Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <617k535s720sju06rp92rn3fq46agiqve0@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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? The aspects of evolution that can be proved. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 12:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180254267.019564.134...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > > >> <Jason-2605071857120...@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >> > 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? > I did not want to continue because we were not moving forward. No shit. On May 14, 3:09 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Hello, > When I opened mynewsgroupreader, I noticed that there were 53 new > messages and it was my guess that most of them were responses to my recent > posts. I have decided to not reply to any more posts in thisnewsgroup. > The reason is simple. I have noticed that many (but not all) of the > members of thisnewsgrouphave a prejudice aganist Christians and/or the > advocates of Creation Science. If you do NOT believe me, please read all > of the posts in thisnewsgroupand you will be able to see it for > yourself. Of course, there are members of thisnewsgroupthat are NOT > prejudice. I enjoyed exchanging posts with those members of thisnewsgroup. I did not like reading posts from the members that appear to > have some sort of hatred for Christians and/or the advocates of Creation > Science. Perhaps that is because at least one Christian done something > that made them believe all Christians were just as bad as that Christian > that hurt them. One person told me that I was prejudice against atheists. > That is only partly true. I am prejudice against atheists that redicule > Christians or redicule me for being a Christian. An example is an atheist > professor that asked for all Christians to raise their hands. He told the > rest of the class to take a close look at the Christians that had their > hands raised. He stated something like this, "See these Christians--they > are so stupid that they believe in a God that does not exist. They > probably also believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny." Needless to > say, I am prejudiced against that professor and any other atheist that > redicules Christians or the advocates of Creation Science. Please check > today's posts in thisnewsgroupand decide for yourself how many of those > people are rediculing me in their posts. I will miss exchanging posts with > the members of thisnewsgroupthat are not prejudiced aganist Christians > or the advocates of creation science. Get it through your head, Jason, creationism is NOT science. It is fantasy. You are NOT a scientist who has been trying to educate: you are an ignorant moron who knows nothing about science nor wants to know anything about science for fear of challenging your faith. > I had to > explain basic creation science concepts and my theories over and over and > over and over and over. You're a liar, Jason. You have no theories and no evidence. All you have is blind faith. And you weren't chased away: you are still here, still posting on the very same newsgroup and still posting about the same subject you said you didn't want to discuss anymore. If you really wanted to have a discussion about evolution vs. creationism then you would have responded to our posts two weeks ago. Instead, you just ran away and claimed you weren't coming back. Most of the ridicule that you have received, you brought on yourself. You claimed that _I_ didn't understand free will and then you claimed that you have free will because you've chosen not to kill anybody today. You are insane. If you decide to tell us once more that you're leaving then live up to it. At this point there doesn't seem to be any more point trying to get through to you. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 > On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:31:17 -0700, in alt.atheism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2705070931180...@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >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. That's another lie from you. On May 10, 8:01 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 10, 3:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <f1t1ql$c74$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > Prove that life can evolve from non-life and I will become an advocate of > > > > evolution. One poster claimed that life could evolve fromaminoacids. > > > > I challenge anyone to create aminoacids from nothing. Even Darwin > > > > believed that God got the process going by creating life. > > > > Ehm, done? > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment > > What were the compounds and how did those compounds came to be? > > Follow the damn link. > > "The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and > hydrogen (H2)." These are common compounds that could be found > throughout the known universe. No diety required. > > Martin On May 10, 8:04 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 10, 3:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <922443lfvcimc2s7g1s46943dan9rre...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:33:20 -0700, in alt.atheism , J...@nospam.com > > > (Jason) in > > > <Jason-0905071133210...@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: > > > > >Prove that life can evolve from non-life and I will become an advocate of > > > >evolution. One poster claimed that life could evolve fromaminoacids. > > > >I challenge anyone to createaminoacidsfrom nothing. Even Darwin > > > >believed that God got the process going by creating life. > > > > Not from nothing, butaminoacidsdo spontaneously form under the > > > conditions of the early Earth. This was demonstrated decades ago. Care > > > to move those goalposts? > > > Yes, let's move that goalpost. Take those aminoacids and check them once > > a year for the next thousand years and see if any living cells evolve from > > thoseaminoacids. > > Follow the other damn link. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox > > "His early work demonstrated that under certain conditions amino acids > could spontaneously form small polypeptides-the first step on the road > to the assembly of large proteins. The result was significant because > his experimental conditions duplicated conditions that might plausibly > have existed early in Earth's history. > > "Further work revealed that theseaminoacidsand small peptides could > be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called microspheres. > Fox has gone so far as to describe these formations as protocells, > protein spheres that could grow and reprduce. They might be an > important intermediate step in the origin of life. Microspheres might > have served as a stepping stone between simple organic compounds and > genuine living cells." > > Martin Martin Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:42:57 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2705071942580001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <ns7k539flmog0vmk50ti7tj7v8u44u5v0v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> 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. > >The main area of disagreement is in regard to abiogenesis Which is outside evolution, but still an interesting problem that. >and common descent. Which is where the 'creation science' folks engage in some of their most notorious lies. >There is no proof that a one celled life form evolved from non-life. Yes, you've repeated that misleading statement endlessly. >If scientists could design an experiment to cause it to happen, >I would have no problem believing that a one celled life form could evolve >form non-life. Why don't you actually read the responses that people make to you instead of repeating your mistaken understanding of the world. In short, if you were serious about accepting scientific evidence, you would accept abiogenesis. If you were not totally dishonest, you would accept common descent. The evidence for common descent is overwhelming. It takes a special kind of anti-science liar to say otherwise, and the ICR is such a lie-filled organization. >That is the sort of "proof" that I was referring to. Stop using the word proof when you are asking for evidence. Stop telling scientists what kind of evidence they have to provide you. You don't know enough about science to ask properly for evidence nor do you have the critical facilities to understand what evidence is strong and what is not. Don't trust the ICR, CRS or AIG, their income depends on people believing the lies they tell. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 2:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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. It takes more faith to believe that life evolved from > non-life than to believe that God created life. As God doesn't exist, creationism requires people to believe that life emerged from nothing. You'd have to be mind numbingly stupid to believe anything as ridiculous as that! Face it, Jason, the non-existance of God has been proven: your religion has been proven to be a lie. Creationism, by extension, is not possible. It's not a viable theory. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 2:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > 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... > > > On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:11:23 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-2605072211230...@66-52-22-80.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >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? > > > > 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. > > 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. There is no God. EVERYTHING happens through natural processes. We're done here. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 4:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <mYOdnb9kgdaPT8TbnZ2dnUVZ_vrin...@comcast.com>, AT1 > > > > > > <notyourbusin...@godblows.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <ebuoi4-ifc....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > > > >> On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:31:17 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > >>> 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. Uh huh. Gish and Morris, the ICR, all of that? I > > >> don't know if they still do this, but they used to require, of any > > >> "scientist" joining them, that they agree to a particular set of > > >> statements. One of those was that the Bible is true. > > > >> What this means is that they do not do science at all. Science is about > > >> examining evidence and drawing conclusions based on it. If you define the > > >> target first - such as saying "the Bible is true" - then you're not doing > > >> science. > > > >>> After about two weeks, I decided that people > > >>> were so brainwashed by high school biology teachers and college science > > >>> professors > > >> How horrible of science teachers to "brainwash" students into > > >> understanding science. > > > >>> that they were not able to open their minds to alternative > > >>> theories that explain how life came to be on this planet. > > >> Got any? Nope, didn't think so. Creation science has never produced a > > >> theory of origins, not in the sense that science uses "theory" - yet they > > >> say they're doing science. > > > >>> I did learn > > >>> about the amazing faith of evolutionists. > > >> I.e. none whatsoever. Good, now that you know this, you'll never refer > > >> to it again, as doing so would be dishonest. > > > >>> They told me that life evolved from non-life. > > >> Actually, that would be abiogenesis, which is a different field entirely. > > >> Hmm... that means you simply don't have a fucking clue what you're talking > > >> about, yet feel free to conclude it is, somehow, all bunk. > > > >>> To believe that--it requires a lot of faith. > > >> Actually, it requires understanding simple concepts, such as chemistry. > > > > 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. 93% of the members of the American Academy of Sciences do not believe in God. Wake up. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 4:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <bpkj53he0ptnmj6mqoju6nella9b542...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:44:14 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2705071144140...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <v4bj53tm5ca33k3jb5kalhc5t86ibs3...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:31:17 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-2705070931180...@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <1180254267.019564.134...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > What do you mean by 'proved' here? We know that there is evidence that > > overwhelmingly supports variation over time and speciation. What > > evidence gathered about evolution are you unwilling to accept and what > > _scientific_ objection do you have? > > > >I know > > >that most everyone that is an advocate of creation science also accepts > > >the aspects of evolution theory that can be proved. > > > Creation science is a religious doctrine. It is not science. The > > advocates of 'creation science' and 'intelligent design' never do any > > science. They lie about science. They reject science. They makes claims > > that are contrary to the physical evidence. The only possible form of > > creationism that could be considered consistent with the physical > > evidence is theistic evolution since it merely asserts that God, in some > > way, has guided the natural processes that have been observed by > > scientists. > > > >The advocates of > > >creation science disagree with evolutionists in regard to how life began > > >on this planet. > > > Once again, the question about how life began is not a valid reason for > > you to object to evolution, which is how life changed over time on > > earth. > > > >The evolutionists believe that life evolved from non--life > > >and the advocates of creation science believe that God created life on > > >this planet. > > > No. You have this wrong, again. So-called creation scientists like the > > ICR, CRS and AIG reject evolution, they don't merely assert that God > > started life and guided it, they refuse to accept that humans share a > > common ancestry with apes, other mammals, other animals and all other > > life forms. That is their lie. That is their rejection of science. > > > The question about how life began does not have enough evidence to make > > any statements about it, yet there is more evidence for a natural > > process of life beginning than there is for a God-driven process. Why > > would you reject the hypothesis that is supported by evidence in favor > > of a hypothesis that is completely unsupported by evidence, particularly > > when those who offer this unsupported hypothesis offer a further > > hypothesis about the change in life over time that is contrary to the > > evidence. Creation science is a con job. You have been suckered by them. > > > >It takes more faith to believe that life evolved from > > >non-life than to believe that God created life. > > > That is a false and unsupportable claim. You appear to prefer making > > such claims to learning the facts. > > I disagree that ICR rejects evolution. That is not true. The truth is that > they accept the aspects of evolution that CAN be proved. They reject the > aspects of evoluiton that have NOT been proved. You believe all aspects of > evolution theory. We are on different pages related to this issue. The > main difference is that we believe God created people; lots of plants and > lots of animals. It's my theory that evolution kicked shortly after the > creation process was finished. Darwin agrees with me related to this > issue. Hard core evolutionists believe that life evolved from non-life. > They believe that mankind evolved from a one-celled creature. There is NO > proof that life evolved from non-life and there is no proof that mankind > evolved from a one-celled creature. Darwin's book Descent of Man disagrees with you. Fossil evidence disagrees with you. Genetic evidence disagrees with you. Comparative anatomy and comparative psychology disagrees with you. All the evidence disagrees with you. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 4:28 am, 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? Why shouldn't you accept the conclsuion that life emerged through natural processes when every single shred of evidence supports it? Why would you accept the conclusion that God created life when there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that God exists? Why should you deny that your entire religion is a lie when all the evidence demonstrates that God, Jesus, Mary, etc. were all made up entirely as works of fiction. Martin Quote
Deathbringer Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <ns7k539flmog0vmk50ti7tj7v8u44u5v0v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. The main area of disagreement is in regard to abiogenesis and common descent. There is no proof that a one celled life form evolved from non-life. If scientists could design an experiment to cause it to happen, I would have no problem believing that a one celled life form could evolve form non-life. That is the sort of "proof" that I was referring to. Heh? What? Why are you here? These forums are only for idiots and crazy people. No, its not proven that raw chemicals can form a basic replicating unit, and even if it was proven there's no way to prove that that's how it happened sans time machine. There are several good theories about how it could have happened, but they are rather difficult to prove due to limited funds to try out the various permutations of chemicals and environments that could have plausibly been on early Earth. They may never recreate it that way; assuming the universe is infinite or the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics holds, there is an awful lot of space (or both), then there's an awful lot of space in the universe for improbable things to happen... I think life was created from basic chemicals, but only because that's actually simpler than a mysterious energy being that created the first cell. It just leaves me wondering who created the creator, and what the hell was he thinking when he created it all to look very much like the product of evolution and several billion years of geology and cosmology. This is not an expression of certainty. Its Occam's razor at work. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 20:11:27 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2705072011280001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180317805.294731.52800@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 28, 4:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <bpkj53he0ptnmj6mqoju6nella9b542...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > > On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:44:14 -0700, in alt.atheism >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > <Jason-2705071144140...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > >In article <v4bj53tm5ca33k3jb5kalhc5t86ibs3...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> > > >> On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:31:17 -0700, in alt.atheism >> > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> > > >> <Jason-2705070931180...@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> > > >> >In article ><1180254267.019564.134...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@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. >> > >> > > What do you mean by 'proved' here? We know that there is evidence that >> > > overwhelmingly supports variation over time and speciation. What >> > > evidence gathered about evolution are you unwilling to accept and what >> > > _scientific_ objection do you have? >> > >> > > >I know >> > > >that most everyone that is an advocate of creation science also accepts >> > > >the aspects of evolution theory that can be proved. >> > >> > > Creation science is a religious doctrine. It is not science. The >> > > advocates of 'creation science' and 'intelligent design' never do any >> > > science. They lie about science. They reject science. They makes claims >> > > that are contrary to the physical evidence. The only possible form of >> > > creationism that could be considered consistent with the physical >> > > evidence is theistic evolution since it merely asserts that God, in some >> > > way, has guided the natural processes that have been observed by >> > > scientists. >> > >> > > >The advocates of >> > > >creation science disagree with evolutionists in regard to how life began >> > > >on this planet. >> > >> > > Once again, the question about how life began is not a valid reason for >> > > you to object to evolution, which is how life changed over time on >> > > earth. >> > >> > > >The evolutionists believe that life evolved from non--life >> > > >and the advocates of creation science believe that God created life on >> > > >this planet. >> > >> > > No. You have this wrong, again. So-called creation scientists like the >> > > ICR, CRS and AIG reject evolution, they don't merely assert that God >> > > started life and guided it, they refuse to accept that humans share a >> > > common ancestry with apes, other mammals, other animals and all other >> > > life forms. That is their lie. That is their rejection of science. >> > >> > > The question about how life began does not have enough evidence to make >> > > any statements about it, yet there is more evidence for a natural >> > > process of life beginning than there is for a God-driven process. Why >> > > would you reject the hypothesis that is supported by evidence in favor >> > > of a hypothesis that is completely unsupported by evidence, particularly >> > > when those who offer this unsupported hypothesis offer a further >> > > hypothesis about the change in life over time that is contrary to the >> > > evidence. Creation science is a con job. You have been suckered by them. >> > >> > > >It takes more faith to believe that life evolved from >> > > >non-life than to believe that God created life. >> > >> > > That is a false and unsupportable claim. You appear to prefer making >> > > such claims to learning the facts. >> > >> > I disagree that ICR rejects evolution. That is not true. The truth is that >> > they accept the aspects of evolution that CAN be proved. They reject the >> > aspects of evoluiton that have NOT been proved. You believe all aspects of >> > evolution theory. We are on different pages related to this issue. The >> > main difference is that we believe God created people; lots of plants and >> > lots of animals. It's my theory that evolution kicked shortly after the >> > creation process was finished. Darwin agrees with me related to this >> > issue. Hard core evolutionists believe that life evolved from non-life. >> > They believe that mankind evolved from a one-celled creature. There is NO >> > proof that life evolved from non-life and there is no proof that mankind >> > evolved from a one-celled creature. >> >> Darwin's book Descent of Man disagrees with you. Fossil evidence >> disagrees with you. Genetic evidence disagrees with you. Comparative >> anatomy and comparative psychology disagrees with you. All the >> evidence disagrees with you. >> >> Martin > >At least 90 scientists agrees with me and that is enough for me. >Jason I don't accept your claim that 90 scientists agree with you, but more importantly for you, the question is whether any of those supposed scientists are actually involved the field of research, understand the current evidence and really meant what you think they said. When all is said and done, there is only a handful of scientists involved in the field who say (for religious reasons) that evolution did not happen. Sorry, but you are misled. If I were dishonest, I would tell you what you want to hear about evolution and beg for money from you. You are the perfect target of such fakers as ICR. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <ns7k539flmog0vmk50ti7tj7v8u44u5v0v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > 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. The main area of disagreement is in regard to abiogenesis and common descent. There is no proof that a one celled life form evolved from non-life. If scientists could design an experiment to cause it to happen, I would have no problem believing that a one celled life form could evolve form non-life. That is the sort of "proof" that I was referring to. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <1180317805.294731.52800@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 28, 4:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <bpkj53he0ptnmj6mqoju6nella9b542...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:44:14 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-2705071144140...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >In article <v4bj53tm5ca33k3jb5kalhc5t86ibs3...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:31:17 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > >> <Jason-2705070931180...@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >> >In article <1180254267.019564.134...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > > > What do you mean by 'proved' here? We know that there is evidence that > > > overwhelmingly supports variation over time and speciation. What > > > evidence gathered about evolution are you unwilling to accept and what > > > _scientific_ objection do you have? > > > > > >I know > > > >that most everyone that is an advocate of creation science also accepts > > > >the aspects of evolution theory that can be proved. > > > > > Creation science is a religious doctrine. It is not science. The > > > advocates of 'creation science' and 'intelligent design' never do any > > > science. They lie about science. They reject science. They makes claims > > > that are contrary to the physical evidence. The only possible form of > > > creationism that could be considered consistent with the physical > > > evidence is theistic evolution since it merely asserts that God, in some > > > way, has guided the natural processes that have been observed by > > > scientists. > > > > > >The advocates of > > > >creation science disagree with evolutionists in regard to how life began > > > >on this planet. > > > > > Once again, the question about how life began is not a valid reason for > > > you to object to evolution, which is how life changed over time on > > > earth. > > > > > >The evolutionists believe that life evolved from non--life > > > >and the advocates of creation science believe that God created life on > > > >this planet. > > > > > No. You have this wrong, again. So-called creation scientists like the > > > ICR, CRS and AIG reject evolution, they don't merely assert that God > > > started life and guided it, they refuse to accept that humans share a > > > common ancestry with apes, other mammals, other animals and all other > > > life forms. That is their lie. That is their rejection of science. > > > > > The question about how life began does not have enough evidence to make > > > any statements about it, yet there is more evidence for a natural > > > process of life beginning than there is for a God-driven process. Why > > > would you reject the hypothesis that is supported by evidence in favor > > > of a hypothesis that is completely unsupported by evidence, particularly > > > when those who offer this unsupported hypothesis offer a further > > > hypothesis about the change in life over time that is contrary to the > > > evidence. Creation science is a con job. You have been suckered by them. > > > > > >It takes more faith to believe that life evolved from > > > >non-life than to believe that God created life. > > > > > That is a false and unsupportable claim. You appear to prefer making > > > such claims to learning the facts. > > > > I disagree that ICR rejects evolution. That is not true. The truth is that > > they accept the aspects of evolution that CAN be proved. They reject the > > aspects of evoluiton that have NOT been proved. You believe all aspects of > > evolution theory. We are on different pages related to this issue. The > > main difference is that we believe God created people; lots of plants and > > lots of animals. It's my theory that evolution kicked shortly after the > > creation process was finished. Darwin agrees with me related to this > > issue. Hard core evolutionists believe that life evolved from non-life. > > They believe that mankind evolved from a one-celled creature. There is NO > > proof that life evolved from non-life and there is no proof that mankind > > evolved from a one-celled creature. > > Darwin's book Descent of Man disagrees with you. Fossil evidence > disagrees with you. Genetic evidence disagrees with you. Comparative > anatomy and comparative psychology disagrees with you. All the > evidence disagrees with you. > > Martin At least 90 scientists agrees with me and that is enough for me. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <1180317985.589733.293310@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 28, 4:28 am, 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? > > Why shouldn't you accept the conclsuion that life emerged through > natural processes when every single shred of evidence supports it? > Why would you accept the conclusion that God created life when there > is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that God exists? Why > should you deny that your entire religion is a lie when all the > evidence demonstrates that God, Jesus, Mary, etc. were all made up > entirely as works of fiction. > > Martin When a scientist is able to conduct an experiment that proves that a one celled life form can evolve from non-life, I will have the evidence I need to change my mind on this subject. Of course, before I changed my mind, I would have to read the details of that experiment in a science magazine or journal. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 4:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <eRk6i.16287$KC4.9...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "James Brock" > <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-2705071151020001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "James Brock" > > > <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > "Free Lunch" <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message > > > >news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... > > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:11:23 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > <Jason-2605072211230...@66-52-22-80.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > >In article <mpvh53dv1tjbcl3gv0iu3frl82u9tbg...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:21:16 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > >> <Jason-2605072121160...@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > >> >In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7...@4ax.com>, Free > > Lunch > > > > > >> ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > > >> >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > >> >> <Jason-2605071857120...@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > >> >> >In article <f3abu2$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? > > > > > > 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. > > > Miller - Urey proved that the building blocks of life can be generated > > through natural means. This then is far more proof that life could have > > emerged through natural processes than anyone has shown as evidence > > for the existance of god, or that life arose through supernatural means. > > > 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. > > > Faith is science has been far more beneficial to faith in intangible gods. > > I have not read about any experiments that have proved that a living cell > evolved from non-life. Someone tried to convince me that life could evolve > from amino acids. The next question would be, how did amino acids come to > be? > > It's like that story about God and an evolutionist having a conversation. > God stated, "I created this planet". The evolutionist picked up a handful > of dirt and stated, "I can create life from this dirt". God said, "Not > fair--create your own dirt." It's just a story. Everything written about your god is just a story? Do you still not get it? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 5:07 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >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. So? Your beliefs are not evidence. > You believe that life evolved from non-life and that mankind evolved from > a one celled creature. And this is all supported by actual evidence. > We can NOT resolve our differences. You are convinced that you are correct > and I am convinced that I am correct. True. It is up to you to get an education. It isn't up to us to educate you. It isn't our job. We are only volunteering our time here. The onus is on you to discover the truth for yourself in your own time. Good luck with that. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 4:54 am, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote: > "James Brock" <j...@bellsouth.net> said: > > Jason wrote: > >>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. > > >Faith is science has been far more beneficial to faith in intangible gods. > > It is a mistake to cede the idea that "faith" is the mental attitude > of some people toward abiogenesis. It is definitely part of the agenda > people of his ilk to establish the (false) notion that a belief that > abiogenesis occurred, is equivalent to belief that a god did it. This > apparent rhetorical triviality can come back to bite us, when it comes > time to decide on what is a legitimate public school curriculum. > > Even agreeing on a "secular" definition of "faith" will not do, > because Jason and other people of his ilk will equivocate for their > god as readily as they will lie for it. > > Instead, all of you people who are paying so much attention to Jason > should simply kill file him, as I have long since done. He is not > about to change his mind. It is morally wrong to give up hope oon the mentally ill. Martin Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 08:15:13 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <611j53ht38r6dimpludektnbpjoacvgmfs@4ax.com> >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. But as it is pure fiction, magic can be invoked as an explanation for the authors' excesses. -- Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 6:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <0f2dnWnhD6akdsTbnZ2dnUVZ_oLin...@comcast.com>, AT1 > <notyourbusin...@godblows.net> wrote: > > 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? > > > 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. Actually, it isn't easy for any of us: we all had the lies of Christianity drilled into us since childhood. Even most atheists would be shockeed to discover that Jesus himself didn't exist: the default position is to assume that everything that people tell you must at least have a grain of truth. It is shocking to learn that it was all a lie. > 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. Brainwashing is what they did to you in church. It worked on you but it didn't work on us. What happens in school is education: that obviously didn't work on you. > 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. Because you had been brainwashed in church. > 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. You can only walk a mile by making one step at a time. If every step in the process of evolution can be shown to be valid then the entire theory must be true. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 6:47 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:57:58 -0700, J...@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? It's better than burning coal. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <i0gk531npvrl8i7qepa1gttgii7a94bbg2@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sun, 27 May 2007 20:11:27 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2705072011280001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1180317805.294731.52800@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 28, 4:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <bpkj53he0ptnmj6mqoju6nella9b542...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> > >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:44:14 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > > <Jason-2705071144140...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > > >In article <v4bj53tm5ca33k3jb5kalhc5t86ibs3...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, 27 May 2007 09:31:17 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > > >> <Jason-2705070931180...@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > > >> >In article > ><1180254267.019564.134...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@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. > >> > > >> > > What do you mean by 'proved' here? We know that there is evidence that > >> > > overwhelmingly supports variation over time and speciation. What > >> > > evidence gathered about evolution are you unwilling to accept and what > >> > > _scientific_ objection do you have? > >> > > >> > > >I know > >> > > >that most everyone that is an advocate of creation science also accepts > >> > > >the aspects of evolution theory that can be proved. > >> > > >> > > Creation science is a religious doctrine. It is not science. The > >> > > advocates of 'creation science' and 'intelligent design' never do any > >> > > science. They lie about science. They reject science. They makes claims > >> > > that are contrary to the physical evidence. The only possible form of > >> > > creationism that could be considered consistent with the physical > >> > > evidence is theistic evolution since it merely asserts that God, in some > >> > > way, has guided the natural processes that have been observed by > >> > > scientists. > >> > > >> > > >The advocates of > >> > > >creation science disagree with evolutionists in regard to how life began > >> > > >on this planet. > >> > > >> > > Once again, the question about how life began is not a valid reason for > >> > > you to object to evolution, which is how life changed over time on > >> > > earth. > >> > > >> > > >The evolutionists believe that life evolved from non--life > >> > > >and the advocates of creation science believe that God created life on > >> > > >this planet. > >> > > >> > > No. You have this wrong, again. So-called creation scientists like the > >> > > ICR, CRS and AIG reject evolution, they don't merely assert that God > >> > > started life and guided it, they refuse to accept that humans share a > >> > > common ancestry with apes, other mammals, other animals and all other > >> > > life forms. That is their lie. That is their rejection of science. > >> > > >> > > The question about how life began does not have enough evidence to make > >> > > any statements about it, yet there is more evidence for a natural > >> > > process of life beginning than there is for a God-driven process. Why > >> > > would you reject the hypothesis that is supported by evidence in favor > >> > > of a hypothesis that is completely unsupported by evidence, particularly > >> > > when those who offer this unsupported hypothesis offer a further > >> > > hypothesis about the change in life over time that is contrary to the > >> > > evidence. Creation science is a con job. You have been suckered by them. > >> > > >> > > >It takes more faith to believe that life evolved from > >> > > >non-life than to believe that God created life. > >> > > >> > > That is a false and unsupportable claim. You appear to prefer making > >> > > such claims to learning the facts. > >> > > >> > I disagree that ICR rejects evolution. That is not true. The truth is that > >> > they accept the aspects of evolution that CAN be proved. They reject the > >> > aspects of evoluiton that have NOT been proved. You believe all aspects of > >> > evolution theory. We are on different pages related to this issue. The > >> > main difference is that we believe God created people; lots of plants and > >> > lots of animals. It's my theory that evolution kicked shortly after the > >> > creation process was finished. Darwin agrees with me related to this > >> > issue. Hard core evolutionists believe that life evolved from non-life. > >> > They believe that mankind evolved from a one-celled creature. There is NO > >> > proof that life evolved from non-life and there is no proof that mankind > >> > evolved from a one-celled creature. > >> > >> Darwin's book Descent of Man disagrees with you. Fossil evidence > >> disagrees with you. Genetic evidence disagrees with you. Comparative > >> anatomy and comparative psychology disagrees with you. All the > >> evidence disagrees with you. > >> > >> Martin > > > >At least 90 scientists agrees with me and that is enough for me. > >Jason > > I don't accept your claim that 90 scientists agree with you, but more > importantly for you, the question is whether any of those supposed > scientists are actually involved the field of research, understand the > current evidence and really meant what you think they said. When all is > said and done, there is only a handful of scientists involved in the > field who say (for religious reasons) that evolution did not happen. > Sorry, but you are misled. > > If I were dishonest, I would tell you what you want to hear about > evolution and beg for money from you. You are the perfect target of such > fakers as ICR. J.F. Ashton edited two books related to this subject. Those scientists explain how their knowledge of science backs and confirms thier faith. The book that is entitled, "In Six Days" has the stories of 50 scientists and the book entitled, "On the Seveenth Day" has the stories of 40 scientists. I subscribe to their monthly newsletter and copied the above information from one of the newsletters. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 9:01 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <UeGdnbqsKpi4iMfbnZ2dnUVZ_rSjn...@comcast.com>, AT1 > <notyourbusin...@godblows.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <0f2dnWnhD6akdsTbnZ2dnUVZ_oLin...@comcast.com>, AT1 > > > <notyourbusin...@godblows.net> wrote: > > > >> 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? > > > >> 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. Then you accept the entire theory because the entire theory has been proved. We're done here. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 9:06 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <hs2k531vuhc51hucr3ua6h4hlko7gkt...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:11:36 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2705071411360...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <konj53hcbga67plji9412kj0nrugq00...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 27 May 2007 13:28:57 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-2705071328580...@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> >In article <3flj539nm5bev469kptra9i2a7vgdrs...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> ><l...@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. How can you be so sure that it hasn't? New life would be food for existant life. New life cannot compete with life that has existed for four billion years. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 9:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180305635.553073.123...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > > > > > > > T." <b...@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. > > I was referring to an experiment to create a one celled life form from non-life. There is plenty of evidence to support abiogenesis and much of it has been posted already. You know how to do a web search so you can find more evidence on your own. Don't claim that the evidence doesn't exist. That's just a lie. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 9:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <617k535s720sju06rp92rn3fq46agiq...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:01:15 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2705071801150...@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <UeGdnbqsKpi4iMfbnZ2dnUVZ_rSjn...@comcast.com>, AT1 > > ><notyourbusin...@godblows.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >> > In article <0f2dnWnhD6akdsTbnZ2dnUVZ_oLin...@comcast.com>, AT1 > > >> > <notyourbusin...@godblows.net> wrote: > > > >> >> 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? > > > >> >> 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? > > The aspects of evolution that can be proved. ie all of it. Martin 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.