Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 10:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <ns7k539flmog0vmk50ti7tj7v8u44u5...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:11:27 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2705071811280...@66-52-22-114.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <617k535s720sju06rp92rn3fq46agiq...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@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. There is plenty of evidence already to show that it is possible. Even if we did create life in a laboratory, would that convince fundies that their Bible is false? All the necessary steps have been shown to be natural processes. This had to be the case anyway as your god doesn't even exist. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 11:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180317805.294731.52...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > At least 90 scientists agrees with me and that is enough for me. That's 91 people who are wrong. So what? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 11:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180317985.589733.293...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > 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. Have you read any science journals already published on the subject? Just a few posts back you claimed that amino acids couldn't be produced naturally and that the amino acids couldn't be used to create life. I posted links two weeks ago that proved both of these assertions false. So why should we believe that you would start reading science journals if a scientist were able to produce a living cell? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 12:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <i0gk531npvrl8i7qepa1gttgii7a94b...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Sun, 27 May 2007 20:11:27 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2705072011280...@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <1180317805.294731.52...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >Phipps <martinphip...@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. So now you are telling us you never even read these two books? Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <1180323985.903541.99560@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 What's your comments about this report that I found online: The person that wrote this report is a much better writer and speller than I am. Witnessing to Atheists I have described my self as having once been an "AynRandianObjectivistLibertarianCarlSaganTypeAtheist". A person e-mailed me a request for some thoughts on how I would witness to such a person. So, I have given some thought to that, and will continually jot down new ones as they come to me. First of all, let me define my terms: Ayn Rand was a God hater, as was I. Objectivists believe that there is a non-emotional, purely logical answer for everything, and theism is stricly outside the bounds of discussion. Libertarians, at least the American breed, are basically libertines with political aspirations. Not all, but the vast majority as I know them. Carl Sagan freely admitted that he saw no necessity for a "God", and this left him free to dream up all sorts of reasons for "the way things are". Quite imaginative, but quite wrong, IMO. Don't get me wrong, now, Carl Sagan was without a doubt one of the leading men of faith in the world. Without a shred of evidence; with nothing more than a calculator, he caused millions and millions of dollars to be spent on SETI because he "believed" that there must be life out there. That's faith, brothers and sisters, and few preachers are willing to put their reputations on the line as he did when he was alive. Please read this footnote on this paragraph. So. Them's my terms, and I'm sticking to 'em. Anyway, on to the "tips": The most important question of all: Do you want to know the truth? Ask this first, or the rest will be meaninlgess. Do you want to know the truth? More than you worry about your reputation? More than your friends' opinions? More than your pride? More than your plans for the future? More than your wants and needs? If that question cannot be answered "YES!", then all else will probably be a waste of your time. If the person isn't willing to go where the evidence leads and then act once the destination is reached, then they aren't honest and you cannot have an honest dialog. Which is the most rational explanation for what can be empirically observed in the world? Not just morally, either - the scientific world is continually uncovering evidence of design in nature, so the "scientific" explanations not only allow for God but almost require one. If the person will agree to honestly assess the evidence, you can go forward. If they have their minds made up, then you are not likely to affect them much, as they are no longer concerned with the truth. Only a committed seeker can find the ultimate truth. Don't talk about sin! Sin is an absolutely meaningless concept to a person who can't conceive of God. To most, actions are morally neutral, and results conveniently ignored. For example: Abortion is merely a medical procedure with no moral complications. To talk about abortion as a sin is a fuse blower. There is nothing in their experience to equate to. Don't use religious code words. Sin is one, but salvation is another. One doesn't need salvation if one doesn't believe in eternity! When I hear people on TBN or other places say something like, "Lord come in and sup with them.", I just cringe. We forget that there is no reference point for these phrases and they are absolutely meaningless to somebody who doesn't believe in God. Most of these statements are as intelligible to an atheist as "akjfieiojf thii ocncipso fiou cakdio whwchuppew adkhfawo". That is, they are unintelligible - they literally have no meaning to an atheist. Don't argue about what God did or did not do! This is what you will probably hear: How could you believe in a God that did such-and-thus? What you are hearing is I don't like God. It is preposterous to argue about what God did if He does not, in fact, exist! Refuse to argue about God's actions (and especially His character) until you have established at least the possibility that He exists. These types of arguments are diversions from this necessary point, and will only prolong fruitless discussions. "Scientific" arguments Concentrate on Primal causes. Each and every atheist believes that something came from nothing (the Universe), which really jerks the rug out from under science, which has to have a cause for everything (or it ceases to be science, and becomes a faith-based-something-else). So, what we are really arguing about is WHAT came from nothing: God or the Universe? There is a boundary here where all resort to faith. Period, end of sentence. This primary fact - something came from nothing - leads us to an inescapable conclusion: Each and every view of the universe is non-rational at best. The more one argues with this, the more it proves them to be irrational. The more I debate with those who claim that there "cannot" be a God, the more I realize their inability to deal with the non-rationality at the foundation of their argument. Most resort ultimately to name-calling. Others simply say, "you could never understand", as if disagreement with their conclusions obviously means that one can't possibly have followed their arguments. The problem lies in the argument's foundation. To be accused of faith is anathema to most atheists, as it is our faith which they deride. I simply wouldn't go further with one who can't concede this primary fact from which all other arguments must flow. This reduces their science to philosophy, and philosophy is inherently unprovable in a scientific sense. Click here for a quote on this matter by Stephen Gould, a leading evolutionist (who, by the way, describes himself as an "agnostic"). Never engage in an argument where God cannot be a possibility. For instance, an atheist might say something like, "You can't have consciousness without existing first, so there couldn't be a conscious God who existed without cause". My response would be, "Well, that's true unless there is an external cause to the Universe and that cause is what I call God. In that case, all bets are off, because we can't place merely natural constraints on something which is "super" natural." If the supernatural is excluded, you have lost the only trump card in the deck. (For my Randian readers, "A" isn't "A" until we agree on what "A" is. It is easy to build a closed system and then argue inside it amongst yourselves. To congratulate yourselves on the correctness of your conclusions is then an entirely self-gratifying act. Yes, I know that this is what you accuse Christians of doing, but it would seem that you have done it as well. We must agree upon terms before any true debate can occur.) Once you have gotten past that point (though this will be rare) you can go on to making a rational argument: Does it makes more sense to have a "super" natural cause (creation) than a fiat act of human imagination (evolution) because the first possibility cannot be examined? Science itself is proving that it is just impossible for this to have happened "by chance", and so is making our position look better and better every day. For proof that you can look up yourselves, do some research on a book entitled "Darwin's Black Box", then find some articles about two "living fossils" - the coelacanth and the Wollemi pine. It should prove very interesting..... Also, there is now discussion that scientists believe that "something came from nothing". This is simply not true. Click here for a very simple overview of the discussion. What they have observed, as far as I can tell, are particles that "seem" to have appeared out of "empty" space. First of all, we all know that space isn't empty. Second, if the "nothing" is capable of producing "something", then the "nothing" wasn't "nothing" after all! Don't be fooled. They have simply re-defined "nothing" to satisfy their base premise. There is obviously something there to begin with, even if it is only potential. They just can't penetrate that curtain yet. From where did the potential come? Again, in their desperation at avoiding the primal cause, many people will engage in uncritical, non-rational debate rather than re-examine their base premise. This is irrational behavior, but it is to be expected when your premises are untenable. One cannot truly be scientific and close off a possibility. One cannot truly rule out the existence of God because we weren't there when it all started. To exclude a possibility means that you have prejudged a conclusion and can no longer consider one's self as a "scientist". The theological equivalent would be an atheist. Along those lines, the history of science has been for tomorrow to make obsolete the widely held truths of today. Newtonian, purely mechanistic physics was blown off the map by quantum mechanics. Evolution is being disproved, not by preachers, but by scientists. So, if one says that they are a "scientist", then they had better have a very open mind. There are few things more certain than that what they believe now is hard, cold, immutable, scientifically proven fact will be shown tomorrow to be wildly mistaken and, in many cases, will be viewed as superstitious nonsense. "How could they possibly have believed that?" "But we can't measure God". You will hear this, as well, but you can argue that this has exactly, precisely nothing to do with the reality of God. The inability to see and measure viruses and bacteria has and had nothing to do with the reality of these creatures. The inability to measure the atom has and had nothing to do with the reality of atoms. The continued inability to actually "see" a muon or boson has nothing to do with people's willingness to believe that these particles exist. We see "evidence" of these in cloud chambers, but as far as I know, no one has ever seen one. So, what we are left with is "evidence", but no material witnessing of these rascals. So, if mere "evidence" is enough, what type of evidence would be sufficient to deduce that a supernatural entity was behind the universe? How about the universe itself? As demonstrated above, all atheists believe that something came from nothing, so that, in and of itself, ought to be enough to at least infer that something is outside the system. How one measures the something that made the system is beyond the scope of this short essay. Morality and the scientific method: Most "scientific" atheists will claim that they will only believe in something that is "empirically testable and repeatable", or some similar phrase. This is generally a false statement, and one way to clearly show this to them is to ask them if they consider themselves to be empirically "moral", or "ethical" people... Then ask them to prove it. They cannot and most will not even attempt to, as their whole mindset denies that there can be an "empirically testable" morality. To have such a thing requires that there be an external standard against which to measure, and that (in this case) certainly means God. (Although some of them do appeal to "god" in the idea of an Ideal Observer!) See my essay/review on Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics for more on this tremendous argument against man-made ethical systems and the inevitable knowledge that there can be no ethical systems without a "god".. When they sputter and spark, and say that the two aren't the same at all, ask them if they would buy gasoline at a station where a quart was as good as pint was as good as a gallon. Few would make that mistake more than once. From this point, it should be easy enough to show them that what they consider morality is just as valid as Hitler's or Stalin's. For without a firm and unyielding measure, unaffected by circumstance or opinion, they can only "feel" that their's is superior. Since this is their greatest "sin", there goes their argument for empiricism. It doesn't necessarily get them to God, but it takes out a crutch. By showing them that their entire philosophy rests on emotion - not logic - we can hope to pull out one support. And it's no fair saying, "Morality is that upon which the majority of people happen to agree at any given time". If that were true, the vast majority of humanity agrees that there is (at the very least) a supernatural, spiritual realm. Further, since many will want to localize the morality to a given culture, the vast majority of human cultures worship some sort of god - historically and in the present. So, if the majority rules, there is a God, and that's that. When all is said and done (and in the only area of human existence with more day-to-day effect on our lives than their "science") an atheist will be unable to provide a standard for his own behavior which he "insists" on for the existence of God. I'm afraid that the most one can do is to point out this inarguable inconsistency and then pray that God will allow them to admit it to themselves. For most, this is just an excuse to do what they want to with no fear of condemnation, so don't expect the knowledge to get them to God - more than likely they will just shrug their shoulders and say, "Nevertheless, I don't believe in God." Oh yes - many will point almost exclusively to "Christians" as the offenders in crimes moral.... There are far too many instances where this is true, of course, but against whose morals were they transgressing? If one reads the Bible, they were transgressing against God's of course, and more specifically against the morals espoused and insisted upon by Christ! All this argument does is to deflect the criticism to us, as we claim that there is such a thing as morality. See my essay on evolution and morality for a better discussion of how these two concepts are mutually exclusive. Countering the "Do you know how many people have died because of religion?" argument: This is certainly true - many have. However, in the last 50 years alone, there have been untold millions of people killed, not in religious wars, but in purely political wars waged on a helpless citizenry. And those waging the wars were almost solely atheists. The rest weren't Christian except in some cultural, non-religious sense. Starting with Hitler and going to Stalin and Mao and the Khmer Rouge, we can count at least 60 million lost souls. Take into account Ethiopia (purely political murder), Somalia, Rwanda (and on and on and on) and we can see that these people were not Crusaders nor officers of the Inquisition. They were folks who shared the central beliefs of all atheists: There is no God and thus no morality beyond that in front of me. Add to that the over 60,000,000 abortions each year worldwide and we have another 1,200,000,000 humans killed in the last two decades. Plus we have 12,000,000 children dying due to politically induced starvation each year. That certainly seems to give atheists the edge, wouldn't you agree? Here is where the most resistance comes from: The chances (however slim) that there may really be a God leaves one with the inescapable conclusion that all that they have cherished and come to rely upon is liable to change. Little do they know ;-), but this is a tremendous fear to overcome. This leads me to... Live the Gospel! The church is invisible to those who don't wish to see it! The only sure way to show Christ to another is to be Christ to them! We ought to be in the streets and in the news so often that they can't escape us. And not just the Christian Coalition, either. I mean that when the welfare is cut off, the church had better be there to take up the slack. I mean that the non-believers know more about the true nature of Christ than many of us! They know that He loved unconditionally; they know that He healed the sick and made the blind to see; they know that he fed the hungry and clothed the poor. Are we? And if we are, then why do we have a welfare state to dismantle? It should never have been necessary - it would never have been necessary - if the church had been doing its job. Don't lose heart - most of the time when you hear, "I don't believe in God", what is really being said is, "I won't believe in God", and the two are entirely different propositions. If one won't believe, then nothing you can say or do is going to change their minds. When the Holy Spirit tells you to stop, then stop, and pray, and go on with your life. I will say that my own rule of thumb is that I will generally go along in a debate or discussion until the atheist quits. They almost always will, usually as soon as you have shown them that their morality is false and devoid of value and truth. You may not "convince" them in the sense that they agree, but it is easy to prove, and that will usually be the last you hear from them. We can only pray that their minds will accept what their egos cannot, and that they will start thinking again. My second rule of thumb is that as soon as the debate or discussion interferes with my family life, I back off and devote only as much attention to the debate as is necessary to maintain the discussion. Trying to argue every specious argument and willful misapplication of what you are trying to say will take forever, so don't do it. Stick to a few points and make them argue them - allowing the debate to wander will waste your time. I have found that CS Lewis and Francis Schaeffer provide excellent works for a seeking convert or atheist to ponder. Schaeffer's exposition on "knowing" is excellent. To encapsulate it: An atheist can complain that we "can never know enough to be absolutely sure", but this is a test which applies to everything. We can't be sure that the sun will come up tomorrow, but few atheists fail to plan for the eventuality! We can know that which we can know. That is, just because we cannot know fully does not mean that we can not have confidence in that which we do know. I don't know everything about my wife, but I know enough to be able to gauge her moods and opinions with very little input. Most atheists don't resist the outlandish assumptions underlying the mechanics of evolution, nor do they seriously question the lack of contemporary or historical transitional forms. This does not prevent them from "knowing" that evolution is a preferable theory to God. Don't let the argument of "knowing" divert you from the reality that there is a true knowledge of God. It is a given that we will never know all about Him, but that doesn't mean that what we do know is worthless, or insufficient to make a reasoned judgment that He exists. From there, one can get to Christ. Back to FGM Home Wednesday, March 27, 2002 Quotes of Stephen Jay Gould in his book: Dinosaur in a Haystack in an essay entitled The most unkindest cut of all. A scientist Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 1:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > What's your comments about this report that I found online: > The person that wrote this report is a much better writer and speller than > I am. > > Witnessing to > Atheists > > I have described my self as having once been an > "AynRandianObjectivistLibertarianCarlSaganTypeAtheist". > > A person e-mailed me a request for some thoughts on how I would witness to > such a person. So, I have given some thought to that, and will continually > jot down new ones as they come to me. > > First of all, let me define my terms: Ayn Rand was a God hater, as was I. Then he wasn't an atheist. Atheists don't believe that God exists. You cannot hate something that doesn't exist. > Objectivists believe that there is a non-emotional, purely logical answer > for everything, and theism is stricly outside the bounds of discussion. > Libertarians, at least the American breed, are basically libertines with > political aspirations. Not all, but the vast majority as I know them. Carl > Sagan freely admitted that he saw no necessity for a "God", and this left > him free to dream up all sorts of reasons for "the way things are". Quite > imaginative, but quite wrong, IMO. > > Don't get me wrong, now, Carl Sagan was without a doubt one of the leading > men of faith in the world. Without a shred of evidence; with nothing more > than a calculator, he caused millions and millions of dollars to be spent > on SETI because he "believed" that there must be life out there. And billions and billions of dollars are spent every week to fund the war in Iraq. So what? Is he claiming that no money should be spent on scientific experiments? The theory is that if there is life out there then we should be able to detect their radio signals. So far it would appear that there is no life out there. Is that supposed to mean that God created the entire universe just for us? > That's > faith, brothers and sisters, and few preachers are willing to put their > reputations on the line as he did when he was alive. Please read this > footnote on this paragraph. > > So. Them's my terms, and I'm sticking to 'em. Anyway, on to the "tips": > > The most important question of all: Do you want to know the truth? If you want to know the truth, then church is the last place you should ever go. > Ask this first, or the rest will be meaninlgess. Do you want to know the > truth? More than you worry about your reputation? More than your friends' > opinions? More than your pride? More than your plans for the future? More > than your wants and needs? If that question cannot be answered "YES!", > then all else will probably be a waste of your time. If the person isn't > willing to go where the evidence leads and then act once the destination > is reached, then they aren't honest and you cannot have an honest dialog. > > Which is the most rational explanation for what can be empirically > observed in the world? Not just morally, either - the scientific world is > continually uncovering evidence of design in nature, so the "scientific" > explanations not only allow for God but almost require one. If the person > will agree to honestly assess the evidence, you can go forward. If they > have their minds made up, then you are not likely to affect them much, as > they are no longer concerned with the truth. Only a committed seeker can > find the ultimate truth. > > Don't talk about sin! Sin is an absolutely meaningless concept to a person > who can't conceive of God. That's a lie. "Sin" is just a word that means "unlawful act". You can have laws without God. In fact, we do. > To most, actions are morally neutral, and > results conveniently ignored. For example: Abortion is merely a medical > procedure with no moral complications. To talk about abortion as a sin is > a fuse blower. There is nothing in their experience to equate to. > > Don't use religious code words. Sin is one, but salvation is another. One > doesn't need salvation if one doesn't believe in eternity! When I hear > people on TBN or other places say something like, "Lord come in and sup > with them.", I just cringe. We forget that there is no reference point for > these phrases and they are absolutely meaningless to somebody who doesn't > believe in God. Most of these statements are as intelligible to an atheist > as "akjfieiojf thii ocncipso fiou cakdio whwchuppew adkhfawo". That is, > they are unintelligible - they literally have no meaning to an atheist. > > Don't argue about what God did or did not do! God didn't do anything. He doesn't exist. > This is what you will > probably hear: How could you believe in a God that did such-and-thus? What > you are hearing is I don't like God. It is preposterous to argue about > what God did if He does not, in fact, exist! Refuse to argue about God's > actions (and especially His character) until you have established at least > the possibility that He exists. These types of arguments are diversions > from this necessary point, and will only prolong fruitless discussions. > > "Scientific" arguments > > Concentrate on Primal causes. Each and every atheist believes that > something came from nothing (the Universe), which really jerks the rug out > from under science, which has to have a cause for everything (or it ceases > to be science, and becomes a faith-based-something-else). So, what we are > really arguing about is WHAT came from nothing: God or the Universe? > > There is a boundary here where all resort to faith. Period, end of > sentence. This primary fact - something came from nothing - leads us to an > inescapable conclusion: Each and every view of the universe is > non-rational at best. The more one argues with this, the more it proves > them to be irrational. The more I debate with those who claim that there > "cannot" be a God, the more I realize their inability to deal with the > non-rationality at the foundation of their argument. Most resort > ultimately to name-calling. Others simply say, "you could never > understand", as if disagreement with their conclusions obviously means > that one can't possibly have followed their arguments. > > The problem lies in the argument's foundation. To be accused of faith is > anathema to most atheists, as it is our faith which they deride. One need not have faith in anything or anyone. By all means, don't take me at my word but don't take anybody else on their word either. Find out for yourself. That _is_ what scientists do. > I simply > wouldn't go further with one who can't concede this primary fact from > which all other arguments must flow. This reduces their science to > philosophy, and philosophy is inherently unprovable in a scientific sense. > Click here for a quote on this matter by Stephen Gould, a leading > evolutionist (who, by the way, describes himself as an "agnostic"). > > Never engage in an argument where God cannot be a possibility. Then theists should just shut up, period, because there is no situation in which God is possible. God is, by definition, supernatural and nothing supernatural exists. It is a pointless argument from the beginning. > For > instance, an atheist might say something like, "You can't have > consciousness without existing first, so there couldn't be a conscious God > who existed without cause". My response would be, "Well, that's true > unless there is an external cause to the Universe and that cause is what I > call God. In that case, all bets are off, because we can't place merely > natural constraints on something which is "super" natural." If the > supernatural is excluded, you have lost the only trump card in the deck. > > (For my Randian readers, "A" isn't "A" until we agree on what "A" is. It > is easy to build a closed system and then argue inside it amongst > yourselves. To congratulate yourselves on the correctness of your > conclusions is then an entirely self-gratifying act. Yes, I know that this > is what you accuse Christians of doing, but it would seem that you have > done it as well. We must agree upon terms before any true debate can > occur.) > > Once you have gotten past that point (though this will be rare) you can go > on to making a rational argument: Does it makes more sense to have a > "super" natural cause (creation) than a fiat act of human imagination > (evolution) because the first possibility cannot be examined? Science > itself is proving that it is just impossible for this to have happened "by > chance", and so is making our position look better and better every day. > For proof that you can look up yourselves, do some research on a book > entitled "Darwin's Black Box", then find some articles about two "living > fossils" - the coelacanth and the Wollemi pine. It should prove very > interesting..... > > Also, there is now discussion that scientists believe that "something came > from nothing". This is simply not true. No, it's not true. It's theists who believe that God created the universe from nothing. Scientists are working to discover where the universe came from. They don't believe that it came from nothing: that's what theists believe. > Click here for a very simple > overview of the discussion. What they have observed, as far as I can > tell, are particles that "seem" to have appeared out of "empty" space. > First of all, we all know that space isn't empty. Second, if the "nothing" > is capable of producing "something", then the "nothing" wasn't "nothing" > after all! Don't be fooled. They have simply re-defined "nothing" to > satisfy their base premise. There is obviously something there to begin > with, even if it is only potential. They just can't penetrate that curtain > yet. From where did the potential come? Again, in their desperation at > avoiding the primal cause, many people will engage in uncritical, > non-rational debate rather than re-examine their base premise. This is > irrational behavior, but it is to be expected when your premises are > untenable. > > One cannot truly be scientific and close off a possibility. One cannot > truly rule out the existence of God because we weren't there when it all > started. Actually, we can. We can rule out any idea that is not supported by evidence or logic. God belief fails both tests: there's no evidence supporting god belief and all logic demands that no gods exist. > To exclude a possibility means that you have prejudged a > conclusion and can no longer consider one's self as a "scientist". The > theological equivalent would be an atheist. Science deals with the natural world. God belief is a supernatural belief. You cannot be a scientist and believe in such nonsense. Period. > Along those lines, the history of science has been for tomorrow to make > obsolete the widely held truths of today. Newtonian, purely mechanistic > physics was blown off the map by quantum mechanics. Evolution is being > disproved, not by preachers, but by scientists. So, if one says that they > are a "scientist", then they had better have a very open mind. There are > few things more certain than that what they believe now is hard, cold, > immutable, scientifically proven fact will be shown tomorrow to be wildly > mistaken and, in many cases, will be viewed as superstitious nonsense. > "How could they possibly have believed that?" > > "But we can't measure God". You will hear this, as well, but you can argue > that this has exactly, precisely nothing to do with the reality of God. It has everything to do with the non-existance of God: we cannot measure God precisely because he doesn't exist. > The inability to see and measure viruses and bacteria has and had nothing > to do with the reality of these creatures. The inability to measure the > atom has and had nothing to do with the reality of atoms. The continued > inability to actually "see" a muon or boson has nothing to do with > people's willingness to believe that these particles exist. We see > "evidence" of these in cloud chambers, but as far as I know, no one has > ever seen one. So, what we are left with is "evidence", but no material > witnessing of these rascals. > > So, if mere "evidence" is enough, what type of evidence would be > sufficient to deduce that a supernatural entity was behind the universe? > How about the universe itself? As demonstrated above, all atheists believe > that something came from nothing, so that, in and of itself, ought to be > enough to at least infer that something is outside the system. How one > measures the something that made the system is beyond the scope of this > short essay. > > Morality and the scientific method: Most "scientific" atheists will claim > that they will only believe in something that is "empirically testable and > repeatable", or some similar phrase. This is generally a false statement, The onus is on him to prove that atheists believe anything. Weak atheism is defined as a lack of belief: no belief is required for someone to be considered atheist by default. > and one way to clearly show this to them is to ask them if they consider > themselves to be empirically "moral", or "ethical" people... Then ask them > to prove it. Theists should prove that they are moral. They can't. The vast majority of people in prison are theists. > They cannot and most will not even attempt to, as their whole > mindset denies that there can be an "empirically testable" morality. To > have such a thing requires that there be an external standard against > which to measure, and that (in this case) certainly means God. (Although > some of them do appeal to "god" in the idea of an Ideal Observer!) See my > essay/review on Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics for more on this > tremendous argument against man-made ethical systems and the inevitable > knowledge that there can be no ethical systems without a "god".. > > When they sputter and spark, and say that the two aren't the same at all, > ask them if they would buy gasoline at a station where a quart was as good > as pint was as good as a gallon. Few would make that mistake more than > once. From this point, it should be easy enough to show them that what > they consider morality is just as valid as Hitler's or Stalin's. Hitler was an altar boy. Stalin went to seminary school. That's where their "morality" came from. > For > without a firm and unyielding measure, unaffected by circumstance or > opinion, they can only "feel" that their's is superior. Since this is > their greatest "sin", there goes their argument for empiricism. It doesn't > necessarily get them to God, but it takes out a crutch. By showing them > that their entire philosophy rests on emotion - not logic - we can hope to > pull out one support. Not true. Faith itself is an emotion. Atheists don't have faith by definition. They may believe that the sun will rise tomorrow but that is not a belief: it isn't a question of praying to God in hope that the sun will rise but an expectation based on previous observation. > And it's no fair saying, "Morality is that upon which the majority of > people happen to agree at any given time". If that were true, the vast > majority of humanity agrees that there is (at the very least) a > supernatural, spiritual realm. Further, since many will want to localize > the morality to a given culture, the vast majority of human cultures > worship some sort of god - historically and in the present. So, if the > majority rules, there is a God, and that's that. People worship different Gods. Allah and Yehweh are not the same god: Allah is based on the Sumerian god Anu and Yehweh is based on the Sumerian god Enki. There's no "majority rules". > When all is said and done (and in the only area of human existence with > more day-to-day effect on our lives than their "science") an atheist will > be unable to provide a standard for his own behavior which he "insists" on > for the existence of God. I'm afraid that the most one can do is to point > out this inarguable inconsistency and then pray that God will allow them > to admit it to themselves. For most, this is just an excuse to do what > they want to with no fear of condemnation, so don't expect the knowledge > to get them to God - more than likely they will just shrug their shoulders > and say, "Nevertheless, I don't believe in God." Despite all evidence to the contrary, nevertheless you believe in God. > Oh yes - many will point almost exclusively to "Christians" as the > offenders in crimes moral.... There are far too many instances where this > is true, of course, but against whose morals were they transgressing? If > one reads the Bible, they were transgressing against God's of course, and > more specifically against the morals espoused and insisted upon by Christ! > All this argument does is to deflect the criticism to us, as we claim that > there is such a thing as morality. > > See my essay on evolution and morality for a better discussion of how > these two concepts are mutually exclusive. See http://www.evil-bible.com or http://www.nobeliefs.com <snip> Sorry, but I have to go to class now. There was more but there was nothing new said. Martin Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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 > But are they scientists who work in biology? Or are they astronomers and engineers and accountants? Or are they professors of religion? Do they have any academic standing in biology? Would you design an airplane using methods defined by a doctor of divinity? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <1180327601.536678.172410@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 28, 11:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180317985.589733.293...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > > 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. > > Have you read any science journals already published on the subject? > Just a few posts back you claimed that amino acids couldn't be > produced naturally and that the amino acids couldn't be used to create > life. I posted links two weeks ago that proved both of these > assertions false. So why should we believe that you would start > reading science journals if a scientist were able to produce a living > cell? > > Martin Martin, I would visit the city library and read that journal article. Believe it or not, this was an issue when I was in a college biology class in 1971. Our biology professor (an evolutionist) was hoping that a scientist would perform such an experiment within the next several years. I am still waiting. I don't really care whether or not you believe me. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <1180327377.444027.85020@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 28, 11:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180317805.294731.52...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > > At least 90 scientists agrees with me and that is enough for me. > > That's 91 people who are wrong. So what? > > Martin It's important to me. It has been claimed by secular academia that creationists are not scientists. The 90 scientists that are advocates of creation science are helping our cause by telling their stories in the two books discussed in my post. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 Martin, I would appreciate your comments about this interesting article: Witnessing to Atheists I have described my self as having once been an "AynRandianObjectivistLibertarianCarlSaganTypeAtheist". A person e-mailed me a request for some thoughts on how I would witness to such a person. So, I have given some thought to that, and will continually jot down new ones as they come to me. First of all, let me define my terms: Ayn Rand was a God hater, as was I. Objectivists believe that there is a non-emotional, purely logical answer for everything, and theism is stricly outside the bounds of discussion. Libertarians, at least the American breed, are basically libertines with political aspirations. Not all, but the vast majority as I know them. Carl Sagan freely admitted that he saw no necessity for a "God", and this left him free to dream up all sorts of reasons for "the way things are". Quite imaginative, but quite wrong, IMO. Don't get me wrong, now, Carl Sagan was without a doubt one of the leading men of faith in the world. Without a shred of evidence; with nothing more than a calculator, he caused millions and millions of dollars to be spent on SETI because he "believed" that there must be life out there. That's faith, brothers and sisters, and few preachers are willing to put their reputations on the line as he did when he was alive. Please read this footnote on this paragraph. So. Them's my terms, and I'm sticking to 'em. Anyway, on to the "tips": The most important question of all: Do you want to know the truth? Ask this first, or the rest will be meaninlgess. Do you want to know the truth? More than you worry about your reputation? More than your friends' opinions? More than your pride? More than your plans for the future? More than your wants and needs? If that question cannot be answered "YES!", then all else will probably be a waste of your time. If the person isn't willing to go where the evidence leads and then act once the destination is reached, then they aren't honest and you cannot have an honest dialog. Which is the most rational explanation for what can be empirically observed in the world? Not just morally, either - the scientific world is continually uncovering evidence of design in nature, so the "scientific" explanations not only allow for God but almost require one. If the person will agree to honestly assess the evidence, you can go forward. If they have their minds made up, then you are not likely to affect them much, as they are no longer concerned with the truth. Only a committed seeker can find the ultimate truth. Don't talk about sin! Sin is an absolutely meaningless concept to a person who can't conceive of God. To most, actions are morally neutral, and results conveniently ignored. For example: Abortion is merely a medical procedure with no moral complications. To talk about abortion as a sin is a fuse blower. There is nothing in their experience to equate to. Don't use religious code words. Sin is one, but salvation is another. One doesn't need salvation if one doesn't believe in eternity! When I hear people on TBN or other places say something like, "Lord come in and sup with them.", I just cringe. We forget that there is no reference point for these phrases and they are absolutely meaningless to somebody who doesn't believe in God. Most of these statements are as intelligible to an atheist as "akjfieiojf thii ocncipso fiou cakdio whwchuppew adkhfawo". That is, they are unintelligible - they literally have no meaning to an atheist. Don't argue about what God did or did not do! This is what you will probably hear: How could you believe in a God that did such-and-thus? What you are hearing is I don't like God. It is preposterous to argue about what God did if He does not, in fact, exist! Refuse to argue about God's actions (and especially His character) until you have established at least the possibility that He exists. These types of arguments are diversions from this necessary point, and will only prolong fruitless discussions. "Scientific" arguments Concentrate on Primal causes. Each and every atheist believes that something came from nothing (the Universe), which really jerks the rug out from under science, which has to have a cause for everything (or it ceases to be science, and becomes a faith-based-something-else). So, what we are really arguing about is WHAT came from nothing: God or the Universe? There is a boundary here where all resort to faith. Period, end of sentence. This primary fact - something came from nothing - leads us to an inescapable conclusion: Each and every view of the universe is non-rational at best. The more one argues with this, the more it proves them to be irrational. The more I debate with those who claim that there "cannot" be a God, the more I realize their inability to deal with the non-rationality at the foundation of their argument. Most resort ultimately to name-calling. Others simply say, "you could never understand", as if disagreement with their conclusions obviously means that one can't possibly have followed their arguments. The problem lies in the argument's foundation. To be accused of faith is anathema to most atheists, as it is our faith which they deride. I simply wouldn't go further with one who can't concede this primary fact from which all other arguments must flow. This reduces their science to philosophy, and philosophy is inherently unprovable in a scientific sense. Click here for a quote on this matter by Stephen Gould, a leading evolutionist (who, by the way, describes himself as an "agnostic"). Never engage in an argument where God cannot be a possibility. For instance, an atheist might say something like, "You can't have consciousness without existing first, so there couldn't be a conscious God who existed without cause". My response would be, "Well, that's true unless there is an external cause to the Universe and that cause is what I call God. In that case, all bets are off, because we can't place merely natural constraints on something which is "super" natural." If the supernatural is excluded, you have lost the only trump card in the deck. (For my Randian readers, "A" isn't "A" until we agree on what "A" is. It is easy to build a closed system and then argue inside it amongst yourselves. To congratulate yourselves on the correctness of your conclusions is then an entirely self-gratifying act. Yes, I know that this is what you accuse Christians of doing, but it would seem that you have done it as well. We must agree upon terms before any true debate can occur.) Once you have gotten past that point (though this will be rare) you can go on to making a rational argument: Does it makes more sense to have a "super" natural cause (creation) than a fiat act of human imagination (evolution) because the first possibility cannot be examined? Science itself is proving that it is just impossible for this to have happened "by chance", and so is making our position look better and better every day. For proof that you can look up yourselves, do some research on a book entitled "Darwin's Black Box", then find some articles about two "living fossils" - the coelacanth and the Wollemi pine. It should prove very interesting..... Also, there is now discussion that scientists believe that "something came from nothing". This is simply not true. Click here for a very simple overview of the discussion. What they have observed, as far as I can tell, are particles that "seem" to have appeared out of "empty" space. First of all, we all know that space isn't empty. Second, if the "nothing" is capable of producing "something", then the "nothing" wasn't "nothing" after all! Don't be fooled. They have simply re-defined "nothing" to satisfy their base premise. There is obviously something there to begin with, even if it is only potential. They just can't penetrate that curtain yet. From where did the potential come? Again, in their desperation at avoiding the primal cause, many people will engage in uncritical, non-rational debate rather than re-examine their base premise. This is irrational behavior, but it is to be expected when your premises are untenable. One cannot truly be scientific and close off a possibility. One cannot truly rule out the existence of God because we weren't there when it all started. To exclude a possibility means that you have prejudged a conclusion and can no longer consider one's self as a "scientist". The theological equivalent would be an atheist. Along those lines, the history of science has been for tomorrow to make obsolete the widely held truths of today. Newtonian, purely mechanistic physics was blown off the map by quantum mechanics. Evolution is being disproved, not by preachers, but by scientists. So, if one says that they are a "scientist", then they had better have a very open mind. There are few things more certain than that what they believe now is hard, cold, immutable, scientifically proven fact will be shown tomorrow to be wildly mistaken and, in many cases, will be viewed as superstitious nonsense. "How could they possibly have believed that?" "But we can't measure God". You will hear this, as well, but you can argue that this has exactly, precisely nothing to do with the reality of God. The inability to see and measure viruses and bacteria has and had nothing to do with the reality of these creatures. The inability to measure the atom has and had nothing to do with the reality of atoms. The continued inability to actually "see" a muon or boson has nothing to do with people's willingness to believe that these particles exist. We see "evidence" of these in cloud chambers, but as far as I know, no one has ever seen one. So, what we are left with is "evidence", but no material witnessing of these rascals. So, if mere "evidence" is enough, what type of evidence would be sufficient to deduce that a supernatural entity was behind the universe? How about the universe itself? As demonstrated above, all atheists believe that something came from nothing, so that, in and of itself, ought to be enough to at least infer that something is outside the system. How one measures the something that made the system is beyond the scope of this short essay. Morality and the scientific method: Most "scientific" atheists will claim that they will only believe in something that is "empirically testable and repeatable", or some similar phrase. This is generally a false statement, and one way to clearly show this to them is to ask them if they consider themselves to be empirically "moral", or "ethical" people... Then ask them to prove it. They cannot and most will not even attempt to, as their whole mindset denies that there can be an "empirically testable" morality. To have such a thing requires that there be an external standard against which to measure, and that (in this case) certainly means God. (Although some of them do appeal to "god" in the idea of an Ideal Observer!) See my essay/review on Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics for more on this tremendous argument against man-made ethical systems and the inevitable knowledge that there can be no ethical systems without a "god".. When they sputter and spark, and say that the two aren't the same at all, ask them if they would buy gasoline at a station where a quart was as good as pint was as good as a gallon. Few would make that mistake more than once. From this point, it should be easy enough to show them that what they consider morality is just as valid as Hitler's or Stalin's. For without a firm and unyielding measure, unaffected by circumstance or opinion, they can only "feel" that their's is superior. Since this is their greatest "sin", there goes their argument for empiricism. It doesn't necessarily get them to God, but it takes out a crutch. By showing them that their entire philosophy rests on emotion - not logic - we can hope to pull out one support. And it's no fair saying, "Morality is that upon which the majority of people happen to agree at any given time". If that were true, the vast majority of humanity agrees that there is (at the very least) a supernatural, spiritual realm. Further, since many will want to localize the morality to a given culture, the vast majority of human cultures worship some sort of god - historically and in the present. So, if the majority rules, there is a God, and that's that. When all is said and done (and in the only area of human existence with more day-to-day effect on our lives than their "science") an atheist will be unable to provide a standard for his own behavior which he "insists" on for the existence of God. I'm afraid that the most one can do is to point out this inarguable inconsistency and then pray that God will allow them to admit it to themselves. For most, this is just an excuse to do what they want to with no fear of condemnation, so don't expect the knowledge to get them to God - more than likely they will just shrug their shoulders and say, "Nevertheless, I don't believe in God." Oh yes - many will point almost exclusively to "Christians" as the offenders in crimes moral.... There are far too many instances where this is true, of course, but against whose morals were they transgressing? If one reads the Bible, they were transgressing against God's of course, and more specifically against the morals espoused and insisted upon by Christ! All this argument does is to deflect the criticism to us, as we claim that there is such a thing as morality. See my essay on evolution and morality for a better discussion of how these two concepts are mutually exclusive. Countering the "Do you know how many people have died because of religion?" argument: This is certainly true - many have. However, in the last 50 years alone, there have been untold millions of people killed, not in religious wars, but in purely political wars waged on a helpless citizenry. And those waging the wars were almost solely atheists. The rest weren't Christian except in some cultural, non-religious sense. Starting with Hitler and going to Stalin and Mao and the Khmer Rouge, we can count at least 60 million lost souls. Take into account Ethiopia (purely political murder), Somalia, Rwanda (and on and on and on) and we can see that these people were not Crusaders nor officers of the Inquisition. They were folks who shared the central beliefs of all atheists: There is no God and thus no morality beyond that in front of me. Add to that the over 60,000,000 abortions each year worldwide and we have another 1,200,000,000 humans killed in the last two decades. Plus we have 12,000,000 children dying due to politically induced starvation each year. That certainly seems to give atheists the edge, wouldn't you agree? Here is where the most resistance comes from: The chances (however slim) that there may really be a God leaves one with the inescapable conclusion that all that they have cherished and come to rely upon is liable to change. Little do they know ;-), but this is a tremendous fear to overcome. This leads me to... Live the Gospel! The church is invisible to those who don't wish to see it! The only sure way to show Christ to another is to be Christ to them! We ought to be in the streets and in the news so often that they can't escape us. And not just the Christian Coalition, either. I mean that when the welfare is cut off, the church had better be there to take up the slack. I mean that the non-believers know more about the true nature of Christ than many of us! They know that He loved unconditionally; they know that He healed the sick and made the blind to see; they know that he fed the hungry and clothed the poor. Are we? And if we are, then why do we have a welfare state to dismantle? It should never have been necessary - it would never have been necessary - if the church had been doing its job. Don't lose heart - most of the time when you hear, "I don't believe in God", what is really being said is, "I won't believe in God", and the two are entirely different propositions. If one won't believe, then nothing you can say or do is going to change their minds. When the Holy Spirit tells you to stop, then stop, and pray, and go on with your life. I will say that my own rule of thumb is that I will generally go along in a debate or discussion until the atheist quits. They almost always will, usually as soon as you have shown them that their morality is false and devoid of value and truth. You may not "convince" them in the sense that they agree, but it is easy to prove, and that will usually be the last you hear from them. We can only pray that their minds will accept what their egos cannot, and that they will start thinking again. My second rule of thumb is that as soon as the debate or discussion interferes with my family life, I back off and devote only as much attention to the debate as is necessary to maintain the discussion. Trying to argue every specious argument and willful misapplication of what you are trying to say will take forever, so don't do it. Stick to a few points and make them argue them - allowing the debate to wander will waste your time. I have found that CS Lewis and Francis Schaeffer provide excellent works for a seeking convert or atheist to ponder. Schaeffer's exposition on "knowing" is excellent. To encapsulate it: An atheist can complain that we "can never know enough to be absolutely sure", but this is a test which applies to everything. We can't be sure that the sun will come up tomorrow, but few atheists fail to plan for the eventuality! We can know that which we can know. That is, just because we cannot know fully does not mean that we can not have confidence in that which we do know. I don't know everything about my wife, but I know enough to be able to gauge her moods and opinions with very little input. Most atheists don't resist the outlandish assumptions underlying the mechanics of evolution, nor do they seriously question the lack of contemporary or historical transitional forms. This does not prevent them from "knowing" that evolution is a preferable theory to God. Don't let the argument of "knowing" divert you from the reality that there is a true knowledge of God. It is a given that we will never know all about Him, but that doesn't mean that what we do know is worthless, or insufficient to make a reasoned judgment that He exists. From there, one can get to Christ. Back to FGM Home Wednesday, March 27, 2002 Quotes of Stephen Jay Gould in his book: Dinosaur in a Haystack in an essay entitled The most unkindest cut of all. A scientist Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <1180329727.045300.161260@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 28, 1:13 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > What's your comments about this report that I found online: > > The person that wrote this report is a much better writer and speller than > > I am. > > > > Witnessing to > > Atheists > > > > I have described my self as having once been an > > "AynRandianObjectivistLibertarianCarlSaganTypeAtheist". > > > > A person e-mailed me a request for some thoughts on how I would witness to > > such a person. So, I have given some thought to that, and will continually > > jot down new ones as they come to me. > > > > First of all, let me define my terms: Ayn Rand was a God hater, as was I. > > Then he wasn't an atheist. Atheists don't believe that God exists. > You cannot hate something that doesn't exist. > > > Objectivists believe that there is a non-emotional, purely logical answer > > for everything, and theism is stricly outside the bounds of discussion. > > Libertarians, at least the American breed, are basically libertines with > > political aspirations. Not all, but the vast majority as I know them. Carl > > Sagan freely admitted that he saw no necessity for a "God", and this left > > him free to dream up all sorts of reasons for "the way things are". Quite > > imaginative, but quite wrong, IMO. > > > > Don't get me wrong, now, Carl Sagan was without a doubt one of the leading > > men of faith in the world. Without a shred of evidence; with nothing more > > than a calculator, he caused millions and millions of dollars to be spent > > on SETI because he "believed" that there must be life out there. > > And billions and billions of dollars are spent every week to fund the > war in Iraq. So what? Is he claiming that no money should be spent > on scientific experiments? The theory is that if there is life out > there then we should be able to detect their radio signals. So far it > would appear that there is no life out there. Is that supposed to > mean that God created the entire universe just for us? > > > That's > > faith, brothers and sisters, and few preachers are willing to put their > > reputations on the line as he did when he was alive. Please read this > > footnote on this paragraph. > > > > So. Them's my terms, and I'm sticking to 'em. Anyway, on to the "tips": > > > > The most important question of all: Do you want to know the truth? > > If you want to know the truth, then church is the last place you > should ever go. > > > Ask this first, or the rest will be meaninlgess. Do you want to know the > > truth? More than you worry about your reputation? More than your friends' > > opinions? More than your pride? More than your plans for the future? More > > than your wants and needs? If that question cannot be answered "YES!", > > then all else will probably be a waste of your time. If the person isn't > > willing to go where the evidence leads and then act once the destination > > is reached, then they aren't honest and you cannot have an honest dialog. > > > > Which is the most rational explanation for what can be empirically > > observed in the world? Not just morally, either - the scientific world is > > continually uncovering evidence of design in nature, so the "scientific" > > explanations not only allow for God but almost require one. If the person > > will agree to honestly assess the evidence, you can go forward. If they > > have their minds made up, then you are not likely to affect them much, as > > they are no longer concerned with the truth. Only a committed seeker can > > find the ultimate truth. > > > > Don't talk about sin! Sin is an absolutely meaningless concept to a person > > who can't conceive of God. > > That's a lie. "Sin" is just a word that means "unlawful act". You > can have laws without God. In fact, we do. > > > To most, actions are morally neutral, and > > results conveniently ignored. For example: Abortion is merely a medical > > procedure with no moral complications. To talk about abortion as a sin is > > a fuse blower. There is nothing in their experience to equate to. > > > > Don't use religious code words. Sin is one, but salvation is another. One > > doesn't need salvation if one doesn't believe in eternity! When I hear > > people on TBN or other places say something like, "Lord come in and sup > > with them.", I just cringe. We forget that there is no reference point for > > these phrases and they are absolutely meaningless to somebody who doesn't > > believe in God. Most of these statements are as intelligible to an atheist > > as "akjfieiojf thii ocncipso fiou cakdio whwchuppew adkhfawo". That is, > > they are unintelligible - they literally have no meaning to an atheist. > > > > Don't argue about what God did or did not do! > > God didn't do anything. He doesn't exist. > > > This is what you will > > probably hear: How could you believe in a God that did such-and-thus? What > > you are hearing is I don't like God. It is preposterous to argue about > > what God did if He does not, in fact, exist! Refuse to argue about God's > > actions (and especially His character) until you have established at least > > the possibility that He exists. These types of arguments are diversions > > from this necessary point, and will only prolong fruitless discussions. > > > > "Scientific" arguments > > > > Concentrate on Primal causes. Each and every atheist believes that > > something came from nothing (the Universe), which really jerks the rug out > > from under science, which has to have a cause for everything (or it ceases > > to be science, and becomes a faith-based-something-else). So, what we are > > really arguing about is WHAT came from nothing: God or the Universe? > > > > There is a boundary here where all resort to faith. Period, end of > > sentence. This primary fact - something came from nothing - leads us to an > > inescapable conclusion: Each and every view of the universe is > > non-rational at best. The more one argues with this, the more it proves > > them to be irrational. The more I debate with those who claim that there > > "cannot" be a God, the more I realize their inability to deal with the > > non-rationality at the foundation of their argument. Most resort > > ultimately to name-calling. Others simply say, "you could never > > understand", as if disagreement with their conclusions obviously means > > that one can't possibly have followed their arguments. > > > > The problem lies in the argument's foundation. To be accused of faith is > > anathema to most atheists, as it is our faith which they deride. > > One need not have faith in anything or anyone. By all means, don't > take me at my word but don't take anybody else on their word either. > Find out for yourself. That _is_ what scientists do. > > > I simply > > wouldn't go further with one who can't concede this primary fact from > > which all other arguments must flow. This reduces their science to > > philosophy, and philosophy is inherently unprovable in a scientific sense. > > Click here for a quote on this matter by Stephen Gould, a leading > > evolutionist (who, by the way, describes himself as an "agnostic"). > > > > Never engage in an argument where God cannot be a possibility. > > Then theists should just shut up, period, because there is no > situation in which God is possible. God is, by definition, > supernatural and nothing supernatural exists. It is a pointless > argument from the beginning. > > > For > > instance, an atheist might say something like, "You can't have > > consciousness without existing first, so there couldn't be a conscious God > > who existed without cause". My response would be, "Well, that's true > > unless there is an external cause to the Universe and that cause is what I > > call God. In that case, all bets are off, because we can't place merely > > natural constraints on something which is "super" natural." If the > > supernatural is excluded, you have lost the only trump card in the deck. > > > > (For my Randian readers, "A" isn't "A" until we agree on what "A" is. It > > is easy to build a closed system and then argue inside it amongst > > yourselves. To congratulate yourselves on the correctness of your > > conclusions is then an entirely self-gratifying act. Yes, I know that this > > is what you accuse Christians of doing, but it would seem that you have > > done it as well. We must agree upon terms before any true debate can > > occur.) > > > > Once you have gotten past that point (though this will be rare) you can go > > on to making a rational argument: Does it makes more sense to have a > > "super" natural cause (creation) than a fiat act of human imagination > > (evolution) because the first possibility cannot be examined? Science > > itself is proving that it is just impossible for this to have happened "by > > chance", and so is making our position look better and better every day. > > For proof that you can look up yourselves, do some research on a book > > entitled "Darwin's Black Box", then find some articles about two "living > > fossils" - the coelacanth and the Wollemi pine. It should prove very > > interesting..... > > > > Also, there is now discussion that scientists believe that "something came > > from nothing". This is simply not true. > > No, it's not true. It's theists who believe that God created the > universe from nothing. Scientists are working to discover where the > universe came from. They don't believe that it came from nothing: > that's what theists believe. > > > Click here for a very simple > > overview of the discussion. What they have observed, as far as I can > > tell, are particles that "seem" to have appeared out of "empty" space. > > First of all, we all know that space isn't empty. Second, if the "nothing" > > is capable of producing "something", then the "nothing" wasn't "nothing" > > after all! Don't be fooled. They have simply re-defined "nothing" to > > satisfy their base premise. There is obviously something there to begin > > with, even if it is only potential. They just can't penetrate that curtain > > yet. From where did the potential come? Again, in their desperation at > > avoiding the primal cause, many people will engage in uncritical, > > non-rational debate rather than re-examine their base premise. This is > > irrational behavior, but it is to be expected when your premises are > > untenable. > > > > One cannot truly be scientific and close off a possibility. One cannot > > truly rule out the existence of God because we weren't there when it all > > started. > > Actually, we can. We can rule out any idea that is not supported by > evidence or logic. God belief fails both tests: there's no evidence > supporting god belief and all logic demands that no gods exist. > > > To exclude a possibility means that you have prejudged a > > conclusion and can no longer consider one's self as a "scientist". The > > theological equivalent would be an atheist. > > Science deals with the natural world. God belief is a supernatural > belief. You cannot be a scientist and believe in such nonsense. > Period. > > > Along those lines, the history of science has been for tomorrow to make > > obsolete the widely held truths of today. Newtonian, purely mechanistic > > physics was blown off the map by quantum mechanics. Evolution is being > > disproved, not by preachers, but by scientists. So, if one says that they > > are a "scientist", then they had better have a very open mind. There are > > few things more certain than that what they believe now is hard, cold, > > immutable, scientifically proven fact will be shown tomorrow to be wildly > > mistaken and, in many cases, will be viewed as superstitious nonsense. > > "How could they possibly have believed that?" > > > > "But we can't measure God". You will hear this, as well, but you can argue > > that this has exactly, precisely nothing to do with the reality of God. > > It has everything to do with the non-existance of God: we cannot > measure God precisely because he doesn't exist. > > > The inability to see and measure viruses and bacteria has and had nothing > > to do with the reality of these creatures. The inability to measure the > > atom has and had nothing to do with the reality of atoms. The continued > > inability to actually "see" a muon or boson has nothing to do with > > people's willingness to believe that these particles exist. We see > > "evidence" of these in cloud chambers, but as far as I know, no one has > > ever seen one. So, what we are left with is "evidence", but no material > > witnessing of these rascals. > > > > So, if mere "evidence" is enough, what type of evidence would be > > sufficient to deduce that a supernatural entity was behind the universe? > > How about the universe itself? As demonstrated above, all atheists believe > > that something came from nothing, so that, in and of itself, ought to be > > enough to at least infer that something is outside the system. How one > > measures the something that made the system is beyond the scope of this > > short essay. > > > > Morality and the scientific method: Most "scientific" atheists will claim > > that they will only believe in something that is "empirically testable and > > repeatable", or some similar phrase. This is generally a false statement, > > The onus is on him to prove that atheists believe anything. Weak > atheism is defined as a lack of belief: no belief is required for > someone to be considered atheist by default. > > > and one way to clearly show this to them is to ask them if they consider > > themselves to be empirically "moral", or "ethical" people... Then ask them > > to prove it. > > Theists should prove that they are moral. They can't. The vast > majority of people in prison are theists. > > > They cannot and most will not even attempt to, as their whole > > mindset denies that there can be an "empirically testable" morality. To > > have such a thing requires that there be an external standard against > > which to measure, and that (in this case) certainly means God. (Although > > some of them do appeal to "god" in the idea of an Ideal Observer!) See my > > essay/review on Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics for more on this > > tremendous argument against man-made ethical systems and the inevitable > > knowledge that there can be no ethical systems without a "god".. > > > > When they sputter and spark, and say that the two aren't the same at all, > > ask them if they would buy gasoline at a station where a quart was as good > > as pint was as good as a gallon. Few would make that mistake more than > > once. From this point, it should be easy enough to show them that what > > they consider morality is just as valid as Hitler's or Stalin's. > > Hitler was an altar boy. Stalin went to seminary school. That's > where their "morality" came from. > > > For > > without a firm and unyielding measure, unaffected by circumstance or > > opinion, they can only "feel" that their's is superior. Since this is > > their greatest "sin", there goes their argument for empiricism. It doesn't > > necessarily get them to God, but it takes out a crutch. By showing them > > that their entire philosophy rests on emotion - not logic - we can hope to > > pull out one support. > > Not true. Faith itself is an emotion. Atheists don't have faith by > definition. They may believe that the sun will rise tomorrow but that > is not a belief: it isn't a question of praying to God in hope that > the sun will rise but an expectation based on previous observation. > > > And it's no fair saying, "Morality is that upon which the majority of > > people happen to agree at any given time". If that were true, the vast > > majority of humanity agrees that there is (at the very least) a > > supernatural, spiritual realm. Further, since many will want to localize > > the morality to a given culture, the vast majority of human cultures > > worship some sort of god - historically and in the present. So, if the > > majority rules, there is a God, and that's that. > > People worship different Gods. Allah and Yehweh are not the same god: > Allah is based on the Sumerian god Anu and Yehweh is based on the > Sumerian god Enki. There's no "majority rules". > > > When all is said and done (and in the only area of human existence with > > more day-to-day effect on our lives than their "science") an atheist will > > be unable to provide a standard for his own behavior which he "insists" on > > for the existence of God. I'm afraid that the most one can do is to point > > out this inarguable inconsistency and then pray that God will allow them > > to admit it to themselves. For most, this is just an excuse to do what > > they want to with no fear of condemnation, so don't expect the knowledge > > to get them to God - more than likely they will just shrug their shoulders > > and say, "Nevertheless, I don't believe in God." > > Despite all evidence to the contrary, nevertheless you believe in God. > > > Oh yes - many will point almost exclusively to "Christians" as the > > offenders in crimes moral.... There are far too many instances where this > > is true, of course, but against whose morals were they transgressing? If > > one reads the Bible, they were transgressing against God's of course, and > > more specifically against the morals espoused and insisted upon by Christ! > > All this argument does is to deflect the criticism to us, as we claim that > > there is such a thing as morality. > > > > See my essay on evolution and morality for a better discussion of how > > these two concepts are mutually exclusive. > > See http://www.evil-bible.com or http://www.nobeliefs.com > > <snip> > > Sorry, but I have to go to class now. There was more but there was > nothing new said. > > Martin Martin, The person that wrote this article truly understands how atheists think. After reading the posts in this thread and several other threads, it became obvious to me that some atheists have a deep hatred for Christians and anyone that is an advocate for creation science. One person that was an advocate for creation science stopped posting after about a week. I don't blame him. Reading the above article helped me to understand how atheists think. I hope that all people that have been atheists for over 10 years are not as filled with the 'spirit of hate" as some of the members of this newsgroup. Love is a better emotion than hate. The person that wrote this report stated that atheists believe that abortion is nothing more than a medical procedure. I would agree that he is correct. Many of your fellow athests view the killing of an unborn baby as nothing more than a medical procedure. How does it feel to be part of a group of people that have that sort of attitude about the lives of unborn babies? Jason Jason Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On 27 Maj, 10:26, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On 26 May 2007 23:15:43 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > - Refer: <1180246543.430358.102...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> > > > > > > >On 27 Maj, 00:34, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> In article <6j6h53hhgiiqohd3vmui1r1tvjfcl9m...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:56:39 -0700, in alt.atheism > >snip > > >> For God so loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son that > >> whosoever believes in Him whould not perish but have eternal life. > > >> God send his son to die for us so that we could have eternal life. Jesus > >> was crucified and died on a cross. He did not kill himself. What is your > >> evidence that Jesus killed himself? > > >He became a man in order to be sacrificed, i.e. he planned and > >organised his own death. > > How could an individual who never even existed, do anything? > You do understand the phrase "for the sake of argument", right? Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On 27 Maj, 18:15, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180251937.912451.87...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 27, 12:21 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > <Jason-2605071857120...@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >In article <f3abu2$be...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > ><prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > >> > In article <f3a9gk$8p...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when > > > > >> >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the > person > > > > >> >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the > school full of > > > > >> >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. > Sounds > > > > >> >> like "situational ethics" to me. > > > > > >> > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become > suicide > > > > >> > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your > point. I > > > > >> > have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you > > > > >> > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash > > > > >> > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and > euthanasia. > > > > > >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for > classes on > > > > >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." > > > > > >That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could > brainwash > > > > >children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology > professors > > > > >could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from > non-life > > > > >despite the lack of proof that it happened. > > > > > There is overwhelming evidence that it happened and there is no evidence > > > > that the method by which it happened had anything to do with a > > > > supernatural being. Sorry, but your hatred of science causes you to tell > > > > repeated falsehoods. Why would a loving God turn you into a liar? > > > > Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. > > > It has been shown in laboratory experiments to happen with viruses, > > bacteria and fruit flies. > > > Next question, please. > > > Martin > > Please refer me to a website that shows that fruit flies evolved from > non-life. Where else? Even the Bible says life came from non-life. >At one time, someone done an experiment that appeard to prove > that flies evolved from dead meat. There was no experiment. It was an assumption supported by the Bible, and it wasn't evolution that was being claimed. >It was later determined that the flies > actually came from eggs that were laid in that meat by female flies.- Yet another example of reason and evidence disproving religious beliefs. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On 28 May 2007 02:42:13 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: - Refer: <1180345333.499626.222170@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> >On 27 Maj, 10:26, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> On 26 May 2007 23:15:43 -0700, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> - Refer: <1180246543.430358.102...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On 27 Maj, 00:34, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> In article <6j6h53hhgiiqohd3vmui1r1tvjfcl9m...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:56:39 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >snip >> >> >> For God so loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son that >> >> whosoever believes in Him whould not perish but have eternal life. >> >> >> God send his son to die for us so that we could have eternal life. Jesus >> >> was crucified and died on a cross. He did not kill himself. What is your >> >> evidence that Jesus killed himself? >> >> >He became a man in order to be sacrificed, i.e. he planned and >> >organised his own death. >> >> How could an individual who never even existed, do anything? >> > >You do understand the phrase "for the sake of argument", right? Yes. But I ask because I know for certain that Jason does not. -- Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 2:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180327601.536678.172...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 28, 11:18 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180317985.589733.293...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > > 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. > > > Have you read any science journals already published on the subject? > > Just a few posts back you claimed that amino acids couldn't be > > produced naturally and that the amino acids couldn't be used to create > > life. I posted links two weeks ago that proved both of these > > assertions false. So why should we believe that you would start > > reading science journals if a scientist were able to produce a living > > cell? > I would visit the city library and read that journal article. Believe it > or not, this was an issue when I was in a college biology class in 1971. > Our biology professor (an evolutionist) was hoping that a scientist would > perform such an experiment within the next several years. I am still > waiting. I don't really care whether or not you believe me. So what you are telling us is that you haven't read a single science journal in 36 years and have absolutely no knowledge of the field. Yes, I believe you. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 2:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180327377.444027.85...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 28, 11:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180317805.294731.52...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > > At least 90 scientists agrees with me and that is enough for me. > > > That's 91 people who are wrong. So what? > > It's important to me. It has been claimed by secular academia that > creationists are not scientists. They're not. > The 90 scientists that are advocates of > creation science are helping our cause by telling their stories in the two > books discussed in my post. The two books which you yourself haven't read. Is this naivite or abject stupidity? I can't tell anymore and am no longer interested in giving you the benefit of the doubt. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On May 28, 3:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Martin, > The person that wrote this article truly understands how atheists think. No, he doesn't. And in the future, do not quote an entire article only to add your comments at the bottom. It requires a great deal of effort scanning through the article and then realizing that you never bothered to respond to any of my comments. Not one. > After reading the posts in this thread and several other threads, it > became obvious to me that some atheists have a deep hatred for Christians > and anyone that is an advocate for creation science. One person that was > an advocate for creation science stopped posting after about a week. I > don't blame him. Reading the above article helped me to understand how > atheists think. Jason, stop swallowing lies. Just because you've been swallowing lies since the first day you started going to church doesn't mean you shouldn't start now. The tone of entire article you quoted is "Atheists are evil. Atheists are evil. Atheists are evil." It is pure hate literature. The fact that you swallow it so easily says a lot about the way you think and nothing about the way atheists think. > I hope that all people that have been atheists for over 10 > years are not as filled with the 'spirit of hate" as some of the members > of this newsgroup. Love is a better emotion than hate. Christians know _nothing_ of love. That's another of your lies. You condemn those who disagree with you to your imaginary Hell. > The person that > wrote this report stated that atheists believe that abortion is nothing > more than a medical procedure. I would agree that he is correct. Many of > your fellow athests view the killing of an unborn baby as nothing more > than a medical procedure. How does it feel to be part of a group of people > that have that sort of attitude about the lives of unborn babies? How does it feel to be part of a group of people who have that sort of attitude towards anyone who would disagree with them? Martin Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On 28 Maj, 04:06, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On 28 Maj, 05:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180317805.294731.52...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 23:22:49 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2705072322490001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180327377.444027.85020@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> That's 91 people who are wrong. So what? >> >> Martin > >It's important to me. It has been claimed by secular academia that >creationists are not scientists. The 90 scientists that are advocates of >creation science are helping our cause by telling their stories in the two >books discussed in my post. >Jason > There are no scientists engaged in creation science. It isn't a science. Its religious doctrine. You have been misled about what these people are doing. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On Sun, 27 May 2007 23:11:05 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2705072311050001@66-52-22-4.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180327601.536678.172410@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: .... >> Have you read any science journals already published on the subject? >> Just a few posts back you claimed that amino acids couldn't be >> produced naturally and that the amino acids couldn't be used to create >> life. I posted links two weeks ago that proved both of these >> assertions false. So why should we believe that you would start >> reading science journals if a scientist were able to produce a living >> cell? >> >> Martin > >Martin, >I would visit the city library and read that journal article. Believe it >or not, this was an issue when I was in a college biology class in 1971. >Our biology professor (an evolutionist) was hoping that a scientist would >perform such an experiment within the next several years. I am still >waiting. I don't really care whether or not you believe me. >Jason What city do you live in that the city library carries scientific journals? Based on your prior comments, I cannot accept any claims about what you think you heard in biology class. I have no idea why you added 'evolutionist'. All biology professors know and understand the basics of the discoveries of evolution. Any who do not are not qualified to be biology professors. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > What's your comments about this report that I found online: > The person that wrote this report is a much better writer and speller than > I am. > > Witnessing to > Atheists > > I have described my self as having once been an > "AynRandianObjectivistLibertarianCarlSaganTypeAtheist". > > A person e-mailed me a request for some thoughts on how I would witness to > such a person. So, I have given some thought to that, and will continually > jot down new ones as they come to me. > > First of all, let me define my terms: Ayn Rand was a God hater, as was I. > Objectivists believe that there is a non-emotional, purely logical answer > for everything, and theism is stricly outside the bounds of discussion. > Libertarians, at least the American breed, are basically libertines with > political aspirations. Not all, but the vast majority as I know them. Carl > Sagan freely admitted that he saw no necessity for a "God", and this left > him free to dream up all sorts of reasons for "the way things are". Quite > imaginative, but quite wrong, IMO. Where is it wrong? > > Don't get me wrong, now, Carl Sagan was without a doubt one of the leading > men of faith in the world. Without a shred of evidence; with nothing more > than a calculator, he caused millions and millions of dollars to be spent > on SETI because he "believed" that there must be life out there. That's > faith, brothers and sisters, and few preachers are willing to put their > reputations on the line as he did when he was alive. Please read this > footnote on this paragraph. > > So. Them's my terms, and I'm sticking to 'em. Anyway, on to the "tips": > > The most important question of all: Do you want to know the truth? > > Ask this first, or the rest will be meaninlgess. Do you want to know the > truth? More than you worry about your reputation? More than your friends' > opinions? More than your pride? More than your plans for the future? More > than your wants and needs? If that question cannot be answered "YES!", > then all else will probably be a waste of your time. If the person isn't > willing to go where the evidence leads and then act once the destination > is reached, then they aren't honest and you cannot have an honest dialog. That is the trick. Go where the evidence leads. > > Which is the most rational explanation for what can be empirically > observed in the world? Not just morally, either - the scientific world is > continually uncovering evidence of design in nature, Where? "Evidence of design"? Haven't seen anything yet. so the "scientific" > explanations not only allow for God but almost require one. Since there is no "evidence for design", the conclusion is wrong. If the person > will agree to honestly assess the evidence, you can go forward. Sure. Where is the "evidence"? If they > have their minds made up, then you are not likely to affect them much, as > they are no longer concerned with the truth. Only a committed seeker can > find the ultimate truth. I want to examine the "evidence". Where is it? > > Don't talk about sin! Sin is an absolutely meaningless concept to a person > who can't conceive of God. To most, actions are morally neutral, and > results conveniently ignored. For example: Abortion is merely a medical > procedure with no moral complications. To talk about abortion as a sin is > a fuse blower. There is nothing in their experience to equate to. Oh, the topic can be discussed. Rationally. "Sin" in the theistic sense just doesn't make sense and is not based on evidence. So, it is a follow-up error. > > Don't use religious code words. Sin is one, but salvation is another. One > doesn't need salvation if one doesn't believe in eternity! When I hear > people on TBN or other places say something like, "Lord come in and sup > with them.", I just cringe. We forget that there is no reference point for > these phrases and they are absolutely meaningless to somebody who doesn't > believe in God. Most of these statements are as intelligible to an atheist > as "akjfieiojf thii ocncipso fiou cakdio whwchuppew adkhfawo". That is, > they are unintelligible - they literally have no meaning to an atheist. That is true. But the important part was that now it's no longer "examine the evidence" but "believe in god". > > Don't argue about what God did or did not do! This is what you will > probably hear: How could you believe in a God that did such-and-thus? What > you are hearing is I don't like God. Wrong. What you are hearing is "Let's see the evidence". It is preposterous to argue about > what God did if He does not, in fact, exist! Refuse to argue about God's > actions (and especially His character) until you have established at least > the possibility that He exists. These types of arguments are diversions > from this necessary point, and will only prolong fruitless discussions. > > "Scientific" arguments > > Concentrate on Primal causes. Each and every atheist believes that > something came from nothing (the Universe) Wrong. Countless posts to this effect. , which really jerks the rug out > from under science, Follow-up error. which has to have a cause for everything (or it ceases > to be science, and becomes a faith-based-something-else). This guy doesn't understand science. So, what we are > really arguing about is WHAT came from nothing: God or the Universe? Follow-up error. > > There is a boundary here where all resort to faith. Period, end of > sentence. This primary fact - something came from nothing The original error..... - leads us to an > inescapable conclusion: Each and every view of the universe is > non-rational at best. Oh. A new error. Nice. The more one argues with this, the more it proves > them to be irrational. The more I debate with those who claim that there > "cannot" be a God, the more I realize their inability to deal with the > non-rationality at the foundation of their argument. To imagine a supernatural being is "rational"? Since when? Most resort > ultimately to name-calling. Others simply say, "you could never > understand", as if disagreement with their conclusions obviously means > that one can't possibly have followed their arguments. Most of the bible-thumpers don't even read the arguments. And don't address the explanations given them. At some point, when faced with them again and again and they show every time that they don't follow the argument, don't address the points mentioned, one realizes that it is no use. > > The problem lies in the argument's foundation. To be accused of faith is > anathema to most atheists, as it is our faith which they deride. Nah. We don't. We don't share it, but we constantly ask for evidence, which you do not provide. I simply > wouldn't go further with one who can't concede this primary fact from > which all other arguments must flow. Since there is no evidence for the "primary fact", all else is a follow-up error. This reduces their science to > philosophy, and philosophy is inherently unprovable in a scientific sense. > Click here for a quote on this matter by Stephen Gould, a leading > evolutionist (who, by the way, describes himself as an "agnostic"). > > Never engage in an argument where God cannot be a possibility. For > instance, an atheist might say something like, "You can't have > consciousness without existing first, so there couldn't be a conscious God > who existed without cause". My response would be, "Well, that's true > unless there is an external cause to the Universe and that cause is what I > call God. In that case, all bets are off, because we can't place merely > natural constraints on something which is "super" natural." If the > supernatural is excluded, you have lost the only trump card in the deck. Ah. True. Since there is no evidence that points to "supernatural" your "trump card" is gone. > > (For my Randian readers, "A" isn't "A" until we agree on what "A" is. It > is easy to build a closed system and then argue inside it amongst > yourselves. To congratulate yourselves on the correctness of your > conclusions is then an entirely self-gratifying act. Yes, I know that this > is what you accuse Christians of doing, but it would seem that you have > done it as well. We must agree upon terms before any true debate can > occur.) Since there is no way that most bible-thumpers would agree within these debates on what scientific evidence.... > > Once you have gotten past that point (though this will be rare) you can go > on to making a rational argument: Does it makes more sense to have a > "super" natural cause (creation) than a fiat act of human imagination > (evolution) because the first possibility cannot be examined? There he goes again. Says "look at the evidence" but want to have the assumption "there is a god" as the premise. Science > itself is proving that it is just impossible for this to have happened "by > chance" Noone is claiming "by chance". Read up on "evolution" one of these days and find out why it is not "chance". , and so is making our position look better and better every day. Actually, no. > For proof that you can look up yourselves, do some research on a book > entitled "Darwin's Black Box", then find some articles about two "living > fossils" - the coelacanth and the Wollemi pine. It should prove very > interesting..... In fact, no. Read up on evolution. > > Also, there is now discussion that scientists believe that "something came > from nothing". This is simply not true. Click here for a very simple > overview of the discussion. What they have observed, as far as I can > tell, are particles that "seem" to have appeared out of "empty" space. Yes. That's quantum mechanics. Science is working on it. One idea is the "multiverse" (Not "fact", not "theory", not even "hypothesis" yet, but "idea") > First of all, we all know that space isn't empty. Second, if the "nothing" > is capable of producing "something", then the "nothing" wasn't "nothing" > after all! Don't be fooled. We are not. Quantum mechanics is hellishly counterintuitive. They have simply re-defined "nothing" to > satisfy their base premise. Wrong. There is obviously something there to begin > with, even if it is only potential. They just can't penetrate that curtain > yet. yet From where did the potential come? Again, in their desperation at > avoiding the primal cause, No evidence for the "primal cause" again.... many people will engage in uncritical, > non-rational debate rather than re-examine their base premise. Wrong. Science does not have a "base premise". This is > irrational behavior, but it is to be expected when your premises are > untenable. Follow-up error. Since there is no premise without foundation, there can be no "base premise" without foundation. > > One cannot truly be scientific and close off a possibility. True. One cannot > truly rule out the existence of God because we weren't there when it all > started. True. But - and it is a big "but" - nothing points to the possibility. Nothing even hints to it. To exclude a possibility means that you have prejudged a > conclusion and can no longer consider one's self as a "scientist". Wrong. The "possibiliy" is there, but unfounded. Let's look at the evidence. Oh? No evidence? Ok, so down the drain it goes.... The > theological equivalent would be an atheist. Follow-up error. > > Along those lines, the history of science has been for tomorrow to make > obsolete the widely held truths of today. Newtonian, purely mechanistic > physics was blown off the map by quantum mechanics. Evolution is being > disproved, not by preachers, but by scientists. Wrong. Show where and who. Show articles, or better yet, state those "Disproofs". Can't be that complicated. Haven't seen any yet, though. So, if one says that they > are a "scientist", then they had better have a very open mind. To say "goddidit" closes of the mind. There are > few things more certain than that what they believe now is hard, cold, > immutable, scientifically proven fact will be shown tomorrow to be wildly > mistaken and, in many cases, will be viewed as superstitious nonsense. > "How could they possibly have believed that?" Because they did not have all the data. Easy. What data do you have? Oh? None? One book? That's all? Goodie.... > > "But we can't measure God". You will hear this, as well, but you can argue > that this has exactly, precisely nothing to do with the reality of God. Wrong. "Look at the evidence" he said. But can't provide any. Now he even states that there isn't any. "Measuring" god does not necessarily require a slide rule. In this context is "measure" meant as "show evidence". Which so far no one has provided. > The inability to see and measure viruses and bacteria Oh, we "see" viruses and bacteria. Quite easily in case of bacteria (use a microscope) a bit harder for viruses (electron microscope). We can "measure" them. has and had nothing > to do with the reality of these creatures. Since we can "measure" these things.... The inability to measure the > atom has and had nothing to do with the reality of atoms. Oh, we "see" atoms just fine. Just not easy. And not with "light". The continued > inability to actually "see" a muon or boson has nothing to do with > people's willingness to believe that these particles exist. We can "measure" them just fine. Since "see" is done with light, mostly, we can't "see" them, of course. We see > "evidence" of these in cloud chambers, That actually is something else. but as far as I know, no one has > ever seen one. Light is too crude for that. So, what we are left with is "evidence", but no material > witnessing of these rascals. We also don't "see" gravity. So what? > > So, if mere "evidence" is enough, what type of evidence would be > sufficient to deduce that a supernatural entity was behind the universe? > How about the universe itself? Nice try. But how does that prove anything? As demonstrated above, all atheists believe > that something came from nothing, Follow-up error. Again. so that, in and of itself, ought to be > enough to at least infer that something is outside the system. Wrong and from the same false premise and follow-up error. How one > measures the something that made the system is beyond the scope of this > short essay. There he runs..... > > Morality and the scientific method: Most "scientific" atheists will claim > that they will only believe in something that is "empirically testable and > repeatable", or some similar phrase. Yep. Any rational person does this. This is generally a false statement, > and one way to clearly show this to them is to ask them if they consider > themselves to be empirically "moral", or "ethical" people... Surprisingly, "morality" can be "measured".... Then ask them > to prove it. They cannot and most will not even attempt to, as their whole > mindset denies that there can be an "empirically testable" morality. Wrong. A lie. Or pure Ignorance. To > have such a thing requires that there be an external standard against > which to measure, Wrong. You can measure just fine "internally". Measure morality within the group of humanity. and that (in this case) certainly means God. (Although > some of them do appeal to "god" in the idea of an Ideal Observer!) Wrong. Follow-up error. The "ideal observer" is just that. "What would an "ideal observer" see as compared to what we actually see?" It is a thought model. See my > essay/review on Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics for more on this > tremendous argument against man-made ethical systems and the inevitable > knowledge that there can be no ethical systems without a "god".. No evidence, so far from "inevitable". > > When they sputter and spark, and say that the two aren't the same at all, > ask them if they would buy gasoline at a station where a quart was as good > as pint was as good as a gallon. What does that have to do with it? Few would make that mistake more than > once. From this point, it should be easy enough to show them that what > they consider morality is just as valid as Hitler's or Stalin's. Which might or might not have been atheists. For > without a firm and unyielding measure, unaffected by circumstance or > opinion, they can only "feel" that their's is superior. Morality can be measured. You should read up on it, it would spare you to look ignorant. Since this is > their greatest "sin", there goes their argument for empiricism. Follow-up error. It doesn't > necessarily get them to God, but it takes out a crutch. Follow-up error. By showing them > that their entire philosophy rests on emotion - not logic - we can hope to > pull out one support. Since you can't even do that, you have nothing to hope for. > > And it's no fair saying, "Morality is that upon which the majority of > people happen to agree at any given time". If that were true, the vast > majority of humanity agrees that there is (at the very least) a > supernatural, spiritual realm. That is not "morality". That is "theism". Further, since many will want to localize > the morality to a given culture, Wrong. Morality can be measured and tested, regardless of culture. Some "morals" are only valid with a culture, others transcend. the vast majority of human cultures > worship some sort of god - historically and in the present. So, if the > majority rules, there is a God, and that's that. You mix up "majority rules" with "measuring morals". Science isn't something you vote on. Also "truth" is nothing you vote on other then in this funny law system in the USA. What is true, stays true. No matter what you vote. > > When all is said and done (and in the only area of human existence with > more day-to-day effect on our lives than their "science") an atheist will > be unable to provide a standard for his own behavior which he "insists" on > for the existence of God. I'm afraid that the most one can do is to point > out this inarguable inconsistency and then pray that God will allow them > to admit it to themselves. Yeah. Sure.... For most, this is just an excuse to do what > they want to with no fear of condemnation, so don't expect the knowledge > to get them to God - more than likely they will just shrug their shoulders > and say, "Nevertheless, I don't believe in God." Oh, nice. You only behave yourself because you (think you) are watched? Nice. Very nice. > > Oh yes - many will point almost exclusively to "Christians" as the > offenders in crimes moral.... There are far too many instances where this > is true, of course, but against whose morals were they transgressing? If > one reads the Bible, they were transgressing against God's of course, and > more specifically against the morals espoused and insisted upon by Christ! > All this argument does is to deflect the criticism to us, as we claim that > there is such a thing as morality. Oh, there is morality, no doubt. > > See my essay on evolution and morality for a better discussion of how > these two concepts are mutually exclusive. > > Countering the "Do you know how many people have died because of > religion?" argument: This is certainly true - many have. However, in the > last 50 years alone, there have been untold millions of people killed, not > in religious wars, but in purely political wars waged on a helpless > citizenry. And those waging the wars were almost solely atheists. Wrong. The rest > weren't Christian except in some cultural, non-religious sense. Starting > with Hitler catholic and going to Stalin and Mao and the Khmer Rouge, They were bad because of their fundamentalism. Not because they were atheists. we can count > at least 60 million lost souls. Take into account Ethiopia (purely > political murder), Somalia, Rwanda (and on and on and on) and we can see > that these people were not Crusaders nor officers of the Inquisition. They > were folks who shared the central beliefs of all atheists: Any proof for this? There is no God > and thus no morality beyond that in front of me. Wrong. > > Add to that the over 60,000,000 abortions each year worldwide and we have > another 1,200,000,000 humans killed in the last two decades. Plus we have > 12,000,000 children dying due to politically induced starvation each year. > That certainly seems to give atheists the edge, wouldn't you agree? > > Here is where the most resistance comes from: > > The chances (however slim) that there may really be a God leaves one with > the inescapable conclusion that all that they have cherished and come to > rely upon is liable to change. Little do they know ;-), but this is a > tremendous fear to overcome. This leads me to... You only behave yourself because you are watched. I would call that fear. > > Live the Gospel! The church is invisible to those who don't wish to see > it! Sadly, no. The only sure way to show Christ to another is to be Christ to them! > We ought to be in the streets and in the news so often that they can't > escape us. And not just the Christian Coalition, either. I mean that when > the welfare is cut off, the church had better be there to take up the > slack. I'd rather depend on other means. > > I mean that the non-believers know more about the true nature of Christ > than many of us! They know that He loved unconditionally; they know that > He healed the sick and made the blind to see; they know that he fed the > hungry and clothed the poor. Are we? And if we are, then why do we have a > welfare state to dismantle? It should never have been necessary - it would > never have been necessary - if the church had been doing its job. Ehm.... QED? > > Don't lose heart - most of the time when you hear, "I don't believe in > God", what is really being said is, "I won't believe in God", Wrong and the two > are entirely different propositions. If one won't believe, then nothing > you can say or do is going to change their minds. Looking at the nonexistent evidence.... the same follow-up error again. When the Holy Spirit > tells you to stop, then stop, and pray, and go on with your life. Never talked to me or anyone I know outside of mental institutions. I will > say that my own rule of thumb is that I will generally go along in a > debate or discussion until the atheist quits. They almost always will, > usually as soon as you have shown them that their morality is false and > devoid of value and truth. No. We quit when you fail to address the arguments, fail to provide evidence. Repeatedly. You may not "convince" them in the sense that > they agree, but it is easy to prove, Do it then. Above is a long line of follow-up errors, starting with the "primal error". and that will usually be the last you > hear from them. We can only pray that their minds will accept what their > egos cannot, and that they will start thinking again. Thinking constantly... > > My second rule of thumb is that as soon as the debate or discussion > interferes with my family life, I back off and devote only as much > attention to the debate as is necessary to maintain the discussion. Trying > to argue every specious argument and willful misapplication of what you > are trying to say will take forever, so don't do it. Stick to a few points > and make them argue them - allowing the debate to wander will waste your > time. We argued all of them. And won all of them on logic and science. > > I have found that CS Lewis and Francis Schaeffer provide excellent works > for a seeking convert or atheist to ponder. Schaeffer's exposition on > "knowing" is excellent. To encapsulate it: An atheist can complain that we > "can never know enough to be absolutely sure", but this is a test which > applies to everything. We can't be sure that the sun will come up > tomorrow, but few atheists fail to plan for the eventuality! We can know > that which we can know. That is, just because we cannot know fully does > not mean that we can not have confidence in that which we do know. I don't > know everything about my wife, but I know enough to be able to gauge her > moods and opinions with very little input. > > Most atheists don't resist the outlandish assumptions Which are? underlying the > mechanics of evolution, nor do they seriously question the lack of > contemporary or historical transitional forms. Oh. Nice. Countless transitional forms, once you know what they are.... So: WRONG. This does not prevent them > from "knowing" that evolution is a preferable theory to God. Evidence and observations are consistent with evolution. NO evidence or observation point to god. Don't let the > argument of "knowing" divert you from the reality that there is a true > knowledge of God. Such as? It is a given that we will never know all about Him, but > that doesn't mean that what we do know is worthless, or insufficient to > make a reasoned judgment that He exists. From there, one can get to > Christ. So No evidence = No banana. The "primal error" and a bunch of follow-up errors. Started from an unfounded assumption. AND had the guts to say "look at the evidence". Ok. I did look at the "evidence". Did not find it. Tokay -- "A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of." Burt Bacharach Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > 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. > > Your "god of the gaps" gets smaller every day..... Tokay -- "A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of." Burt Bacharach Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <eRk6i.16287$KC4.9223@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "James Brock" > <jimbk@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2705071151020001@66-52-22-32.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <56i6i.16237$KC4.3088@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "James Brock" >>> <jimbk@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>> >>>> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message >>>> news:ts0j53hi2u9bjo389easj23vdv7jd83r9e@4ax.com... >>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 22:11:23 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>> <Jason-2605072211230001@66-52-22-80.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>> In article <mpvh53dv1tjbcl3gv0iu3frl82u9tbg2kb@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:21:16 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>> <Jason-2605072121160001@66-52-22-48.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>> In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7h86@4ax.com>, Free >> Lunch >>>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>>>>> <Jason-2605071857120001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>>>>> In article <f3abu2$be9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>>>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <f3a9gk$8pn$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>>>>>>>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE >>>> cases when >>>>>>>>>>>>> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill >> the >>>>>> person >>>>>>>>>>>>> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the >>>> school >>>>>> full of >>>>>>>>>>>>> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be >> damned. >>>>>> Sounds >>>>>>>>>>>>> like "situational ethics" to me. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to >> become >>>>>> suicide >>>>>>>>>>>> bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand >> your >>>>>> point. I >>>>>>>>>>>> have no problem with teaching children to care about >> people. >>>> Can you >>>>>>>>>>>> understand that situational ethics classes could be used to >>>> brainwash >>>>>>>>>>>> children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and >>>>>> euthanasia. >>>>>>>>>>> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for >>>>>> classes on >>>>>>>>>>> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." >>>>>>>>>> That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers >> could >>>> brainwash >>>>>>>>>> children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology >>>> professors >>>>>>>>>> could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve >> from >>>> non-life >>>>>>>>>> despite the lack of proof that it happened. >>>>>>>>> There is overwhelming evidence that it happened and there is no >>>> evidence >>>>>>>>> that the method by which it happened had anything to do with a >>>>>>>>> supernatural being. Sorry, but your hatred of science causes you >> to >>>> tell >>>>>>>>> repeated falsehoods. Why would a loving God turn you into a >> liar? >>>>>>>> Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's already done, all of the chemical reactions that are part of >> life >>>>>>> are perfectly normal chemical reactions. >>>>>> Was a living cell produced by the chemical reactions? >>>>>> >>>>> You asked if it was proven that it can happen. It was. Now you try to >>>>> move the goal post to one that hasn't yet happened. Fine, keep showing >>>>> us how dishonest you are in approaching this subject. >>>>> >>>>> Anti-evolution Creationism is a lie. Those who repeat the >> anti-evolution >>>>> creationist talking points are repeating those lies. >>>>> >>>> Since there is no god, and life definately exist, the only possible >>>> conclusion is that life created itself through natural processes. >>>> >>>> James Leon Zechariah Brock >>>> 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? I am NOT typing it in again. You won't read it anyway. It has been explained to you countless times how you get amino acids. > > 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." > Jason > > -- "A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of." Burt Bacharach Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <1180345706.613025.106890@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 27 Maj, 18:15, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180251937.912451.87...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 27, 12:21 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > <Jason-2605071857120...@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > >In article <f3abu2$be...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > ><prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > > >> > In article <f3a9gk$8p...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when > > > > > >> >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the > > person > > > > > >> >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the > > school full of > > > > > >> >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. > > Sounds > > > > > >> >> like "situational ethics" to me. > > > > > > > >> > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become > > suicide > > > > > >> > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your > > point. I > > > > > >> > have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you > > > > > >> > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash > > > > > >> > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and > > euthanasia. > > > > > > > >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for > > classes on > > > > > >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." > > > > > > > >That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could > > brainwash > > > > > >children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology > > professors > > > > > >could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from > > non-life > > > > > >despite the lack of proof that it happened. > > > > > > > There is overwhelming evidence that it happened and there is no evidence > > > > > that the method by which it happened had anything to do with a > > > > > supernatural being. Sorry, but your hatred of science causes you to tell > > > > > repeated falsehoods. Why would a loving God turn you into a liar? > > > > > > Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. > > > > > It has been shown in laboratory experiments to happen with viruses, > > > bacteria and fruit flies. > > > > > Next question, please. > > > > > Martin > > > > Please refer me to a website that shows that fruit flies evolved from > > non-life. > > Where else? Even the Bible says life came from non-life. > > > >At one time, someone done an experiment that appeard to prove > > that flies evolved from dead meat. > > There was no experiment. It was an assumption supported by the Bible, > and it wasn't evolution that was being claimed. > > >It was later determined that the flies > > actually came from eggs that were laid in that meat by female flies.- > > Yet another example of reason and evidence disproving religious > beliefs. Google: spontaneous generation 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.