never claimed to be a Bible scholar. I > learn new things every time I listen to another sermon. Let me give you a clue Jason, what you learn from a 'sermon' is repetitive. Step outside of your box and look around! Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:17:56 -0700, Jason wrote: >> Personalized Results 1 - 100 of about 577,000 English pages for "Michael >> Anderson". >> >> Your point is, again? > > Your first name and last name are common names. Mine aren't - and I got about 13,000 hits. Big freakin' whoop. -- “The king is coming!” - LEONARD BERNIER “And the queen isn’t. How typical.” --- David Rice Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason wrote: > It's probably because they accept abiogenesis (despite the lack of > evidence) because it explains how life came to be on this planet. They > like abiogenesis since God is not a part of it. Why do you continue to lie? You already admitted abiogenesis happens. "Where did I do that?" you say? 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. Jason: Excellent point. And I'll CONTINUE to rub that into your face every time you come up with the above idiocy about how abiogenesis doesn't exist. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1606070131470001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <981ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:55:49 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > If it really did happen the way the advocates of abiogenesis claim that >> > it >> > happened, scientists should be able to design an experiment to make it >> > happen. Do you think that scientists will ever be able to perform such >> > an >> > experiment? >> >> So let's see if we have this right. >> >> Science demonstrates that, on a small scale, water causes erosion of >> rock. >> We know water exists, we know rock exists, we know water can erode rock. >> >> By anyone else's standard, this would be sufficient to explain, oh, the >> formation of the Grand Canyon, as long as sufficient time is available >> for >> the process to work. >> >> According to your standards, we cannot conclude this, as we have all >> the >> requisite components but we haven't made an experiment that actually >> recreated the Grand Canyon - despite such an experiment requiring >> something on the order of a few million years to carry out. >> >> This, to you, is a sensible requirement is it? >> >> I suspect even you wouldn't think so... yet it is almost exactly what >> you're asking above. We have all the key elements, we have a pretty good >> idea - several, actually - of the steps to go from A to B... but we're >> also quite certain that in the best of cases, it would require >> hellishly >> long times to duplicate the result. Yet you blithely expect it, as if >> such an expectation made any sense whatsoever. > > I was told that a chemical process was what caused life to develop from > non-life. If that is correct, it seems to me that scientists should be > able to duplicate that process. > > If scientists are not able to do it, it means that abiogenesis will > continue to be based more on speculation than on evidence. It just means that the evidence will be delayed until they find the right combination. It least there is some evidence for their position as opposed to the "Lord" using dust and ribs. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:40:16 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <5dd120F32b338U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote i >> >> snip >> > >> > Cheryl Prewitt told me that she was healed by God. >> >> So? You believe every thing you're told? > > In relation to some people, including Chery Prewitt, I do believe what > they say. I don't believe everything that many people say---such as Bill > Clinton. Did you believe him when he stated, "I did not have sex with that > woman"? Since there's at least as much evidence for his claim as hers - i.e. none at all - the claims are equal and equally rejected. That was the point you were trying to make, right, that you're actually suggesting honesty and fairness in evaluating cases, rather than just believing one side despite a complete lack of reason to do so? -- Goes to show you don’t always get what you want. - Fredric Rice Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506072121200001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <qgvbk4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:34:42 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > I don't want to be argumentative re: to the Big Bang. >> >> Yes, you do; you demonstrate it regularly. >> >> > However, I >> > continue to believe that it is speculation that the big bang was the >> > beginning of time. Do you believe that it is speculation or a fact? >> >> I think you need to ponder what the very concept of "time" actually >> means, >> and how it is defined. You seem to think it is some sort of magic thing >> which exists independent of everything around us. >> >> What's even stranger is, you seem to think that time is some sort of >> absolute - that regardless of any other factors, it marches steadily on >> anyhow, unaffected by space, motion and the like. Yet we know this is >> simply not true, that time is, in fact, variable - and is, in fact, >> impacted by motion. >> >> > That leads to another question: >> > Is a mathematical model evidence or speculation? >> >> Mathematics can describe; it cannot prescribe. Or, put another way, >> someone creating a mathematical model of something can show us that it is >> valid mathematically without it ever having any basis in describing the >> real world. >> >> As an example of this, there's an odd little bit of math I once read >> about that says if you cut up an orange just right, then re-assemble the >> parts, the results could be larger than the sun - yet contain no holes. >> Perhaps, in mathematics, this would be true, but it is based on the >> concept of infinite divisibility and infinitely small spaces - and that >> is something which simply does not apply to the real world. >> >> Such a model needs to actually be compared to the real world to see if it >> is, in fact, a correct modeling of the world, or simply a nice little >> mathematical puzzle. > > Let's say that a mathematician develops a mathematical model. Several > years later, another mathematician develops a new mathematical model that > disproves the first mathematical model. Is that possible? Most things are possible. > If your answer > is yes, does not mean that mathematical model should never become a > theory? Mathematical models are parts of theories. Run along and study about what a theory is and come back when you have learned something. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:10:25 -0700, Jason wrote: > Christians have very little power in America. Really? Funny; gay marriage has faced an uphill battle due, primarily, to religious bigotry, most of it from Christians. Try putting anything remotely risque on prime time TV, see how far you get. The narrow-minded Christian mentality dominates the country, your gum-flapping notwithstanding. -- “I’m Spartacus” “I am Spartacus” “I’m Spartacus” “Hi, I’m Glen Campbell!” Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 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 Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506072145550001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <760ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:50:27 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > Speculation is not evidence. The advocates of creation science have >> > fossil >> > evidence. >> >> Sigh. Okay... your continuing science education. >> >> Here's a rock (find any handy one, the specific rock doesn't matter). Is >> it evidence of: >> >> 1) Me being the King of Spain >> 2) Me being the supreme creator of all things >> 3) Me being left-handed >> 4) Me causing rocks to form in your vicinity >> 5) None of the above >> >> Correct answer: 5. Here's the question: why is it not evidence of >> those >> things? >> >> The reason it's not evidence of those things is that there is no >> mechanism >> on the table which relates the rock in any way to those claims. There is >> no theory which predicts that if a rock is found, this supports my claim >> to the Spanish throne. There needs to be some sort of testable, >> falsifiable, causal link between the two things. >> >> So let's take fossils. Got lots of 'em. Not all of 'em, and while there >> are plenty of exemplars of transitional forms, these don't account for >> 100% of all cases we've got so far. All very good. >> >> Now, is that evidence that I'm the King of Spain? No, because there's no >> mechanism involved which explains the relation between those two ideas; I >> can say the fossils prove my claim, but my saying it doesn't make it >> so. >> >> You say the fossils somehow support creation science, yet, like my claim >> they support my ascension to the throne, you fail to demonstrate any >> actual link between the ideas. >> >> You might, for example, claim that the fossils represent subsequent waves >> of creation. Very good, except for one minor issue: you haven't shown >> the process of creation, so you can't say anything meaningful about how >> it >> works. This is about like me asserting the fossils are evidence of >> fairies; until I show how fairies explain the fossils, how fairies >> cause the fossils to come to be, and in the manner we find them, then I >> have no basis to assert that the fossils support my claim, as I've shown >> no manner in which they _can_ support my claim. I haven't shown the >> mechanism the fairies used, so I can't show the fossils are consistent >> with that mechanism. >> >> SO you say the fossils support creation science... well, okay, maybe they >> do. What is the mechanism of creation? Without it, we cannot make any >> predictions about what we should find in the fossil record, so we can't >> very well say the fossils match the predictions of the mechanism and thus >> support creation science. >> >> So, what is the mechanism of creation? You must have this, as you >> assert that the fossils support creation science, and this is what you'd >> need to make such an assertion. >> >> Feel free to trot out this mechanism, we'd all love to see it. > > Kelsey, > Thank you for your well written report. I read the book entitled, > "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish. As you know, my memory > is poor so I don't recall everything that I read in his book. If you read > the first chapter of the Bible, you will know the basics of creation > science. I summarize it this way: God created mankind; some plants and > some animals. After the creation process was finished, Natural Selection > kicked in. D.T. Gish had all of the above information in mind when he > wrote his fossil book. After discussing lots of different fossils, his > conclusion was that the fossil evidence indicated that abiogenesis was not > how life came to be. His other conclusion was that the fossil evidence > indicated that intelligent design was how life came to be on this planet. > I have never conducted any research related to fossils. I agree with at > least one of your points: I don't believe the fossil evidence reveals what > you call the "mechanism of creation." D.T. Gish does believe the fossils > supports creation science. > Jason Yes, that great paleontologist, Bullfrog Gish, believes the fossils support creation and not evolution. This only indicates how stupid he is and those who believe his writings. Jason, tell me how the Karoo formation supports creation. If you don't know see if Bullfrog has a plausible explanation in his 'famous' book. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506071822310001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <lYEci.1211$s9.993@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1506071621450001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <OxDci.291$P8.214@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1506071523550001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <GsCci.266$P8.179@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:Jason-1506071212400001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> > In article <Lsyci.160$W9.143@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> news:Jason-1406072027180001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> >> > In article <j2t373d3n0dafs1r9ffao27cp6i1hi7qft@4ax.com>, Free >> >> >> >> > Lunch >> >> >> >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:47:26 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-1406071947270001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >> >In article <e4c37352rsu9akoeoi2jld8sdh7bpn28n3@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >Free >> >> >> >> >> >Lunch >> >> >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:35:14 -0700, in >> >> >> >> >> >> alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-1406070135150001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <0c41731qbu3l8n3j7rhumqe3vmdvf5rvs7@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >> >Free >> >> >> >> >> >> >Lunch >> >> >> >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:22:57 -0700, in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > <Jason-1306070022570001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article >> >> >> >> > <1181708123.776350.23860@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 13, 11:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > <1181695356.967104.238...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >> >Martin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > By the way, Genesis 1 says "El" created the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > universe >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > and >> >> >> >> > mankind but >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Genesis 2 says it was "Yahweh". >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Do you have the verses? El may be one of the many >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > names >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > God. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In fact, Genesis 1 talks about the Elohim, which >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> means >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "gods", >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> plural. (e.g. Genesis 6:2, "... the sons of Elohim >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> saw >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> daughters >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of men that they were fair; and they took them for >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wives... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ,") >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >This is in reference to the intermarriage among the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Cainites >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >and >> >> >> >> > Sethites. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The Cainites were sinful, evil people and the Sethites >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >were >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >devoted and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >consecrated to God. God became very upset with the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Sethites >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >for >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >taking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Cainite women as their wives since God wanted them to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >only >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >marry >> >> >> >> > Sethite >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >women. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I copied most of the above info. from a footnote in my >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >study >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Bible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The authors of your study bible note were making it up. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> They >> >> >> >> >> >> >> have >> >> >> >> >> >> >> no >> >> >> >> >> >> >> evidence at all that their claim is correct. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Should I believe you or the words of the W.A. Chriswell, >> >> >> >> >> >> >Ph.D--the >> >> >> >> >> >> >editor >> >> >> >> >> >> >of my study Bible or yourself--take a guess on my choice. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I know that you would be mistaken to believe those who >> >> >> >> >> >> make >> >> >> >> >> >> things >> >> >> >> >> >> up >> >> >> >> >> >> like this, but I also know that you have a demonstrated >> >> >> >> >> >> willingness >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> be led astray by those who tell you what you want to hear. >> >> >> >> >> >> Chriswell >> >> >> >> >> >> does not have _any_ evidence that "this is in reference to >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> intermarriage among the Cainites and Sethites." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Deal with facts. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >I have no reason to doubt Dr. Chriswell. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> That's because you reject the whole concept of evidence. >> >> >> >> >> Anyone >> >> >> >> >> can >> >> >> >> >> tell >> >> >> >> >> you any lie as long as they claim God wants it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Still, I wouldn't be surprised if you misrepresented what >> >> >> >> >> Chriswell >> >> >> >> >> said, you do have a long track record of misunderstanding >> >> >> >> >> what >> >> >> >> >> others >> >> >> >> >> are trying to tell you and misrepresenting these things to >> >> >> >> >> others. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Buy or read the Criswell Study Bible and see the evidence for >> >> >> >> > yourself. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I have many books on the study of the bible. I question each and >> >> >> >> every >> >> >> >> one >> >> >> >> when I read them. I then form my own conclusion on what I read. >> >> >> >> You >> >> >> >> could >> >> >> >> use a little objective analysis. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I have two study Bibles. One of them did not have a footnote >> >> >> > about >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > scripture in question. I have a Bible dictionary but it was >> >> >> > poorly >> >> >> > written >> >> >> > since many words that I have searched for are not in the >> >> >> > dictionary. >> >> >> > My >> >> >> > 1000 page concordance has been really helpful. >> >> >> > Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> What you need are a few books on textual criticism. That'll open >> >> >> your >> >> >> eyes. >> >> >> Well, it would on an ordinary person. >> >> > >> >> > I once knew someone that had such a book. He loved to discuss >> >> > various >> >> > scriptures that he found in that book. >> >> >> >> Why don't you buy a copy of Misquoting Jesus and read it? >> > >> > I have no desire to read such a book. A book written by Tom Clancy >> > would >> > be more interesting to me. Someone suggested that I read a book related >> > to >> > Quantum Physics--that made me laugh. I barely passed the college math >> > 101 >> > class. >> > Jason >> >> If you don't care to read 'such a book',then you have no authority to >> argue >> with others when it comes to your bible. Don't be ignorant all of your >> life, >> do something about it! > > You should consider reading this book: "Jerusalem Countdown" by a > television preacher named John Hagee. John Hagee is a joke. As I said I sometimes watch him for laughs. The subject under discussion was on textual criticism and you getting the book Misquoting Jesus. If you don't read it you can't refute what I say. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506071834370001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <lh3673du7ih3djcq80783nt85hl8i6olef@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:20:45 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1506071520450001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <4672fa8c$0$20560$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher >> >Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1506071227220001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <NDyci.165$W9.27@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Someone was trying to convince me that Allah and Jehovah were the >> >> > same >> >> > God. My point was that the Bible clearly states that Israel is the >> >> > homeland for Jews. The Muslims believe that Israel should be under >> >> > the >> >> > control of Muslims. If they had the same God, they would only have >> >> > one >> >> > holy book. In this case, they have the Koran and we have the Old > Testament >> >> > and the New Testament. >> >> > jason >> >> > The >> >> > >> >> >> >> Jason has been pointed out to you Allah is the Arabic word for God >> >> nothing >> >> more nothing less. The Jews do not say the name of God at all, and >> >> Christians just use the generic term God. Both the Christian and the > Muslim >> >> are offshoots of Judaism so you both have Jewish roots and all three > groups >> >> are in fact worshipping the same God. Furthermore you are also all >> >> worshiping the same Ultimate God of all other Faiths as well as St. >> >> Augustine said in "The City of God" the God we worship " is the God >> >> whom >> >> Porphyry, the most learned of philosophers, although the fiercest of >> >> enemy >> >> of the Christian, acknowledges to be a Great God..." Furthermore, the > Pagan >> >> Maximus of Tyre wrote: "In the midst of such contention and strife, >> >> and >> >> disagreement you would see in all the earth one harmonious law and > principle >> >> that there is one God, king and father of all, and many gods, sons of >> >> God, >> >> fellow rulers with God. The Greek says this and the barbarian says it, >> >> the >> >> mainlander and the seafarer, the wise and the unwise." >> > >> >We have a different point of view related to this subject. I have read >> >some of quotations from the Quran and found out that there are MAJOR >> >differences between the Koran and the Bible. Here is just one example: >> > >> >From the Quran: >> >Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, >> >beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war). >> >Surah 9:5 >> > >> >"...cutting off of hands and feet...." Surah 5:33 >> > >> >Needless to say, you will not find words like that in the New Testament. >> > >> >Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself". Jesus never taught his >> >followers to cut off the hands and feet of pagans or to slay pagans. >> >Jason >> >> It is clear that you worship your interpretation of the Bible instead of >> worshipping the God of Abraham. Since that is the case, I agree that >> Moslems do not worship what you worship. > > I worship the God mentioned in the Holy Bible. I don't worship the God > that is mentioned in the Quran. They are one and the same. All are children of Abraham. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <P9Vci.2628$s9.1301@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1506072255010001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <b1ubk4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > >> > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:45:47 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >> > The title of the article was > >> > WAS DARWIN WRONG? > >> > the answer was: > >> > No--the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. > >> > > >> > I read the article and my conclusion was: > >> > the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming but the > >> > evidence for abiogenesis and common descent is underwhelming. > >> > >> > >> Please show where, in Darwin's works, he details his theory of > >> abiogensis. > >> He must have, otherwise to mention it in the context of an article titled > >> "Was Darwin Wrong" would be bringing up a subject completely irrelevant > >> to > >> the article - in short, it would be dishonesty. > >> > >> So, please, show us Darwin's theory of abiogensis. You must have one, > >> unless you're just a scummy little lying bag of putrescence, or you > >> wouldn't have mentioned abiogenesis in this context. > > > > > > Good points--actually, in the last chapter--in at least in one of the > > editions of his book--he indicated that "the creator breathed into a few > > forms or into one." In other words, he seemed to believe that the Creator > > created life on this planet. > > source: the last paragraph of Darwin's book. > > You have been shown that even Christian apologists don't use that. Why do > you still do so? Are you stating that the above quotation was NOT in at least one edition of Darwin's book? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506071839260001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <mWEci.1194$s9.431@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1506071641330001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <tvDci.289$P8.76@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1506071520450001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <4672fa8c$0$20560$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher >> >> > Morris" <Draccus@roadrunner.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:Jason-1506071227220001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> > In article <NDyci.165$W9.27@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Someone was trying to convince me that Allah and Jehovah were the >> >> >> > same >> >> >> > God. My point was that the Bible clearly states that Israel is >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > homeland for Jews. The Muslims believe that Israel should be >> >> >> > under >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > control of Muslims. If they had the same God, they would only >> >> >> > have >> >> >> > one >> >> >> > holy book. In this case, they have the Koran and we have the Old >> >> >> > Testament >> >> >> > and the New Testament. >> >> >> > jason >> >> >> > The >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason has been pointed out to you Allah is the Arabic word for God >> >> >> nothing >> >> >> more nothing less. The Jews do not say the name of God at all, and >> >> >> Christians just use the generic term God. Both the Christian and >> >> >> the >> >> >> Muslim >> >> >> are offshoots of Judaism so you both have Jewish roots and all >> >> >> three >> >> >> groups >> >> >> are in fact worshipping the same God. Furthermore you are also all >> >> >> worshiping the same Ultimate God of all other Faiths as well as St. >> >> >> Augustine said in "The City of God" the God we worship " is the >> >> >> God >> >> >> whom >> >> >> Porphyry, the most learned of philosophers, although the fiercest >> >> >> of >> >> >> enemy >> >> >> of the Christian, acknowledges to be a Great God..." Furthermore, >> >> >> the >> >> >> Pagan >> >> >> Maximus of Tyre wrote: "In the midst of such contention and strife, >> >> >> and >> >> >> disagreement you would see in all the earth one harmonious law and >> >> >> principle >> >> >> that there is one God, king and father of all, and many gods, sons >> >> >> of >> >> >> God, >> >> >> fellow rulers with God. The Greek says this and the barbarian says >> >> >> it, >> >> >> the >> >> >> mainlander and the seafarer, the wise and the unwise." >> >> > >> >> > We have a different point of view related to this subject. I have >> >> > read >> >> > some of quotations from the Quran and found out that there are MAJOR >> >> > differences between the Koran and the Bible. Here is just one >> >> > example: >> >> > >> >> > From the Quran: >> >> > Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, >> >> > beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of >> >> > war). >> >> > Surah 9:5 >> >> > >> >> > "...cutting off of hands and feet...." Surah 5:33 >> >> > >> >> > Needless to say, you will not find words like that in the New >> >> > Testament. >> >> > >> >> > Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself". Jesus never taught his >> >> > followers to cut off the hands and feet of pagans or to slay pagans. >> >> > Jason >> >> >> >> Ever read the Old Testament. That is part of your bible, isn't it? >> > >> > Yes >> >> Well then,you should know that it is replete with incidents just like the >> ones you are ascribing to the Muslims! > > I have read the Old Testament. It discusses various covenants. However, > Christions are part of a different covenant called the "New Covenant". I > heard one preacher refer to the New Testament as the Handbook for the New > Covenant. I have learned a lot from the Old Testament. We do not need to > sacrafice animals or do any of the other things related to older > covenants. What did god do in the OT and what did he ask his children to do? Screw your covenants. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506071847420001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <jn4673pa84kld2sss540231p6e13j9bndt@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:59:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1506071459200001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >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. >> >She mentioned how the children in her school teased her because of her >> >limp. 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. 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. >> >Jason >> > >> So you believe someone who is telling you a nearly unbelievable story >> without any actual evidence just because she is pretty and tells you >> that she is a Christian. >> >> You make Christians look bad. > > > That's funny. I have heard lots of testimonies over the years related to > people that were healed by God. Whether or not the women are pretty has > nothing to do with it. We pray for the healing of people that request it. And it makes no difference in the outcome! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506071852300001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <844673l3qbgm6b42m59ps8l29e1ah3ogip@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:46:45 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1506071146450001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <fHyci.169$W9.109@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1406072012490001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> ... >> >> > I am convinced that people only believe things that "fit" their >> >> > belief >> >> > system. That is the reason I believed Cheryl Prewitt and William A. >> >> > Kent. >> >> > It also explains the reason that atheists did not believe that God >> >> > healed >> >> > Cheryl Prewitt and William A. Kent. It also explains why the rich >> >> > man's >> >> > brothers (mentioned in Luke 16:19-21) would not have listened to the >> >> > rich >> >> > man--even if he had returned from the dead. Do you agree or >> >> > disagree? >> >> >> >> Quit attempting to open secondary discussions, Jason, it is dishonest. >> >> Everyone examines anything in light of their worldview. Some of us > are able >> >> to see the truth even though we might be looking at something that is >> >> diametrically opposed to our worldview. Others can't see the splinter >> >> for >> >> the log. >> > >> >The advocates of creation science are able to do the same thing. >> > >> To do what? You didn't have a meaningful antecedent. >> >> I know that the advocates of creation science refuse to learn science or >> admit the facts that they know about, so you cannot possibly be saying >> that they are willing to look at the scientific evidence. > > I subscribe to the ICR newsletter. They have an article written by someone > that has a Ph.D. degree in every issue. I believe the older articles are > on the website. For example, if you typed a term into their search engine, > the result would probably be an article that was once part of a > newsletter. > Jason Oh, someone who has a Ph.D. Should we all kneel? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1506071118320001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <NDyci.167$W9.78@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1406071952230001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <wgici.1412$ma.496@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1406071218540001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <%_aci.3526$s8.1518@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Martin" <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:1181791042.696607.245920@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 14, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> > Even if Jesus himself >> >> >> >> > saiys not any word about this in the NT. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, he does. He forgave a prostitute for her sins. He could >> >> >> >> have >> >> >> >> had >> >> >> >> her >> >> >> >> stoned to death--he did not do it. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the Christian concept of a >> >> >> > loving >> >> >> > god! >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Martin >> >> >> >> >> >> Actually Jason the story about the prostitute was added to the >> >> >> bible. >> >> >> Jesus >> >> >> never had such an encounter. >> >> > >> >> > It was absent from the Alexandrian text but was in other >> >> > manuscripts--including in the writings of Augustine. >> >> > >> >> > I copied the above information from a footnote in my study >> >> > Bible--the >> >> > editor was W.A. Criswell, Ph.D. >> >> >> >> This story is not part of the original story told by John. You are >> >> correct >> >> that it is found in some manuscripts but not necessarily in John. I >> >> think >> >> the fact that it isn't in the best texts we have and that when it is >> >> found >> >> it is found in various places makes it pretty certain that the story >> >> was >> >> a >> >> later inclusion by the followers of Jesus. Which brings us to the >> >> writings >> >> of Augustine. While we can get valuable information from the writings >> >> of >> >> the >> >> early church fathers as to the composition of the earliest bible, it >> >> must >> >> also be remembered that the early church fathers wrote many of the >> >> things >> >> in >> >> the bible to support their point of view. >> > >> > There are footnotes in study Bibles about those sorts of cases. Several >> > months ago, National Geographic published "The Book of Judas". It may >> > have >> > been portions of the book of Judas. I heard a television preacher say >> > that >> > he found out that the Book of Judas was actually written several >> > hundred >> > years after Judas died. Have you read anything about the Book of Judas? >> > I >> > have not read it. >> > Jason >> >> Why don't we stick to the point under discussion, was the story of the >> prostitute in the original writings of the bible? >> I have heard of the gospel of Judas but I haven't read it. I have read >> the >> gospel of Mary and I have the gospel of Thomas in my library. > > I have already told you what Dr. Criswell has stated about the prostitute > story. I don't give a damn what Criswell said. The evidence is there for anyone to see, and what I reported shows that this was not an original part of the bible. What do you think? You can think for yourself, can't you? 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.