Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:34:39 -0700, Jason wrote: > We discussed this in another post. My conclusion was that since I don't > have a video tape showing God coming down from heaven and healing her > foot--it would be a waste of time to prove to you that her leg bone was > healed. Yes, it would; her healing would be evidence of her healing, nothing more. > rose from the dead." My conclusion was that if atheists would not listen > to man that returned from the dead I'm sure you'll provide this man risen from the dead, along with the evidence that he was, in fact, dead. -- .... I am Khan of Borg. From hell’s heart I assimilate thee.. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <6i6873dant6i7r2qt7olb2557ds9oan3nq@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:06:24 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <1iv573117ivs5agfgk2di9kjs5qim6jsqn@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:12:37 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> > >> >In article <pue373hcaj30bj1jcgp9lfvpf27cuklsab@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:44:42 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> >> > >> >> >In article <k9h273p8806sfnq9i3hevsje8qufrapnca@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > >> >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:24:58 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >In article <eig17358isldvc4vhf9pg2rromvhsrn7q2@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > >> >> >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:22:05 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> >> >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >In article <46n0735npa5v05vudinp6rpte4i50rr7p3@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > >> >> >> >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> In alt.atheism On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:03:30 -0700, > >Jason@nospam.com > >> >> >> >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >In article <f4pa1r$vpv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> >> >> >> >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <opc3k4-7or.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey > >> >Bjarnason > >> >> >> >> >> >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [snips] > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:42:26 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which > >> >> >> >indicated that > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it > >> >> >happened? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Honestly, by stating the cause - if any, you haven't > >validated > >> >> >> >> >even this > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> much yet - simply isn't known yet. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "I don't know" is not the same as "Yes, there really > >is a super > >> >> >> >> >being who, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of all the thousands of such beings described, just > >happens to > >> >> >> >> >match this > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> particular one and he really does heal people, but does it > >> >> >magically > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> without leaving any evidence he did it - or even that he > >> >exists." > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You see how those differ? Maybe, some day, you'll let it > >> >sink in. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Have you considered that God is giving you evidence that he > >> >> >exists by > >> >> >> >> >> >> > healing people? Maybe, some day, you'll let it sink in. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Are all the people that aren't healed evidence that there is > >> >no god? > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> BTW, if I went to a doctor that had as bad of a healing rate > >> >as your > >> >> >> >> >> >> god, I'd sue him for malpractice. > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> She was healed by god because you say so. That > >doesn't fly. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >Cheryl Prewitt told me that she was healed by God. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> So what? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> And I reposted my responses to your 20 questions. Are you > >> >> >> >> going to address them? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Thank you for answering the questions. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> When will you address them? Here: let me repost them AGAIN. In > >> >> >> fact, every response to you from now on will include those answers. > >> >> >> Every. Single. Response. From. Me. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 20 Questions for Evolutionists > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 1. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > What's the mechanism > >> >> >> >for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Mutation. Natural selection > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >How, for example, > >> >> >> >could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It transforms, dumbshit. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should > >be there > >> >> >> >if your theory is right? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC220_1.html > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in > >DNA, could > >> >> >> >ever assemble itself? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 5. How could organs as complicated as the eye > >> >> >> > >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > or the ear > >> >> >> > >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural > >> >> >processes? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB303.html > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > How could a bacterial motor evolve? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin > >backwards? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Oh for fucks sake, Hovind: this has nothing to do with > >> >> >> evolution. 7 and 8 have nothing to do with evolution, either. That is > >> >> >> in the field of COSMOLOGY and ASTROPHYSICS, moron. Stop believing Kent > >> >> >> Hovind. He's a liar and a con-artist. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 9. How did sexual reproduction evolve? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/dec98.html > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It's not information. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood > >legends? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Because the started near rivers. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 12. Where did matter come from? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Where did god come from? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 13. How did the first living cell begin? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> No one really knows, but it's not a miracle. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> How did god begin? Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. > >> >> >> Yes, god began. No, god didn't not begin. I'll keep repeating that > >> >> >> until you understand that you can't special plead. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen > >or did > >> >> >> >it not have oxygen? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Didn't. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> We do find them there in their remnants. Search for "iridium > >> >> >> layer" in google. You'll find something interesting. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why > >doesn't it take > >> >> >> >vastly more intelligence to create a human? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence than that to > >> >> >> create god? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Do you really believe that > >> >> >> >hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Only if you want to strawman evolution, which clearly you do. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can > >> >> >> >only be produced by DNA? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got > >> >> >> >there > >> >> >> > >> >> >> http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't > >> >> >> >students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary > >> >> >> >theories for the moon's origin? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> There AREN'T any evolutionary theories for it because IT'S NOT > >> >> >> PART OF EVOLUTION, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. IT'S PART OF > >> >> >> ASTROPHYSICS/COSMOLOGY, YOU IGNORANT FUCK. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, > >scientific > >> >> >> >debate? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Because they don't want to dirty themselves with the laughable > >> >> >> bullshit of creationists. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following > >> >> >> >twenty-one features of the earth: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> No. I've humored you enough > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your > >> >> >> >explanation > >> >> >> > >> >> >> No, you won't. You will just point us to a place that closes > >> >> >> its eyes and screams "gawddidit" over and over. > >> >> > >> >> >thanks for your answers--you get a grade of A. > >> >> > >> >> That's nice. Now respond to my answers. > >> >> > >> > >> >Did your teachers in high school and professors in college respond to > >> >every answer you gave on every test or exam? > >> > >> Yes. Now respond to my answers. > >Do you want me to > > respond to the questions like you said you would when you said > you'd "point out some obvious problems with [your] explanation", yes. I saw no problems with your explanations. > > Failure to do so will result in your admission of being a > coward. > > Don > --- > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:00:10 -0700, Jason wrote: >> Just because someone professes to be a Christian doesn't mean they're >> incapable of telling a lie. We need only look at the whoppers told by >> the ICR, Discovery Institute and AIG, among others, for proof of that. > > > I don't believe every Christian. But you apply absolutely no sane standard in picking which ones to believe. You believe Gish and Morris, who are outright frauds. You believe Ms. What's-her-face despite a complete lack of evidence for her claims. You don't actually put any thinking into your choices, just "Sounds good, must be right" which is the hallmark of the gullible, not of the cautiously selective. You say you have no reason to believe she's lying, and that's fine, but you also have no reason to believe what's she's saying is true - yet you accept it blindly, without question, simply because it fits your personal prejudices. It's one thing for you to be gullible - hey, it's your life - but to parade it around and expect others to be just as gullible is simply ridiculous. -- If the women would stay at home and take care of the kids, we wouldn’t be having this mess! - Shawn Swanner Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <f518q3$ai2$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f50rdc$sbq$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f4u8s4$5me$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <f4rd13$5bc$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <f4otjc$j2u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>>>> I was referring to these two steps: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > >>>>>>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > >>>>> reproduction) > >>>>>>>> And leaving out the millions of steps that came before and between. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Testimony is considered as evidence in court. Someone pointed out that > >>>>>>>>> physical evidence (eg gun, bloody knife) is more important than > >>> testimony. > >>>>>>>>> I agreed with that person that made that statement. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Let's say that the neighbors in an apartment building hear a married > >>>>>>>>> couple having an argument. They hear the husband say, "I'm going > > to kill > >>>>>>>>> you". The argument ends and the police are not called. The > >>> following day, > >>>>>>>>> the wife was shot as she was walking home from work. The husband > > took a > >>>>>>>>> shower after he shot his wife and washed his hands with bleach > > to remove > >>>>>>>>> any evidence. There were no witnesses present when the husband > > shot his > >>>>>>>>> wife. The police are not able to find a gun when they search the > >>> apartment > >>>>>>>>> and all surrounding areas. They arrest the husband and charge him > >>> with the > >>>>>>>>> murder. All of the neighbors provide testimony at the murder trial. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The jury members convict the husband of first degree > > murder--based upon > >>>>>>>>> the testimonies of the people that heard the argument and heard > > him say, > >>>>>>>>> "I'm going to kill you." > >>>>>>>> No, they wouldn't. You'd never even find a DA that would even think > >>>>>>>> about arresting the guy to begin with, much less prosecuting him, > > based > >>>>>>>> on simply an "I'm going to kill you." Was there even a body? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Do you now understand that TESTIMONY is evidence--even if there is no > >>>>>>>>> physical evidence? > >>>>>>>> Testimony is simply evidence that the person says he > >>>>>>>> saw/heard/tasted/smelled/felt something but NOT evidence that the > >>>>>>>> something actually exists.. But if the neighbor claimed "Yeah, I > > saw him > >>>>>>>> shoot her and bury her body right here" and yet there was no body > > found > >>>>>>>> (or better yet, the wife is actually standing there, alive and > > well) the > >>>>>>>> testimony would likely be ignored. > >>>>>>> Let's try again: > >>>>>>> A woman's husband is observed by 8 witnesses going inside their > > apartment > >>>>>>> with a gun in his hand and shouting, "I am going to kill that > > woman." The > >>>>>>> witnesses hear a gunshot and see the man running from the building. The > >>>>>>> husband had watched over a hundred episodes of CSI and followed > > his plan: > >>>>>>> He was able to get rid of all physical evidence--including the gun. The > >>>>>>> only evidence at the murder trial is the testimony of the witnesses. The > >>>>>>> body of the woman is found. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If you was on the jury, would you find him guilty? I would > >>>>>> Let's try again: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Several people say they overheard a man say "I'm going to kill my wife." > >>>>>> No shot is heard, no gun is found, no bullet, no blood, no body, no wife > >>>>>> has ever been seen (dead OR alive,) there's no woman's clothes in the > >>>>>> apartment, there's a single twin bed, the guy is a flaming gay man. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Would you convict him of murder. Yes, YOU would but any sane person > >>>>>> wouldn't. > >>>>> You failed to answer this question in relation to my scenario: > >>>>> If you was on the jury of the man that 8 witnesses claimed to have heard > >>>>> the husband state: "I am going to kill that woman", would you find him > >>>>> guilty him guilty? > >>>>> > >>>>> In relation to your scenario, I would find him not guilty since a dead > >>>>> body was not found. > >>>> And there has been "no body found" in the case of god. > >>> You failed to tell me if you would find the man guilty or not guilty. > >> The only difference between your example and mine was "there was a shot > >> heard." That STILL wouldn't be enough to even GET to court so there'd be > >> no trial to begin with for me to decide "not guilty" in. So your > >> question was about as meaningful as "if you could fly off into the sky > >> and into the center of the sun, would you eat some ice cream there?" > > > > Thanks for your post. I now understand why O.J. was found not guilty > > despite the fact that most people in America (according to polls) believe > > that he was guilty. His defense was that "Some other guy did it". > > > > If I had been on that jury, I would have found him guilty. > > What do you find so hard to understand about the difference between > "evidence" and "no evidence"? In OJ's case, there was TONS of physical > evidence produced (the jury just didn't accept it as proving what the DA > claimed it did.) In your hypothetical above, there was NO (none, nadda, > zilch, zero, null, squat) physical evidence. In the case of your god, > there is................... (fill in the blank.) 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. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1606071306340001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <8WVci.620$W9.297@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1606071202060001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <8KadnTbDRc_Jd-7bnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." >> > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >> >> > What defines a "major" mutation? Of the 100-odd mutations >> >> > each of us is walking around with, which are "major" ones, >> >> > which are "minor"? How is "major" defined? >> >> >> >> That's part of the problem with anti-evolutionists; when they use >> >> the word "mutation" they always think of an extra leg, two heads, >> >> or a catfish and a turtle mating to create a swamp monster. >> > >> > In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life >> > forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. >> > >> > example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus >> >> Hey Jason, where did you copy that? We all know that you haven't a clue >> as >> to what you said :-). > > National Geographic--November 2004--article entitled, "Was Darwin Wrong". > Hyracotherium was a "vaguely horselike creature". Equus--"modern genus of > horse". I know what they are Jason and I know you don't. Just wanted to know from where you plagiarized it :-)). Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:26:03 -0700, Jason wrote: > Let's try again: > A woman's husband is observed by 8 witnesses going inside their apartment > with a gun in his hand and shouting, "I am going to kill that woman." The > witnesses hear a gunshot and see the man running from the building. The > husband had watched over a hundred episodes of CSI and followed his plan: > He was able to get rid of all physical evidence--including the gun. The > only evidence at the murder trial is the testimony of the witnesses. The > body of the woman is found. > > If you was on the jury, would you find him guilty? I would A week later, you find someone has confessed to the murder, and the husband, whatever his intentions, didn't do it - he stumbled in on a murder in progress, was threatened at gunpoint by the killer and ran off to get help, but in a panic ran out of the building instead of to a neighbor's apartment. And the testimony? What did it amount to? We heard a threat, we saw him go in, we heard a gunshot, we saw him running. Nobody saw him do it, nobody was in the apartment. In the end, their testimony meant nothing as it was wrong and they couldn't actually testify to the crime in the first place. You, of course, would find him guilty, despite the fact you haven't got a shred of a reason to do so, because you can't tell the difference between "could be" and "is". -- Feed ‘em all to Cthulhu. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <je8873pjs52mgi113uqmgk7v7uidq6tvbm@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > <...> > >Whether or not > >atheists believe that God healed Cheryl Prewitt and William Kent is > >probably not important to Cheryl Prewitt or William Kent. > > On the day that Christians like Prewitt and Kent do not care about the > beliefs of those whose beliefs differ from theirs, pigs will fly and > bones will grow. > > Kent speaks: > > http://www.christian-faith.com/testimonies/miraclehealingtestimony.html > > "In the meantime be blessed and relax in the Spirit of the Lord and I > am looking forward to God blessing the masses through the blessing > that He has bestowed upon me as I follow His directive to go forth and > spread the Word and demonstrate the awesome power of the Lord as He > has provided in me." > > Prewitt wrote a book on her alleged miracle. Good point. Do you think the people that buy her book will be Christians or atheists? Would you buy a copy of her book? Now that you mention it, I do recall that there was a book table near the entrance. I should have waited for the service to be over. I could have purchased a copy of her book and had it signed by Cheryl Prewitt. Jason Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <lo9873ta0bhvef6s89ul3msqrs9rkdsfba@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >I stated that I could not produce evidence (such as X-rays) but it's >> >possible that Cheryl Prewitt could produce evidence (such as X-rays and >> >medical records). I have not seen that evidence. I believe you and I >> >believe Cheryl so have no need to see physical evidence. >> >> I would believe she recovered, on the testimony of a licensed >> physician specializing in her case, but I do not believe in miracles. >> If you read David Hume's "On Miracles" you will see why. >> >> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html >> >> "...The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our >> attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, >> unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be >> more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' >> When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I >> immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that >> this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, >> which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle >> against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, >> I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. ..." > >David Hume is entitled to his opinion. David Hume is free to contact >Cheryl Prewitt and request permission to examine her medical records. I don't believe he is quite that free, these days, being dead and all. But in any event, the lesser miracle would be that the medical records are fraudulent. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <je8873pjs52mgi113uqmgk7v7uidq6tvbm@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> <...> >> >Whether or not >> >atheists believe that God healed Cheryl Prewitt and William Kent is >> >probably not important to Cheryl Prewitt or William Kent. >> >> On the day that Christians like Prewitt and Kent do not care about the >> beliefs of those whose beliefs differ from theirs, pigs will fly and >> bones will grow. >> >> Kent speaks: >> >> http://www.christian-faith.com/testimonies/miraclehealingtestimony.html >> >> "In the meantime be blessed and relax in the Spirit of the Lord and I >> am looking forward to God blessing the masses through the blessing >> that He has bestowed upon me as I follow His directive to go forth and >> spread the Word and demonstrate the awesome power of the Lord as He >> has provided in me." >> >> Prewitt wrote a book on her alleged miracle. > >Good point. Do you think the people that buy her book will be Christians >or atheists? Would you buy a copy of her book? > >Now that you mention it, I do recall that there was a book table near the >entrance. I should have waited for the service to be over. I could have >purchased a copy of her book and had it signed by Cheryl Prewitt. > >Jason > Have you read it? Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:32:33 -0700, Jason wrote: >> Let's try this again: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. >> If a man told me that space aliens gave him a ride in their spaceship, it >> would require a hell of a lot more evidence than his 'testimony'! > > good point--however--if he had evidence---such an implanted computer chip > made out of an element not found on the earth--would you be more likely to > believe him? Somewhat, as he is, in fact, providing evidence of something unusual going on... and the only particularly implausible aspects of his story are that these beings have broken the lightspeed barrier and they picked him... though the latter isn't all that much of a deal, as they would, presumably, pick someone and there's a limited selection pool. Meanwhile, we know that intelligent life exists in the universe - we're here. Fundies excepted, of course, but the point remains that we already know there are intelligences in the universe; to posit another is hardly a significant stretch, meaning the only really difficult part of the story is that they got here at all. > In this case, the evidence is a normal leg that is the same > size of the other leg bone--despite an operation that caused two inches > of leg bone to be removed. Which, of course, would be presumed to be simply evidence of fakery of some sort unless demonstrated otherwise, and if it is demonstrated to be legit, then... Well, then what? We do not have any evidence that any gods exist, so it's not like we're saying "Hey, we have one already, why not another?"; rather it is introducing an entirely new, complex and otherwise unevidenced form of existence based solely on a rather feeble foundation of a leg bone. It's far too much conclusion from far too little data and it doesn't even fit your alien analogy. -- “Do we, holding that the gods exist, deceive ourselves with unsubstantiated dreams, and lies, while random careless chance and change alone rule the world?” --- EURIPIDES, 425 B.C. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:28:36 -0700, Jason wrote: > You are leaving out an important issue--several different posters told me > that even if I produced info. about physical evidence that proved her leg > bone grew two inches--they still would not be convinced that God healed > her. > > I ask you Bramble--what good would it do for me to spend time visiting > websites in search of information about physical evidence? If you were in > my shoes, would you waste time finding evidence? If he were in your shoes, one might hope he'd be smart enough to figure out the problem - you're looking for evidence of the wrong thing. You keep trying to show she was healed, but nobody really cares about that. What you should be trying to find is evidence that God exists and was involved, but you never seem to reach that step. -- “In the more or less two hundred Exorcisms I’ve done, by far the majority are possessing dead humans. Ghosts with bad behaviour. Every once in a while, I’ll run into a ‘Being of Darkness’, and then that can be a REAL spooky situation!” --- Lani Stucker Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <lo9873ta0bhvef6s89ul3msqrs9rkdsfba@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >I stated that I could not produce evidence (such as X-rays) but it's > >possible that Cheryl Prewitt could produce evidence (such as X-rays and > >medical records). I have not seen that evidence. I believe you and I > >believe Cheryl so have no need to see physical evidence. > > I would believe she recovered, on the testimony of a licensed > physician specializing in her case, but I do not believe in miracles. > If you read David Hume's "On Miracles" you will see why. > > http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html > > "...The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our > attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, > unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be > more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' > When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I > immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that > this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, > which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle > against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, > I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. ..." David Hume is entitled to his opinion. David Hume is free to contact Cheryl Prewitt and request permission to examine her medical records. Jim, Cheryl Prewitt probably does not care whether or not atheists believe her testimony. Her audience is fellow Christians. I was told by another poster that she has written a book. As a result of his post, it caused be to remember a book table that I observed that was inside the entrance door of our church. Her book customers are mainly fellow Christians. Do you think any atheists will purchase copies of her book? I doubt it but hope so. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:12:49 -0700, Jason wrote: > I am convinced that people only believe things that "fit" their belief > system. Actually, that would be you . We, by contrast, believe things which are backed up with proper evidence. So far, in the Prewitt case, you've suggested some evidence exists she was healed - and fine, if so, we'll all merrily agree, she was healed. What you haven't shown is any evidence that God exists or was involved, and because you haven't provided any evidence, we rightly reject the claim. It's like this. Suppose I throw a rock into the lake, what happens? Lots of concentric rings form around it, right? Now, if you see those rings but missed me throwing the rock - you were looking elsewhere - would you accept my assertion that invisible aliens from Tau Ceti transported down to earth and used their Zap-O-Matic ray guns to create the rings in the water? No? You wouldn't? Why not? I gave you the evidence - you can see the rings for yourself! They prove, absolutely, my claims about the aliens! It's crap. The rings prove that there are rings, and that there was some form of disturbance of the water; they do not prove aliens. That's the argument you're giving us, though - the healing (physical event - rings of water) proves God (claimed responsible entity - aliens). It doesn't, though, it just proves healing. -- Born again people don’t seem to get as much oxygen the second time. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <f519hm$bea$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <760ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > >> > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:50:27 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >>> Speculation is not evidence. The advocates of creation science have fossil > >>> evidence. > >> Sigh. Okay... your continuing science education. > >> > >> Here's a rock (find any handy one, the specific rock doesn't matter). Is > >> it evidence of: > >> > >> 1) Me being the King of Spain > >> 2) Me being the supreme creator of all things > >> 3) Me being left-handed > >> 4) Me causing rocks to form in your vicinity > >> 5) None of the above > >> > >> Correct answer: 5. Here's the question: why is it not evidence of those > >> things? > >> > >> The reason it's not evidence of those things is that there is no mechanism > >> on the table which relates the rock in any way to those claims. There is > >> no theory which predicts that if a rock is found, this supports my claim > >> to the Spanish throne. There needs to be some sort of testable, > >> falsifiable, causal link between the two things. > >> > >> So let's take fossils. Got lots of 'em. Not all of 'em, and while there > >> are plenty of exemplars of transitional forms, these don't account for > >> 100% of all cases we've got so far. All very good. > >> > >> Now, is that evidence that I'm the King of Spain? No, because there's no > >> mechanism involved which explains the relation between those two ideas; I > >> can say the fossils prove my claim, but my saying it doesn't make it so. > >> > >> You say the fossils somehow support creation science, yet, like my claim > >> they support my ascension to the throne, you fail to demonstrate any > >> actual link between the ideas. > >> > >> You might, for example, claim that the fossils represent subsequent waves > >> of creation. Very good, except for one minor issue: you haven't shown > >> the process of creation, so you can't say anything meaningful about how it > >> works. This is about like me asserting the fossils are evidence of > >> fairies; until I show how fairies explain the fossils, how fairies > >> cause the fossils to come to be, and in the manner we find them, then I > >> have no basis to assert that the fossils support my claim, as I've shown > >> no manner in which they _can_ support my claim. I haven't shown the > >> mechanism the fairies used, so I can't show the fossils are consistent > >> with that mechanism. > >> > >> SO you say the fossils support creation science... well, okay, maybe they > >> do. What is the mechanism of creation? Without it, we cannot make any > >> predictions about what we should find in the fossil record, so we can't > >> very well say the fossils match the predictions of the mechanism and thus > >> support creation science. > >> > >> So, what is the mechanism of creation? You must have this, as you > >> assert that the fossils support creation science, and this is what you'd > >> need to make such an assertion. > >> > >> Feel free to trot out this mechanism, we'd all love to see it. > > > > Kelsey, > > Thank you for your well written report. I read the book entitled, > > "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish. As you know, my memory > > is poor so I don't recall everything that I read in his book. If you read > > the first chapter of the Bible, you will know the basics of creation > > science. I summarize it this way: God created mankind; some plants and > > some animals. After the creation process was finished, Natural Selection > > kicked in. D.T. Gish had all of the above information in mind when he > > wrote his fossil book. After discussing lots of different fossils, his > > conclusion was that the fossil evidence indicated that abiogenesis was not > > how life came to be. > > Now that you've shown ON YOUR OWN where he was wrong, are you going to > quit quoting him? > > "Oh, but I didn't show him to be wrong!" you say? > > Sure you did. > > You stated that he claimed that "abiogenesis was not how life came to > be." But you also wrote the following about 10 hours EARLIER yesterday: > > John Baker: Actually, Jason, abiogenesis is an absolute proven fact. > Whether it came about through divine intervention or by purely natural > means, at some point in the planet's history, life did arise from > non-life. We both agree on that. We just disagree about how it happened. > > You: Excellent point > > So if John has an excellent point (that abiogenesis happened even if ti > was god that caused it to happen) then Gish's point (that abiogenesis > didn't happen) is bogus. > > > His other conclusion was that the fossil evidence > > indicated that intelligent design was how life came to be on this planet. > > I have never conducted any research related to fossils. I agree with at > > least one of your points: I don't believe the fossil evidence reveals what > > you call the "mechanism of creation." D.T. Gish does believe the fossils > > supports creation science. > > So why quote him if you don't agree with him? When I stated, "good point", it does not mean that I agree with every word of a post. For example, if you explained an aspect of abigenesis really well--I would conceed that you made some good points. That would not mean that I agreed that abiogenesis was how life came to be on this planet. When I use the term "abiogenesis" in my posts, I define it differently than John defines it. I define it the same way that the advocates of abiogenesis define it--when means that God was not involved in relation to abiogenesis. If I am referring to God creating life--I use the term creation science or intelligent design. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:58:59 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> Is that why your creation 'scientists' sign a pledge that if science >> >> produces evidence that the bible is wrong then that evidence is to be >> >> ignored? >> > >> > I doubt that is true. Who makes them sign the pledge? >> >> You doubt that is true???????? Where have you been, Jason? I can't believe >> that you have been around for at least a couple of years and are not aware >> of the pledges that these morons sign. >> >> No one 'makes' them sign it, they sign it of their own free will. > > What organization or person provides the paperwork and keeps records > related to the signed pledges? I'll email them and ask them about it. CRS Statement of Belief All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief: 1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. That's from their own site: http://www.creationresearch.org/belief_wndw.htm ICR statement of principle: All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. All things which now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation. Again, from their own site: http://www.icr.org/home/faq/ You cannot assert an absolute such as "The Bible is true, period, end of question" and claim to be doing science, as this requires that any evidence you find which contradicts the Bible must be ignored or discarded, rather than examined for what it is and what it means. -- Chocolate arboreal marsupial bioluminescence? It’s coco-koala light. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:21:37 -0700, Jason wrote: > A leg bone that grows two inches IS physical evidence. Yup - but physical evidence of what? The most obvious answer is it's evidence of someone "cooking the books" to make a good story. To claim it is evidence of God is a little much, considering there are much more mundane explanations which account for it just as well. -- Our job is to tell the Good News-so here is the Good News... homosexuality is a sin! - Mark Fox Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1606071345400001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <NdWci.635$W9.404@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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-1606071339190001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f51ago$cbb$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> 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"? > > You changed the subject from chemistry experiments to the creation of the > sun. > Chemistry experiments are easy to do. The creation of a sun is impossible. > There are thousands of colleges that have chemistry labs. Those chemistry > professors should consider conducting more experiments related to > abiogenesis. Martin referred me to a website that mentioned various > chemistry experiments related to abiogenesis. > Jason I do think that this might be the most simple person with whom I've ever dealt. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <8WVci.620$W9.297@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1606071202060001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <8KadnTbDRc_Jd-7bnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > >> > What defines a "major" mutation? Of the 100-odd mutations > >> > each of us is walking around with, which are "major" ones, > >> > which are "minor"? How is "major" defined? > >> > >> That's part of the problem with anti-evolutionists; when they use > >> the word "mutation" they always think of an extra leg, two heads, > >> or a catfish and a turtle mating to create a swamp monster. > > > > In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life > > forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. > > > > example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus > > Hey Jason, where did you copy that? We all know that you haven't a clue as > to what you said :-). National Geographic--November 2004--article entitled, "Was Darwin Wrong". Hyracotherium was a "vaguely horselike creature". Equus--"modern genus of horse". Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:59:20 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <5dg7koF34ssfaU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in >> >> snip >> > >> > In the case of Cheryl Prewitt, the main witness would be Cheryl Prewitt. I >> > believed the testimony of Cheryl Prewitt. >> >> Why? > > After hearing her entire testimony, I found no reason to not believe > her. Wrong approach. The question is what reason did you have to believe her? Did she provide evidence of her claims? No. Do you know there was no trickery going on? No. The simplest explanation is that the whole thing was manufactured as a stunt; this is certainly a more likely explanation than to posit some invisible magic sky pixie with mysterious healing powers who, for no apparent reason, decided to come down today of all days and heal this one particular person. Maybe you don't have any reason not to believe her... but you've given no reason to believe her, either, yet you swallow the whole story, hook line and sinker, without a second's thought. -- “Blatant self-inflicted punishment... such as having to read your posts.” --- Steve Rose “I believe God had it planned for you to read them all along.” --- Nathan Dutton Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 03:26:39 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1606070326390001@66-52-22-53.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects >By: Phillip E. Johnson >Think (The Royal Institute of Philosophy) >February 19, 2007 .... I'm sure that Jason didn't get permission to repost > >I am still convinced that the possible role of intelligent causes in the >history or life will eventually become a subject that leading scientists >will want to address in a fair-minded manner. For now, the influential >scientific organizations are passionately committed to explanations that >consider only material causes, so they reject out of hand any suggestion >that intelligent cause may also have played some role. It seems that >supporting materialism, rather than following the evidence to whatever >conclusion it leads is their prime commitment. Who cares what someone who rejects science thinks about science in the future? Johnson refuses to admit that his stories are completely indefensible, that his entire thesis was disproven, and that he doesn't understand science. I can see why you would choose someone who is so out of touch with reality as someone to quote. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:36:05 -0700, Jason wrote: > I now understand the primary reason that atheists refuse to believe that > God healed Cheryl Prewitt. It related to their belief system and the fact > that they don't believe in God. No, you don't understand. We don't buy it because no evidence has been presented to back up the claims involved. It is that simple. -- Indeed, if there were no God, I would have to be selfish, I believe, because there would be no one else watching out for me, and no reason to put anyone or anything ahead of me. - Jesse C. Jones Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <UXVci.621$W9.523@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1606071154440001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <564dk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > >> > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:45:03 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >> > You know that it is uncommon for major mutations to take place. > >> > >> What defines a "major" mutation? Of the 100-odd mutations each of us is > >> walking around with, which are "major" ones, which are "minor"? How is > >> "major" defined? > >> > >> > In many > >> > cases, the major mutations cause more harm than good. If your theory is > >> > true, many major "positive" mutations would have had to occur. > >> > >> On the contrary; all that is required is many small mutations. Nice try, > >> though. > >> > >> > I read an > >> > article in National Geographic about research that had been done in > >> > relation to fruit flies. The researchers spent lots of time and energy > >> > trying to make mutations happen. They succeeded. > >> > >> Yup. Very much so. > >> > >> > The end result was a > >> > new species of fruit flies. > >> > >> What do you know? Mutation leading to speciation. Exactly as evolution > >> predicts. Well, we're not surprised. > >> > >> > >> > The ICR newsletter had an article about a > >> > creation science versus evolution debate. > >> > >> There is no debate, and won't be until the CS types get off their asses > >> and actually produce a scientifically meaningful theory of creation - > >> something they've never done. > >> > >> > >> > The staff member from ICR was > >> > shocked when the science professor stated in the debate that he had > >> > done > >> > some research on fruit flies and was able to cause a mutation that > >> > caused at least one fruit fly to have two sets of wings. > >> > >> Golly gee... genes controlling structural development. What a shock. > >> > >> > After the > >> > debate was over, the staff member found out the science professor was > >> > telling the truth about the fruit fly that had two sets of wings. > >> > >> Also ones growing legs out of their heads instead of antennae, and all > >> sorts of other novel twists. > >> > >> > He > >> > also found out that the fruit fly was not able to fly. > >> > >> Hardly surprising. > >> > >> > My point was that > >> > even when those researchers used X-Ray machines to create mutations in > >> > fruit flies--that in all cases--the fruit flies continued to be fruit > >> > flies and never evolved into some other type of insect. > >> > >> Are you really so completely ignorant of the science involved you think > >> that expecting something other than fruit flies is reasonable? Are you > >> really that stupid? > > > > You totally missed the point. In order for living cells to have eventually > > evolved into higher life forms, hundreds of lower life forms would have > > had to evolve into higher life forms. For example, in the famous chart > > that is posted on the walls of many biology class rooms shows a creature > > that looks like a monkey on the far left side of the chart and a human > > being on the far right side of the chart. > > That 'famous' chart, you say. I'll give you a clue, Jason, it wasn't > hundreds it was thousands and thousands. Thanks--you are correct. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:01:09 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in <lkodk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>: >[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. Christians are repeating a falsehood when they tell us that they are powerless in America, but they are so completely out of touch with what is happening that they don't realize how fundamentally dishonest that claim is. Integrity and fair analysis are not encourged in many religions. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 [snips] On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:55:39 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: >>When Moses asked (Exodus 3:14), the reply was not a name. > > In Hebrew it was "hayah hayah". > "I am that I am". "And that's all that I am." Hmm... God is Popeye. -- Everything in this world had to be created. We are in a very limited world, after all. God didn’t have to be created, because he is the Creator. All things needed a beginning. And God is that beginning. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. - Ken Young I count five self-contradictions. Is that a record in one paragraph? - Richard Smith 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.