Evolution is Just Junk Science

May 13, 2007

On Sun, 13 May 2007 02:13:38 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1305070213390001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <1179041847.356500.102010@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

....

>> 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.

Then, if you were a moral person, you would not be defaming scientists

with your unsupportable accusations, would you?

May 13, 2007

On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:31:47 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1305070131470001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>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.

>

I'm trying to get you to understand the meaning of words. If God is

omniscient, then nothing anyone does can be unexpected to him. That's

the definition of omniscient. If you think that He does something else,

then you teach the doctrine that God is not omniscient.

--

"... There's glory for you."

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till

I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,

"it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so

many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's

all."

May 13, 2007

On Sun, 13 May 2007 02:35:42 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1305070235430001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>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

Studying works better.

By the way, has God ever allowed two sports teams to when while they

were competing against each other in a game?

May 13, 2007

On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:33:28 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1305070133290001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <1179033081.770202.4040@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, George

>Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote:

....

>> 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.

Once it is done the first time, it will be relatively easy for others to

repeat the experiment. Everything we know about chemistry allows a

self-sustaining biochemical reaction to exist so it will be done sooner

or later.

So, how will you respond if you are still alive when this happens?

May 13, 2007

On Sun, 13 May 2007 02:02:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1305070202050001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <1179041197.049579.219330@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:

....

>> 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."

It isn't. The authors are liars. They rely on you and others like you to

be swayed by your religious beliefs to ignore real science. They are the

worst kind of hypocrites -- the ones who drive people away from

Christianity when their lies are understood.

>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.

You shouldn't recommend books that are full of lies.

>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.

You have been conned. Nebraska Man was an error made by an amateur that

was almost immediately corrected. Piltdown was a con job that was

corrected when it was investigated.

Remember also that these errors were corrected by scientists, not by the

anti-science religious zealots who make up places like ICR.

May 13, 2007

On Sun, 13 May 2007 02:09:30 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1305070209300001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>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

>

Why would you believe what Kirk Cameron has to say about science? He is

an actor whose bread and butter is the "Left Behind" videos. He may be

laughing at every believer, but he's not a good enough actor to throw

away his currect cash cow.

May 13, 2007

On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:03:18 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

<Jason-1305070103180001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>In article <1179034223.273130.45400@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, George

>Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> On May 13, 1:43 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> > In article <1179021474.195725.219...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>> >

>> > Phipps <martinphip...@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?

>> >

>> > 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.

>>

>> Feh. On the infinitesimally slim chance that Hell exists it would

>> still be better than non-existance. What makes you think I wouldn't

>> choose Hell if I had the choice? I'd have plenty of atheists and

>> other non-Christians to keep me company.

>

>I would prefer paradise than to burn in Hell.

>

But there is no evidence that either exist. There is also no evidence

that the religion you teach will allow you to go to paradise.

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

>

Here's Kirk Cameron's understanding of science in 1m05s:

<

You are as dumb as Kirk Cameron...

--

Seppo P.

What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)

May 13, 2007

On Sun, 13 May 2007 15:31:54 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris

<tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>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".

Jason's not a first-timer in a.a (although IIRC, he did promise not to

return - so what else is new). He's notorious for his "I think I read

it somewhere/I recall hearing someone say/my professor once said"

crap. He uses the same style of "argument" both to try to prove his

cliams and to attempt to weasel out of it when he's caught in a lie.

He's either one of the dumbest people to ever walk the planet ... or a

very clever Loki.

>

>Tokay

May 13, 2007

On 13 Maj, 06:16, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <2mmc43hp6t7qofikgd05o38bkap63aq...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>

> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> > On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:30:24 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > <Jason-1205071730250...@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >In article <ragc43t77bh612omlhsvbtv2oc0s04m...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

> > >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:39:42 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > >> <Jason-1205071539420...@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >> >In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3in...@comcast.com>, John Popelish

> > >> ><jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

>

> > >> >> 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.

>

> > >> >> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other

> > >> >> choices open up.

>

> > >> >> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep

> > >> >> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god.

>

> > >> >> I understand. I once feared the same demon.

>

> > >> >On judgement day, you will really be shocked.

>

> > >> There is no evidence that there will be a judgement day. There is no

> > >> evidence that any gods exist. There is no evidence that the god you

> > >> worship is the right god. There is no evidence that you won't be the one

> > >> going to hell for worshipping the wrong god.

>

> > >Not true--the WRITTEN evidence is in the Bible.

>

> > No, religious writings are absolutely _never_ evidence. You may choose

> > to ignore that fact, but it won't change because you ignore it. Your

> > religious texts cannot be shown to be more reliable than any other

> > religious texts.

>

> > >In many courts in America,

> > >written evidence such as contracts are deemed very important.

>

> > It depends on the purpose to which it is used and the provenance of the

> > writing. The Bible fails on both counts and cannot be admitted into

> > court except to the extent that it would be used to answer a question

> > about what was written in some verse of the Bible. It is not and cannot

> > be used for history or science.

>

> Not true-Many colleges have courses entitled,

> The Bible as History

> I suggest that you read this book:

> "In Six Days" Editor J.F. Ashton

> 50 scientists explain their reasons for believing in the Biblical

> versionof creation.

non sequitur.

>

> > >Josh McDowell wrote a book entitled, "Evidence That Demands A

> > >Verdict". I actually saw him preach in a church service.

>

> > I actually own his collections of lies. His books are dishonest and

> > misleading.- Skjul tekst i anf

May 13, 2007

On 13 Maj, 06:18, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <5an1psF2pqab...@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O"

>

> <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message

> >news:Jason-1205071730250001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> > > In article <ragc43t77bh612omlhsvbtv2oc0s04m...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

> > >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:39:42 -0700, in alt.atheism

> > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > >> <Jason-1205071539420...@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

> > >> >In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3in...@comcast.com>, John Popelish

> > >> ><jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

>

> > >> >On judgement day, you will really be shocked.

>

> > >> There is no evidence that there will be a judgement day. There is no

> > >> evidence that any gods exist. There is no evidence that the god you

> > >> worship is the right god. There is no evidence that you won't be the one

> > >> going to hell for worshipping the wrong god.

>

> > > Not true--the WRITTEN evidence is in the Bible. In many courts in America,

> > > written evidence such as contracts are deemed very important.

>

> > Do you consider ALL written evidence to be very important?

> > How about the Qu'ran, or the Baghvad Ghita, or the Book of Mormon, or even a

> > book describing how the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed everything into

> > existence, because I can certainly show you one?

> > Or if not, why do you suppose that YOUR particular book is more correct and

> > more important than any of the others?

>

> Steve,

> Good point--

Which you completely ignore in your answer.

>please note that I was answering the poster's question about

> evidence related to judgement day- Skjul tekst i anf

May 13, 2007

On 13 Maj, 06:28, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> <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.

> Jason

Assuming the doctrine is correct, he knew when he created the universe

every single consequence of that creation. You have already told us

that he knew that Adam and Eve would fail and had a plan ready to take

care of that. That makes him responsible for the failure, which can

only be seen as a consequence of his decision to put Adam and Eve in

the situation anyway; and that responsibility applies to every thing

that ever happened down to the smallest detail.

May 13, 2007

On 13 Maj, 07:43, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1179021474.195725.219...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin

>

> Phipps <martinphip...@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.-

Your god puts people in hell for doing what they think is right?

May 13, 2007

In article

<Jason-1105072132340001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article

> <DipthotDipthot-C9F689.19484611052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,

> 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

>

> > In article

> > <Jason-1005071716170001@66-52-22-37.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>,

> > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > If everyone in the world lived by the principles of life that Confucius

> > > established, we would not need to build new prisons.

> >

> > Then you could be wrong about your stick-boy demigod!

>

> If everyone followed the law, we would not need to build new prisons.

....whatever the laws may be. I the laws made adultery and kicking cats

mandatory, and everyone committed adultery and kicked cats, no one would

be imprisoned for that.

So?

--

655321

"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi

May 13, 2007

On 13 Maj, 09:20, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <8duc431csiubbtc9p1pms7tpko0jutn...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

>

> <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

> > In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:04:51 -0700, J...@nospam.com

> > (Jason) let us all know that:

>

> > >In article <nghc43dkr6g440lgl6fd82t0q80on9k...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

> > ><ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

>

> > >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:10:34 -0700, J...@nospam.com

> > >> (Jason) let us all know that:

>

> > >> >Robyn,

> > >> >I fully realize that atheists and members of religions other than

> > >> >Chistianity such as Buddahism do good deeds.

> > >> >Jason

>

> > >> But that contradicts the bible. Remember Psalms 14:1/53:1?

>

> > >Don,

> > >I just read it. It's an interesting scripture. It's great to know that you

> > >own a Bible.

>

> > Don't need to; that's what the internets are for.

>

> > > Check John 3:16.

>

> > I know that one.

>

> > Now then, will you address the fact that you believe something

> > that directly contradicts what the bible teaches?

>

> 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.

>

And they will burn for ever in hell according to your beliefs.

May 13, 2007

On 13 Maj, 10:31, 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.

>

> > >> 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.- Skjul tekst i anf

May 13, 2007

On 13 Maj, 10:39, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <5Tx1i.2603$UU.1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,

>

> b...@nonespam.com wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <1179021006.214437.12...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> > > Phipps <martinphip...@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.-

Perhaps they would if you provided a little evidence. Until you do

you will never know.

May 13, 2007

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

news:srbe43pjlrgsqavan2lj90pik0ha0brcq9@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 13 May 2007 02:35:42 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-1305070235430001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>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

>

> Studying works better.

>

> By the way, has God ever allowed two sports teams to when while they

> were competing against each other in a game?

Currently, in the UK, there are thousands of people offering prayer for the

safe return of 4 yr old British girl abducted in Portugal.

For once, I hope it works, but I have to wonder, if it doesn't, will they be

dismissing all future prayer as useless?

They should, because if a total, determined, heartfelt, organised and en

masse offering of prayer similar to the one we've seen doesn't have a good

outcome at all, then I don't know what will.

They will be without excuses if it does not work this time, but somehow, I

suspect they will complete overlook the fact if God ignores them yet again.

--

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"

May 13, 2007

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

news:9hce43dbse7m4t8bajuncat5nenvcqekil@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:03:18 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> <Jason-1305070103180001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>In article <1179034223.273130.45400@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, George

>>Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>

>>> On May 13, 1:43 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>> > In article <1179021474.195725.219...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

>>> > Martin

>>> >

>>> > Phipps <martinphip...@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 would prefer paradise than to burn in Hell.

>>

> But there is no evidence that either exist. There is also no evidence

> that the religion you teach will allow you to go to paradise.

He doesn't care.

It doesn't matter to him.

All that matters is that he believes it, and he has been taught, or has

taught himself to believe it.

--

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"

May 13, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-1205072040460001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <0is1i.797$Ta.644@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph"

> <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> news:Jason-1105071716250001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

>> > In article <1178923441.783791.47270@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

>> > Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

>> >

>> >> On May 11, 6:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>> >> > Please re-read your own words very carefully. My theory is that God

>> >> > created life. Facts support my theory.

>> >>

>> >> What a LIAR you are! You couldn't come up with even one supported

>> >> fact for your case when I challenged you on it. You ran away. So why

>> >> are you still telling this lie?

>> >>

>> >> Post your supported "facts" right here or quit LYING.

>> >>

>> >> Budikka

>> >

>> > The facts are in this book. If you choose not to read the facts--that's

>> > not my fault:

>> >

>> > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow

>> > A thorough examination of all the pre-human fossils

>>

>> You need to read "The Antiquity of Man" by Mikey Brass. He does an

>> absolutely splendid job in destroying the arguments of Lubenow. You amuse

>> me

>> by barging in here and assuming that none of us have read anything. As I

>> told you earlier, I have Darwin's 'famous book' and another 'not so

>> famous

>> book'. In addition I have numerous books on science, creation and

>> theology.

>> You should read some 'famous' books one day. You could start with 'The

>> Antiquity of Man'.

>

> Have you read Lubenow's book?

> Thanks for the book suggestions.

Yep. I could debunk most of what he says but Mikey does a much better job.

May 13, 2007

<gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1179077285.504028.178170@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On 13 Maj, 10:31, 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.

>

> > >> 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.- Skjul tekst i

> anf

May 13, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-1205072051380001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> In article <f25i4o$ld8$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>> > In article <f25fp6$33o$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

>> > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>> >

>> >> Jason wrote:

>> >>> In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John

>> >>> Popelish

>> >>> <jpopelish@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.

>> >>>> (snip)

>> >>>>

>> >>>> 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....).

>> >> 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.

>> >

>> > Someone recently posted an article written by a scientist about the

>> > complexity of a living cell. I was shocked when I read the article

>> > because

>> > I had forgotten how complex a cell really is. I do not believe a living

>> > cell could come about by chance. A living cell is more complex in

>> > design

>> > than a new computer or a new Lexus. That's the reason I believe there

>> > was

>> > a creator. For the sake of discussion, let's say that a living cell

>> > could

>> > come about by chance or evolve from non-life. If that were true, a

>> > scientist could develop the conditions necessary to make it happen.

>> > Scientists have tried to do that and they have failed. On the other

>> > hand,

>> > there are lots of people like yourself that believe that it just

>> > happened

>> > by chance. Unless a scientist can design an experiment that causes life

>> > to

>> > evolve from non-life, I will continue to believe in a creator God.

>> > jason

>>

>> There are some other quotes along these lines, you know.

>> Let's see if I can remember some....

>> (Pretty free retyping....)

>>

>> "640K will be enough for everyone" (Bill Gates, I think)

>>

>> "Aeroplanes? Nice, but no use to the army/navy" (some general or other)

>>

>> It goes on that way....

>>

>> Oh, and a nice one....

>>

>> "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky"

>> (Neil Armstrong)

>>

>> >

>> >>

>> >>> When Einstein was asked about this subject, he pulled out his pocket

>> >>> watch

>> >>> and showed it to the reporter that asked the question. He stated,

>> >>> "This

>> >>> watch had a designer and life had a designer." I agree with Einstein

>> >>> Jason

>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> >> Since you seem to hate snipping, I leave that in and only add that I

>> >> don't think Einstein said anything like that or meant a "creator" in

>> >> sense of a god.

>> >

>> > Einstein did not say what he meant when he used the term designer.

>> >

>>

>> Other quotes from Einstein do not support this quote. Do you happen to

>> have a link from where you got that quote? I still don't think he said

>> anything like that.

>

> There was a debate between two Christians and two atheists on Nightline

> about two nights ago. One of the Christian debaters told the Einstein

> watch story.

> I remembered it since his statement made sense.

Oh my, another Christian attempting to ride on Einstein's coat. Einstein

said he believed in Spinoza's god, which would actually be nature. If you

can't support this quote from Einstein you need to withdraw it. I am pretty

familiar with Einstein and I don't recall that statement.

May 13, 2007

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-1305070209300001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...

> 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

Someone was confused because Einstein never said that.

May 13, 2007

In article <npad439s9hsgsm9th1a2n259a8fbu168ih@4ax.com>, John Baker

<nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

> 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

> >

Hello,

When I opened my newsgroup reader, I noticed that there were 53 new

messages and it was my guess that most of them were responses to my recent

posts. I have decided to not reply to any more posts in this newsgroup.

The reason is simple. I have noticed that many (but not all) of the

members of this newsgroup have a prejudice aganist Christians and/or the

advocates of Creation Science. If you do NOT believe me, please read all

of the posts in this newsgroup and you will be able to see it for

yourself. Of course, there are members of this newsgroup that are NOT

prejudice. I enjoyed exchanging posts with those members of this

newsgroup. I did not like reading posts from the members that appear to

have some sort of hatred for Christians and/or the advocates of Creation

Science. Perhaps that is because at least one Christian done something

that made them believe all Christians were just as bad as that Christian

that hurt them. One person told me that I was prejudice against atheists.

That is only partly true. I am prejudice against atheists that redicule

Christians or redicule me for being a Christian. An example is an atheist

professor that asked for all Christians to raise their hands. He told the

rest of the class to take a close look at the Christians that had their

hands raised. He stated something like this, "See these Christians--they

are so stupid that they believe in a God that does not exist. They

probably also believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny." Needless to

say, I am prejudiced against that professor and any other atheist that

redicules Christians or the advocates of Creation Science. Please check

today's posts in this newsgroup and decide for yourself how many of those

people are rediculing me in their posts. I will miss exchanging posts with

the members of this newsgroup that are not prejudiced aganist Christians

or the advocates of creation science.

Jason

May 13, 2007

In article <f276si$ovm$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

<tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

> 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? In this case, if you are

> > wrong--you could end up in heaven or hell--the choice is up to you.

>

> Ok, start again. God created everything (apart from the fact that I

> would be responsible if I created a bomb, whether I use it or someone

> else), so he also created me with a mind capable of rational thought,

> logic and thinking. He then expects me to believe in him, despite the

> fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that he even exists.

>

> So, not really a choice. He gave me a mind capable of thinking and then

> expects me not to use it?

>

> So, I am an atheist. To be more exact, I am a radical atheist (DNA

> again) concerning this specific particularly cruel cosmic zombie,

> because even his "attributes" contradict themselves.

> I could be considered a logical agnostic towards some other "gods",

> though. Odin for example does not claim to be omnipotent nor omniscient

> and almost least of all benevolent. He does not kill innocent. Oh, he

> kills. In a fight. Granted, those fights end always the same, but his

> opponents get to go to Valhalla....

>

> That's one god that does not condemn you for trying.

>

> Tokay