Guest Jason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 In article <1YadncmDiZPeQcTbnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <mYOdnb9kgdaPT8TbnZ2dnUVZ_vrinZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 > > <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: > > >>> > >>> You may want to read this book: > >>> "On the Seventh Day" Edited by J.F. Ashton (292 pages) > >>> > >>> It's a collection of essays by over 40 doctorate-holding scientists who > >>> have a firm belief in God and they explain how their knowledge of science > >>> backs and confirms their faith. > >>> > >>> > >> 40 doctorate-holding scientists that believe in god compared to millions > >> of doctorate-holding scientists that do not is what I would call > >> statistically insignificant. Every group has hacks, even scientists. > > > > They are the ones in one of the books and they have 50 more in another > > book. There are probably lots of professors that are advocates of creation > > science that are keeping their beliefs a secret until after they get > > tenure. If they let their bosses know they are advocates of creation > > science prior to getting tenure, it usually means they will never get > > tenure. The advocates of creation science are usually discriminated > > against in state funded colleges. > > > > > > You've now mentioned 90, which doesn't change the insignificance of > their numbers. Your assertion that there are 'probably lots' more is > absurd. Just because you can see a possibility doesn't make it true--or > true in a large number of cases. You're guessing; nothing more. That is true--I was guessing. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 > >I disagree that ICR rejects evolution. > > Then you disagree with the ICR. They tell us that they reject evolution. > Argue with them. > > >That is not true. The truth is that > >they accept the aspects of evolution that CAN be proved. > > They invented a completely fake distinction called micro- and > macro-evolution, there is absolutely no scientific justification for it. > They reject evolution. > > >They reject the > >aspects of evoluiton that have NOT been proved. > > They reject aspects of evolution that are completely supported by > evidence. > > >You believe all aspects of evolution theory. > > I accept the evidence that has been gathered and tested by scientists. I > have no reason to invent an explanation that is contrary to the evidence > as the ICR has. > > >We are on different pages related to this issue. > > No, we are not. You reject the evidence. I accept it. You accept the > lies of the anti-science creationists. I refuse to buy their nonsense. > > >The > >main difference is that we believe God created people; lots of plants and > >lots of animals. > > The problem is that you have agreed with those who reject the evidence > that shows that humans share a common ancestry with other animals and > life forms on earth. You have bought the lie. > > >It's my theory that evolution kicked shortly after the > >creation process was finished. > > No, you don't have a theory. A scientific theory is a model that takes > into account the evidence that has been gathered. You have a religious > doctrine that you know is at odds with the evidence, but you cannot > bring yourself to admit that the doctrine is false. > > >Darwin agrees with me related to this issue. > > I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. > > >Hard core evolutionists believe that life evolved from non-life. > > That has nothing to do with evolution, but it is a fact that there was > no life in the universe at one time and that there is life in the > universe today. There is no evidence at all that any gods exist or have > anything to do with the beginning of life in the universe. > > >They believe that mankind evolved from a one-celled creature. > > There is lots of evidence to support common ancestry. > > >There is NO > >proof that life evolved from non-life > > Scientists deal with evidence and they have such evidence. > > >and there is no proof that mankind > >evolved from a one-celled creature. > > Scientists deal with evidence and they have huge amounts of evidence to > support that understanding of the history of life on earth. Sorry, but > you have been lied to by the ICR. You only believe them because their > lies are consistent with the religious doctrines you have been taught. We are on a different page on this issue. I believe that God created People; some plants and some animals and shortly after that--evolution kicked in. You believe that life evolved from non-life and that mankind evolved from a one celled creature. We can NOT resolve our differences. You are convinced that you are correct and I am convinced that I am correct. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 In article <konj53hcbga67plji9412kj0nrugq00oas@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 27 May 2007 13:28:57 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2705071328580001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrsqla@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2705071151020001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3088@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "James Brock" > >> ><jimbk@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > >> >> news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... > >> > >> ... > >> > >> >> > 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 > >> > > >> >> Meaning of Genesis > >> > > >> >For the sake of discussion, let's assume that statement is true. Proof > >> >would be needed before you could determine that life created itself > >> >through natural processes. If you can not proove it, you would have to go > >> >back and at least consider the possibility that God does exist and created > >> >life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God created life and > >> >others will conclude that life created itself through natural processes. > >> >In both cases, those people are making use of faith since there is no > >> >proof. > >> > >> Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? > >> > >> Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to support them. > >> > >> Scientific theories are consistent with the available evidence. > >> > >> You ignore the word evidence and ask for something meaningless: proof. > >> > >> Why would I consider the possibility that something exists when there is > >> absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in every god that > >> has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? > > > >Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself through natural > >processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? > > Because you are mistaken in claiming that there is no evidence to > support the conclusion that life arose from natural chemical reactions. When a scientist is able to prove in an experiment that a one celled creature can evolve from non-life, I will change my opinions on this subject. Of course, I would first have to read the details as to how the experiment was done. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On May 27, 1:28 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrs...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2705071151020...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "James Brock" > > ><j...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > >> "Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > > >>news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... > > > ... > > > >> > 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 > > > >> Meaning of Genesis > > > >For the sake of discussion, let's assume that statement is true. Proof > > >would be needed before you could determine that life created itself > > >through natural processes. If you can not proove it, you would have to go > > >back and at least consider the possibility that God does exist and created > > >life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God created life and > > >others will conclude that life created itself through natural processes. > > >In both cases, those people are making use of faith since there is no > > >proof. > > > Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? > > > Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to support them. > > > Scientific theories are consistent with the available evidence. > > > You ignore the word evidence and ask for something meaningless: proof. > > > Why would I consider the possibility that something exists when there is > > absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in every god that > > has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? > > Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself through natural > processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? "Absolutely no evidence"??? Wow, that is shocking. Jason, I have been a bit embarassed about some of the abuse that atheists have heaped upon you, but if you think there is "absoutely no evidence" for evolution, you truly have been brainwashed. - Bob T. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 In article <0f2dnWnhD6akdsTbnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrsqla@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2705071151020001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>> In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3088@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "James Brock" > >>> <jimbk@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > >>>> news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... > >> ... > >> > >>>>> 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 > >>>> Meaning of Genesis > >>> For the sake of discussion, let's assume that statement is true. Proof > >>> would be needed before you could determine that life created itself > >>> through natural processes. If you can not proove it, you would have to go > >>> back and at least consider the possibility that God does exist and created > >>> life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God created life and > >>> others will conclude that life created itself through natural processes. > >>> In both cases, those people are making use of faith since there is no > >>> proof. > >> Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? > >> > >> Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to support them. > >> > >> Scientific theories are consistent with the available evidence. > >> > >> You ignore the word evidence and ask for something meaningless: proof. > >> > >> Why would I consider the possibility that something exists when there is > >> absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in every god that > >> has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? > > > > Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself through natural > > processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? > > > > > > Mountains of evidence proving evolution true aside; you accept the > conclusion that an all-mighty deity created life with absolutely no > evidence to support it. Why do you find it so easy to believe one thing > without evidence, but not the other? It was easy for you to come to the conclusion that life created itself through natural processes despite the lack of proof. It was just as easy for me to come to the conclusion that God created life without evidence. In my high school biology book, they used an excellent brainwashing technique that must have worked on you but it did not work on me. The authors discussed many of the aspects of evolution that made sense and could easily be proved. The authors next step was to introduce the aspects of evolution that had not been proved and did not make much sense to most of us. The author's conclusion was: Since some aspects of evolution make sense and can be proved, then all aspects of evolution including the theory that life created itself through natural processes are also true. Jason Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:57:58 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >Are you in favor of new nuclear power plants in America? I am. A nuclear power plant is good for 30 years. (After that we're just playing catch with a bottle of nitro.) What happens them? Leave our children (yours - mine is grown) with another problem we caused? Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 16:49:33 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >It's difficult for one person to win the battle against seven people. The >point is that the only way to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere >is if every country in the world takes major actions to reduce C02. If >America is the only country that does it--the end result is that C02 >levels will continue to rise. The result in America is that our economy >would be placed in jeopardy To use your boat analogy, if the boat sinks, no one is "placed in jeopardy" - everyone dies. If you keep bailing the boat floats a little longer. And who knows whether another boat will come along just when, because you kept bailing, the boat is about to sink? Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <L1a6i.7511$4Y.82@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com > wrote: > >> 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. > > That does not shock me. I showed the cover of a magazine that had a 3D > color ultrasound of a third trimester fetus to at least a dozen > co-workers. Every pro-choice person that saw the picture agreed that third > trimester abortions should be illegal except to save the life of the > mother. That third trimester fetus looked just like a baby. > Jason > > I don't give 1/3 of a flying fuck about your bloody 3D pictures. A third-trimester fetus is approaching the point of viability, and it is less dangerous to deliver it prematurely than to abort it. And I can't believe that your flavor of Christians or your fellow reproduction nazis would condone abortion at any time for any reason. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:11:36 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2705071411360001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <konj53hcbga67plji9412kj0nrugq00oas@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 27 May 2007 13:28:57 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2705071328580001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrsqla@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: .... >> >> Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? >> >> >> >> Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to support them. >> >> >> >> Scientific theories are consistent with the available evidence. >> >> >> >> You ignore the word evidence and ask for something meaningless: proof. >> >> >> >> Why would I consider the possibility that something exists when there is >> >> absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in every god that >> >> has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? >> > >> >Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself through natural >> >processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? >> >> Because you are mistaken in claiming that there is no evidence to >> support the conclusion that life arose from natural chemical reactions. > >When a scientist is able to prove in an experiment that a one celled >creature can evolve from non-life, I will change my opinions on this >subject. Of course, I would first have to read the details as to how the >experiment was done. Your opinion is derived from anti-scientific religious dogma. If you had been paying attention to the answers you were given, you would know that cellular creatures are a more complex form of life, they would have evolved from pre-cellular life. The original self-sustaining biochemical reactions would have been far simpler than a cell. Scientists do know that every necessary step in the process is possible, so you don't have any valid objections to the process. All you have is the fervent wish that your anti-science bias is true and use the fact that scientists don't know everything about the beginning of life on earth as an excuse to introduce an argument that has been proven wrong. Your god of the gaps has shrunk to a very small god indeed. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <v4bj53tm5ca33k3jb5kalhc5t86ibs3m4c@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. > > While I was taking a college biology class, the professor done some > experiments that proved some of the aspects of evolution theory. I had no > problems believing those aspects of evolution theory. I have problems > believing the aspects of evolution theory that can not be proved. I know > that most everyone that is an advocate of creation science also accepts > the aspects of evolution theory that can be proved. The advocates of > creation science disagree with evolutionists in regard to how life began > on this planet. The evolutionists believe that life evolved from non--life > and the advocates of creation science believe that God created life on > this planet. Excuse me? Are you deaf, blind, willfully ignorant and stupid? You act that way whenever you assert that "evolutionists believe that life evolved from non--life." That's a lie. Evolutionary theory DOES NOT ASSERT that life "evolved from non-life." That is an impossibility by definition because something that is not living cannot evolve. However life originated, once it did so, it evolved into the diverse life-forms we have now. Your assertions are more lies from you propagandizing preachers. Learn the facts, man. Get real information. Then you can know the truth and the truth will make you free of the people who hold you in intellectual slavery. Plenty of Christians understand such things and remain exemplary Christians. Join them. <snip> Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:07:20 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2705071407200001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: [Jason apparently can't be bothered to do attributions any more] .... I wrote: >> Scientists deal with evidence and they have huge amounts of evidence to >> support that understanding of the history of life on earth. Sorry, but >> you have been lied to by the ICR. You only believe them because their >> lies are consistent with the religious doctrines you have been taught. > >We are on a different page on this issue. I believe that God created >People; some plants and some animals and shortly after that--evolution >kicked in. Your beliefs are not consistent with the facts, so your beliefs are useless. They are wrong. >You believe that life evolved from non-life and that mankind evolved from >a one celled creature. That is what the evidence shows. >We can NOT resolve our differences. You are convinced that you are correct >and I am convinced that I am correct. But the evidence shows that you are _not_ correct. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 15:46:43 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2705071546440001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <0f2dnWnhD6akdsTbnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 ><notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrsqla@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-2705071151020001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >>> In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3088@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "James Brock" >> >>> <jimbk@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >> >>>> news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... >> >> ... >> >> >> >>>>> 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 >> >>>> Meaning of Genesis >> >>> For the sake of discussion, let's assume that statement is true. Proof >> >>> would be needed before you could determine that life created itself >> >>> through natural processes. If you can not proove it, you would have to go >> >>> back and at least consider the possibility that God does exist and created >> >>> life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God created life and >> >>> others will conclude that life created itself through natural processes. >> >>> In both cases, those people are making use of faith since there is no >> >>> proof. >> >> Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? >> >> >> >> Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to support them. >> >> >> >> Scientific theories are consistent with the available evidence. >> >> >> >> You ignore the word evidence and ask for something meaningless: proof. >> >> >> >> Why would I consider the possibility that something exists when there is >> >> absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in every god that >> >> has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? >> > >> > Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself through natural >> > processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? >> > >> > >> >> Mountains of evidence proving evolution true aside; you accept the >> conclusion that an all-mighty deity created life with absolutely no >> evidence to support it. Why do you find it so easy to believe one thing >> without evidence, but not the other? > >It was easy for you to come to the conclusion that life created itself >through natural processes despite the lack of proof. It was just as easy >for me to come to the conclusion that God created life without evidence. Why do you keep repeating that false comparison. The evidence for abiogenesis is solid, though the pathway is not and may never be known. The evidence for your god-stories is nonexistent. The two are not comparable. >In my high school biology book, they used an excellent brainwashing >technique that must have worked on you but it did not work on me. I'm sorry that you hate facts. >The authors discussed many of the aspects of evolution that made sense and >could easily be proved. The authors next step was to introduce the aspects >of evolution that had not been proved and did not make much sense to most >of us. The author's conclusion was: >Since some aspects of evolution make sense and can be proved, then all >aspects of evolution including the theory that life created itself through >natural processes are also true. I doubt that any authors ever wrote that. You have a demonstrated history of false claims and a demonstrated bias agaist knowledge and science. -- "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 Martin Phipps Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On May 28, 12:15 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180251937.912451.87...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > Please refer me to a website that shows that fruit flies evolved from > non-life. You're an idiot. You don't have to go to a website. Take a look around you: the world behaves according to natural processes. There's no god pulling the strings. We've been through this. Martin Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 12:36:40 -0700, Jason wrote: > In article <9ltoi4-ifc.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:03:36 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > It also shows that you don't understand what you read--I clearly stated >> > (see above) that "I was guessing that it was about $300-$400. It may have >> > been more". >> >> Yet your "guess" shows you're either lying through your teeth, or >> incredibly stupid, as even _you_ should be able to figure out that living >> expenses run considerably higher than $100 per month. >> >> Your "guess" demonstrates, quite adequately, that you are either so stupid >> you believe that $100/month is sufficient, or you were simply lying about >> paying all her expenses. > > You are making assumptions that may or may not be true. Assumption 1: You live somewhere and have at least some exposure to the world at large - which would include anything and everything from rent or mortgage payments - or shared accommodation costs, food costs, some medical bills and so forth. Assumption 2: You are capable of applying your knowledge of the above to even a ball-park estimate of the cost to simply live in this society, unless one is homeless and begging for or stealing food or some cost-free alternative. Okay, both are unwarranted; there's little reason to think you have any exposure to the real world _or_ ability to contemplate the implications of such a life. You're right; I should not have concluded such, at least, not based on available evidence. > The home for > unwed mothers was established by the pastor of a church that has over > 2000 members. It's possible that all of the staff members were > volunteers. Space. Heat. Electricity. Food. Medical bills. Assorted supplies. Cleaning and laundry costs - even if you do it yourself, you still pay for materials. The list goes on and on, and you claimed to pay for it all . > It's possible that most of the food and clothing was donated > by church members. Ah, so they paid her expenses, in food donations, clothing donations and the like - but you said you covered all her expenses. > It's possible that the doctors that delivered the > babies were church members that did not charge the church for their > services. Ah, so they paid for the services with their time, skills and work - but you said you covered all of her expenses. > If you are free to make assumptions, I am also free to make > assumptions. The truth is that I gave the ministry the exact amount of > money that they requested. Which is not the same thing as what you said at all, now is it? > They were in a much better position to > determine how much money was needed than either you or I. Perhaps so, but what that means is you paid what you were asked to pay, not "all her expenses". Yet you didn't say _that_; you claimed you paid all her expenses. Which means you lied. Yeah, well, another Liar for the Lord. No news there. -- Think "HONK" if you're a telepath. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 27 May 2007 12:26:56 -0700, Jason wrote: > You may want to read this book: > "On the Seventh Day" Edited by J.F. Ashton (292 pages) > > It's a collection of essays by over 40 doctorate-holding scientists who > have a firm belief in God and they explain how their knowledge of science > backs and confirms their faith. And I'm sure that, between them, they have produced this never-before-seen theory of creation, right? Right? And it explains your complete inability to cope with science, too, right? Right? -- For your enlightenment, my statements are serious. - Trent Hall Quote
Guest AT1 Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <0f2dnWnhD6akdsTbnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 > <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrsqla@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-2705071151020001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>> In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3088@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "James Brock" >>>>> <jimbk@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >>>>>> news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... >>>> ... >>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> Meaning of Genesis >>>>> For the sake of discussion, let's assume that statement is true. Proof >>>>> would be needed before you could determine that life created itself >>>>> through natural processes. If you can not proove it, you would have to go >>>>> back and at least consider the possibility that God does exist and created >>>>> life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God created life and >>>>> others will conclude that life created itself through natural processes. >>>>> In both cases, those people are making use of faith since there is no >>>>> proof. >>>> Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? >>>> >>>> Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to support them. >>>> >>>> Scientific theories are consistent with the available evidence. >>>> >>>> You ignore the word evidence and ask for something meaningless: proof. >>>> >>>> Why would I consider the possibility that something exists when there is >>>> absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in every god that >>>> has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? >>> Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself through natural >>> processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? >>> >>> >> Mountains of evidence proving evolution true aside; you accept the >> conclusion that an all-mighty deity created life with absolutely no >> evidence to support it. Why do you find it so easy to believe one thing >> without evidence, but not the other? > > It was easy for you to come to the conclusion that life created itself > through natural processes despite the lack of proof. It was just as easy > for me to come to the conclusion that God created life without evidence. > > In my high school biology book, they used an excellent brainwashing > technique that must have worked on you but it did not work on me. The > authors discussed many of the aspects of evolution that made sense and > could easily be proved. The authors next step was to introduce the aspects > of evolution that had not been proved and did not make much sense to most > of us. The author's conclusion was: > Since some aspects of evolution make sense and can be proved, then all > aspects of evolution including the theory that life created itself through > natural processes are also true. > > Jason > > Nice. You just admitted that there is evidence to support evolution. Regardless if some of the aspects of evolution have been proven yet or not, your acknowledgment that some aspects have been refutes your earlier statement about no evidence existing. Here's a theory of mine: Keep Christians talking long enough, and due to lack of logic and reason, they'll shoot holes in their own arguments. This theory is getting stronger every day. -- AT1 http://www.godblows.net Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 [snips] On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:38:41 -0700, Jason wrote: >> So you are saying that it is a sin to dive onto a grenade to protect >> your buddies in battle? >> >> You are absurdly selfish. Nothing from Jesus's teachings have gotten >> through to you. > > You are changing the goal post. "Thou shalt not kill". It's an absolute. ISTR it was you saying that included killing self. So doing this would be absolutely wrong, as you are killing yourself by jumping on the grenade. It doesn't matter if this saves 100 lives, it is still absolutely wrong. > In the hand grenade scenario, it is > certain that people would die if nothing was done. Yes, but as long as it's someone else tossing the grenade, you didn't do the killing. Jumping onto it, however, means you _are_ doing the killing - of yourself. You are morally obligated to stand by and let the others die in that case. You can't even take the risk of trying to get rid of the grenade, as it might go off - meaning you at the very least aided in your own killing. Ain't absolute morals great? -- When you cannot use facts to demonstrate that something is true, just label it 'spiritual'. - Sean McCullough Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 26 May 2007 16:37:06 -0700, Jason wrote: > I had not thought of that. I still would not jump out of the boat since > the possibilty of rescue during the first day would be possible. Perhaps, > I may decide to jump out of the boat during the second or third day if the > water supply was getting really low. Great, so instead of doing the honorable thing, you stick it out until you risk killing everyone through lack of water before you climb out and take your chances. You call yourself pro-life, yet here you are telling us that it's better to risk an entire boatload of people than one. Great demonstration of your convictions there. > the rescuers found them very quickly. Do you think that the people > should take a vote to determine which person on the boat would be the > best to allow to live--such as a heart surgean and that everyone else > should jump off the boat? Would you jump off the boat during the first > day? I probably wouldn't, but then, I'm not the one harping on incessantly about how precious life is and then turning around and risking killing an entire boat full of people in direct violation of my "morals". -- King Kong died for your sins. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:01:15 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2705071801150001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <UeGdnbqsKpi4iMfbnZ2dnUVZ_rSjnZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 ><notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <0f2dnWnhD6akdsTbnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 >> > <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >>> In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrsqla@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >>>> <Jason-2705071151020001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >>>>> In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3088@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "James Brock" >> >>>>> <jimbk@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >> >>>>>> news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... >> >>>> ... >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> 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 >> >>>>>> Meaning of Genesis >> >>>>> For the sake of discussion, let's assume that statement is true. Proof >> >>>>> would be needed before you could determine that life created itself >> >>>>> through natural processes. If you can not proove it, you would >have to go >> >>>>> back and at least consider the possibility that God does exist and >created >> >>>>> life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God created life and >> >>>>> others will conclude that life created itself through natural processes. >> >>>>> In both cases, those people are making use of faith since there is no >> >>>>> proof. >> >>>> Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? >> >>>> >> >>>> Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to support them. >> >>>> >> >>>> Scientific theories are consistent with the available evidence. >> >>>> >> >>>> You ignore the word evidence and ask for something meaningless: proof. >> >>>> >> >>>> Why would I consider the possibility that something exists when there is >> >>>> absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in every god that >> >>>> has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? >> >>> Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself through natural >> >>> processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? >> >>> >> >>> >> >> Mountains of evidence proving evolution true aside; you accept the >> >> conclusion that an all-mighty deity created life with absolutely no >> >> evidence to support it. Why do you find it so easy to believe one thing >> >> without evidence, but not the other? >> > >> > It was easy for you to come to the conclusion that life created itself >> > through natural processes despite the lack of proof. It was just as easy >> > for me to come to the conclusion that God created life without evidence. >> > >> > In my high school biology book, they used an excellent brainwashing >> > technique that must have worked on you but it did not work on me. The >> > authors discussed many of the aspects of evolution that made sense and >> > could easily be proved. The authors next step was to introduce the aspects >> > of evolution that had not been proved and did not make much sense to most >> > of us. The author's conclusion was: >> > Since some aspects of evolution make sense and can be proved, then all >> > aspects of evolution including the theory that life created itself through >> > natural processes are also true. >> > >> > Jason >> > >> > >> >> Nice. You just admitted that there is evidence to support evolution. >> Regardless if some of the aspects of evolution have been proven yet or >> not, your acknowledgment that some aspects have been refutes your >> earlier statement about no evidence existing. >> >> Here's a theory of mine: Keep Christians talking long enough, and due >> to lack of logic and reason, they'll shoot holes in their own arguments. >> This theory is getting stronger every day. > >I have stated in various posts that I accept the aspects of evolution >theory that can be proved. > You still show your disrespect for science by demanding 'proof'. Every step of evolution is consistent with the scientific evidence. Does that mean that you are finally admitting that you accept evolution? If not, what scientific objection do you have to it? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:06:38 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2705071806390001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <hs2k531vuhc51hucr3ua6h4hlko7gktksi@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:11:36 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2705071411360001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <konj53hcbga67plji9412kj0nrugq00oas@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 27 May 2007 13:28:57 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-2705071328580001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrsqla@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> >> Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? >> >> >> >> >> >> Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to support them. >> >> >> >> >> >> Scientific theories are consistent with the available evidence. >> >> >> >> >> >> You ignore the word evidence and ask for something meaningless: proof. >> >> >> >> >> >> Why would I consider the possibility that something exists when there is >> >> >> absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in every god that >> >> >> has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? >> >> > >> >> >Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself through natural >> >> >processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? >> >> >> >> Because you are mistaken in claiming that there is no evidence to >> >> support the conclusion that life arose from natural chemical reactions. >> > >> >When a scientist is able to prove in an experiment that a one celled >> >creature can evolve from non-life, I will change my opinions on this >> >subject. Of course, I would first have to read the details as to how the >> >experiment was done. >> >> Your opinion is derived from anti-scientific religious dogma. >> >> If you had been paying attention to the answers you were given, you >> would know that cellular creatures are a more complex form of life, they >> would have evolved from pre-cellular life. The original self-sustaining >> biochemical reactions would have been far simpler than a cell. >> >> Scientists do know that every necessary step in the process is possible, >> so you don't have any valid objections to the process. All you have is >> the fervent wish that your anti-science bias is true and use the fact >> that scientists don't know everything about the beginning of life on >> earth as an excuse to introduce an argument that has been proven wrong. >> Your god of the gaps has shrunk to a very small god indeed. > >If it happened once, scientists should be able to design an experiment to >make it happen again. Why has that happened as of yet. You have no comprehension how long it took for life to arise on earth. The biggest problem for scientists today is that they don't actually know what prebiotic Earth looked like. Life obliterated all of the evidence. You will always find excuses to reject science. Your false religious doctrines will not change, no matter what you learn. Augustine was right in condemning your behavior. -- "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 Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 [snips] On Sat, 26 May 2007 20:42:14 -0700, Jason wrote: >> 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. No, you don't give credit; you twist. He does not demonstrate a lack of compassion or concern; he in fact demonstrates a greater level of compassion and concern than you do. He examines the case and ponders it. If the fetus isn't wanted, what of the resulting child? It is unreasonable to assume every birthing mother is going to fall instantly in love with her offspring when she doesn't want offspring in the first place, so we're left with two basic cases: the child growing up in a home where it's not wanted, possibly not wanted because money and other resources are already stretched too thin, or it gets dumped into an adoption system which is already overburdened with unwanted children. Neither of these argue in favor of the child growing up to be well educated, well fed, well housed and so forth; rather they suggest a somewhat greater likelihood of it growing up deprived of necessities, of care, of support and nurturing, with no real expectation of it ever becoming a productive member of and giving back to the society which didn't want it and did little, if anything, to show that it gave a damn. What sort of life is this for a kid, and what sort of life can we expect for it when it matures? There's certainly nothing in the process which argues for it being a good childhood or that we should expect positive things from the adult. Which is the more cruel; to say it must be born then cast it aside, or to simply let this one go and focus on making things as good as possible for the ones which are wanted, will be supported, provided for and so forth? Perhaps the best would be to actually care for and nurture these unwanted ones, fine, marvelous - but if you pro-lifers actually believed that, why are there so many unclaimed kids in the adoption system? Are you all deemed unfit parents? No, of course not; it's just that you don't actually give a damn about the kids, you just want to stop the abortions. Once it's born, it can rot and die for all you demonstrate you care. His compassion says that if the reasonable expectation is a life of misery, the caring thing to do is put it down. You're saying that it's better to ignore it and leave it to its suffering, as long as you don't have to see it. So tell us... how many kids have the people in your local pro-life chapter adopted? I will assume every family involved has adopted at least two or three, right? Right? You know, actually having convictions is a bitch, it's much easier just to tell other people they should live up to your beliefs when you can't. -- I tried thinking before, and I almost fell into the same mess YOU are now in. - Joanna Amren (Defending Christanic Creationism myths) Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:11:27 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2705071811280001@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <617k535s720sju06rp92rn3fq46agiqve0@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: .... >> You still show your disrespect for science by demanding 'proof'. >> >> Every step of evolution is consistent with the scientific evidence. Does >> that mean that you are finally admitting that you accept evolution? If >> not, what scientific objection do you have to it? > >The aspects of evolution that can be proved. All of them are supported by the evidence. I notice that you refuse to accept the evidence and demand 'proof', whatever that means. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <UeGdnbqsKpi4iMfbnZ2dnUVZ_rSjnZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <0f2dnWnhD6akdsTbnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 > > <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrsqla@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>> <Jason-2705071151020001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>> In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3088@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "James Brock" > >>>>> <jimbk@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > >>>>>> news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... > >>>> ... > >>>> > >>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> Meaning of Genesis > >>>>> For the sake of discussion, let's assume that statement is true. Proof > >>>>> would be needed before you could determine that life created itself > >>>>> through natural processes. If you can not proove it, you would have to go > >>>>> back and at least consider the possibility that God does exist and created > >>>>> life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God created life and > >>>>> others will conclude that life created itself through natural processes. > >>>>> In both cases, those people are making use of faith since there is no > >>>>> proof. > >>>> Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? > >>>> > >>>> Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to support them. > >>>> > >>>> Scientific theories are consistent with the available evidence. > >>>> > >>>> You ignore the word evidence and ask for something meaningless: proof. > >>>> > >>>> Why would I consider the possibility that something exists when there is > >>>> absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in every god that > >>>> has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? > >>> Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself through natural > >>> processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? > >>> > >>> > >> Mountains of evidence proving evolution true aside; you accept the > >> conclusion that an all-mighty deity created life with absolutely no > >> evidence to support it. Why do you find it so easy to believe one thing > >> without evidence, but not the other? > > > > It was easy for you to come to the conclusion that life created itself > > through natural processes despite the lack of proof. It was just as easy > > for me to come to the conclusion that God created life without evidence. > > > > In my high school biology book, they used an excellent brainwashing > > technique that must have worked on you but it did not work on me. The > > authors discussed many of the aspects of evolution that made sense and > > could easily be proved. The authors next step was to introduce the aspects > > of evolution that had not been proved and did not make much sense to most > > of us. The author's conclusion was: > > Since some aspects of evolution make sense and can be proved, then all > > aspects of evolution including the theory that life created itself through > > natural processes are also true. > > > > Jason > > > > > > Nice. You just admitted that there is evidence to support evolution. > Regardless if some of the aspects of evolution have been proven yet or > not, your acknowledgment that some aspects have been refutes your > earlier statement about no evidence existing. > > Here's a theory of mine: Keep Christians talking long enough, and due > to lack of logic and reason, they'll shoot holes in their own arguments. > This theory is getting stronger every day. I have stated in various posts that I accept the aspects of evolution theory that can be proved. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <hs2k531vuhc51hucr3ua6h4hlko7gktksi@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:11:36 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2705071411360001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <konj53hcbga67plji9412kj0nrugq00oas@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 27 May 2007 13:28:57 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2705071328580001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrsqla@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > ... > > >> >> Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? > >> >> > >> >> Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to support them. > >> >> > >> >> Scientific theories are consistent with the available evidence. > >> >> > >> >> You ignore the word evidence and ask for something meaningless: proof. > >> >> > >> >> Why would I consider the possibility that something exists when there is > >> >> absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in every god that > >> >> has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? > >> > > >> >Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself through natural > >> >processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? > >> > >> Because you are mistaken in claiming that there is no evidence to > >> support the conclusion that life arose from natural chemical reactions. > > > >When a scientist is able to prove in an experiment that a one celled > >creature can evolve from non-life, I will change my opinions on this > >subject. Of course, I would first have to read the details as to how the > >experiment was done. > > Your opinion is derived from anti-scientific religious dogma. > > If you had been paying attention to the answers you were given, you > would know that cellular creatures are a more complex form of life, they > would have evolved from pre-cellular life. The original self-sustaining > biochemical reactions would have been far simpler than a cell. > > Scientists do know that every necessary step in the process is possible, > so you don't have any valid objections to the process. All you have is > the fervent wish that your anti-science bias is true and use the fact > that scientists don't know everything about the beginning of life on > earth as an excuse to introduce an argument that has been proven wrong. > Your god of the gaps has shrunk to a very small god indeed. If it happened once, scientists should be able to design an experiment to make it happen again. Why has that happened as of yet. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <1180305635.553073.123040@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > On May 27, 1:28 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrs...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-2705071151020...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "James Brock" > > > ><j...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > >> "Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > > > >>news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... > > > > > ... > > > > > >> > 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 > > > > > >> Meaning of Genesis > > > > > >For the sake of discussion, let's assume that statement is true. Proof > > > >would be needed before you could determine that life created itself > > > >through natural processes. If you can not proove it, you would have to go > > > >back and at least consider the possibility that God does exist and created > > > >life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God created life and > > > >others will conclude that life created itself through natural processes. > > > >In both cases, those people are making use of faith since there is no > > > >proof. > > > > > Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? > > > > > Religious doctrines have absolutely no evidence to support them. > > > > > Scientific theories are consistent with the available evidence. > > > > > You ignore the word evidence and ask for something meaningless: proof. > > > > > Why would I consider the possibility that something exists when there is > > > absolutely no evidence to support it. Do you believe in every god that > > > has ever been worshipped? Why or why not? > > > > Why would I accept the conclusion that life created itself through natural > > processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? > > "Absolutely no evidence"??? Wow, that is shocking. Jason, I have > been a bit embarassed about some of the abuse that atheists have > heaped upon you, but if you think there is "absoutely no evidence" for > evolution, you truly have been brainwashed. > > - Bob T. I was referring to an experiment to create a one celled life form from non-life. 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.