Guest Martin Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 16, 6:26 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects Again, why do you suppose we would have a "desire" to read this crap? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 1:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f50kke$l8...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f4u3vf$h...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <f4rc1o$46...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > >>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >>>> Jason wrote: > > >>>>> In article <WgYbi.3170$s8.2...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > >>>>> <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>>>>>news:Jason-1306071303300001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >>>>>>> The people (like Cheryl Prewitt) that are healed by God are > > > evidence that > > >>>>>>> there is a God. Even when Jesus was on this earth, he did not heal > > >>>>>>> everyone that needed to be healed. > > >>>>>> Mighty convenient Jason, your god doesn't heal all just select ones. > > >>> I guess > > >>>>>> you need it that way to fit what we all know to be reality. > > >>>>> If God healed all people of all medical problems--people would > never die. > > >>>> Then why heal ANY of them? Your "logic" just doesn't pass muster. > > >>> Because he enjoys answering the prayers of his servants--such as Christian > > >>> farmers praying for rain. > > >> And what about the xian farmers that pray for rain and don't get it? > > > >> Are you saying god is capricious and arbitrary? > > > > There is a scripture that says something like this: > > > God's ways are not our ways. God's thoughts are not our thoughts. > > > There's also one that says "Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth > > of a fool invites ruin." You, Jason, are a disaster area. > > > > The point is that God has a reason for every action he takes. We don't > > > know his reasons. The most that we can do is to make guesses based upon > > > various situations. Examples: rainstorm; the healing of Cheryl Prewitt and > > > William A. Kent. > > > I.e. you don't have any possible way of telling what healing was done by > > some god and which wwasn't but you'll still claim that one was and > > another wasn't based on your whims. > > There is a story in the Bible about a blind man that was healed by Jesus. Jesus never existed. I am behaving as every good college professor should, Jason: I am correcting your mistakes and telling you the truth. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 1:40 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. Unless he was a Christian in which case he'd be telling the truth. Right, Jason? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 2:00 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <ja6dk4-ama....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [snips] > > > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:45:13 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > You stated the answer is...nobody knows. > > > That is not true. I know. God created the solar system and life. > > > You know this, do you? The only way to know this is to know God > > exists, which would require tangible evidence that he does. I'm sure you > > will now provide such evidence. > > > Oh, wait, you can't. All you've been able to do thus far is some rather > > lame hand-waving about healings and the like, as if you think that > > actually demonstrates anything. > > > Try again. > > Would this work better: > I believe that God created the solar system and life. It's amazing what you believe your non-existant god capable of doing! Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 2:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I don't believe that you understood There you go insulting people again, Jason, and you are probably completely unaware you are doing it: for the record, WE understand you but yopu obviously don't understand us. You are, after all, the one lacking in any education whatsoever after all. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 3:02 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <8KadnTbDRc_Jd-7bnZ2dnUVZ_jidn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > <s...@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. Apparently not. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 3:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <je8873pjs52mgi113uqmgk7v7uidq6t...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > J...@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. So her motivation was to sell her book, eh? You should have looked at her book, Jason. Then asked her why she didn't include any of her medical records to prove her story. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 2:30 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1606071202060001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > > > In article <8KadnTbDRc_Jd-7bnZ2dnUVZ_jidn...@sti.net>, "David V." > > <s...@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 :-) It's possible that Jason (assuming there is only one of them) is an employee of ICR who is just here to promote the website. The ICR website says they are located in California, so it all makes sense. It's sad that this is the best they can do. Are none of their Ph.D.s available? Why doesn't any creationist with a Ph.D. ever want to debate us? Why are we left arguing with somebody who obviously has no education whatsoever? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 2:51 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Unless AIG and the ICR have changed in the last two years they do. Here is > the ICR statement: > [...] The Bible is > divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. What a joke! So presumably, pi is exactly 3! Martin Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 3:12 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1506071852300001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <844673l3qbgm6b42m59ps8l29e1ah3o...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:46:45 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1506071146450...@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <fHyci.169$W9....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> ><mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >> "Jason" <J...@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? To Jason, a Ph.D. is only of value if the person is also a believer. He's on record as having said that non-believers are "fucking morons". Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 4:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <bra873tuptej1b6nio0c4q9amov1e7l...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > J...@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". > > Juries make mistakes. I believe O.J's jury made a major mistake. I would > have found O.J. guilty. > > Dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of convicts have been released from prison as > a direct result of DNA tests that confirmed they were not guilty. How ironic. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n8_v33/ai_18980724 "The Arts and Entertainment network's documentary, "american Justice: How O.J. Won," faults the uneducated jury's inability to understand the DNA evidence." The reason O.J. got off was as a direct result of uneducated people like you who chronically ignore evidence they don't understand. Martin Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 4:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f51ago$cb...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <981ck4-7cg....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > <kbjarna...@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. As is the creation of a living cell from non-living base elements. That is not how it happened. As you've been told already, the proteins, RNA and lipid membranes all existed first (and all have been produced in laboratories). Even with all of these in existance, it apparently took millions of years for them to come together under the right conditions and form the first cell. Martin Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 4:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <NdWci.635$W9....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1606071048390001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <f50ost$p7...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Free Lunch wrote: > > >> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:03:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > > >> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> > <Jason-1506071503110...@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's sin. > > © THEOLOGY > > 1.. The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons-God the Father, God the > > Son, and God the Holy Spirit. > > 2.. All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by > > choice) and are therefore subject to God's wrath and condemnation. > > 3.. Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only > > through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His > > complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead. > > 4.. The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus > > Christ. > > 5.. The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits > > of righteousness. > > 6.. Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and > > expressed in the individual's repentance, recognition of the death of Christ > > as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord > > and God. > > 7.. All things necessary for our salvation are either expressly set down > > in Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from > > Scripture. > > 8.. Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin > > Mary. > > 9.. Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and is > > currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in > > person to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead. > > 10.. Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man. > > 11.. Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting > > conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God. > > 12.. The only legitimate marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. > > God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of > > marriage. > > (D) GENERAL > > 1.. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation. > > 2.. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six > > [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation. > > 3.. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but > > not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time. > > 4.. The 'gap' theory has no basis in Scripture. > > 5.. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of > > Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into 'secular' > > and 'religious,' is rejected. > > 6.. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including > > history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural > > record. > > I saw that you actually found one of the statements and then gave it a hand > > wave. What a sorry excuse for a human being you are. > > Revisit the site and copy and paste evidence that indicates that the > advocates of creation science are required to sign a pledge. What the Hell do you think the above is??? Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 5:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <ZqWci.644$W9....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1506071822310001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > 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. > > I'm not going to buy the book. Of course not, because that could cause you to actually learn something. What possible reason do you think any of us would have to want to read a book recommended by you? Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 5:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <rie873hq5dfce3p3ia4dtebdmidapsq...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > >In article <je8873pjs52mgi113uqmgk7v7uidq6t...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > ><Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> J...@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. > > Have you read it? > > No, there was a crowd of people gathered around the table waiting for > Cheryl to show up and sign the books for them. I did not buy a copy. I had > already heard her testimony so saw no reason to read the book. It was > probably her life story--including details about the car accident and > healing. As you said already, you don't need actual evidence. I doubt if the book contained any either. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 5:27 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I had no reason to not believe her testimony. You admitted that she hadn't produced any evidence. That right there is a good reason not to believe her testimony. On top of that, there is the fact that no car accident is going to result in her leg being two inches shorter, not unless the accident resulted in part of her foot being severed off: I'm sure plenty of us here have had broken arms or broken legs and we know that doctors never remove pieces of bone, knowing that the break will repair on its own if it is set in place. Bones heal naturally and people don't claim that God was involved. You had plenty of reason to not believe her testimony. Stop lying about that. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 4:35 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:13:36 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1506072213360...@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <i5sbk4-7cg....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > ><kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> [snips] > > >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:57:36 -0700, Jason wrote: > > >> > Is a testimony evidence? > > >> No, it's testimony. Nor does your exemplar even qualify; even the people > >> involved don't claim to have seen God, or seen how the healings were > >> performed; they only assert "God dunnit" with no foundation whatsoever. > > >> Anyone can make claims. Finding someone else making the same claim > >> doesn't back it up; it just means there are two people failing to provide > >> evidence of their claims. > > >> By your logic, if Free Lunch claimed he was the president of the United > >> States and I said the same thing, this is "evidence" that he is, in fact, > >> the president. Obviously this is not true, so there's something wrong > >> with your logic. Try again. > > >I now understand why atheists do not believe Cheryl Prewitt's testimony. > >Do you understand why most of the Christians that listen to her testimony > >believe her testimony? (Hint: it's related to a person's belief system) > > So you will believe any lie that someone tells you as long as they claim > to be Christian, but you will reject actual physical evidence if the > person telling you about it isn't a Christian. So he is finally admitting that he believes someone if they are Christian and considers them liars if they aren't. He's got it backwards. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 5:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <lkodk4-ama....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [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 disagree. Christians had much more power in the 1700's, 1800's and early > 1900's. Back in those days, teachers led elementary school children in the > Lord's prayer each day. Creation science was taught in high school biology > classes. I could give other examples. Which doesn't change the fact that people who wish to tell the truth about your religion are facing an uphill battle with people like you opposing them. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 5:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <vfsdk4-ama....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > > > > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:59:20 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > In article <5dg7koF34ssf...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <J...@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. > > One point that you have NOT considered is that I was NOT setting on a jury > judging her case. If I had been on her jury--I would have the thought > pattern mentioned in your post. I would have examined all of the physical > evidence--including medical records and X-rays. I would listen to the > testimony of doctors and nurses. > > Instead, I attended a church service and listened to her testimony and > listened to her sing her songs. I had no reason to judge her. > > Do you see my point--I doubt it. Again, you haven't made a point for us to see. All you've done is state once again that you only believed her because she was a Christian who was telling you what you wanted to hear and that you weren't interested in looking at any evidence. That is precisely what WE have been telling YOU. Do you see OUR point? Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 5:56 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <MmXci.1001$nQ5....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1606071345400001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <NdWci.635$W9....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> 6.. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including > > >> history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural > > >> record. > > > > Revisit the site and copy and paste evidence that indicates that the > > > advocates of creation science are required to sign a pledge. Otherwise, > > > admit that such evidence is not at that site. I have never signed a pledge > > > and I subscribe to the ICR newsletter. > > > I don't know if such evidence is currently at that site. I found the pledge > > above, I don't see a place to sign it, but even you can get the drift of the > > above statement. I hope you can. If you wish to 'revisit' the site you do > > it! > > You would have to prove that advocates of creation science have to sign a > pledge before I would believe it. It must be hard for you to type with your eyes closed like that. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 6:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <2di873lbeeshm9r2u5i2dp4c1q3cv5p...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > >No, there was a crowd of people gathered around the table waiting for > > >Cheryl to show up and sign the books for them. I did not buy a copy. I had > > >already heard her testimony so saw no reason to read the book. It was > > >probably her life story--including details about the car accident and > > >healing. > > > So you don't know if she presents any evidence in the book, for her > > claims. > > No--I did not buy the book or read the book. As someone pointed out to me, > even if the physical evidence proved that the bone grew two inches--it > would not prove that God healed her. Of course, Cheryl and most of the > Christians that heard her testimony and have read her book believe that > God healed her leg. Which tells you what, exactly? I'd answer my own question but you'd accuse me of disparaging Christians. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 1:00 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfin...@sti.net>, "David V." > > <s...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life > > > forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. > > > No, it would not. > > > > example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus > > > Which is why a hyracotherium did not evolve into an equus. > > > Evolution doesn't work that way.... and you know it. > > Did you want me to mention all of the steps: > > step 1: Hyracotherium--"vaguely horselike creature" > step 2: Orohippus > step 3: Epihippus > step 4: Mesohippus > step 5: Dinohippus > step 6: Equus--"modern genus of horse" > > source: National Geographic--Nov 2004--article: "Was Darwin Wrong" Each step does not correspond to a _single_ mutation. Each step represents a different species altogether. Quote
Guest George Chen Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 4:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <bra873tuptej1b6nio0c4q9amov1e7l...@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > > J...@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". > Juries make mistakes. I believe O.J's jury made a major mistake. I would > have found O.J. guilty. > Dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of convicts have been released from prison as > a direct result of DNA tests that confirmed they were not guilty. How ironic. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n8_v33/ai_18980724 "The Arts and Entertainment network's documentary, "american Justice: How O.J. Won," faults the uneducated jury's inability to understand the DNA evidence." The reason O.J. got off was as a direct result of uneducated people like you who chronically ignore evidence they don't understand. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Jun 17, 4:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f51ago$cb...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <981ck4-7cg....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > <kbjarna...@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. As is the creation of a living cell from non-living base elements. That is not how it happened. As you've been told already, the proteins, RNA and lipid membranes all existed first (and all have been produced in laboratories). Even with all of these in existance, it apparently took millions of years for them to come together under the right conditions and form the first cell. Martin Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <brKdnS6w5O9iCenbnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life >>> forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. >> No, it would not. >> >>> example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus >> Which is why a hyracotherium did not evolve into an equus. >> >> Evolution doesn't work that way.... and you know it. > > Did you want me to mention all of the steps: > > step 1: Hyracotherium--"vaguely horselike creature" > step 2: Orohippus > step 3: Epihippus > step 4: Mesohippus > step 5: Dinohippus > step 6: Equus--"modern genus of horse" And that right there shows that "a hyracotherium did not evolve into an equus." In fact, there wasn't just those 6 steps. There was millions of steps where a hyracotherium evolved into antother hyracotherium that was just the tiniest bit different. Then that one evolved into another that was a tiniest bit different, etc. Eventually these differences added up enough to where we no longer called it a Hyracotherium but instead called it a Orohippus. But there wasn't any point where some animal was 2' tall and then all of a sudden its immediate offspring were 4' tall like cretinists like to make it look. It didn't take a major mutation but simply required thousands or millions of tiny ones. 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.