Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:58:51 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2605071858510001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <pujh53hc0b5l726dr2218vuqp6gesbeb2t@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:34:44 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2605071534440001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: .... >> >For God so loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son that >> >whosoever believes in Him whould not perish but have eternal life. >> > >> >God send his son to die for us so that we could have eternal life. Jesus >> >was crucified and died on a cross. He did not kill himself. What is your >> >evidence that Jesus killed himself? >> >> According to the stories, Jesus was completely capable of avoiding >> capture and crucifixion. His decisions were no different than those >> today of people who commit suicide by cop. >> > >> >See John 19:16-38 >> >vs. 30 Jesus stated, "it is finished"--"he bowed his head and gave up his >> >spirit." >> >vs. 34 "and one of the soldiers pirced his side with a spear and >> >immediately there came out boood and water." > >If he was willing to tell lies, he could have avoided being crucified. He >refused to lie. The stories tell us that He was able to perform miracles. They also tell us that He was God. This has nothing to do with lies, something that you repeatedly tell, but the claims about His power. The stories tell us that He chose to die when He could have physically prevented that from happening. Suicide by cop. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 In article <1180228739.435860.271390@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 27, 3:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Neither Clinton or Bush wanted to cause harm to the economy while they > > were presidents. It's related to the building of their legacies. I am glad > > that the Kyoto Accord was not approved. The reason is because I care about > > the millions of people that work in American factories. If the Kyoto > > Accord is approved in America--even more factories will close down. It's > > cheaper to close down a factory than to install billions of dollars worth > > of pollution equipment. The problem with the Kyoto Accord is that > > countries like China will sign it but will do little or nothing to abide > > by it. > > There's not much they have to do. United States produces three times > as much emissions with a quarter of their population. > > > That is the nature of Communist countries--they sign agreements and > > usually do whatever they want to do. On the other hand, environmentalists > > would DEMAND that America abide by all provisions of the Kyoto Accord and > > they will get their way. If America becomes the only country in the world > > that abides by the Kyoto Accord, that means the world problems related to > > C02 levels and pollution will get worse and not better. > > The United States did sign the accord during the Clinton > Administration but it was never ratified by the American congress. > Environmentalists worldwide have demanded that the US abide by its > signature, for all the good it does them. > > Martin Thanks--I was not aware of those facts. Hillary Clinton will probably be the next president so perhaps she can get it ratified by Congress. If it is ratified by Congress, don't be shocked if the economy suffers as a direct result. I truly am worried about what will happen in America during the next 50 to 100 years in America. We have lost millions of factory jobs. We will probably lose millions more factory jobs if the accord is ratified by Congress. I saw a color picture in National Geographic magazine of a bunch of huge factories in China. There was heavy black smoke coming out of many of those smoke stacks--is that the correct word. We both know that the Chinese Communist Government will take NO actions to reduce the pollution and C02 levels. However, we will take actions in America and the end result will be that hundreds or even thousands of factories will close down. The husband of my niece works in a steel mill and he will probably lose his job. They have a 12 year old child. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 In article <0krh531bcrb61pcf96blg57714is7g6na0@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:08:23 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2605071908230001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <qjjh531dfc2hk1r2bc7o6kfi16il7selj9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:16:15 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2605071516160001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <656h539up887rtunifvms152avmt2pfs6v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:54:49 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-2605070154500001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > >> ... > >> > >> >> >That might also been an exercise designed to cause children and young > >> >> >adults to become advocates of euthanasia > >> >> > >> >> What's wrong with euthenasia? Remember that tribes or societies have > >> >> limited resources. Resources spent on the old will be taken away from > >> >> others, often the youngest who need it as much but will be able to help > >> >> the society in the future. > >> >> > >> >> I think its absolutely wonderful that I live in a country that can > >> >> afford to spend billions keeping people alive who are very old or unable > >> >> ever to take care of themselves, but I know that this is something we > >> >> want to do because we can. Sadly, we do take resources from children to > >> >> do this, because our society is too selfish to make certain that every > >> >> child is healthy and well-educated. We have our priorities screwed up, > >> >> particularly since we are easily able to afford both. > >> > > >> >Are you in favor of teaching children in our public schools to become > >> >advocates of euthanasia so that when they all become adults that they will > >> >vote in favor of laws related to euthanasia? > >> > >> I am in favor of teaching children to think for themselves rather than > >> being sheep who are easily duped by conmen, even the conmen who hide > >> behind God to tell their lies. > >> > >> You have started with an unsupportable premise and a simplistic > >> understanding of the world. Should I ask you if you support killing > >> children by refusing to provide adequate health care for them? > > > >I live in California. Many members of the lower class in this state can > >receive Medicade which is similar to Medicare. I think that program is > >wonderful and I am glad that lower class families get excellent health > >care in California. I care about children regardless of their age. Would > >you be happier if there were no advocates for unwanted unborn babies? In > >other words, would you be pleased if all pro-life organizations stopped > >protesting in front of abortion clinics? > > Yes. Since they are not the ones who are pregnant or responsible for the > child when it is born, they should shut up and mind their own business. I give you credit for honesty. You are willing to clearly state that you have no compassion or concern for the lives of unwanted unborn babies. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 20:42:14 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2605072042140001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <0krh531bcrb61pcf96blg57714is7g6na0@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:08:23 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2605071908230001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <qjjh531dfc2hk1r2bc7o6kfi16il7selj9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:16:15 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-2605071516160001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <656h539up887rtunifvms152avmt2pfs6v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:54:49 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-2605070154500001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >That might also been an exercise designed to cause children and young >> >> >> >adults to become advocates of euthanasia >> >> >> >> >> >> What's wrong with euthenasia? Remember that tribes or societies have >> >> >> limited resources. Resources spent on the old will be taken away from >> >> >> others, often the youngest who need it as much but will be able to help >> >> >> the society in the future. >> >> >> >> >> >> I think its absolutely wonderful that I live in a country that can >> >> >> afford to spend billions keeping people alive who are very old or unable >> >> >> ever to take care of themselves, but I know that this is something we >> >> >> want to do because we can. Sadly, we do take resources from children to >> >> >> do this, because our society is too selfish to make certain that every >> >> >> child is healthy and well-educated. We have our priorities screwed up, >> >> >> particularly since we are easily able to afford both. >> >> > >> >> >Are you in favor of teaching children in our public schools to become >> >> >advocates of euthanasia so that when they all become adults that they will >> >> >vote in favor of laws related to euthanasia? >> >> >> >> I am in favor of teaching children to think for themselves rather than >> >> being sheep who are easily duped by conmen, even the conmen who hide >> >> behind God to tell their lies. >> >> >> >> You have started with an unsupportable premise and a simplistic >> >> understanding of the world. Should I ask you if you support killing >> >> children by refusing to provide adequate health care for them? >> > >> >I live in California. Many members of the lower class in this state can >> >receive Medicade which is similar to Medicare. I think that program is >> >wonderful and I am glad that lower class families get excellent health >> >care in California. I care about children regardless of their age. Would >> >you be happier if there were no advocates for unwanted unborn babies? In >> >other words, would you be pleased if all pro-life organizations stopped >> >protesting in front of abortion clinics? >> >> Yes. Since they are not the ones who are pregnant or responsible for the >> child when it is born, they should shut up and mind their own business. > >I give you credit for honesty. You are willing to clearly state that you >have no compassion or concern for the lives of unwanted unborn babies. > I have no use for the liars who claim to care for the unborn but refuse to do anything for those who have been born into difficult circumstances. You have chosen to misrepresent what I said for your own selfish purposes. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:21:16 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2605072121160001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7h86@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2605071857120001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <f3abu2$be9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> > In article <f3a9gk$8pn$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when >> >> >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the person >> >> >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school full of >> >> >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. Sounds >> >> >> like "situational ethics" to me. >> >> > >> >> > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become suicide >> >> > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your point. I >> >> > have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you >> >> > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash >> >> > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and euthanasia. >> >> >> >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for classes on >> >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." >> > >> >That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash >> >children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology professors >> >could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life >> >despite the lack of proof that it happened. >> >> There is overwhelming evidence that it happened and there is no evidence >> that the method by which it happened had anything to do with a >> supernatural being. Sorry, but your hatred of science causes you to tell >> repeated falsehoods. Why would a loving God turn you into a liar? > >Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. > It's already done, all of the chemical reactions that are part of life are perfectly normal chemical reactions. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7h86@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2605071857120001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <f3abu2$be9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In article <f3a9gk$8pn$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when > >> >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the person > >> >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school full of > >> >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. Sounds > >> >> like "situational ethics" to me. > >> > > >> > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become suicide > >> > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your point. I > >> > have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you > >> > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash > >> > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and euthanasia. > >> > >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for classes on > >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." > > > >That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash > >children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology professors > >could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life > >despite the lack of proof that it happened. > > There is overwhelming evidence that it happened and there is no evidence > that the method by which it happened had anything to do with a > supernatural being. Sorry, but your hatred of science causes you to tell > repeated falsehoods. Why would a loving God turn you into a liar? Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 In article <9srh531kcnb9ss82atb4i1lg6povgjaj6i@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:58:51 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2605071858510001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <pujh53hc0b5l726dr2218vuqp6gesbeb2t@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:34:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2605071534440001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > ... > > >> >For God so loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son that > >> >whosoever believes in Him whould not perish but have eternal life. > >> > > >> >God send his son to die for us so that we could have eternal life. Jesus > >> >was crucified and died on a cross. He did not kill himself. What is your > >> >evidence that Jesus killed himself? > >> > >> According to the stories, Jesus was completely capable of avoiding > >> capture and crucifixion. His decisions were no different than those > >> today of people who commit suicide by cop. > >> > > >> >See John 19:16-38 > >> >vs. 30 Jesus stated, "it is finished"--"he bowed his head and gave up his > >> >spirit." > >> >vs. 34 "and one of the soldiers pirced his side with a spear and > >> >immediately there came out boood and water." > > > >If he was willing to tell lies, he could have avoided being crucified. He > >refused to lie. > > The stories tell us that He was able to perform miracles. They also tell > us that He was God. This has nothing to do with lies, something that you > repeatedly tell, but the claims about His power. The stories tell us > that He chose to die when He could have physically prevented that from > happening. Suicide by cop. He could easily have avoided death--but he came to die for our sins. That is the reason he done nothing to prevent it from happening. He suffered and died for our sins so we do not have to suffer and die for our sins. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 In article <mpvh53dv1tjbcl3gv0iu3frl82u9tbg2kb@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:21:16 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2605072121160001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7h86@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2605071857120001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <f3abu2$be9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> > In article <f3a9gk$8pn$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when > >> >> >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the person > >> >> >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school full of > >> >> >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. Sounds > >> >> >> like "situational ethics" to me. > >> >> > > >> >> > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become suicide > >> >> > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your point. I > >> >> > have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you > >> >> > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash > >> >> > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and euthanasia. > >> >> > >> >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for classes on > >> >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." > >> > > >> >That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash > >> >children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology professors > >> >could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life > >> >despite the lack of proof that it happened. > >> > >> There is overwhelming evidence that it happened and there is no evidence > >> that the method by which it happened had anything to do with a > >> supernatural being. Sorry, but your hatred of science causes you to tell > >> repeated falsehoods. Why would a loving God turn you into a liar? > > > >Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. > > > It's already done, all of the chemical reactions that are part of life > are perfectly normal chemical reactions. Was a living cell produced by the chemical reactions? Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:22:26 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: - Refer: <5bs4q8F2suflaU1@mid.individual.net> > >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> > >snip >> >> That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash >> children into becoming atheist. > >Are you serious? What a load. > >> High Scoool > >Which you probably graduate from...... What a marvellous advert Jason is for Christianity! I hope he maintains his inanity as an object lesson to all the kiddies out there as to just how badly religious dogma can rot one's mind. -- Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On 26 Maj, 19:37, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f379n7$1f...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f3761f$t9...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <f36o31$ea...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>>>> <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <8lvhi4-im2....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >>>>>>> <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:18:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> In article <5blrl4F2tgqq...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >>>>>>>>> <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote\ > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an > >>>>>>> abortion > >>>>>>>>>>> if I had not been there to foot the bill. > >>>>>>>>>> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? > >>>>>>>>> It was several years ago, I don't remember. > >>>>>>>> Says a lot, doesn't it. The one instance you actually did something > >>>>>>>> which sort of, kind of, almost fit in with your "belief", and > > even you > >>>>>>>> can't remember it well. > > >>>>>>>> Yes, it must have been a truly earth-shattering victory for your side. > > >>>>>>>> 'Course, there is another implication in there as well. See, if you'd > >>>>>>>> actually had to pay enough to hurt - sell your house, say - to do this, > >>>>>>>> you would remember; maybe not to the dollar, but a general notion: > >>> "over a > >>>>>>>> quarter mil, all told" or "I don't recall the dollar value, but it > >>> cost me > >>>>>>>> my house, my car and most of my possessions." > > >>>>>>>> So even here, when it cost you something, it cost you so little > > you don't > >>>>>>>> even remember. Yes, well, a marvelous display of the depths of your > >>>>>>>> conviction. > >>>>>>> It was about $300 to $400. > >>>>>> I thought you paid ALL her expenses. Hell, $3-400 wouldn't have even > >>>>>> paid for her food for 4 months. > >>>>> I paid the amount that the ministry asked for. It's possible that the > >>>>> people that adopted the babies had to pay the medical bills. > >>>> I.e. you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. > >>> I failed to take into consideration the medical expenses and perhaps other > >>> expenses such as utility bills. I paid the amount that the ministry > >>> requested. I did not even consider these issues until someone mentioned > >>> medical expenses in a post. I also stated that I did not remember the > >>> exact amount that I donated to the ministry--I was guessing that it was > >>> about $300-$400. It may have been more. > >> As I said, you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. Instead, > >> you paid what they asked for as a donation. Lies seem to be par for the > >> course for you. > > > It was actully a mis-statement. It was not an intentional lie. > > Even a brain-dead idiot should know that $100/month is NOT going to pay > for ALL of a person's expenses for even the food alone. But that's > exactly what you claimed until you were called on the issue. > > However, if > > > it makes you feel better about yourself, you can continue to believe that > > I intentionally lied. > > It doesn't make me feel anything about myself. I simply showed how you > tried to play us for fools and you got caught. > > The truth is that I paid the exact amount that the > > > ministry requested. They had room for about 12 unwed mothers in that "home > > for unwed mothers". > > Yes, the truth is that you paid what they asked for and you did NOT pay > "all of the expenses for the mother" as you claimed.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On 27 Maj, 00:34, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <6j6h53hhgiiqohd3vmui1r1tvjfcl9m...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:56:39 -0700, in alt.atheism snip > > For God so loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son that > whosoever believes in Him whould not perish but have eternal life. > > God send his son to die for us so that we could have eternal life. Jesus > was crucified and died on a cross. He did not kill himself. What is your > evidence that Jesus killed himself? > He became a man in order to be sacrificed, i.e. he planned and organised his own death. > See John 19:16-38 > vs. 30 Jesus stated, "it is finished"--"he bowed his head and gave up his > spirit." > vs. 34 "and one of the soldiers pirced his side with a spear and > immediately there came out boood and water."- So? Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <aafki4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:49:44 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>> Do you believe that women and children would want to join our cause if >>> they saw pro-life protesters on a news show harrassing and shouting at >>> women as they were walking into an abortion clinic? yes or no >> i take it you've not read anything posted by Boedicia? If you had, you'd >> realize how silly the question was. There are plenty of people whose >> "morals" so overwhelm their reason that they'd merrily join a lynching, as >> long as it was of someone they thought deserved it. >> >>> Do you believe that women and children would want to join our cause if >>> they saw pro-life protesters on a news show standing peacefully (and >>> hYou're simply demonstrating the initial steps of a >> typical brainwisolding signs) on the public street outside an abortion > clinic? yes or >>> no >> Sure. So what? Ever seen a cult member? Most don't join because they >> see ranting, frothing loonies; they join because they see bunnies and >> light. It's after they join that they become indoctrinated - brainwashed. >> >> It is, of course, not being asserted that every single protest is, in >> fact, a pack of frothing fundies hurling rocks; rather, that there have >> been enough such cases to make it known that this is an ever-present >> danger from you nutjobs and even when you aren't actually out frothing and >> raving, you're still promoting an environment of emotional tyranny. >> >> Or, if you prefer it in simpler terms, yes, we are all aware that evil >> sometimes wears a pleasant face. That does not mean it is no longer evil. > > The pro-lifers are making progress in convincing lots of people that > unborn babies have the right to life. I posted the results of a recent > poll and it indicated that a majority of Americans believe that there > should be some restrictions on when abortions are performed. > > You probably haven't made as much progress as the reproduction fascists want, based on such a meaningless question. I'm about as pro-choice as one can get, yet even I favor some restrictions on when abortions should be performed. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On May 27, 12:21 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2605071857120...@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <f3abu2$be...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > ><prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >> > In article <f3a9gk$8p...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when > > >> >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the person > > >> >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school full of > > >> >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. Sounds > > >> >> like "situational ethics" to me. > > > >> > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become suicide > > >> > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your point. I > > >> > have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you > > >> > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash > > >> > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and euthanasia. > > > >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for classes on > > >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." > > > >That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash > > >children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology professors > > >could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life > > >despite the lack of proof that it happened. > > > There is overwhelming evidence that it happened and there is no evidence > > that the method by which it happened had anything to do with a > > supernatural being. Sorry, but your hatred of science causes you to tell > > repeated falsehoods. Why would a loving God turn you into a liar? > > Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. It has been shown in laboratory experiments to happen with viruses, bacteria and fruit flies. Next question, please. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On May 27, 10:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180228739.435860.271...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 27, 3:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > Neither Clinton or Bush wanted to cause harm to the economy while they > > > were presidents. It's related to the building of their legacies. I am glad > > > that the Kyoto Accord was not approved. The reason is because I care about > > > the millions of people that work in American factories. If the Kyoto > > > Accord is approved in America--even more factories will close down. It's > > > cheaper to close down a factory than to install billions of dollars worth > > > of pollution equipment. The problem with the Kyoto Accord is that > > > countries like China will sign it but will do little or nothing to abide > > > by it. > > > There's not much they have to do. United States produces three times > > as much emissions with a quarter of their population. > > > > That is the nature of Communist countries--they sign agreements and > > > usually do whatever they want to do. On the other hand, environmentalists > > > would DEMAND that America abide by all provisions of the Kyoto Accord and > > > they will get their way. If America becomes the only country in the world > > > that abides by the Kyoto Accord, that means the world problems related to > > > C02 levels and pollution will get worse and not better. > > > The United States did sign the accord during the Clinton > > Administration but it was never ratified by the American congress. > > Environmentalists worldwide have demanded that the US abide by its > > signature, for all the good it does them. > > Thanks--I was not aware of those facts. Hillary Clinton will probably be > the next president so perhaps she can get it ratified by Congress. If it > is ratified by Congress, don't be shocked if the economy suffers as a > direct result. I truly am worried about what will happen in America during > the next 50 to 100 years in America. We have lost millions of factory > jobs. The factories that have been building weapons to use in Iraq have been doing quite well. As have the oil companies. > We will probably lose millions more factory jobs if the accord is > ratified by Congress. I saw a color picture in National Geographic > magazine of a bunch of huge factories in China. There was heavy black > smoke coming out of many of those smoke stacks--is that the correct word. > We both know that the Chinese Communist Government will take NO actions to > reduce the pollution and C02 levels. Actually, Jason, the truth is that China relies a great deal on hydroelectric power and nuclear power. Their levels of emissions may never reach the levels of the United States, even though they have four times as many people. The onus is really on the United States to cut back: today 52% of the capacity for generating electricity in the United States is fueled by coal, compared with 14.8% for nuclear energy. (See http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html ) By contrast, China is projected to generate three times the nuclear power it does today by the end of the next decade. (See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/china/china.html ) Americans have been told to cut down on coal for decades with acid rain as the consideration. Eastern Europe cut down drastically on coal burning after the fall of the iron curtain because their cities were polluted to the point where they were almost unlivable. India is also making an effort to rely more on nuclear power. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061218-2.html ). > However, we will take actions in > America and the end result will be that hundreds or even thousands of > factories will close down. The husband of my niece works in a steel mill > and he will probably lose his job. They have a 12 year old child. Emission level reductions can be met by simply making factories more efficient so that they don't produce the levels of pollution they do now. No factories need to close down. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On May 27, 11:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <0krh531bcrb61pcf96blg57714is7g6...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:08:23 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2605071908230...@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <qjjh531dfc2hk1r2bc7o6kfi16il7se...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:16:15 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-2605071516160...@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <656h539up887rtunifvms152avmt2pf...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:54:49 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> >> <Jason-2605070154500...@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >> ... > > > >> >> >That might also been an exercise designed to cause children and young > > >> >> >adults to become advocates of euthanasia > > > >> >> What's wrong with euthenasia? Remember that tribes or societies have > > >> >> limited resources. Resources spent on the old will be taken away from > > >> >> others, often the youngest who need it as much but will be able to help > > >> >> the society in the future. > > > >> >> I think its absolutely wonderful that I live in a country that can > > >> >> afford to spend billions keeping people alive who are very old or unable > > >> >> ever to take care of themselves, but I know that this is something we > > >> >> want to do because we can. Sadly, we do take resources from children to > > >> >> do this, because our society is too selfish to make certain that every > > >> >> child is healthy and well-educated. We have our priorities screwed up, > > >> >> particularly since we are easily able to afford both. > > > >> >Are you in favor of teaching children in our public schools to become > > >> >advocates of euthanasia so that when they all become adults that they will > > >> >vote in favor of laws related to euthanasia? > > > >> I am in favor of teaching children to think for themselves rather than > > >> being sheep who are easily duped by conmen, even the conmen who hide > > >> behind God to tell their lies. > > > >> You have started with an unsupportable premise and a simplistic > > >> understanding of the world. Should I ask you if you support killing > > >> children by refusing to provide adequate health care for them? > > > >I live in California. Many members of the lower class in this state can > > >receive Medicade which is similar to Medicare. I think that program is > > >wonderful and I am glad that lower class families get excellent health > > >care in California. I care about children regardless of their age. Would > > >you be happier if there were no advocates for unwanted unborn babies? In > > >other words, would you be pleased if all pro-life organizations stopped > > >protesting in front of abortion clinics? > > > Yes. Since they are not the ones who are pregnant or responsible for the > > child when it is born, they should shut up and mind their own business. > > I give you credit for honesty. You are willing to clearly state that you > have no compassion or concern for the lives of unwanted unborn babies. That's not what he said. You should be honest and admit that you have absolutely no compassion for pregnant women. You're a monster. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On May 27, 12:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <9srh531kcnb9ss82atb4i1lg6povgja...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:58:51 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2605071858510...@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <pujh53hc0b5l726dr2218vuqp6gesbe...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:34:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-2605071534440...@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >For God so loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son that > > >> >whosoever believes in Him whould not perish but have eternal life. > > > >> >God send his son to die for us so that we could have eternal life. Jesus > > >> >was crucified and died on a cross. He did not kill himself. What is your > > >> >evidence that Jesus killed himself? > > > >> According to the stories, Jesus was completely capable of avoiding > > >> capture and crucifixion. His decisions were no different than those > > >> today of people who commit suicide by cop. > > > >> >See John 19:16-38 > > >> >vs. 30 Jesus stated, "it is finished"--"he bowed his head and gave up his > > >> >spirit." > > >> >vs. 34 "and one of the soldiers pirced his side with a spear and > > >> >immediately there came out boood and water." > > > >If he was willing to tell lies, he could have avoided being crucified. He > > >refused to lie. > > > The stories tell us that He was able to perform miracles. They also tell > > us that He was God. This has nothing to do with lies, something that you > > repeatedly tell, but the claims about His power. The stories tell us > > that He chose to die when He could have physically prevented that from > > happening. Suicide by cop. > > He could easily have avoided death--but he came to die for our sins. The evidence is overwhelming that he never even existed. See http://www.jesusneverexisted.com I know. I was shocked too. I knew that today's Christians were liars but I had no idea the entire religion was a fraud until I read this site. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On May 27, 1:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <mpvh53dv1tjbcl3gv0iu3frl82u9tbg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:21:16 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2605072121160...@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-2605071857120...@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <f3abu2$be...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > >> ><prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> >> Jason wrote: > > >> >> > In article <f3a9gk$8p...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > >> >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when > > >> >> >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the > person > > >> >> >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school > full of > > >> >> >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. > Sounds > > >> >> >> like "situational ethics" to me. > > > >> >> > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become > suicide > > >> >> > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your > point. I > > >> >> > have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you > > >> >> > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash > > >> >> > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and > euthanasia. > > > >> >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for > classes on > > >> >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." > > > >> >That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash > > >> >children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology professors > > >> >could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life > > >> >despite the lack of proof that it happened. > > > >> There is overwhelming evidence that it happened and there is no evidence > > >> that the method by which it happened had anything to do with a > > >> supernatural being. Sorry, but your hatred of science causes you to tell > > >> repeated falsehoods. Why would a loving God turn you into a liar? > > > >Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. > > > It's already done, all of the chemical reactions that are part of life > > are perfectly normal chemical reactions. > > Was a living cell produced by the chemical reactions? Stop moving the goalposts. You asked if evolution had been demonstrated in a laboratory. It has. Worse, you know it has. We've been over this before. You ran away from the argument, remember? Martin Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On 26 May 2007 23:15:43 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: - Refer: <1180246543.430358.102710@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> >On 27 Maj, 00:34, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <6j6h53hhgiiqohd3vmui1r1tvjfcl9m...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:56:39 -0700, in alt.atheism >snip >> >> For God so loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son that >> whosoever believes in Him whould not perish but have eternal life. >> >> God send his son to die for us so that we could have eternal life. Jesus >> was crucified and died on a cross. He did not kill himself. What is your >> evidence that Jesus killed himself? >> > >He became a man in order to be sacrificed, i.e. he planned and >organised his own death. How could an individual who never even existed, do anything? -- Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1180230304.110848.153530@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > On May 27, 7:56 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote >> innews:1180226436.519851.76220@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On May 25, 7:54 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> innews:1180048496.345636.295580@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> > On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> >> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> >> innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> > On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions >> >> >> >> with a question. Even schools have changed. I found out that >> >> >> >> they are now showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One >> >> >> >> of those students came home from school and was crying. She >> >> >> >> said that the planet would be destroyed by the time she was >> >> >> >> an adult and was worried that she would not be able to have >> >> >> >> a normal life. This real world is a crazy world. We were >> >> >> >> worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when >> >> >> >> I was a child. >> >> >> >> > I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught >> >> >> > back then to care about the environment. Obviously your >> >> >> > generation wasn't. >> >> >> >> I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about >> >> >> the scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. >> >> >> > The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer >> >> > since the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and >> >> > the question is whether or not there is anything we can do to >> >> > slow it down. >> >> >> The question is why we want to? >> >> > Because we care about our children's future. >> >> Because appeals to emotions are such convincing logical arguments. > > Except to those of us who feel nothing, eh? > Sing along with Martin, Everybody! "Feeeelings. Nothing more than Feeeeelings...." -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:11:23 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2605072211230001@66-52-22-80.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <mpvh53dv1tjbcl3gv0iu3frl82u9tbg2kb@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:21:16 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2605072121160001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7h86@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-2605071857120001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <f3abu2$be9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> >> > In article <f3a9gk$8pn$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when >> >> >> >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the >person >> >> >> >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school >full of >> >> >> >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. >Sounds >> >> >> >> like "situational ethics" to me. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become >suicide >> >> >> > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your >point. I >> >> >> > have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you >> >> >> > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash >> >> >> > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and >euthanasia. >> >> >> >> >> >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for >classes on >> >> >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." >> >> > >> >> >That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash >> >> >children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology professors >> >> >could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life >> >> >despite the lack of proof that it happened. >> >> >> >> There is overwhelming evidence that it happened and there is no evidence >> >> that the method by which it happened had anything to do with a >> >> supernatural being. Sorry, but your hatred of science causes you to tell >> >> repeated falsehoods. Why would a loving God turn you into a liar? >> > >> >Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. >> > >> It's already done, all of the chemical reactions that are part of life >> are perfectly normal chemical reactions. > >Was a living cell produced by the chemical reactions? > You asked if it was proven that it can happen. It was. Now you try to move the goal post to one that hasn't yet happened. Fine, keep showing us how dishonest you are in approaching this subject. Anti-evolution Creationism is a lie. Those who repeat the anti-evolution creationist talking points are repeating those lies. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 17:56:18 +0930, in alt.atheism Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in <t3gi53tvhd2lrc1gp396vkibf03499q2cd@4ax.com>: >On 26 May 2007 23:15:43 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > - Refer: <1180246543.430358.102710@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> >>On 27 Maj, 00:34, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: .... >>> For God so loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son that >>> whosoever believes in Him whould not perish but have eternal life. >>> >>> God send his son to die for us so that we could have eternal life. Jesus >>> was crucified and died on a cross. He did not kill himself. What is your >>> evidence that Jesus killed himself? >>> >> >>He became a man in order to be sacrificed, i.e. he planned and >>organised his own death. > >How could an individual who never even existed, do anything? Fair question, but we're just working from the story as it is given. The story tells us that Jesus committed suicide by cop. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:31:17 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2705070931180001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180254267.019564.134840@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 27, 1:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: .... >> > Was a living cell produced by the chemical reactions? >> >> Stop moving the goalposts. You asked if evolution had been >> demonstrated in a laboratory. It has. Worse, you know it has. We've >> been over this before. You ran away from the argument, remember? >> >> Martin > >I did not want to continue because we were not moving forward. I had to >explain basic creation science concepts and my theories over and over and >over and over and over. Creation science is not science. It is religious doctrine. >After about two weeks, I decided that people were >so brainwashed by high school biology teachers and college science >professors that they were not able to open their minds to alternative >theories that explain how life came to be on this planet. Facts sure get in the way of your doctrines, don't they. >I did learn >about the amazing faith of evolutionists. They told me that life evolved >from non-life. The beginning of life is a different problem than the evolution of life. Still, all of the evidence points to a natural beginning of life and no evidence supports any religious claims about a creator. >To believe that--it requires a lot of faith. Only that reality exists. If you reject reality, then you can reject anything. >Some of the >people told me that life probably evolved from amino acids. However, they >were not able to tell me how the amino acids came to be. It was a waste of >time. I believe in most of the concepts of evolution that can be proved. No you don't. You believe the lies of the anti-science creationists. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:15:35 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2705070915350001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180251937.912451.87280@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: .... >> It has been shown in laboratory experiments to happen with viruses, >> bacteria and fruit flies. >> >> Next question, please. >> >> Martin > >Please refer me to a website that shows that fruit flies evolved from >non-life. At one time, someone done an experiment that appeard to prove >that flies evolved from dead meat. It was later determined that the flies >actually came from eggs that were laid in that meat by female flies. You've confused a few problems. The study of the beginning of life on earth has nothing to with the proof that complex animals like insects do not arise spontaneously in rotting flesh. Quote
Guest James Brock Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... > On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:11:23 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2605072211230001@66-52-22-80.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <mpvh53dv1tjbcl3gv0iu3frl82u9tbg2kb@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:21:16 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2605072121160001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7h86@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-2605071857120001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <f3abu2$be9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> >> ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> >> > In article <f3a9gk$8pn$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> >> >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when > >> >> >> >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the > >person > >> >> >> >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school > >full of > >> >> >> >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. > >Sounds > >> >> >> >> like "situational ethics" to me. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become > >suicide > >> >> >> > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your > >point. I > >> >> >> > have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you > >> >> >> > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash > >> >> >> > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and > >euthanasia. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for > >classes on > >> >> >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." > >> >> > > >> >> >That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash > >> >> >children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology professors > >> >> >could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life > >> >> >despite the lack of proof that it happened. > >> >> > >> >> There is overwhelming evidence that it happened and there is no evidence > >> >> that the method by which it happened had anything to do with a > >> >> supernatural being. Sorry, but your hatred of science causes you to tell > >> >> repeated falsehoods. Why would a loving God turn you into a liar? > >> > > >> >Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. > >> > > >> It's already done, all of the chemical reactions that are part of life > >> are perfectly normal chemical reactions. > > > >Was a living cell produced by the chemical reactions? > > > You asked if it was proven that it can happen. It was. Now you try to > move the goal post to one that hasn't yet happened. Fine, keep showing > us how dishonest you are in approaching this subject. > > Anti-evolution Creationism is a lie. Those who repeat the anti-evolution > creationist talking points are repeating those lies. > Since there is no god, and life definately exist, the only possible conclusion is that life created itself through natural processes. James Leon Zechariah Brock > -- > <snip> Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 In article <1180251937.912451.87280@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 27, 12:21 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-2605071857120...@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >In article <f3abu2$be...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > ><prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > >> > In article <f3a9gk$8p...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when > > > >> >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the person > > > >> >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school full of > > > >> >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. Sounds > > > >> >> like "situational ethics" to me. > > > > > >> > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become suicide > > > >> > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your point. I > > > >> > have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you > > > >> > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash > > > >> > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and euthanasia. > > > > > >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for classes on > > > >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." > > > > > >That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash > > > >children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology professors > > > >could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life > > > >despite the lack of proof that it happened. > > > > > There is overwhelming evidence that it happened and there is no evidence > > > that the method by which it happened had anything to do with a > > > supernatural being. Sorry, but your hatred of science causes you to tell > > > repeated falsehoods. Why would a loving God turn you into a liar? > > > > Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. > > It has been shown in laboratory experiments to happen with viruses, > bacteria and fruit flies. > > Next question, please. > > Martin Please refer me to a website that shows that fruit flies evolved from non-life. At one time, someone done an experiment that appeard to prove that flies evolved from dead meat. It was later determined that the flies actually came from eggs that were laid in that meat by female flies. 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.