Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <1180351191.205778.294780@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 I have read some science journals in the past 36 years. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <1180362971.809665.115160@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > 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 Bro= > ck" > > > > ><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 t= > ry to > > > > >> > move the goal post to one that hasn't yet happened. Fine, keep s= > howing > > > > >> > us how dishonest you are in approaching this subject. > > > > > > >> > Anti-evolution Creationism is a lie. Those who repeat the anti-e= > volution > > > > >> > 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. Pro= > of > > > > >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 c= > reated > > > > >life. Without proof, some people will conclude that God created life= > and > > > > >others will conclude that life created itself through natural proces= > ses. > > > > >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 natu= > ral > > > 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=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > And, just as a side comment, the Bible says life came from non-life. > After all, where else would it come from, unless it existed from > eternity? God created life from non-life. That is VERY different than a living cell (naturally) evolving from non-life. When I was in college in 1971, the college biology text book had a section related to the "primordial pond" or "primordial soup". The professor told us that the first living cells evolved from non-life in that primordial pond. I have been told that concept is no longer discussed in high school and college biology textbooks. If you google "primordial pond", you should find out more details. We discussed it in class and it was controversial even in 1971. The professor was not able to tell us how the "primordial pond" came to be. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <1180352347.912694.137630@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, I read your comments but am in agreement with the person that wrote the article. My experience in this newsgroup during the past two weeks confired almost everything that was in the article. For example, one poster referred to a fetus as nothing more than an animal. How does it feel to be part of a group of people that have many members that have a callous disregard for the lives of viable unborn unwanted babies? I realize that all atheists do not have that attitude but if you read the same posts that I have read these past two weeks--you will know that I am telling the truth. I did detect the "spirit of hate" in some of the posts and if you are honest--you would agree that you also noticed the spirit of hate unless your bias is so strong that you are not able to see it. If you read all the posts in this newsgroup for about a week--you should also see that spirit of hate reflected in many of the posts. It's easy for me to see it but I doubt that it would be just as easy for many atheists to recognize it when it is present since they have a bias in favor of atheism. Jason Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <f3f055$doq$01$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > 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 Tokay, I read your comments but am in agreement with the person that wrote the article. My experience in this newsgroup during the past two weeks confired almost everything that was in the article. For example, one poster referred to a fetus as nothing more than an animal. How does it feel to be part of a group of people that have many members that have a callous disregard for the lives of viable unborn unwanted babies? I realize that all atheists do not have that attitude but if you read the same posts that I have read these past two weeks--you will know that I am telling the truth. I did detect the "spirit of hate" in some of the posts and if you are honest--you would agree that you also noticed the spirit of hate unless your bias is so strong that you are not able to see it. If you read all the posts in this newsgroup for about a week--you should also see that spirit of hate reflected in many of the posts. It's easy for me to see it but I doubt that it would be just as easy for many atheists to recognize it when it present. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 In article <1180351477.189532.148790@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Martin, I have read the comments of some of those scientists in "ICR Newsletters" during the past 5 years so see no need to re-read that same sort of information in those two books. However, the books would be great for people that do not subscribe to the newletter. Jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On Mon, 28 May 2007 12:20:34 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2805071220350001@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180351477.189532.148790@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: ..... >> 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 > >Martin, >I have read the comments of some of those scientists in "ICR Newsletters" >during the past 5 years so see no need to re-read that same sort of >information in those two books. However, the books would be great for >people that do not subscribe to the newletter. >Jason > The ICR does not do science. They are a religious cult. They are liars. Deal with it. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On 28 Maj, 20:41, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180345706.613025.106...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On 28 Maj, 20:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180351191.205778.294...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 > > I have read some science journals in the past 36 years.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On 28 Maj, 20:56, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180362971.809665.115...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 28 Maj, 04:06, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 28, 4:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: snip > > > 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=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > And, just as a side comment, the Bible says life came from non-life. > > After all, where else would it come from, unless it existed from > > eternity? > > God created life from non-life. That is VERY different than a living cell > (naturally) evolving from non-life. Yes, one is a natural process that can be studied, while the other is a myth that cannot; but in both life comes from non-life. > > When I was in college in 1971, the college biology text book had a section > related to the "primordial pond" or "primordial soup". The professor told > us that the first living cells evolved from non-life in that primordial > pond. I have been told that concept is no longer discussed in high school > and college biology textbooks. If you google "primordial pond", you should > find out more details. We discussed it in class and it was controversial > even in 1971. The professor was not able to tell us how the "primordial > pond" came to be.- Ah well then! Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 On 28 Maj, 21:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180352347.912694.137...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 > > Martin, > I read your comments but am in agreement with the person that wrote the > article. My experience in this newsgroup during the past two weeks > confired almost everything that was in the article. For example, one > poster referred to a fetus as nothing more than an animal. How does it > feel to be part of a group of people that have many members that have a > callous disregard for the lives of viable unborn unwanted babies? How does it feel to constantly lie about the opinions of your opponents to your oponents? It makes you look like an idiot and earns you nothing but contempt. I > realize that all atheists do not have that attitude but if you read the > same posts that I have read these past two weeks--you will know that I am > telling the truth. We all know that you are lying. I did detect the "spirit of hate" in some of the posts > and if you are honest--you would agree that you also noticed the spirit of > hate unless your bias is so strong that you are not able to see it. If you > read all the posts in this newsgroup for about a week--you should also see > that spirit of hate reflected in many of the posts. It's easy for me to > see it but I doubt that it would be just as easy for many atheists to > recognize it when it is present since they have a bias in favor of > atheism. The bias is in favor of honesty. People feel contempt for you because of your incredible dishonesty. You had no right to expect anything else. Quote
Guest AT1 Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180388676.094238.216860@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 28 Maj, 20:41, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1180345706.613025.106...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> On 27 Maj, 18:15, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <1180251937.912451.87...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Ma= >> rtin >>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On May 27, 12:21 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>> In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7...@4ax.com>, Free Lun= >> ch >>>>>>> <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 kil= >> l 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 da= >> mned. >>>>> Sounds >>>>>>>>>>>> like "situational ethics" to me. >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to b= >> ecome >>>>> 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 cou= >> ld >>>>> brainwash >>>>>>>>> children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology >>>>> professors >>>>>>>>> could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve f= >> rom >>>>> 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 lia= >> r? >>>>>>> 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- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >>> >> Yes, supported by the Bible and disproved by science. Another piece >> of reality for you to ignore. > > Are you certain that the scientist that developed the theory was a > Christian? I seem to recall that it was a scientist that was an advocate > of evolution that developed that theory. > Jason > > Given your other pathetic memory lapses--you'll forgive me if I don't assign much weight to your 'recollection'. -- AT1 http://www.godblows.net Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 2:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180345706.613025.106...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > gudl...@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 which isn't evolution. And you know that. Or you should. Thus you are either dishonest or willfully ignorant. Take your pick. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 2:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180351191.205778.294...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > > I have read some science journals in the past 36 years. Then you should know more about science than your posts indicate. That's all I'm saying. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <1180388676.094238.216860@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 28 Maj, 20:41, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180345706.613025.106...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On 27 Maj, 18:15, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1180251937.912451.87...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Ma= > rtin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 27, 12:21 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > In article <rlrh5395kqg7dlt21rumfrodta0cdq7...@4ax.com>, Free Lun= > ch > > > > > > > > <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 kil= > l 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 da= > mned. > > > > Sounds > > > > > > > >> >> like "situational ethics" to me. > > > > > > > > > >> > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to b= > ecome > > > > 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 cou= > ld > > > > brainwash > > > > > > > >children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology > > > > professors > > > > > > > >could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve f= > rom > > > > 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 lia= > r? > > > > > > > > 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- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > Yes, supported by the Bible and disproved by science. Another piece > of reality for you to ignore. Are you certain that the scientist that developed the theory was a Christian? I seem to recall that it was a scientist that was an advocate of evolution that developed that theory. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <1180388848.806915.313210@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 28 Maj, 20:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180351191.205778.294...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 28, 2:11 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <1180327601.536678.172...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, M= > artin > > > > > > 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 w= > ould > > > > 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 cr= > eated > > > > life and > > > > > > > > > >others will conclude that life created itself through natu= > ral > > > > 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 evide= > nce. > > > > > > > > > > > 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 th= > rough > > > > natural > > > > > > > > processes when there is absolutely no evidence to support it? > > > > > > > > > Why shouldn't you accept the conclsuion that life emerged throu= > gh > > > > > > > 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 tha= > t 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 cre= > ate > > > > > 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 livi= > ng > > > > > 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 19= > 71. > > > > Our biology professor (an evolutionist) was hoping that a scientist w= > ould > > > > 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 > > > > I have read some science journals in the past 36 years.- Skjul tekst i an= > f=F8rselstegn - > > If you have, you have been lying. If you have not, you have been > lying. This reminds me of when I was in grade school. Name calling was popular in those days. I guess that some people never grow up. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 2:56 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180362971.809665.115...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > And, just as a side comment, the Bible says life came from non-life. > > After all, where else would it come from, unless it existed from > > eternity? > > God created life from non-life. God deson't exist. What amazes me is that you expect us to believe your crap when you don't seriously believe it yourself. You invoke Pascal's Wager when you say "What if you are wrong?" Well, what if _you_ are wrong? You can't seriously introduce the concept of doubt without simultaneously invoking the very real possibility of God's non-existance at which point you are admitting that God might not exist. So why would you expect us to believe he exists when you've already introduced doubt? Pascal's Wager supports the hypothesis that no theist seriously believes in God but rather simply hopes God exists so that they have something to hold onto as they get older to relieve their fear of death. It's like any other religion. > That is VERY different than a living cell > (naturally) evolving from non-life. > > When I was in college in 1971, the college biology text book had a section > related to the "primordial pond" or "primordial soup". The professor told > us that the first living cells evolved from non-life in that primordial > pond. I have been told that concept is no longer discussed in high school > and college biology textbooks. If you google "primordial pond", you should > find out more details. We discussed it in class and it was controversial > even in 1971. The professor was not able to tell us how the "primordial > pond" came to be. It was only controversial because their are ignorant fools like you who mindlessly believe in creationism without question. Life had to come from somewhere and "primorial pond" would refer to any source from which the stuff of life may have come from. To say "that concept is no longer discussed in high school and college" is either a lie or wishful thinking on your part. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <1180389626.658700.240490@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 28 Maj, 21:11, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180352347.912694.137...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > Martin, > > I read your comments but am in agreement with the person that wrote the > > article. My experience in this newsgroup during the past two weeks > > confired almost everything that was in the article. For example, one > > poster referred to a fetus as nothing more than an animal. How does it > > feel to be part of a group of people that have many members that have a > > callous disregard for the lives of viable unborn unwanted babies? > > How does it feel to constantly lie about the opinions of your > opponents to your oponents? It makes you look like an idiot and earns > you nothing but contempt. > > I > > realize that all atheists do not have that attitude but if you read the > > same posts that I have read these past two weeks--you will know that I am > > telling the truth. > > We all know that you are lying. > > I did detect the "spirit of hate" in some of the posts > > and if you are honest--you would agree that you also noticed the spirit of > > hate unless your bias is so strong that you are not able to see it. If you > > read all the posts in this newsgroup for about a week--you should also see > > that spirit of hate reflected in many of the posts. It's easy for me to > > see it but I doubt that it would be just as easy for many atheists to > > recognize it when it is present since they have a bias in favor of > > atheism. > > The bias is in favor of honesty. People feel contempt for you because > of your incredible dishonesty. You had no right to expect anything > else. I had to set next to a lady (during a church service) that must have used a bottle of perfume. I had a hard time breathing. However, after about 30 minutes, I did not even notice the smell of the perfume. That lady probably noticed the smell of the perfume while she was putting it on but probably did not smell it for the rest of the day. I believe that you and many other people that have been atheists for over 10 years are like that lady. Many atheists have developed the spirit of hate but have had it so long, that they are not even aware of it. You probably do not even notice is when fellow atheists are displaying their spirits of hate. However, someone like myself can visit the atheist website and read the posts and clearly see the spirit of hate displayed in lots of posts. In other words, just as the lady did not notice the strong odor of her perfume, you do not notice the spirit of hate when it is displayed by other people or yourself. When I read the article that I posted, he mentioned various examples such as atheists that view abortion as a medical procedure instead of what it really is which is the killing of an unborn baby. That shows a callous disregard for life. The spirit of hate is directed towards: outspoken christians outspoken members of the pro-life movement outspoken advocates of creation science outspoken opponents of homosexual marriages Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:11:49 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2805071911500001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1180388848.806915.313210@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 28 Maj, 20:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: .... >> > I have read some science journals in the past 36 years. >> >> If you have, you have been lying. If you have not, you have been >> lying. > >This reminds me of when I was in grade school. Name calling was popular in >those days. I guess that some people never grow up. No, it's not name calling, its an observation about your behavior. You have routinely told lies and never acknowledged your lies when you were called on them. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 3:11 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180352347.912694.137...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 stop 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? > I read your comments but am in agreement with the person that wrote the > article. So you think atheists are evil then, lacking any morals whatsoever. What is the point of us talking to you then? You may think I've been heavy handed with you of late but the fact is that you are now discussing the very same topics that we discussed three weeks ago and you are making the very same arguments that you made then and which we already refuted. Forgive us if we think you're not reading what we write. We tend to resent you making the same arguments all over again when you know full well that we've already refuted them. I also resent you repeatedly telling me that I "don't understand" when we are talking about things which we clearly understand but you don't! > My experience in this newsgroup during the past two weeks > confired almost everything that was in the article. Consider how the opinions atheists have of Christians are confirmed by your unwillingness to admit that you know absolutely nothing about the science you claim to be wrong. You could have spent the last three weeks reading up about evolution and discovering the truth. You obviously didn't. Why should we even bother with you at this point? > For example, one > poster referred to a fetus as nothing more than an animal. A fetus is a POC. I am a POC. You are a POC. And we are all homosapien which is part of the primate family. Don't think for a moment that Kelsey is a model atheist. That would be like saying Hitler is a model Catholic. Do you think I am somebody who regards a fetus as no different than a "parasitic meatsack"? Do you? > How does it > feel to be part of a group of people that have many members that have a > callous disregard for the lives of viable unborn unwanted babies? You didn't answer my question either so I will ask you again. > > 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? Atheists are by no means a unified group: atheists are simply people who don't believe the lies that theists tell them. There's no other qualities you can attribute to atheists except the lack of belief. To say "Atheists are callous" is pure prejudice and hatred and it says more about you than it does about atheists. > I realize that all atheists do not have that attitude How kind of you to notice. > but if you read the > same posts that I have read these past two weeks--you will know that I am > telling the truth. I stopped reading Kelsey's posts about a week ago. I also have avoided reading any of your replies to him for the same reason. It is possible for two people to be on different sides of an issue and still have both of them be psychotic. So what? > I did detect the "spirit of hate" in some of the posts > and if you are honest--you would agree that you also noticed the spirit of > hate unless your bias is so strong that you are not able to see it. We've talked about this before. What amazes me is that you can't see the level of hatred coming out of your own posts. I've tried pointing this out to you but you've just dismissed it. Near as I can tell, you hate atheists, pregnant women who might their lives back, Mexicans, Indians and the Chinese and that's just off the top of my head, all based on the posts I've seen from you this past month. You think atheists lack morality, that Mexicans are there in the US commiting crimes and that you can't trust the Indians - or at least not the Chinese who are communist and therefore don't live up to their international agreements. Care to disagree? > If you > read all the posts in this newsgroup for about a week--you should also see > that spirit of hate reflected in many of the posts. Absolutely. I've seen a lot of hatred from you. I'm growing tired of it. > It's easy for me to > see it but I doubt that it would be just as easy for many atheists to > recognize it when it is present since they have a bias in favor of > atheism. It's not a bias. It's a question of seeing clearly. You, after all, are the one who's beliefs depend on faith. We just see the world for the way it is. How is that biased? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 3:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180351477.189532.148...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 28, 2:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > 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. > I have read the comments of some of those scientists in "ICR Newsletters" > during the past 5 years so see no need to re-read that same sort of > information in those two books. However, the books would be great for > people that do not subscribe to the newletter. Jason, Are you aware that creationist organisations employ "scientists" to say what they want them to say? Many of these "scientists" don't do any research and just appear at the organisation's bidding in an attempt to discredit real science. Real scientists get papers published in actual peer reviewed scientific journals. You'll be surprised how many of these "scientists" don't have any research at all in their resumes. We've encountered such "scientists" before. Don't assume we haven't. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 10:08 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180388676.094238.216...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 28 Maj, 20:41, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180345706.613025.106...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On 27 Maj, 18:15, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > 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- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > Yes, supported by the Bible and disproved by science. Another piece > > of reality for you to ignore. > > Are you certain that the scientist that developed the theory was a > Christian? I seem to recall that it was a scientist that was an advocate > of evolution that developed that theory. Spontaneous generation is not evolution. In fact it is the opposite of evolution. Evolution claims that life descended from smpler forms and, thus, only viruses (or something even smaller) could conceivably emerge from the basic building blocks of life. Spontaneous generation may not be mentioned specifically in the Christian Bible but the Talmud (Shabbos 107b) "states that lice may be killed on Shabbos because there is no prohibition to kill animals that are the product of spontaneous generation". (See http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2006/01/spontaneous-generation-and-nyc-water.html ) Spontaneous generation is a religious belief that has been proven wrong by science. It is just like creationism in that regard. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 10:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I had to set next to a lady (during a church service) that must have used > a bottle of perfume. I had a hard time breathing. However, after about 30 > minutes, I did not even notice the smell of the perfume. That lady > probably noticed the smell of the perfume while she was putting it on but > probably did not smell it for the rest of the day. I believe that you and > many other people that have been atheists for over 10 years are like that > lady. Many atheists have developed the spirit of hate but have had it so > long, that they are not even aware of it. You're speaking about yourself here. All I detect at this point conimg from you is hatred and intolerance. You are not interested in even reading our comments because we are atheists. You _say_ you read our comments but then don't respond to them but instead copy and paste generic responses to send out to all of us. > You probably do not even notice > is when fellow atheists are displaying their spirits of hate. However, > someone like myself can visit the atheist website and read the posts and > clearly see the spirit of hate displayed in lots of posts. In other words, > just as the lady did not notice the strong odor of her perfume, you do not > notice the spirit of hate when it is displayed by other people or > yourself. When I read the article that I posted, he mentioned various > examples such as atheists that view abortion as a medical procedure > instead of what it really is which is the killing of an unborn baby. That > shows a callous disregard for life. The spirit of hate is directed > towards: > outspoken christians > outspoken members of the pro-life movement > outspoken advocates of creation science > outspoken opponents of homosexual marriages Your hatred is directed at atheists immigrants communists feminists "evolutionists" homosexuals It is sublimely ironic that you would claim that people who are vocally opposed to hatred of homosexuals are somehow advocating hatred! Martin Quote
Guest AT1 Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <9k4n5352rei3v65rm78385eh2i50fkb3e7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:11:49 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2805071911500001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <1180388848.806915.313210@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, >>> gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >>> >>>> On 28 Maj, 20:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> ... >> >>>>> I have read some science journals in the past 36 years. >>>> If you have, you have been lying. If you have not, you have been >>>> lying. >>> This reminds me of when I was in grade school. Name calling was popular in >>> those days. I guess that some people never grow up. >> No, it's not name calling, its an observation about your behavior. You >> have routinely told lies and never acknowledged your lies when you were >> called on them. > > lier lier pants on fire > > That would have been so much more of a zinger were you able to spell a simple four-letter word correctly. -- AT1 http://www.godblows.net Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 11:46 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > The advocates of evolution keep posting messages indicating that evolution > theory is based on science and evidence. It is. > When they tell me that the first > living cell evolved as a result of natural forces, I ask for the evidence > that it happened that way. And evidence has been provided. Have you bothered to look at any of the links? http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment http://www.astrobio.net/news/article461.html http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_urey_experiment.html http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479 http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65/ http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/miller_urey_experiment.html There are certainly more sites out there. > As of yet, the evidence has not been provided. See above. > The bottom line is that there is NO evidence that the first living cell > evolved as a result of natural forces. That's a lie that you keep repeating over and over. We are tired of it. > I won't accept that it happened > this way unless you or someone else provides the evidence. Think about > it--is that too much to ask? We have. You haven't. > I had the same problem 36 years ago when my college biology professor told > the class that the first living cells evolved naturally in the primordial > pond. When a student asked him for the evidence that it happened that way, > the professor said that there was no evidence so just accept it and > believe it. He later told us that he expected that a scientist would prove > that a living cell could evolve naturally if the conditions were right. > That was 36 years ago. It has not happened as of yet. Don't expect me or > any of the 90 scientists that agree with me to change our minds until the > evidence is provided. The 90 frauds you cited were not scientists. You yourself said they contributed to IRC newsletters. There's nothing more to be said. You need to rely on evidence and not the stated "opinions" of frauds and liars. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 11:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180405105.458739.189...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 29, 2:56 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180362971.809665.115...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > And, just as a side comment, the Bible says life came from non-life. > > > > After all, where else would it come from, unless it existed from > > > > eternity? > > > > God created life from non-life. > > > God deson't exist. > > > What amazes me is that you expect us to believe your crap when you > > don't seriously believe it yourself. You invoke Pascal's Wager when > > you say "What if you are wrong?" Well, what if _you_ are wrong? You > > can't seriously introduce the concept of doubt without simultaneously > > invoking the very real possibility of God's non-existance at which > > point you are admitting that God might not exist. So why would you > > expect us to believe he exists when you've already introduced doubt? > > Pascal's Wager supports the hypothesis that no theist seriously > > believes in God but rather simply hopes God exists so that they have > > something to hold onto as they get older to relieve their fear of > > death. It's like any other religion. > > > > That is VERY different than a living cell > > > (naturally) evolving from non-life. > > > > When I was in college in 1971, the college biology text book had a section > > > related to the "primordial pond" or "primordial soup". The professor told > > > us that the first living cells evolved from non-life in that primordial > > > pond. I have been told that concept is no longer discussed in high school > > > and college biology textbooks. If you google "primordial pond", you should > > > find out more details. We discussed it in class and it was controversial > > > even in 1971. The professor was not able to tell us how the "primordial > > > pond" came to be. > > > It was only controversial because their are ignorant fools like you > > who mindlessly believe in creationism without question. Life had to > > come from somewhere and "primorial pond" would refer to any source > > from which the stuff of life may have come from. To say "that concept > > is no longer discussed in high school and college" is either a lie or > > wishful thinking on your part. > Are you saying that the primorial pond concept is still discussed in high > school and college biology books? Where's your evidence to the effect that it isn't? I found two references to the "primorial pond" in the links I provided in my last post. Once again, you are clearly either just making stuff up or passing on the lies of others. Martin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.