Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On May 29, 2:08 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Answer this question: > Has an experiment been done which proves that a living cell can evolve > naturally? Many experiments have been done in this field. In 1953, the Miller-Uley experiment showed that amino acids could form spontaneously from elements present in the "primorial soup". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment ) Other experiments showed that bilipid membranes can form spontaneously. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer ) Sidney Fox's research showed that amino acids can spontaneously form protein chains. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) Protein chains can then guide the formation of RNA chains just as RNA chains are known to guide the formation of protein chains. (See http://www.hhmi.org/news/lindquist2.html ). German scientists have already produced molecules in the laboratory that are capable of reproducing themselves and are therefore alive. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm ). Primative cells would have formed as a way to prevent the contents of the cell from drying out. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm ). The simplest cells would have been prokaryote cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote ) which would have been the ancestors of modern bacteria and archaea while more advanced eukaryotic cells (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic ) would have been the ancestors of modern animal, plant and fungis cells. Eukaryotic cells could have formed through a process known as viral eukaryogenesis (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_eukaryogenesis ) in which a virus forms an endosymbiosic relationship with a host prokaryote cell. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory ) Mitochondria and plastids are also believed to have arisen as a result of endosymbiosis, the evidence being that mitochondria and plastids share characteristics with bacteria cells, the only difference being that they cannot survive independent of the rest of the cell, but that's fine because human cells cannot survive independent of the rest of the body either. In both cases, the parts have evolved to depend on the whole. Most of this information has been posted already. You would have known all this information already if you had actually read a paper on the subject like you said you had. Here's an actual paper on the subject that you can now read: http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/biology.html Martin Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:55:01 -0700, Jason wrote: > How do evolutionists believe that the first living cell came to be? Evolutionists are the wrong people to ask; the correct people to ask are abiogenesists. You know, completely different field of study and all that. -- “Sacrifice all illusions on the alter of truth.” S. Ratner (paraphrased) Quote
Guest bramble Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 Well, Jason. You are posing as being shocked by the abortion and calling these organisms "babies". I would be ready to sympathize with your position if so many conservative Christians were not in favor of death penalty and also in favor slavery and racism (this was mostly on the past). So you, I mean the general group of Christians, are from long ago speaking of a Most loving God, an infinite benevolent God. I have read some stories in your Bible about your god ordering the killing of all the women and children of some whole populations. And not even some whole populations but the all the population of the damned planet, in the so called Great Flood. This sort of god looks to me a rather criminal and murderous god. And all their followers are tainted by the same stories written in the Bible. You are gulty of mudering by asociation. Conspiracy to justify murder, I would call it. I am not feeling hate for Christians. I am feeling sadness and fear of these damned followers of Christ and think that they deserve an hour or two of suffering in Hell, but not an enternity. In my condition of human being and atheist, a day in Hell would be too cruel for any human or animal to endure. And by the way, speaking of Hell, this is another prove of the cruelty of your god. You see. I can also can show myself as a human being compasionate and loving. Bramble On 28 mayo, 20:11, 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? 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 bramble Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 28 mayo, 19:56, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180362971.809665.115...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > 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. Of course, the primordial soup is nothing but a guess. We have not the faintest idea of how could be working this primordial soup if there was any. We have not enough knowledge to explain that theory. But our lack of intelligence about the priomordial soup, is not sufficient reason to believe that god crated life on the this Earth or in anywhere else. Quote
Guest bramble Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 28 mayo, 20:33, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Mon, 28 May 2007 12:20:34 -0700, in alt.atheism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2805071220350...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <1180351477.189532.148...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >Phipps <martinphip...@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. ICR means Institute of Creation Science. It is a religious institution. Bramble Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <1180437732.834602.80240@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 29 Maj, 04:08, 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: > > > > > > 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. > > What theory are you talking about? People (even Christians) became > aware that flies are not the result of spontaneous generation (an idea > pushed by the Bible) long before Darwin developed his theory. > Furthermore a great many Christians accept that evolution is a fact, > including the nuns, priests and brothers who taught it to me. You > continue to babble incoherent nonsense. Do the advocates of abiogenesis believe that life can evolve from non-life? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <Xns993F568C27F81freddybear@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > news:Jason-2805072255010001@66-52-22-3.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > > > How do evolutionists believe that the first living cell came to be? > > > > We don't know yet. The advocates of creation science know. Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-2905071241540001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > In article <Xns993F568C27F81freddybear@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> news:Jason-2805072255010001@66-52-22-3.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: >> >> > How do evolutionists believe that the first living cell came to be? >> > >> >> We don't know yet. > > The advocates of creation science know. > No they don't. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <1180442340.366878.229220@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 29 Maj, 06:13, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180406926.346646.109...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > Martin, > > No, I was not aware of that. As far as I know, the staff members of ICR do > > not call themselvs scientists. However, when they write articles, they > > place Ph.D after their names--if they have Ph.D degrees. It's difficult > > for people that are advocates of creation science to get their articles > > published in journals since their articles are usually rejected due to > > bias. However, I'm sure you would believe the articles were rejected for a > > different reason than bias. > > We are all sure that you have no evidence that they are rejected due > to bias. Without evidence your accusation is meaningless. I do not have evidence. I've seen several articles in the ICR newsletter over the years related to this subject. They claim that their articles do not make it through the peer review process. It's their opinion that it's related to bias. They plan to not give up and submit more article this year with hopes of getting some of them published. Quote
Guest bramble Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 mayo, 04:46, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: Jason, Jason!: Don't be such a dishonest man. Evolution is a theory about "how living beings have evolved". It is a theory based on observations of fosils, atomic dating of minerals, geology and a little bit of logic. Your are confusing "evolution" with the "origins of life". We have not yet any theory about the origins of life. But people that do not believe in a creator god, just imagine that the first glimpses of life had come out from ordinary matter. But we have not knowledge enough to explain how does this thing started. And that is all. We only have a limited knowledge. We are human. But our limited intelligence is enoug to see clearly that you, the theists, are a bunch of swindlers and con-men. Bramble > Martin, > The advocates of evolution keep posting messages indicating that evolution > theory is based on science and evidence. 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. As of yet, the evidence has not been provided. > The bottom line is that there is NO evidence that the first living cell > evolved as a result of natural forces. 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? > 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. > jason Quote
Guest bramble Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 mayo, 04:59, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180406524.191921.267...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > No, but it was obvious from some of the posts that some people believe > that an abortion is just a medical procedure. I do not hate anyone. Hi, Jason: Here you are again faigning a disgust for the murder of babies, as you call it. If you want to show your disgust with murdering infants, unborns, children and women, you have to reject and denounce the Bible as a book full of hate, murdering and genocides. All this was ordered by god himself. For as long as Christians would held the Bible, specially the OT, as a Holy Book, you have not any credit to preach us about pity for the fetus, even if you call them babies. Bramble Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <8d9ui4-0qe.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:55:01 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > How do evolutionists believe that the first living cell came to be? > > Evolutionists are the wrong people to ask; the correct people to ask are > abiogenesists. You know, completely different field of study and all > that. Various people have told me that Evolution and Abiogenesis are separate fields. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> said: >[snips] > >On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:55:01 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> How do evolutionists believe that the first living cell came to be? > >Evolutionists are the wrong people to ask; the correct people to ask are >abiogenesists. You know, completely different field of study and all >that. No he doesn't know that, because "evolutionist" is the creationists' invented term for any anti-creationist. Buying in to "evolutionist" is buying in to evolution as a faith. Don't accept "evolutionist" as a descriptor.. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> said: >[snips] > >On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:55:01 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> How do evolutionists believe that the first living cell came to be? > >Evolutionists are the wrong people to ask; the correct people to ask are >abiogenesists. You know, completely different field of study and all >that. "Evolutionist" is the creationists' invented term for any anti-creationist. Buying in to "evolutionist" is buying in to evolution as a faith. Don't accept "evolutionist" as a descriptor.. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <1180465208.313920.130170@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, Jason. You are posing as being shocked by the abortion and > calling these organisms "babies". I would be ready to sympathize with > your position if so many conservative Christians were not in favor of > death penalty and also in favor slavery and racism (this was mostly on > the past). So you, I mean the general group of Christians, are from > long ago speaking of a Most loving God, an infinite benevolent God. I > have read some stories in your Bible about your god ordering the > killing of all the women and children of some whole populations. And > not even some whole populations but the all the population of the > damned planet, in the so called Great Flood. This sort of god looks > to me a rather criminal and murderous god. And all their followers > are tainted by the same stories written in the Bible. You are gulty > of mudering by asociation. Conspiracy to justify murder, I would call > it. > I am not feeling hate for Christians. I am feeling sadness and fear > of these damned followers of Christ and think that they deserve an > hour or two of suffering in Hell, but not an enternity. > In my condition of human being and atheist, a day in Hell would be too > cruel for any human or animal to endure. And by the way, speaking of > Hell, this is another prove of the cruelty of your god. > You see. I can also can show myself as a human being compasionate and > loving. > Bramble Bramble, I will respond to some these issues. John 3:16 makes it clear that God does not want anyone to go to hell which is the reason he sent Jesus to suffer and die for our sins so that we don't have to suffer and die for our sins. If people decide to turn their backs on God and not accept his son as their saviour, that is not God's fault. If those people eventually end up in hell, it is NOT because God sent them to hell--instead they ended up in hell because they rejected God, his son and the gift of salvation. Don't blame God for sending people to hell--instead, blame the people that turned their backs on God. There are many examples in the Old Testament about people that turned their backs on God or rejected God. In those stories, God stopped blessing those people. However, when those people stopped rebelling aganist God, God was willing to accept them back into a relationship. Related to abortion and execution: I found a verse in the book of Psalms indicating that God views the blood of children as "innocent blood". We want to protect the lives of unborn babies since we believe they also have innocent blood. On the other hand, people that are on death row (unless they are innocent of their crimes) do NOT have innocent blood. It is for that reason that millions of Christians support executions. There are scriptures in the Old Testament indicating that people were put to death for committing major sins such as murder. It's my guess that some of the people that are against executions are advocates of pro choice. That is confusing to me since it appears that they want to preserve the lives of people that do not have innocent blood but have no problem when abortion doctors kill babies that have innocent blood. Quote
Guest bramble Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 mayo, 21:35, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180465208.313920.130...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, You better go to study the sins of your god, as stated in your holy bible. I do not admit any more fake reasoning. It is stupid to say that a god himself had to send his son to be killed in cross to fogive our sins. It is totally stupid. Why he waited so long? He has to die his son in a cross? He could have forgive the sins of humanity all right; just with the flap of an imaginary finger. The first thing is he could had not any need to create evil; and just in case he could have wiped evil from the Universe. This story about god is a total stupidity. Don't doubt of my ability to think logically. I am not that stupid. Try to swindle other people, nor atheists. You are squandering your precious time posting here in "alt.atheism". Go after the islamic people to preach to them. Bramble > bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, Jason. You are posing as being shocked by the abortion and > > calling these organisms "babies". I would be ready to sympathize with > > your position if so many conservative Christians were not in favor of > > death penalty and also in favor slavery and racism (this was mostly on > > the past). So you, I mean the general group of Christians, are from > > long ago speaking of a Most loving God, an infinite benevolent God. I > > have read some stories in your Bible about your god ordering the > > killing of all the women and children of some whole populations. And > > not even some whole populations but the all the population of the > > damned planet, in the so called Great Flood. This sort of god looks > > to me a rather criminal and murderous god. And all their followers > > are tainted by the same stories written in the Bible. You are gulty > > of mudering by asociation. Conspiracy to justify murder, I would call > > it. > > I am not feeling hate for Christians. I am feeling sadness and fear > > of these damned followers of Christ and think that they deserve an > > hour or two of suffering in Hell, but not an enternity. > > In my condition of human being and atheist, a day in Hell would be too > > cruel for any human or animal to endure. And by the way, speaking of > > Hell, this is another prove of the cruelty of your god. > > You see. I can also can show myself as a human being compasionate and > > loving. > > Bramble > > Bramble, > I will respond to some these issues. > > John 3:16 makes it clear that God does not want anyone to go to hell which > is the reason he sent Jesus to suffer and die for our sins so that we > don't have to suffer and die for our sins. If people decide to turn their > backs on God and not accept his son as their saviour, that is not God's > fault. If those people eventually end up in hell, it is NOT because God > sent them to hell--instead they ended up in hell because they rejected > God, his son and the gift of salvation. Don't blame God for sending people > to hell--instead, blame the people that turned their backs on God. There > are many examples in the Old Testament about people that turned their > backs on God or rejected God. In those stories, God stopped blessing those > people. However, when those people stopped rebelling aganist God, God was > willing to accept them back into a relationship. > > Related to abortion and execution: > I found a verse in the book of Psalms indicating that God views the blood > of children as "innocent blood". We want to protect the lives of unborn > babies since we believe they also have innocent blood. > > On the other hand, people that are on death row (unless they are innocent > of their crimes) do NOT have innocent blood. > It is for that reason that millions of Christians support executions. > There are scriptures in the Old Testament indicating that people were put > to death for committing major sins such as murder. > > It's my guess that some of the people that are against executions are > advocates of pro choice. That is confusing to me since it appears that > they want to preserve the lives of people that do not have innocent blood > but have no problem when abortion doctors kill babies that have innocent > blood. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <1180466046.337053.150430@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 28 mayo, 19:56, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180362971.809665.115...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > 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. > > Of course, the primordial soup is nothing but a guess. We have not > the faintest idea of how could be working this primordial soup if > there was any. We have not enough knowledge to explain that theory. > > But our lack of intelligence about the priomordial soup, is not > sufficient reason > to believe that god crated life on the this Earth or in anywhere else. > =BFWhy not? By the most simple logic. If god wanted to create men at > his own image he had not any need to create also a Universe so vast. > On the other hand, if god wanted to comunicate with the men, he had > done a nasty piece of a job. For only a handful of human beings have > any knowledge of the true god. Most people is worshiping fake gods > and doctrines. So, with this simple argumentation, I know that god > does not exist at all. In case there were a real god, has nothing to > do the god that portray the religions. In general, religious leaders > are nothing but swindlers and con-men. > You were talking about hate. I hope you would not see nay hate in my > words. I am trying to sound logical and sober. I only hate lies and > fake doctrines. > Bramble. Bramble, I did not detect any evidence of the spirit of hate in your posts. I hope that you keep an open mind on these issues. I hope that in reference to the primordial soup concept--that the people that believe it are relying on "faith" instead of evidence. One the questions that my biology professor could answer about the primordial pond was: "How did the primordial pond come to be?" Think about that question. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 In article <1180466455.275080.314740@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 28 mayo, 20:33, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Mon, 28 May 2007 12:20:34 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-2805071220350...@66-52-22-81.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >In article <1180351477.189532.148...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >Phipps <martinphip...@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. > > > ICR means Institute of Creation Science. It is a religious > institution. > Bramble Yes, that is true. It's a religious organization and they also operate a Christian College. Quote
Guest bramble Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 mayo, 21:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180466046.337053.150...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > Bramble, > I did not detect any evidence of the spirit of hate in your posts. I hope > that you keep an open mind on these issues. I hope that in reference to > the primordial soup concept--that the people that believe it are relying > on "faith" instead of evidence. One the questions that my biology > professor could answer about the primordial pond was: "How did the > primordial pond come to be?" Think about that question. > Jason There is not any serious problem of imagining how a primordial soup can start. The most common trouble is that this people involved in this search lacks some key elements to found out how it could have started the first living cells, and how they have evolved. Perhaps one day they will find them, perhaps no. First of all we have to be aware of our limitations. The troubles I have with religion do not come from science, but from my own logical thinking. The general panorama of religions show clearly a case of swindling and political control of people. Bramble Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 Maj, 07:24, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Mon, 28 May 2007 20:26:09 -0700, AT1 <notyourbusin...@godblows.net> > wrote: > - Refer: <PdKdnVSZW5_EAMbbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdn...@comcast.com> > > > > > > >Jason wrote: snip > >That would have been so much more of a zinger were you able to spell a > >simple four-letter word correctly. > > Jason is a good Xtian. > He does not know any four letter words. And he has the amazing ability to lie and feel morally superior simultaneously. > > --- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 Maj, 21:41, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180437732.834602.80...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 29 Maj, 04:08, 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: > > > > > > > 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. > > > What theory are you talking about? People (even Christians) became > > aware that flies are not the result of spontaneous generation (an idea > > pushed by the Bible) long before Darwin developed his theory. > > Furthermore a great many Christians accept that evolution is a fact, > > including the nuns, priests and brothers who taught it to me. You > > continue to babble incoherent nonsense. > > Do the advocates of abiogenesis believe that life can evolve from non-life?- The above is remarkably stupid even for you. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 Maj, 21:41, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <Xns993F568C27F81freddyb...@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone > > <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >news:Jason-2805072255010001@66-52-22-3.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > > > > How do evolutionists believe that the first living cell came to be? > > > We don't know yet. > > The advocates of creation science know. Oh, why don't you post the study they have done? They have, in fact, completed no studies making the term "creation science" a preposterous lie. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 Maj, 21:50, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1180442340.366878.229...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 29 Maj, 06:13, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1180406926.346646.109...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > Martin, > > > No, I was not aware of that. As far as I know, the staff members of ICR do > > > not call themselvs scientists. However, when they write articles, they > > > place Ph.D after their names--if they have Ph.D degrees. It's difficult > > > for people that are advocates of creation science to get their articles > > > published in journals since their articles are usually rejected due to > > > bias. However, I'm sure you would believe the articles were rejected for a > > > different reason than bias. > > > We are all sure that you have no evidence that they are rejected due > > to bias. Without evidence your accusation is meaningless. > > I do not have evidence. I've seen several articles in the ICR newsletter > over the years related to this subject. They claim that their articles do > not make it through the peer review process. It's their opinion that it's > related to bias. They plan to not give up and submit more article this > year with hopes of getting some of them published.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 [snips] On Sun, 27 May 2007 11:51:01 -0700, Jason wrote: > 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. Wait a sec. First, you're demonstrating your near-total absence of even the basics of having a clue about science... then you're demanding proof ? Fine; prove God exists. Oh, whoops, can't do it. Very good, you're now a non-believer. How can you be as stupid as you are and still manage to breathe without assistance? Every time you open your gob, you end up not merely looking stupid, but actually showing your own positions to violate your own requirements. -- Even if you ban all books, you can’t ban the mind. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 29, 2007 Posted May 29, 2007 On 29 Maj, 22:15, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <8d9ui4-0qe....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [snips] > > > On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:55:01 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > > How do evolutionists believe that the first living cell came to be? > > > Evolutionists are the wrong people to ask; the correct people to ask are > > abiogenesists. You know, completely different field of study and all > > that. > > Various people have told me that Evolution and Abiogenesis are separate fields. Don't you believe them? Jason you are hilarious. 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.