Guest John Baker Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On Sat, 12 May 2007 22:39:14 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: ><snip> > > >> > I understand what you are saying and once had a Christian friend who would >> > discuss these same points until it caused me to avoid him. I believe that >> > he had some sort of obsession about these issues. I don't worry about >> > these issues. >> >> You probably don't worry about Fermat's last theorem either but not >> worrying about an argument does not prove it false. >> >> > It's really not complicated but you are trying to make it >> > much more complex than it is. The bottom line is God is omniscient, >> > omnipotent and benevolent. >> >> You need to understand the difference between belief and fact. >> Beliefs may defy logic and common sense but facts never do. If I had >> to choose between what somebody else believes and what can be >> logically shown to be true then I will believe logic ten times out of >> ten. This does not make me prejudiced: on the contrary, it is >> prejudicial to believe anything and "not worry" about the logic that >> it defies. > >That makes sense. > >> >> > As a result, he could decide on how to create >> > the means necessary for people to get into heaven and to have a >> > relationship with him. The plan of salvation and eternal life is outlined >> > in the Bible. The summary version of the plan is that God wants us to love >> > him and obey him if we want to have fellowship with God and eventually go >> > to heaven. People have free will and choose to love God or hate God. God >> > (if he wanted to) could have done it a different way. You can't blame God >> > if you decide to turn your back on God. >> >> God doesn't exist. There's nothing for me to turn my back on. > >Have you ever considered that you could be wrong? Have you? Of course I've considered the idea. And in the unlikely event that some lucky believer actually succeeds in presenting real, testable objective evidence that God does exist, I'll gladly admit as much. But until that day comes, the complete lack of evidence that any gods exist forces me to conclude that none do, including yours. >In this case, if you are >wrong--you could end up in heaven or hell--the choice is up to you. Congratulations, Jason. You're the one millionth Christian to invoke Pascal's Wager in alt.atheism. There's no prize, but you get bragging rights. If it should turn out that there is a god who created everything, he is intelligent enough to have made a universe so vast and complex as to boggle the finest minds the human race has ever produced, and to have planned every detail of how it would unfold from the very beginning. If such a being does exist, I'll wager he holds an honest unbeliever who based his conclusions on the data available to him in higher regard than a brainwashed sheep who simply believes without question and refuses to use the perfectly good mind he was given. > >> >> > > He knows what I do, he knows what I think and what I will think. Still. >> > > That's omniscient. >> > > And still your claim, not mine. >> > >> > > So. Pay attention. >> > >> > > He fully knew all that when he created everything. Whether that was last >> > > Thursday or 6000 years ago or at the Big Bang. >> > >> > > So he did it on purpose. I had no say in it. What it comes down to is he >> > > created me that way (that is exactly what you are saying). >> > >> > > Or do you want to argue that? That he didn't know then what would happen >> > > today? You claim he is omniscient, so he did know. Or he is not >> > > omniscient. >> > >> > > So I have no choice. I am created that way. >> > >> > > Ok, that deals with the "free will". Simply not possible. >> > >> > > So he created me that way and because he did, I will burn in hell? >> > > So whose fault is it, then? Mine? When I never had a choice? >> > > Hardly. >> > >> > If you end up in hell, it will be YOUR fault and not God's fault. You do >> > have a choice. The choice is to love God or to hate God. >> >> No the choice is between loving your imaginary god, hating your >> imaginary god and realize that your imaginary god doesn't exist. I >> realize that your god doesn't exist and this is a healthy realisation >> to make. >> >> > If you love God, >> > you will not end up in heaven. If your choice is to hate God, you will up >> > in hell. >> >> "In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the >> passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and >> seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and >> adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish >> poison." >> -Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922 >> >> Did Adolf Hitler end up in heaven? >> >> > A benevolent God can also be a loving God that made a way for you >> > or anyone else to gain salvation and eternal life. Over 70 percent of >> > Americans are hoping to go to heaven. Millions of Chinese people are >> > secretly worshipping and loving God and having church services in the >> > homes of people. >> >> The fact remains that an omniscient god would have already decided >> which of us would go to Heaven and which would go to Hell, assuming >> either place existed (which they don't). There is no room for genuine >> free will, not in science and certainly not in your religion. >> >> Martin > Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <q45d431vks86e298qn47760v7sln8mhvml@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 12 May 2007 21:28:50 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1205072128500001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > ><snip> > > > > > >> > A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed to do. > >> > On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God has free > >> > will. Neither God or people are robots. > > > > > > > >> If God is omniscient then he can see the future. If he can see the > >> future then he can see what he will do tomorrow. If he can see what > >> he will do tomorrow then his actions are inevitable and he doesn't > >> have free will. If he _does_ have free will then the actions he would > >> foresee himself doing would not be inevitable. Thus, your god cannot > >> have both free will and omniscience. It's a contradiction. > >> > >> Martin > > > >Martin, > >God may have the power to see in the future related to his own actions but > >that does NOT mean that God does that. If he chose not to see in the > >future related to his own actions--the other issues you mentioned in the > >above post would not be a factor. > > If He doesn't know, whether by choice or not, He isn't omniscient. Are you saying that an omiscient God has no control over it and has to exercise it every minute of every day. That does not make sense. It's my opinion that God has absolute control over his powers. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179033081.770202.4040@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 12:54 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179026321.174219.148...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 13, 6:34 am, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > > > >>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from > > > > >>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. > > > > > > >> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god > > > > >> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable > > > > >> properties that must produce life after the right amount of > > > > >> cause and effect has modified its matter. > > > > > > >> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. > > > > > > > It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for > > > > > me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. > > > > > > > If I saw a new car setting in a junk yard, I would not assume or believe > > > > > that the car must have come about from an explosion that happened at that > > > > > junk yard. It would be easier for me to believe that car was designed and > > > > > created. > > > > > > You mistake "evolution" for "chance". > > > > Look up the "perfect 747" one of these days and why it is not applicable. > > > > > > Abiogenesis "might" actually have an aspect of "chance". But even chance > > > > can have results, if given enough time. If you play the same lottery > > > > numbers long enough you almost certainly will win. You just have to > > > > play them for 50.000 years or so (that's a wild guess. Oh, well. I just > > > > did the maths. Was a wee bit wrong. On average you'd have to play for > > > > 1442307 years and a few months....Wups. One and a half million years....). > > > > > Actually, that's not true. You may never win. Let's say you can win > > > a lottery by choosing one number in ten. You're odds of winning are > > > 1/10. Are you definitely going to win after ten attempts? No, > > > because each attempt is an independent event in which the odds of > > > losing are always 90%: even after playing ten times your chances of > > > winning are only 65% = 1 - (.9)^10. > > > > > This actually works in our favour: there may be billions of billions > > > of planets out there in the universe and perhaps we are the only > > > planet in the universe that has life. Why would any god create an > > > entire universe and only place life on a single planet? It makes more > > > sense if we realize that abiogenesis may be an extremely unlikely > > > process. How can creationists expect us to easily produce life in a > > > laboratory when we don't know if life actually arose anywhere besides > > > Earth? The beauty is that if we _do_ find life on other planets then > > > it would be proof that abiogenesis _does_ occur because it would show > > > that life does emerge from non-life, and not just here on Earth > > > either. Either way, creationism is a failed hypothesis. > > > > > > Still, be are talking billions of years for abiogenesis and evolution > > > > combined. And you only need the starting point. > > > > Evolution has nothing to do with chance. Far from it. > > > God could create life on other planets if he chose to do that. > > And if a scientist ever does produce life in a test tube, you could > argue that your god could have created that too. I would not do that. However, I would reserve judgement on that experiment until other scientist were able to repeat it. Quote
Guest Steve O Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1305070128240001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > It's a complex >> > doctrine. I do believe all people have free will. God and the angels >> > also >> > have free will. God has the power to know what I will do but that does >> > not >> > mean he will force me to change my behavior. He may take actions to >> > cause >> > me to change my behavior. I'll tell you a true story that involved God >> > taking actions to change a person's behavior. This happened when the >> > assistant pastor of my church and his wife was traveling to another >> > state >> > to visit relatives. The wife developed food poisoning and he had to >> > pull >> > over at several gas stations so that she could vomit. They were about >> > two >> > hours behind schedule. They drove past several overturned tractor >> > trailors >> > and overturned automobiles. They turned on the radio and found out that >> > a >> > tornado had crossed the same road they were on about two hours before >> > they >> > arrived to that part of the freeway. She stopped having nausea after >> > they >> > passed the overturned tractor trailors. You may say the tornado and >> > food >> > poisoning was unrelated but that pastor and I believe that God was able >> > to >> > see in the future and he took actions so that his servants avoided >> > being >> > injured by that tornado. > Would you be telling us this story if her vomiting had kept them in the path of the tornado? -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack "The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long enough" Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <5Tx1i.2603$UU.1613@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1179021006.214437.12380@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 13, 4:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >>> I had some major problems with an atheist psychology professor that > >>> ridiculed a fellow Christian and myself related to a situational ethics > >>> class. > >> Let me make one thing clear: I _never_ initiate a round of personal > >> attacks, not even in an online debate like this. I fully admit that > >> there are several regular atheist posters who freely use words like > >> "moron", "idiot" and "liar". I prefer to say things like "Your > >> argument is nonsense", "You're being ignorant" or "You are lying" > >> which is not the same thing because I am responding to a poster's > >> argument and not attacking them personally. Even if somebody has lied > >> repeatedly in post after post, it does not justify calling them a > >> liar: it could just be that you think lying is a valid debating > >> tactic. In any case, I hope you similarly understand the difference > >> between "This [argument] is racist" and "You are racist". > >> > >>> I have had other athest professors that I respected. I don't > >>> dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't > >>> dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. > >> Well then you are different from other fundies who come here because > >> most fundies who come here gleefully tell us we will "burn in Hell". > >> There's nothing more hateful than that. > >> > >> On a personal note, I admit to feeling outright hatred for all Moslems > >> after 9/11. The only way I got over that hatred was to realize that > >> it is religions, not religious people, which are evil. It's like > >> hating an AIDS patient rather than the virus inside of him. > >> > >>> I took a > >>> debate class in college. We appeared to not like each other during the > >>> debates but actually we were friends. I once witnessed a trial where the > >>> lawyers appeared to hate each other and be prejudiced against each other. > >>> During the noon break, I saw them eating lunch together in the courthouse > >>> cafeteria. They appeared to be close friends. > >> They were probably the best of friends. Time and time again, they > >> would have both worked on the same cases, albiet from different > >> sides. They may have each known nobody with whom they had more in > >> common. > >> > >> You obviously forget the true purpose of debate: the purpose of debate > >> is to arrive at the truth by attacking a question from both sides. It > >> isn't a question of having winners and losers. Lawyers who work on > >> opposing sides of cases are collegues, not adversaries. > >> > >> I admire your gift for observation. I just wish your ability to > >> actually see the world the way it is could save you from nevertheless > >> thinking the world is very different from what you see. > >> > >> Martin > > > > Martin, > > Actually, Christianity has really helped me to not fear death. I am > > actually looking forward to it. I have had to deal with elderly people > > that were near death. Some of them were fearful of death. We have all > > heard stories about elderly people that have about a dozen different > > serious medical problems and lots of surgeries. They are afraid to die and > > are trying their hardest to hang on to life a little while longer. That > > will never happen to me. It's my guess that many atheists will decide to > > become Christians when they start getting old or develop a serious disease > > that could cause them to die--just in case they were wrong and want to > > cover all bases. > > Do you think that everyone facing death will suddenly become Christian > because of your coercive eschatology? I've known a fair number of > people facing death. Without exception Christianity mattered as much to > them in their final hours as it did in their lives. > > > Related to one of your other points--please note that I rarely respond to > > anyone that is disrespective to me. I believe those people are hoping to > > impress other people in this newsgroup and don't really want a response. > > I was seriously hoping that you would respond to my comments to you > about your utterly distorted view of what evolution is. I had sincerely > hoped that you would provide actual evidence to prove me wrong or maybe > even changed your views. But thus far my hopes have been in vain. > > I > > once heard a professor say that when people resort to name calling or > > profanity in a debate--it means they have lost the debate since the name > > calling and profanity means they have run out of important points. I > > learned in a debate class to never lose my temper. > > You appear temperate in your debating style. However, you appear to be > uninfluenced by the responses you receive. This is one of the sterile > aspects of scholastic debating - one is judged on presentation, so there > is no requirement for the debater to evaluate the content of his, or his > opponents, arguments. Discussions with you are starting to appear > sterile and pointless - mere scholastic debate. Nothing will change. You > cannot muster arguments to change others' views, and you have shown that > you are impervious to information. And the people that respond to my posts seem to be impervious to change their points of view. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179031647.035924.274380@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, George Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 11:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > It appears to me (based upon newspaper articles and television news shows) > > that crime is more of a problem in the 2000's than it was in the 1950's > > and 1960's > > and yet less of a problem than it was in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, > as born out by actual statistics. I subscribe to the local newspaper. There are lots of reports of crimes. When I read the Los Angeles Times--you would be amazed at the crime rate in that city. In my home town in Virginia, there was not hardly any crime compared to the crimes in this small town in California. They had a jail in my home town in Virginia but on most nights--it was empty. We have over 30 people in the county jail and they want to build a larger jail since they are overcrowded. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179031222.406540.262970@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 13, 11:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179019540.936296.309...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > It is racist to to equate all illegal immigrants with gang members. > > > There have been white gangs, black gangs and even Asian gangs in > > > America too. Most people who come to America looking for work are not > > > only not looking for trouble but are going to avoid getting into > > > trouble for fear of being sent back to Mexico. > > > > That is a true statement. Most illegal immigrants do not get involved in > > criminal behavior. I have worked with some of those wonderful people. I > > did not mean to offend you. > > I appreciate that. Under the circumstances, I think it would be > better to snip what you said above. > > It is my opinion that US immigration policy is racist. Up until very > recently, Canadians could pass into the US from Canada without even > having to show their passports but Mexicans were held back with fences > and were arrested if they passed into the United States. People from > Canada and England have been able to work in the United States without > becoming American citizens but the United States still has no guest > worker program for Mexicans wanting to work in the US. > (Such a program does exist in Canada: a smart, qualified Mexican would > make the trek north. Some do.) Americans and Canadians can travel > all over the world but people crossing into the United States from > Mexico are arrested and deported. In Taiwan, Korea and Japan, a > person who can find work within one month of their arrival is given > permission to stay. > > When I lived in the Philippines I was unknowingly an illegal > immigrant: in most countries in the world, being married to a local > automatically causes one to be granted pernament resident status but > apparently the Philippines only grants pernament resident status to > people who apply from overseas: I could indeed have been thrown in > jail overstaying in the Philippines but instead I found a job here in > Taiwan and brought my family with me. I once had to wait in line > eight hours to get a work visa to go to Korea and when I complained > the girl at the window told me that Koreans have to wait just as long > to get visas from the American embassy: when I told her that I was > Canadian, not American, she apologized, but it was a bit late for > that. I know what it is like to be an illegal immigrant and I know > what it is like to be discriminated against so the comments you made > before affected me quite personally. > > <snip> > > Martin Martin, I have no problem with immigration--as long as people comply with the laws. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179041197.049579.219330@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 3:28 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179028878.837214.212...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 13, 10:43 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1179016435.560080.46...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 13, 3:09 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > In article <f23v14$pbs$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > I do believe there is proof (in the form of fossils) that God > > > > created life > > > > > > > > on this earth. There have been at least two books about this > > subject. > > > > > > > > > What books? I can explain the theory of evolution here without much > > > > > > > trouble and have done so. I can point you to evidence that fits this > > > > theory. > > > > > > > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > > > > > > A thorough examination of all pre-human fossils. > > > > > > >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html > > > > > > > "The major theme of Bones of Contention is that the various species of > > > > > hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one > > > > > another in time. > > > > > > > "Firstly, he argues that a species cannot survive once it has given > > > > > rise to a new species. Unlike many other creationists, he does at > > > > > least attempt to give some justification for this. Supposedly, the > > > > > newer, fitter descendant species, would, because of its superiority, > > > > > drive its parent species to extinction. The argument is incorrect > > > > > because members of the parent species may live in a separate region > > > > > from the new species. If the species come into contact again, there > > > > > may be no competition because they have diverged enough to occupy > > > > > different ecological niches. (Many scientists would argue that even > > > > > the requirement for a separate region is unnecessary.) Additionally, > > > > > it is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to claim that a new > > > > > species is "superior", in an absolute sense, to its parent species. > > > > > Typically, both species will be "superior" at living in their own > > > > > niches. > > > > > > > "This argument is so broad that it would not only disprove human > > > > > evolution but all evolution; Lubenow is basically asserting that a > > > > > species cannot split into two species. Obviously this is not the view > > > > > of speciation accepted by evolutionists, since it would follow that > > > > > the number of living species could never increase. Nor, in fact, is it > > > > > a view of speciation generally accepted by creationists, most of whom > > > > > believe that many living species descended from the same biblical > > > > > 'kind'. In fact, this argument is so weak that even Answers in Genesis > > > > > has abandoned it; as they correctly point out, "... there's nothing in > > > > > evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct." " > > > > > > > > Another interesting book: > > > > > > "In Six Days" Editor: J.F. Ashton > > > > > > 50 scientists explain their reasons for believing in the Biblical > > version > > > > > > of creation. > > > > > > > 93% of qualified scientists don't even believe in God. > > > > > > > Have you even read these books? Why don't you present arguments from > > > > > these books instead of just simply telling us they exist? Thousands, > > > > > if not hundreds of thousands, of books describe evidence of evolution. > > > > > > Have you read that book? > > > > > I asked you first. > > > > > > I doubt it. It also discusses fossil evidence. > > > > > Present some. > > > I read a similar book: "Evolution--The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish. > > I actually saw D.T. Gish debate a professor. Dr. Gish won that debate. Of > > course, Dr. Gish was an expert debater and the professor became so > > frustrated that he lost his temper. Even the college students who came to > > support him stopped clapping for him about half way thru the debate. The > > audience was filled with Christians. > > > > Did you read Gish's book or Lubenow's book--your turn > > I haven't read either book. The fact remains that you were > recommending a book to us that you hadn't read and claiming that it > "discussed fossil evidence". The onus is still on you to present some > of this evidence. If you never read the book then you can't be sure > if any of the arguments Lubenow made were valid. > > Martin Martin, The book is advertised in the latest issue of the ICR newsletter. It states directly below the book title: "A thorough examination of all the pre-human fossils." That's what I wrote in my posts. I never stated that I read the book. I only stated it because you asked me. I see no reason to read two separate books on the same subject. Unless I missed it--Do you believe that evolutionists ever developed a cave man from a tooth? At the time, the evolutionists truly believed that the tooth came from a caveman. Years later, another evolutionist determined that it was the tooth came from an extinct pig. I will not bother finding the data if you believe me. I believe it was called the Piltsdown Man. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179042444.374902.200220@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 3:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1179027411.828594.125...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 13, 8:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <esgc43h06ki5neitn538nm7s4t7bcq8...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > > > > >When Einstein > > > > > > > Cite please. > > > > > > Nightline had a special related to a debate between two oupspoken > > > > Christians and two outspoken atheists. One of the Christians used the > > > > quote from Einstein related to the watch. > > > > > You mean Kirk Cameron when he said Einstein believed in God? He did > > > not provide that quote. He just said "I didn't say he was > > > Christian". He provided no quote to prove that Einstein believed in > > > God. In fact, it is not true. > > > > > "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious > > > convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not > > > believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have > > > expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called > > > religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the > > > world so far as our science can reveal it." > > > Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human > > > Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman > > > Yes, Kirk Cameron made that statement related to Einstein's watch. I hope > > he did not make it up. > > Are you refering to the part of the debate where he said Einstein > believed in god and the crowd groaned (possibly because Einstein > himself had dismissed this as "a lie")? He told no such story about > Einstein. The debate is still online. Perhaps you should take > another look. I'll do likewise. > > http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3160774 > > Martin Martin, He must have made the statement on Fox news while he was promoting the debate. My memory is not perfect. I thought that he made it during the debate while he was discussing Einstein. Thanks for the clarification. I will see if he has a website. jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 4:45 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179031647.035924.274...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, George > > Chen <georgech...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 13, 11:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > It appears to me (based upon newspaper articles and television news shows) > > > that crime is more of a problem in the 2000's than it was in the 1950's > > > and 1960's > > > and yet less of a problem than it was in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, > > as born out by actual statistics. > > I subscribe to the local newspaper. There are lots of reports of crimes. > When I read the Los Angeles Times--you would be amazed at the crime rate > in that city. In my home town in Virginia, there was not hardly any crime > compared to the crimes in this small town in California. They had a jail > in my home town in Virginia but on most nights--it was empty. We have over > 30 people in the county jail and they want to build a larger jail since > they are overcrowded. But actual statistics show that crime rates are falling. Don't forget that many people are given LIFE in prison. The alternative would be to arrest no more people (and then they wouldn't have to build any more jails), but that would only be possible when the crime rate drops to zero. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179041847.356500.102010@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 3:51 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > That neanderthals looked just like us but bigger is an ASSUMPTION and > > > > > it would have been wrong for your college professor to make such an > > > > > assumption. Even two human beings picked at random won't look alike. > > > > > > I'm not sure this is true. Perhaps you could answer this question:; Can > > > > scientists determine how tall a person is by measuring the length of > > > > certain bones--such as major leg bones? I believe that Neanderthals had > > > > bigger bones so it's my guess that they were heavier than Cro-Magnums. > > > > > Your biology professor supposedly said "it would be possible to dress > > > a Neanderthal > > > man in a business suit; cut his hair and give him a shave--and that > > > Neanderthal man could walk down the street in a large city and most > > > people would not pay any attention to him". There's NO way he could > > > possibly know that. Consider the fact that skeletons of people from > > > different races look identical and yet we can tell when people look > > > Chinese, black, Indian, Mexican, etc. I've been in Asia for ten years > > > and I always have little kids staring at me: they notice I am > > > different even though I am not a neanderthal. I can only hope that > > > your teacher was speculating (assuming this story wasn't just > > > something you made up). > > > > My professor was probably not discussing a city in Asia. He was probably > > talking about a city like New York where it is common to see people from > > all races on the busy streets of that city. > > Point taken. So you went to college in New York City? He still > couldn't be absolutely certain that nobody would have taken notice. > I, for one, might have been inclined to take him up on that if he had > said such a thing without qualification. > > > > > I disagree. Many of the advocates of creation science believe that > > > > evolution took over after God created many life forms. I read an article > > > > in an ICR newsletter that explained how races began--it was mainly because > > > > of genetic changes that took place in groups of humans in various > > > > locations of the earth. Perhaps, Neanderthals were one of those races but > > > > that is my assumption. > > > > > There is no signifant difference between micro evolution and macro > > > evolution: you do not walk a mile without taking individual steps. > > > > > > > > > > You mentioned in your above post that Neanderthals and Modern man a > > > > Have you ever read about one of the so-called cavemen--it may have been > > > > Piltdown man or something like that. For many years, evolutionists were of > > > > the opinion that that caveman was one of the steps in man's evolution. No > > > > bones of that caveman had been found--just one tooth. Many years later, it > > > > was determined that tooth came from a pig. That was not really a > > > > manipulation of data. Instead, it involved evolutionists that wanted the > > > > tooth to be a caveman's tooth so they made the mistake of assuming that it > > > > was a caveman's tooth. I call it a an evolution mind set. > > > > > As opposed to a creationist mind set? > > > > Do you believe that evolutionists have ever used a tooth as the only > > evidence for a caveman and even had an artist draw a painting about what > > that caveman looked like based on that tooth? Another evolutionist exposed > > the error. Do you think that I am lying? > > You tell me: I said below "The difference is that it is other > scientists who are able find and identify fraudulant data and not > creationists." I, myself, gave you the example of the Korean > geneticist who falsified data: it does happen. But people who have > been found to falsify data lose all credibility as scientists: their > career, quite literally, is over. Scientists live by a standard of > ultimate truth that creationists, politicians and used car salesmen > just simply aren't expected to live by. > > > > > An evolution > > > > mind-set means they do everything they can to make their research efforts > > > > support evolution theory. The advocates of creation science do the same > > > > thing in relation to data. Regardless of who does it--it's wrong. > > > > > The difference is that it is other scientists who are able find and > > > identify fraudulant data and not creationists. > > > > > Thank you for admitting that advocates of creation "science" do > > > "everything they can to make their research efforts support" > > > creationism. > > > > It's wrong--regardless who does it. > > And if you claim that a scientist is "manipulating data" then the onus > is on you to show that he is, in fact, doing that. > > Martin It takes a scientist to expose a scientist. My words in a newsgroup post or even a letter from me mean nothing. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179040899.818505.144290@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 3:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Not a problem: Those scripture indicates that all people who don't love > > God are corrupt people that have committed "abominable deeds". Let's > > compare it to Romans 3:10 which states: There is none righteous--no not > > one. > > > > There is a doctrine related to the righteousness of God. God (according to > > that doctrine) is the only one that is truly righteous. Any righteousness > > that we develop is no different than filty rags (Isaiah 64:6). The goal is > > to love God and we will be saved and delivered from our sins and gain the > > righteousness of God. > > > > There are wonderful and kind people on this earth that are not Christians > > or Jews. However, as far as God is concerned, they have sins and are > > therefore corrupt people. Of course, if those people became > > Christians--they would be saved and delivered from their sins. > > > > As far as I am concerned, they are wonderful and kind people. > > So God is a bigot but you are not? Do you agree with God or not? > Either your God is "righteous" and non-believers are "corrupt" or > believers and non-believers alike can be "kind and wonderful people" > and God himself is deluded if he thinks otherwise. > > Martin Martin, God can see into people's heart. I can not do that. Therefore, I have to deal with people based on their actions. If they treat me with kindness, I treat them with kindness. Have you seen stories about serial killers. Their neighbors always say, "He was a kind and wonderful person". jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179040435.910674.114000@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 2:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > <snip> > > > Actually, Christianity has really helped me to not fear death. I am > > actually looking forward to it. I have had to deal with elderly people > > that were near death. Some of them were fearful of death. We have all > > heard stories about elderly people that have about a dozen different > > serious medical problems and lots of surgeries. They are afraid to die and > > are trying their hardest to hang on to life a little while longer. That > > will never happen to me. > > Many people become Christian so they can overcome the fear of death. > It may give them comfort to convince themselves that they will not > die. If you were terminally ill and about to die then perhaps it > would be wrong for me to tell you that God didn't exist and take away > your comfort but if you were to ask me if God existed and you wanted > me to be honest then I would have to say "No". To me, that is what it > is about, namely honesty: if you want to believe in God because it > makes you feel better to believe so, that's one thing, but it would be > wrong for you to claim that the Bible or the universe or anything is > proof of God's existance if, in reality, it is all something you chose > to believe so that you could feel better and not come to fear death. > > > It's my guess that many atheists will decide to > > become Christians when they start getting old or develop a serious disease > > that could cause them to die--just in case they were wrong and want to > > cover all bases. > > Do you believe that God will accept people who are just "covering all > bases" or, if he is truly all knowing as you claim, do you think he'd > be able to see through people who claim to truly believe just in case > it's true and get into Heaven? I don't know. I have often wondered about it. It's up to God. > > The biggest problem with Pascal's wager is that it encourages people > to be dishonest. It basically says to atheists that they don't > actually have to believe: just go along with the rest of us and SAY > you believe and God will let you go to Heaven with the rest of us when > you die. That's not the way I was brought up: I was brought up to be > honest. I couldn't possibly go around telling people I believe when I > really don't. I also feel strongly that people should be honest so I > would ask people to reject Pascal's wager at all costs: I would rather > go to Hell (if it existed) as an honest man than go to Heaven (if it > existed) as a man who had lived a lie. > > > Related to one of your other points--please note that I rarely respond to > > anyone that is disrespective to me. > > That's probably a good idea, except it is worth pointing out sometimes > when people are being disrespectful because it is, itself, a logical > falacy known as an "ad hominem". > > > I believe those people are hoping to > > impress other people in this newsgroup and don't really want a response. > > Not quite. It is actually behaviour that dates back to early primates > and can be observed to this day amongst gorillas: the dominent male > establishes his position by constantly challenging the lesser males > until they cower away in fear. It's as though some people think > usenet debate is a kind of boxing match in which attacking the person > making the argument is as valid as attacking the argument itself. > > > I once heard a professor say that when people resort to name calling or > > profanity in a debate--it means they have lost the debate since the name > > calling and profanity means they have run out of important points. I > > learned in a debate class to never lose my temper. > > Once again, the other Martin isn't me. I would hope people recognize > the fact that I RARELY use profanity. (I almost said "never" and then > I remembered that one in every thousand of my posts probably does > contain profanity.) > > Martin Martin, Good points. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 5:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > It takes a scientist to expose a scientist. My words in a newsgroup post > or even a letter from me mean nothing. Thank you for admitting that you are not a scientist and that your words mean nothing. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 4:15 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 4:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > And the people that respond to my posts seem to be impervious to change > > their points of view. > > That's because we know you are right whereas, for you, your beliefs > provide you with a way to avoid the fear of death. > > Martin > > PS: Is it really a good idea to NOT fear death? If I am on the road > then I sure as Hell hope the other drivers have a healthy fear of > death! Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 5:02 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The book is advertised in the latest issue of the ICR newsletter. It > states directly below the book title: > "A thorough examination of all the pre-human fossils." > > That's what I wrote in my posts. I never stated that I read the book. I > only stated it because you asked me. There are 48 books on Amazon.com with "Evolution" in the title. Have you read them all? Have you read any of them? The fact that abook exists doesn't prove anything: you need to be able to verify its contents. People can lie. > I see no reason to read two separate > books on the same subject. There's a very good reason: if you only ever read one book on a subject than your views only parrot those of the author's. Offhand, I cannot think of a single subject area where I have only read one book: if you are interested in a subject, you are going to want to sample the views of more than one author. > Unless I missed it--Do you believe that evolutionists ever developed a > cave man from a tooth? Yes, again. This is the third time you've asked and been answered. Perhaps I was a bit too curt the second time you asked and I'm sorry if I wasn't as clear as I had intended to be. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 4:15 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 4:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > And the people that respond to my posts seem to be impervious to change > > their points of view. > > That's because we know you are right whereas, for you, your beliefs > provide you with a way to avoid the fear of death. > PS: Is it really a good idea to NOT fear death? If I am on the road > then I sure as Hell hope the other drivers have a healthy fear of > death! I meant to say "we know WE are right". Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 5:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1179040899.818505.144...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 13, 3:20 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > Not a problem: Those scripture indicates that all people who don't love > > > God are corrupt people that have committed "abominable deeds". Let's > > > compare it to Romans 3:10 which states: There is none righteous--no not > > > one. > > > > There is a doctrine related to the righteousness of God. God (according to > > > that doctrine) is the only one that is truly righteous. Any righteousness > > > that we develop is no different than filty rags (Isaiah 64:6). The goal is > > > to love God and we will be saved and delivered from our sins and gain the > > > righteousness of God. > > > > There are wonderful and kind people on this earth that are not Christians > > > or Jews. However, as far as God is concerned, they have sins and are > > > therefore corrupt people. Of course, if those people became > > > Christians--they would be saved and delivered from their sins. > > > > As far as I am concerned, they are wonderful and kind people. > > > So God is a bigot but you are not? Do you agree with God or not? > > Either your God is "righteous" and non-believers are "corrupt" or > > believers and non-believers alike can be "kind and wonderful people" > > and God himself is deluded if he thinks otherwise. > God can see into people's heart. I can not do that. Therefore, I have to > deal with people based on their actions. If they treat me with kindness, I > treat them with kindness. Have you seen stories about serial killers. > Their neighbors always say, "He was a kind and wonderful person". So you are equating people with serial killers based entirely in whether or not they believe in God? Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <1179043434.738827.208140@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 13, 4:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <q45d431vks86e298qn47760v7sln8mh...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 May 2007 21:28:50 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-1205072128500...@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > ><snip> > > > > > >> > A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed to do. > > > >> > On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God > > has free > > > >> > will. Neither God or people are robots. > > > > > >> If God is omniscient then he can see the future. If he can see the > > > >> future then he can see what he will do tomorrow. If he can see what > > > >> he will do tomorrow then his actions are inevitable and he doesn't > > > >> have free will. If he _does_ have free will then the actions he would > > > >> foresee himself doing would not be inevitable. Thus, your god cannot > > > >> have both free will and omniscience. It's a contradiction. > > > > >God may have the power to see in the future related to his own actions but > > > >that does NOT mean that God does that. If he chose not to see in the > > > >future related to his own actions--the other issues you mentioned in the > > > >above post would not be a factor. > > > > > If He doesn't know, whether by choice or not, He isn't omniscient. > > > > Are you saying that an omiscient God has no control over it and has to > > exercise it every minute of every day. That does not make sense. It's my > > opinion that God has absolute control over his powers. > > No, it means you either know something or you don't. The whole point > of Christians feeling guilty about their sins is the idea that God > knows what their sins are: there's nothing in Christian mythology that > God "chooses" to know certain things; he's supposed to just know. > > Martin Martin, Not all Christians agree related to these issues. Perhaps some Christians do believe God is always watching over them and is concerned about everything they do. I don't believe that. I do believe that God listens to our prayers. When I was in college, I asked God to help me pass tests and exams. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 5:35 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > When I was in college, I asked God to help me pass tests and > exams. Must... resist... temptation... to... make... ad hominem. Martin Quote
Guest John Baker Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On Sat, 12 May 2007 22:43:19 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <1179021474.195725.219750@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 4:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> > >> > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: >> > > Jason wrote: >> > >> > > > I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a >dictator but >> > > > that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and would be a >> > > > wonderful dictator. >> > >> > > That is the fear talking. >> > >> > > This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly >> > > sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when >> > > its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, >> > > had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been >> > > foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this >> > > hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and >> > > omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical >> > > demon, you got there. >> > >> > > You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it >> > > might do you and infinite punishment. >> > >> > > > I would not trust a dictator that was human but would >> > > > trust God since God is perfect. >> > > (snip) >> > >> > > Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). >> > >> > The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. >> > I believe my choice is better. >> >> What if neither God nor Satan exist (which is, in fact, the case)? >> What then? >> >> Martin > >I will have lost nothing since I will eventally become dust or ashes. >However, if God and Satan does exist---you will end up in hell unless you >become a Christian. Here's an "if" for you, Jason. Imagine that you've cashed in your ticket, and you now find yourself sitting in God's waiting room. You feel happy and confident. After all, you've been a good Christian all your life. There's nothing to worry about. You sit for a while, contentedly pondering what Heaven might be like. Suddenly a door opens, revealing the most beautiful woman you've ever seen. "He'll see you now", she says in a voice that matches her looks. You follow her through the door, stealing a surreptitious glance at what surely must be the most perfect ass in the universe. As you enter the room, you begin to feel somewhat apprehensive. This isn't what you expected. Sitting behind a perfectly ordinary-looking desk in a perfectly ordinary-looking office is a perfectly ordinary-looking middle-aged gentleman. Surely this can't be the Creator of the Universe.... The beautiful woman sits down behind another desk on the opposite side of the room and begins tapping away at the keys of an old-fashioned typewriter. The middle-aged gentleman glances up at you. "Ah, Jason!", he says. "Come in, son, come in. Have a seat." The man notices your confused expression. "Oh, this?", he says, waving his hand to indicate the rather mundane surroundings. "We find it helps put new arrivals a bit more at ease if things seem familiar at first.", he explains. God - for that is indeed who he is - looks over at the woman behind the other desk. "Is Jason's case file ready yet, Ms. Jones?", he asks. "Just finishing it up now.", she replies. A thick sheaf of paper floats across the room and settles on God's desk. He scans the pages as he speaks. "Jason, I'm sorry to say your case file doesn't look very good." God says somewhat sadly. "But ... but .. what's wrong?" you ask, your confidence giving way to fear. "I've always tried my best to keep your commandments and obey your word..." "What commandments? What word? I never gave you either.", God replies. "You never worshipped me. You worshipped a book." You open your mouth to object, but God silences you with a wave of his hand. "Not that I ever needed or wanted your worship to begin with", he continues. "I didn't put you on Earth to kiss my arse. I put you there to learn and grow and reach your full potential as a human being. But you were so busy sucking up to the cruel, vindictive tyrant you imagined me to be that you never had time to learn or grow. You wasted the greatest gift I gave you. Your mind. I'm sorry, Jason, but you failed" Your fear has by now blossomed into sheer, mind-ripping terror, but you still manage to stammer, "But .... but .... I thought I was doing right. I truly did. W - what will happen to me now?" "The same thing that happens to all the screwups.", God replies. "You're going to have to go back and try again." Too relieved that no eternal punishment awaits you to be disappointed that no eternal reward awaits just yet either, you follow the guide who's been summoned to take you to the point of departure from which your soul will be sent back to Earth to inhabit a new body. As you're being led away, you hear the woman's voice asking, "How many times does this make for him, boss?" "I've lost count", you hear God reply. "Seems like some of them never get it right." > Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179033081.770202.4040@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 12:54 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1179026321.174219.148...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On May 13, 6:34 am, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>> In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdn...@comcast.com>, John > Popelish >>>>>> <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: >>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>> There is a big difference between believing that God created > life from >>>>>>>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >>>>>>> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god >>>>>>> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable >>>>>>> properties that must produce life after the right amount of >>>>>>> cause and effect has modified its matter. >>>>>>> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. >>>>>> It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for > it is for >>>>>> me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. >>>>>> If I saw a new car setting in a junk yard, I would not assume or > believe >>>>>> that the car must have come about from an explosion that > happened at that >>>>>> junk yard. It would be easier for me to believe that car was > designed and >>>>>> created. >>>>> You mistake "evolution" for "chance". >>>>> Look up the "perfect 747" one of these days and why it is not > applicable. >>>>> Abiogenesis "might" actually have an aspect of "chance". But even chance >>>>> can have results, if given enough time. If you play the same lottery >>>>> numbers long enough you almost certainly will win. You just have to >>>>> play them for 50.000 years or so (that's a wild guess. Oh, well. I just >>>>> did the maths. Was a wee bit wrong. On average you'd have to play for >>>>> 1442307 years and a few months....Wups. One and a half million > years....). >>>> Actually, that's not true. You may never win. Let's say you can win >>>> a lottery by choosing one number in ten. You're odds of winning are >>>> 1/10. Are you definitely going to win after ten attempts? No, >>>> because each attempt is an independent event in which the odds of >>>> losing are always 90%: even after playing ten times your chances of >>>> winning are only 65% = 1 - (.9)^10. >>>> This actually works in our favour: there may be billions of billions >>>> of planets out there in the universe and perhaps we are the only >>>> planet in the universe that has life. Why would any god create an >>>> entire universe and only place life on a single planet? It makes more >>>> sense if we realize that abiogenesis may be an extremely unlikely >>>> process. How can creationists expect us to easily produce life in a >>>> laboratory when we don't know if life actually arose anywhere besides >>>> Earth? The beauty is that if we _do_ find life on other planets then >>>> it would be proof that abiogenesis _does_ occur because it would show >>>> that life does emerge from non-life, and not just here on Earth >>>> either. Either way, creationism is a failed hypothesis. >>>>> Still, be are talking billions of years for abiogenesis and evolution >>>>> combined. And you only need the starting point. >>>>> Evolution has nothing to do with chance. Far from it. >>> God could create life on other planets if he chose to do that. >> And if a scientist ever does produce life in a test tube, you could >> argue that your god could have created that too. > > I would not do that. However, I would reserve judgement on that experiment > until other scientist were able to repeat it. > > Some reason there. Good to see. So why don't you apply the same reasoning to your "hypothesis"? You can't because it's not a hypothesis but a wild guess.... Tokay -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179042444.374902.200220@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 3:56 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1179027411.828594.125...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On May 13, 8:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <esgc43h06ki5neitn538nm7s4t7bcq8...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >>>>>>> When Einstein >>>>>> Cite please. >>>>> Nightline had a special related to a debate between two oupspoken >>>>> Christians and two outspoken atheists. One of the Christians used the >>>>> quote from Einstein related to the watch. >>>> You mean Kirk Cameron when he said Einstein believed in God? He did >>>> not provide that quote. He just said "I didn't say he was >>>> Christian". He provided no quote to prove that Einstein believed in >>>> God. In fact, it is not true. >>>> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious >>>> convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not >>>> believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have >>>> expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called >>>> religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the >>>> world so far as our science can reveal it." >>>> Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human >>>> Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman >>> Yes, Kirk Cameron made that statement related to Einstein's watch. I hope >>> he did not make it up. >> Are you refering to the part of the debate where he said Einstein >> believed in god and the crowd groaned (possibly because Einstein >> himself had dismissed this as "a lie")? He told no such story about >> Einstein. The debate is still online. Perhaps you should take >> another look. I'll do likewise. >> >> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3160774 >> >> Martin > > Martin, > He must have made the statement on Fox news while he was promoting the > debate. My memory is not perfect. I thought that he made it during the > debate while he was discussing Einstein. Thanks for the clarification. I > will see if he has a website. > jason > > Ok, so we can dismiss this quote (it is irrelevant anyway) unless you can provide some credentials other than "I heard somebody say it". Tokay -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sun, 13 May 2007 00:28:15 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >Martin, >I read a similar book: "Evolution--The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish. Which is a load of shit. >I actually saw D.T. Gish debate a professor. Name, please. > Dr. Gish won that debate Did he use his "bullfrog" nonsense? Have you read anything that has anything to do with reality? 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 Don Kresch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sun, 13 May 2007 02:02:05 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >Martin, >The book is advertised in the latest issue of the ICR newsletter. It >states directly below the book title: >"A thorough examination of all the pre-human fossils." It's not, though. > >That's what I wrote in my posts. I never stated that I read the book. I >only stated it because you asked me. I see no reason to read two separate >books on the same subject. > >Unless I missed it--Do you believe that evolutionists ever developed a >cave man from a tooth? No. Only pig-ignorant and lying xers believe that. 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
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.