Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <v8bv53p0hl0lhao6igf98vtvf50c5dj2j0@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 21:22:47 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <egvu53t51qd4idp1259l0j184bg8jdvmeb@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:30:31 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> > >> > >> >I have stated in other posts that the main source of disagreement is in > >> >relation to abiogenesis and common descent. I have also stated that I > >> >believe that God created mankind; some animals; some plants and after the > >> >creation process was finished--that evolution kicked in. Even Darwin > >> >mentioned the 'Creator" in his famous book. Darwin used these words in the > >> >last paragraph of chapter 14: > >> >"...breathed into a few forms or into one..." That appears to me to be > >> >related to information in the first chapter of Genesis. > >> > > >> > >> Yes or no question: Is Darwin the be-all/end-all of evolution? > >> > > >He developed the theory of evolution. > > Yes or no question: Is Darwin the be-all/end-all of evolution? > > I'll keep asking until you give a yes or no answer. > > Don > --- > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" No--however, he was the founder of evolution theory. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <1180693578.732681.27980@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 12:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180665384.990205.44...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 1, 9:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > > > <Jason-3105071359170...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > >In article <f3n78i$u06$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > ><tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Jason wrote: > > > > > >> > In article <f3mjpn$jkv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > >> > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > >> >> Oh. As long as they do science, they are free to do that. So far, I > > > > > >> >> haven't seen ANY coherent science regarding "creation". I > > > > constantly ask > > > > > >> >> for it. What I GET are the same old errors. (transitional fossils, > > > > > >> >> unreproducible complexity and "looks like") > > > > > > > >> >> IF they are scientists, they should easily be able to show the > > science. > > > > > >> >> So far: None, nada, zip, nil. > > > > > > > >> >> Tokay > > > > > > > >> > They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR > > > > website. > > > > > >> > I know they advertise the books in their newsletters. > > > > > > > >> I can state the basics about evolution in one sentence. If you believe > > > > > >> that to be false you must have other evidence. > > > > > > > >> Since none of you could so far even show a hint for your hypothesis, I > > > > > >> am not interested in buying a book that most likely will be > > nothing more > > > > > >> but the same errors that have been discarded countless times. See > > above. > > > > > > > >> Tokay > > > > > > > >I'll try to summarize it in one sentence but if you need the details, you > > > > > >will have to visit the ICR website and order one of the books. example: > > > > > >"Creation and Change" by D.F. Kelly (272 pages) > > > > > > > >This is a brief summary: > > > > > >God created mankind; some plants; some animals;--After the creation > > > > > >process was finished, evolution kicked in. > > > > > >Darwin mentioned the "creator" in his famous book. > > > > > >Json > > > > > > > There is no evidence that any gods exist. That means that your claim is > > > > > not scientific. > > > > > > > There is also evidence that your doctrine did not take into account. One > > > > > of the claims of the anti-science creationists is that humans do not > > > > > share evolutionary heritage with other organisms. The evidence disagrees > > > > > with that claim. How do you deal with this evidence? > > > > > > The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying > > > > that the same God created humans and also created apes. He used some of > > > > the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans > > > > do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We > > > > are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. > > > > > Animals can use tools. (Birds build nests. Beavers build dams.) > > > Animals can use language. (Whales can communicate over long distances > > > because low pitch sounds can travel farther through water than through > > > air. Chimpanzees can be taught to use sign language.) Animals can > > > express feelings. (Cats purr when they are happy. Dogs wag their > > > tails when they are happy.) Animals can form social groups. (Dogs > > > form packs. Bees build hives. Ants build colonies.) There is > > > absolutely no reason to separate humans from other animals. > > > Do wild animals use fire? > > To do what? Animals don't have to cook their food and their fur keeps > them warm. Plenty of animals sleep in caves or dig holes under > ground. One could argue then that animals, like humans, also build > homes. > > Admit it, Jason, your arguments are spurious at best. > > Martin Martin, Admit it, Martin, your arguments do not make sense. The truth is that mankind is very unique. Even children know that mankind is vastly different than animals. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <1180715154.425005.80810@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31 mayo, 20:45, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180627943.271932.200...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > bramble <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 31 mayo, 02:33, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > In article <465df23b$0$4718$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher > > > > > > Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> wrote: > > > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:Jason-3005071349210001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > > In article <1180528020.475090.229...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 30 Maj, 06:14, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > >> > In article <1180490913.993436.208...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > >> > Martin > > > > > > > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > On May 30, 10:19 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > >> > > > In article > > > > <1180486688.526020.30...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > >> snip> > > > > > >> > Martin, > > > > > >> > Someone else challenged me to find proof that there was a bias > > against > > > > > >> > the > > > > > >> > advocates of creation science that submit articles to journals. I > > > > > >> > googled > > > > > >> > "rejected creation science articles". I found this article and > > learned > > > > > >> > some things I did not know. I hope that you will also learn > > some things > > > > > >> > that you did not know related to bias. > > > > > > > >> What you learned is that you were wrong, that scientists who are known > > > > > >> as advocates of creation science do have their work published in peer- > > > > > >> reviewed articles; so much for your claim of bias. Furthermore none > > > > > >> of the work published provided support for creation science, which > > > > > >> provides you with no evidence of any actual research done in that > > > > > >> area. Based on your above post, however, you learned absolutely > > > > > >> nothing and continue to tell the same lies as before. You are very > > > > > >> strange. > > > > > >> snip > > > > > > > > Re-read the article. Bias was discussed in the article. The editors > > > > > > required one of the authors to remove the creation science information > > > > > > that was in the article. Do you honestly believe that the editors would > > > > > > have required another author to remove the evolution information > > that was > > > > > > in their article. Get real. > > > > > > > If the writter presents any information within an article be it the > > body of > > > > > the work or the conclusion and it is not backed with factual evidence they > > > > > would have to revise the article in order to make it match the facts it > > > > > matters not at all if they advocate creation or evolution. > > > > > > It was my impression that the editors of the journal were advocates of > > > > evolution and as a result did not want any of the authors of the articles > > > > to discuss or even mention creation science. If you note the titles of all > > > > of the articles that were mentioned--none of the articles appear to be > > > > related to creation science. It's my guess that many science journals have > > > > articles related to evolution. > > > > Jason > > > > > there is not trouble for you, creationists, Jason. You can live > > > outside science building your own storyboard of creation. In the long > > > range, if you can convince enough ordinary scientists that god created > > > the Universe, and that Jesus the Christ is the son of god that died in > > > a cross, you had win. But you all beleivers are wasting your precious > > > time pissing us atheists here. We have become atheists, not because > > > of science, for using a primary logic. The only trouble you have with > > > scientists is that most of them are also atheists. > > > I think you can win your case the easiest by throwing out all the > > > regular stories written in the Bible, telling us this is all nonsense, > > > and that this god is an unpresentable god, that smells a lot of crime > > > and hate for humanity. You you have to invent a new sort of religion > > > quite different from those we know. > > > Bramble > > > > Bramble, > > Evolutionists that are atheists are in control and are now making the > > rules. We are fighting an uphill battle. > > Jason > > > That means, you have to write your own magazines and make your own > creationist science. It is the same case, if we, atheists, wanted to > write in religious or creationist magazines. Unless I was total > stupid making a ridiculous case of atheism, you would not print it in > your journals. > You had a time in which you were ruling the world, making laws to burn > witches, or sodomites, burning a fire mark in the forehead of > blasphems and so on. Till no so far ago, you were putting in prison > the sodomites, and the whores, and so on. > I remember a RCC orphanage in which I spent 9 years with indelible > horror. All the boys that were prisoners there, had such a revulsion > of religion that they all become matter of fact atheists; even if > most of them had not the philosophical mind needed to reason why. > There are two sides in this war. On side are the Forces of Darkeness > and Evil, called religious people and Christians. On the other side > are camping the Forces of the Light and the Goodness. This side is > when I am. > Bramble Bramble, Sorry that you had such a bad experience in the orphanage. Please answer the questions that I found when I googled "10 questions for evolutionists" 10 Questions for Evolutionists Home 1. When the "Big Bang" (big bunk!) supposedly began the universe - what banged? Where did that first piece of matter come from, if not God? Where did the energy come from that caused the bang? Where did the space come from that the bang expanded into? 2. How did legs evolve into wings without first being part leg and part wing, which would be inferior for locomotion to either fully implemented? Wouldn't this make extinction more likely as the creature would have a harder time getting food and evading predators? (The same question can be asked of scales and feathers, or gills and lungs, and other organs). 3. Which evolved first, plants, or the insects that pollinate them? 4. Which came first, the DNA message, the RNA carrier, or the protein, when producing each of them requires the others to already be there? 5. Why would the amoeba even bother to evolve into "advanced" creatures like the dodo and dinosaurs that went extinct, when the amoeba is still around? 6. How did life learn to reproduce itself, or even know there was a need to? 7. With whom did the first cell capable of reproduction mate? 8. Why would anything naturally reproduce when it would only create competition for food, environment, resources, and a need to provide and work for them? 9. Which came first, the digestive system, the food to be digested, the knowledge of the need for food, the ability to find food, to know what food is, what to consume and how to consume it, the digestive juices, or the body's ability to resist being destroyed by the same acids that digest food? 10. How did whales know to be purposely born breach (upside down) so as not to drown during birth? Mammals are born headfirst (except partial-birth abortions, where they are turned around on purpose so they can be killed by having their brains sucked out). Did all the baby whales drown until evolution figured out that they couldn't be born like other mammals? Remember, they had less than a generation to make the evolutionary correction, one generation of drowning whales would've caused extinction. These ought to be a challenge for most evolutionists who can't usually explain "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 10 Questions for Evolutionists 1. When the "Big Bang" (big bunk!) supposedly began the universe - what banged? Where did that first piece of matter come from, if not God? Where did the energy come from that caused the bang? Where did the space come from that the bang expanded into? 2. How did legs evolve into wings without first being part leg and part wing, which would be inferior for locomotion to either fully implemented? Wouldn't this make extinction more likely as the creature would have a harder time getting food and evading predators? (The same question can be asked of scales and feathers, or gills and lungs, and other organs). 3. Which evolved first, plants, or the insects that pollinate them? 4. Which came first, the DNA message, the RNA carrier, or the protein, when producing each of them requires the others to already be there? 5. Why would the amoeba even bother to evolve into "advanced" creatures like the dodo and dinosaurs that went extinct, when the amoeba is still around? 6. How did life learn to reproduce itself, or even know there was a need to? 7. With whom did the first cell capable of reproduction mate? 8. Why would anything naturally reproduce when it would only create competition for food, environment, resources, and a need to provide and work for them? 9. Which came first, the digestive system, the food to be digested, the knowledge of the need for food, the ability to find food, to know what food is, what to consume and how to consume it, the digestive juices, or the body's ability to resist being destroyed by the same acids that digest food? 10. How did whales know to be purposely born breach (upside down) so as not to drown during birth? Mammals are born headfirst (except partial-birth abortions, where they are turned around on purpose so they can be killed by having their brains sucked out). Did all the baby whales drown until evolution figured out that they couldn't be born like other mammals? Remember, they had less than a generation to make the evolutionary correction, one generation of drowning whales would've caused extinction. These ought to be a challenge for most evolutionists who can't usually explain "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-0106071219240001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > In article <1180717090.777257.145820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 31 mayo, 21:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >> > >> >> > > You have never seen a human? >> > >> > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> > >> > When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a >> > living cell. When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; >> > some plants and some animals. After the creation process was >> > finished--evolution kicked in. >> >> Jason, Jason, my dear. >> If any god wanted to create humans beings, he created a too excessive >> Universe for such a trifle as some million human beings. >> If he wanted to make us happy, he did too many errors, to achieve >> such an aim. If he wanted to make us at his own image, a perfect >> animal machine, he made rather imperfect, for an almighty god. >> If he is benevolent he is not almighty, and not omnisciente. >> If god were omnisciente, he would had not created the man in any >> case. >> You are in a philosophical cule-de-sack, Jason. You are trapped and >> you know it. >> Bramble > > Bramble, > You need to re-read the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Adam and > Eve were perfect and they were made in the image of God. They lost > that perfection after they sinned. You may not realize it, but you are > the one that is trapped. When are you going to answer the 10 > questions? jason > When are you going to address my answers, Jason? -- 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 AT1 Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <67su53l58to9cg3puba8beb6iiah5u57i8@4ax.com>, [snip] > > I have stated in other posts that the main source of disagreement is in > relation to abiogenesis and common descent. I have also stated that I > believe that God created mankind; some animals; some plants and after the > creation process was finished--that evolution kicked in. Even Darwin > mentioned the 'Creator" in his famous book. Darwin used these words in the > last paragraph of chapter 14: > "...breathed into a few forms or into one..." That appears to me to be > related to information in the first chapter of Genesis. > > So what if he did. No atheist is looking to Darwin as the champion and savior of all of their ideals; unlike you and the other christers. Darwin's discoveries and what they mean to science really have nothing to do with his personal views--assuming, of course, that your quote of his is even being interpreted correctly; surely a matter of contention. Again, you're an idiot for propping up a single quote--out of context--as some sort of incontrovertible 'proof' that your belief holds water while everyone else's does not. -- AT1 http://www.godblows.net Quote
Guest Arturo Magidin Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 On May 31, 7:19 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On 31 May 2007 12:16:54 -0700, Arturo Magidin<magi...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > - Refer: <1180639013.965754.97...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> > > >On May 6, 4:59 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote: > > > [...] > > >> I'll be delighted to examine any alternative you may have to the > >> Theory of Evolution right here in these world-wide public fora. > > >The main alternative to the Theory of Evolution is Willful Ignorance. > >The evidence is vast and readily available, here and elsewhere. > > Well said. Maybe... I think I could have been funnier. For example: "Given everything we know, the only viable alternative to the Theory of Evolution is PWF: the Practice of Willful Ignorance." -- ====================================================================== "It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as reality." --- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson) ====================================================================== Arturo Magidin magidin-at-member-ams-org Quote
Guest AT1 Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <79su531jk0i30mn360rlq1bu3nevi17431@4ax.com> [snip] > Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled > life form can evolve from the sort of life you mentioned in your post? > > Would you stop asking this inane, ridiculous question? If no one has answered it by now (which in fact they have, you're just ignoring their answers), they're not going to. Seriously, you need to piss off. You're not changing anyone's mind in here, and no one is going to change your mind--about any of the issues. Why do you keep coming in here and peddling your garbage when you're clearly not welcome? Take your crap to one of the newsgroups where ignorant people such as yourself hang out, and blather on in harmony. Why? Why? Why? -- AT1 http://www.godblows.net Quote
Guest AT1 Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180665384.990205.44670@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 1, 9:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-3105071359170...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>> In article <f3n78i$u06$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>>>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article <f3mjpn$jkv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>>>>>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>>>> Oh. As long as they do science, they are free to do that. So far, I >>>>>>>> haven't seen ANY coherent science regarding "creation". I >>> constantly ask >>>>>>>> for it. What I GET are the same old errors. (transitional fossils, >>>>>>>> unreproducible complexity and "looks like") >>>>>>>> IF they are scientists, they should easily be able to show the > science. >>>>>>>> So far: None, nada, zip, nil. >>>>>>>> Tokay >>>>>>> They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR >>> website. >>>>>>> I know they advertise the books in their newsletters. >>>>>> I can state the basics about evolution in one sentence. If you believe >>>>>> that to be false you must have other evidence. >>>>>> Since none of you could so far even show a hint for your hypothesis, I >>>>>> am not interested in buying a book that most likely will be > nothing more >>>>>> but the same errors that have been discarded countless times. See > above. >>>>>> Tokay >>>>> I'll try to summarize it in one sentence but if you need the details, you >>>>> will have to visit the ICR website and order one of the books. example: >>>>> "Creation and Change" by D.F. Kelly (272 pages) >>>>> This is a brief summary: >>>>> God created mankind; some plants; some animals;--After the creation >>>>> process was finished, evolution kicked in. >>>>> Darwin mentioned the "creator" in his famous book. >>>>> Json >>>> There is no evidence that any gods exist. That means that your claim is >>>> not scientific. >>>> There is also evidence that your doctrine did not take into account. One >>>> of the claims of the anti-science creationists is that humans do not >>>> share evolutionary heritage with other organisms. The evidence disagrees >>>> with that claim. How do you deal with this evidence? >>> The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying >>> that the same God created humans and also created apes. He used some of >>> the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. However, humans >>> do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as apes. We >>> are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. >> Animals can use tools. (Birds build nests. Beavers build dams.) >> Animals can use language. (Whales can communicate over long distances >> because low pitch sounds can travel farther through water than through >> air. Chimpanzees can be taught to use sign language.) Animals can >> express feelings. (Cats purr when they are happy. Dogs wag their >> tails when they are happy.) Animals can form social groups. (Dogs >> form packs. Bees build hives. Ants build colonies.) There is >> absolutely no reason to separate humans from other animals. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > Do wild animals use fire? > Jason > > They lack opposable thumbs focker. You know, the evolution thing. -- AT1 http://www.godblows.net Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <chvu53lvdmv8ta1fcnhq5mmrd9me89or6l@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:00:50 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >>> Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled >>> life form can evolve from non-life? >> Answer this question: is there anything to prevent it from >> happening? And please don't say the law of biogenesis, since there's >> no such thing. >> >> Don >> --- >> aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde >> Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. >> >> "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" >> Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" > > No--but if it happened once--scientists should be able to cause it to > happen again. "f [the sun's forming] happened once--scientists should be able to cause it to happen again [should be able to make another sun.]" Once you figure out what's wrong with the above statement, you'll begin to realize what's wrong with yours. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3ml0u$qtv$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> Proove that it can happen in a laboratory experiment. >> Prove that the sun exists by making a sun in a laboratory experiment. >> >> Clue-time: not everything can be duplicated in a lab for various reasons >> and not being able to duplicate it in a lab doesn't mean it doesn't happen. > > However, some things can be duplicated in a lab. Are you honestly this stupid or did you have to work at being so? Quote
Guest AT1 Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 bramble wrote: > On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> In article <f3mkof$hbv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> >> >> >> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >>> Jason wrote: >>>> In article <1180589009.623007.230...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On May 31, 1:33 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> In article <1180580639.377592.70...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On May 31, 9:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <465def83$0$9953$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher >>>>>>>> Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:Jason-3005071302390001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>>>>> Do you believe that journal editors should have a >>>>>>>>>> bias against authors of articles that are advocates of >>>> creation science. >>>>>>>>> They have a bias against poor research not based on factual evidence. >>>>>> There is a >>>>>>>>> difference. >>>>>>>> We have a difference of opinion. For example, if I wrote an article and >>>>>>>> mentioned creation science several times in the article, the journal >>>>>>>> editors would probably tell me to rewrite the article and remove all >>>>>>>> references to creation science. On the other hand, if you wrote an >>>> article >>>>>>>> and mentioned evolution several times, I doubt that the ediitors would >>>>>>>> tell you to remove all references to evolution. Do you see my >>>> point? There >>>>>>>> is a bias in favor of evolution and against creation science. The reason >>>>>>>> is because the editors and members of the peer review committee are >>>>>>>> advocates of evolution. >>>>>>> Whether you write about creationism or evolution, in either case your >>>>>>> claims need to be supported by evidence. Evolution is supported by >>>>>>> evidence. Creationism isn't. It's that simple. It's only a bias in >>>>>>> favour of the scientific method. >>>>>> Do you think that the 40 doctorate-holding scientists mentioned in the >>>>>> book entitled, "On the Seventh Day" Edited by J.F. Ashton would agree >>>>>> that creationism is NOT supported by evidence? >>>>> It either is supported by evidence or it isn't. And it isn't. It >>>>> isn't a matter of opinion. No experiment has ever been conducted to >>>>> demonstrate the existance of any god -nor could any experiment ever be >>>>> conducted to test anything supernatural- let alone test the hypothesis >>>>> that any god was responsible for the creation of any form of life on >>>>> Earth, let alone man. What they may believe is irrelevant: it doesn't >>>>> change the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence supporting >>>>> creationism. >>>>> Martin >>>> Martin, >>>> The only evidence that I have seen is in relation to the fossil record. >>>> Two different books have been written by advocates of creationism in >>>> relation to the fossil record. One of the authors discusses the complete >>>> absence of any true evolutionary transitional forms in the fossil record. >>> And that is WRONG! >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils >>> No way around it. The fossils are there . If you like it or not. >>>> I have read one of those books. I suggest that you read the last paragraph >>>> of Chapter 14 of Darwin's famous book--he discusses something about life >>>> being "breathed into a few forms or into one." Darwin also mentioned the >>>> "Creator" in that same chapter. It was apparent to me that Darwin believed >>>> in God and was familiar with the lst chapter of Genesis and probably >>>> believed it was true but I am not 100 percent certain. I typed Darwin God >>>> into the google search engine and was able to find lots of evidence >>>> indicating that Darwin (at least during several years of his life) was a >>>> Christian. I don't know whether or not he was Christian during the last >>>> several years of his life. There was one site indicating that Darwin may >>>> have had a deathbed confession of his love of God. >>> Far as I know, this "deathbed conversion" is a hoax. But never mind, it >>> actually has nothing to do with it. Whether or not Darwin was a >>> Christian does not invalidate his work. >>> So, what do you want to prove there? That Darwin was a christian? There >>> hardly was a way around that in those times. But what does that say >>> about his work? Nothing, that's what. >>> Tokay >> My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a >> Christian at least during some years of his life. I only read the last >> chapter of his book and it was apparent that he had an excellent >> understanding of the book of Genesis. He mentioned the term "creator" >> several different times. I am more in agreement with Darwin than I am with >> Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life >> form. It's my opinion that Darwin did NOT believe that. I read the last >> paragraph three times and it was difficult to understand the point that he >> was making. However, he did use these words in that sentence: >> "...having been originally BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE." That >> appeared to me to be related to God breathing life into people. That is >> very different than believing that mankind evolved from a one celled life >> form. >> Jason > > > Of course, Jason. He was living in a Christian world. He had to > tread very carefully as not to have problems. That is why, he let in > his first book the man outside of the picture. It was a time in which > there was a certain degree of freedom. If Darwin had lived a hundred > years earlier, he could have dared to write this book. So in spite of > being the author of the book, Origins of species, he had to behave as > any other high class gentleman of his time, going to church on > sundays. In any case, only a few of the gentlemen had knowledge of > this book; most of the gentlemen of that time were virtually > illiterate. The only papers they understood more or less were the > account sheets of earnings and expenses of their states. > So, only the people involved in reading books and argue with other > academics and philosophers were aware of the existence of this book. > So, you are now making a lot noise about nothing. It recalled me of > RCC bishops defaming "The Da Vince Code" novel. The more they talk > about this book, the most people buy it. > Bramble > > > An excellent point. A hundred or so years earlier, and he likely would have been burned at the stake whether or not he put that little tidbit at the end. It's also funny that you mentioned the illiterate part. Perhaps it would be better if some people remained so. A little knowledge, without reason, is a terribly dangerous thing. Jason, and his ilk, should never have been allowed to learn reading and writing. -- AT1 http://www.godblows.net Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3mje8$opr$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> How many times do you have to be told that "life does not evolve from >> non-life." Evolution deals with the changes in life and NOT how it >> formed to begin with. >> >> Now are you going to lie yet again about "life evolving from non-life"? > > My college biology professor taught us the primordial soup concept. He > told us that the first living cells evolved in the primordial soup. I take it that was a resounding "YES, I AM!" Quote
Guest AT1 Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <v8bv53p0hl0lhao6igf98vtvf50c5dj2j0@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 21:22:47 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >>> In article <egvu53t51qd4idp1259l0j184bg8jdvmeb@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >>> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:30:31 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >>>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I have stated in other posts that the main source of disagreement is in >>>>> relation to abiogenesis and common descent. I have also stated that I >>>>> believe that God created mankind; some animals; some plants and after the >>>>> creation process was finished--that evolution kicked in. Even Darwin >>>>> mentioned the 'Creator" in his famous book. Darwin used these words in the >>>>> last paragraph of chapter 14: >>>>> "...breathed into a few forms or into one..." That appears to me to be >>>>> related to information in the first chapter of Genesis. >>>>> >>>> Yes or no question: Is Darwin the be-all/end-all of evolution? >>>> >>> He developed the theory of evolution. >> Yes or no question: Is Darwin the be-all/end-all of evolution? >> >> I'll keep asking until you give a yes or no answer. >> >> Don >> --- >> aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde >> Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. >> >> "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" >> Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" > > No--however, he was the founder of evolution theory. > > He may have founded evolution theory, but it has grown and expounded beyond his original discovery. No one believes that he was infallable, unlike you christers' beliefs that Jesus was. He was simply a man who developed a good theory that other scientists have expounded and added to. You're trying to put him in the same light as jesus; as someone that is supposedly beyond reproach...thus when you find something that is contradictory, you think it proves your BS point. How absurdly, ridiculously wrong you are; yet again. -- AT1 http://www.godblows.net Quote
Guest AT1 Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180693578.732681.27980@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 1, 12:19 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1180665384.990205.44...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Jun 1, 9:51 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> In article <rfmu5354f5q2vk8e79vq5hvlcaca018...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:59:17 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>>> <Jason-3105071359170...@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>>> In article <f3n78i$u06$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>>>>>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <f3mjpn$jkv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>>>>>>>> <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> Oh. As long as they do science, they are free to do that. > So far, I >>>>>>>>>> haven't seen ANY coherent science regarding "creation". I >>>>> constantly ask >>>>>>>>>> for it. What I GET are the same old errors. (transitional > fossils, >>>>>>>>>> unreproducible complexity and "looks like") >>>>>>>>>> IF they are scientists, they should easily be able to show the >>> science. >>>>>>>>>> So far: None, nada, zip, nil. >>>>>>>>>> Tokay >>>>>>>>> They have written books. They are probably advertised at the ICR >>>>> website. >>>>>>>>> I know they advertise the books in their newsletters. >>>>>>>> I can state the basics about evolution in one sentence. If > you believe >>>>>>>> that to be false you must have other evidence. >>>>>>>> Since none of you could so far even show a hint for your > hypothesis, I >>>>>>>> am not interested in buying a book that most likely will be >>> nothing more >>>>>>>> but the same errors that have been discarded countless times. See >>> above. >>> >>>>>>>> Tokay >>>>>>> I'll try to summarize it in one sentence but if you need the > details, you >>>>>>> will have to visit the ICR website and order one of the books. > example: >>>>>>> "Creation and Change" by D.F. Kelly (272 pages) >>>>>>> This is a brief summary: >>>>>>> God created mankind; some plants; some animals;--After the creation >>>>>>> process was finished, evolution kicked in. >>>>>>> Darwin mentioned the "creator" in his famous book. >>>>>>> Json >>>>>> There is no evidence that any gods exist. That means that your > claim is >>>>>> not scientific. >>>>>> There is also evidence that your doctrine did not take into > account. One >>>>>> of the claims of the anti-science creationists is that humans do not >>>>>> share evolutionary heritage with other organisms. The evidence > disagrees >>>>>> with that claim. How do you deal with this evidence? >>>>> The way that the advocates of creation science deal with it is by saying >>>>> that the same God created humans and also created apes. He used some of >>>>> the same sorts of features such as similar tooth patterns. > However, humans >>>>> do not share evoluitionary heritage with other organisms such as > apes. We >>>>> are unique. Humans can use fire and animals do not use fire. >>>> Animals can use tools. (Birds build nests. Beavers build dams.) >>>> Animals can use language. (Whales can communicate over long distances >>>> because low pitch sounds can travel farther through water than through >>>> air. Chimpanzees can be taught to use sign language.) Animals can >>>> express feelings. (Cats purr when they are happy. Dogs wag their >>>> tails when they are happy.) Animals can form social groups. (Dogs >>>> form packs. Bees build hives. Ants build colonies.) There is >>>> absolutely no reason to separate humans from other animals. >>> Do wild animals use fire? >> To do what? Animals don't have to cook their food and their fur keeps >> them warm. Plenty of animals sleep in caves or dig holes under >> ground. One could argue then that animals, like humans, also build >> homes. >> >> Admit it, Jason, your arguments are spurious at best. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > Admit it, Martin, your arguments do not make sense. The truth is that > mankind is very unique. Even children know that mankind is vastly > different than animals. > Jason > > Yes we are. And evolution/natural selection have made us this way; not a sky-daddy. -- AT1 http://www.godblows.net Quote
Guest AT1 Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1180717090.777257.145820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 31 mayo, 21:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >>> >>>> You have never seen a human? >>>>> - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >>> When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a living cell. >>> When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; some plants and some >>> animals. After the creation process was finished--evolution kicked in. >> Jason, Jason, my dear. >> If any god wanted to create humans beings, he created a too excessive >> Universe for such a trifle as some million human beings. >> If he wanted to make us happy, he did too many errors, to achieve such >> an aim. If he wanted to make us at his own image, a perfect animal >> machine, he made rather imperfect, for an almighty god. >> If he is benevolent he is not almighty, and not omnisciente. >> If god were omnisciente, he would had not created the man in any >> case. >> You are in a philosophical cule-de-sack, Jason. You are trapped and >> you know it. >> Bramble > > Bramble, > You need to re-read the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Adam and Eve > were perfect and they were made in the image of God. They lost that > perfection after they sinned. You may not realize it, but you are the one > that is trapped. When are you going to answer the 10 questions? > jason > > Holy shit are you stupid. You keep using a dubious, contradictory, absurd collection of writings from backwoods, ignorant, wipe-their-asses-with-corn-cobs, inbreeding fools as proof of something. Get serious. -- AT1 http://www.godblows.net Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <1180716486.667819.173330@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31 mayo, 21:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <f3mkof$hbv$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > > > > > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > Jason wrote: > > > > In article <1180589009.623007.230...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On May 31, 1:33 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >>> In article <1180580639.377592.70...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>>> On May 31, 9:41 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >>>>> In article <465def83$0$9953$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, "Christopher > > > >>>>> Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > >>>>>>news:Jason-3005071302390001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > >>>>>>> Do you believe that journal editors should have a > > > >>>>>>> bias against authors of articles that are advocates of > > > > creation science. > > > >>>>>> They have a bias against poor research not based on factual evidence. > > > >>> There is a > > > >>>>>> difference. > > > >>>>> We have a difference of opinion. For example, if I wrote an article and > > > >>>>> mentioned creation science several times in the article, the journal > > > >>>>> editors would probably tell me to rewrite the article and remove all > > > >>>>> references to creation science. On the other hand, if you wrote an > > > > article > > > >>>>> and mentioned evolution several times, I doubt that the ediitors would > > > >>>>> tell you to remove all references to evolution. Do you see my > > > > point? There > > > >>>>> is a bias in favor of evolution and against creation science. The reason > > > >>>>> is because the editors and members of the peer review committee are > > > >>>>> advocates of evolution. > > > >>>> Whether you write about creationism or evolution, in either case your > > > >>>> claims need to be supported by evidence. Evolution is supported by > > > >>>> evidence. Creationism isn't. It's that simple. It's only a bias in > > > >>>> favour of the scientific method. > > > >>> Do you think that the 40 doctorate-holding scientists mentioned in the > > > >>> book entitled, "On the Seventh Day" Edited by J.F. Ashton would agree > > > >>> that creationism is NOT supported by evidence? > > > >> It either is supported by evidence or it isn't. And it isn't. It > > > >> isn't a matter of opinion. No experiment has ever been conducted to > > > >> demonstrate the existance of any god -nor could any experiment ever be > > > >> conducted to test anything supernatural- let alone test the hypothesis > > > >> that any god was responsible for the creation of any form of life on > > > >> Earth, let alone man. What they may believe is irrelevant: it doesn't > > > >> change the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence supporting > > > >> creationism. > > > > > >> Martin > > > > > > Martin, > > > > The only evidence that I have seen is in relation to the fossil record. > > > > Two different books have been written by advocates of creationism in > > > > relation to the fossil record. One of the authors discusses the complete > > > > absence of any true evolutionary transitional forms in the fossil record. > > > > > And that is WRONG! > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils > > > > > No way around it. The fossils are there . If you like it or not. > > > > > > I have read one of those books. I suggest that you read the last paragraph > > > > of Chapter 14 of Darwin's famous book--he discusses something about life > > > > being "breathed into a few forms or into one." Darwin also mentioned the > > > > "Creator" in that same chapter. It was apparent to me that Darwin believed > > > > in God and was familiar with the lst chapter of Genesis and probably > > > > believed it was true but I am not 100 percent certain. I typed Darwin God > > > > into the google search engine and was able to find lots of evidence > > > > indicating that Darwin (at least during several years of his life) was a > > > > Christian. I don't know whether or not he was Christian during the last > > > > several years of his life. There was one site indicating that Darwin may > > > > have had a deathbed confession of his love of God. > > > > > Far as I know, this "deathbed conversion" is a hoax. But never mind, it > > > actually has nothing to do with it. Whether or not Darwin was a > > > Christian does not invalidate his work. > > > > > So, what do you want to prove there? That Darwin was a christian? There > > > hardly was a way around that in those times. But what does that say > > > about his work? Nothing, that's what. > > > > > Tokay > > > > My point was that the so called founder of evolution theory was a > > Christian at least during some years of his life. I only read the last > > chapter of his book and it was apparent that he had an excellent > > understanding of the book of Genesis. He mentioned the term "creator" > > several different times. I am more in agreement with Darwin than I am with > > Evolutionists that believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life > > form. It's my opinion that Darwin did NOT believe that. I read the last > > paragraph three times and it was difficult to understand the point that he > > was making. However, he did use these words in that sentence: > > "...having been originally BREATHED INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE." That > > appeared to me to be related to God breathing life into people. That is > > very different than believing that mankind evolved from a one celled life > > form. > > Jason > > > Of course, Jason. He was living in a Christian world. He had to > tread very carefully as not to have problems. That is why, he let in > his first book the man outside of the picture. It was a time in which > there was a certain degree of freedom. If Darwin had lived a hundred > years earlier, he could have dared to write this book. So in spite of > being the author of the book, Origins of species, he had to behave as > any other high class gentleman of his time, going to church on > sundays. In any case, only a few of the gentlemen had knowledge of > this book; most of the gentlemen of that time were virtually > illiterate. The only papers they understood more or less were the > account sheets of earnings and expenses of their states. > So, only the people involved in reading books and argue with other > academics and philosophers were aware of the existence of this book. > So, you are now making a lot noise about nothing. It recalled me of > RCC bishops defaming "The Da Vince Code" novel. The more they talk > about this book, the most people buy it. > Bramble Bramble, Yes, you are correct related to the life and times of Darwin. However, my point was that lots of people seem to think that Darwin was a atheist his entire life--that is NOT true. It's possible that he always believed in God even if he did not always go to church every Sunday. I only read the last chapter of his book and noticed that he used the term Creator at least one time in that chapter. I don't know whether or not he used the term in other chapters of his book. He also used these words in the last paragraph of Chapter 14--"...having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one...." I read that paragraph two times and it was difficult to figure out his point. However, those words are similar to the information that is in the first chapter of Genesis. It's my opinion, based upon what I read in Chapter 14 of Darwin's book, that Darwin believed that God created life on this planet. Of course, he also believed that evolution kicked in after the creation process was finished. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <1180717090.777257.145820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31 mayo, 21:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > You have never seen a human? > > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a living cell. > > When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; some plants and some > > animals. After the creation process was finished--evolution kicked in. > > Jason, Jason, my dear. > If any god wanted to create humans beings, he created a too excessive > Universe for such a trifle as some million human beings. > If he wanted to make us happy, he did too many errors, to achieve such > an aim. If he wanted to make us at his own image, a perfect animal > machine, he made rather imperfect, for an almighty god. > If he is benevolent he is not almighty, and not omnisciente. > If god were omnisciente, he would had not created the man in any > case. > You are in a philosophical cule-de-sack, Jason. You are trapped and > you know it. > Bramble Bramble, You need to re-read the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Adam and Eve were perfect and they were made in the image of God. They lost that perfection after they sinned. You may not realize it, but you are the one that is trapped. When are you going to answer the 10 questions? jason Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >I read the answers. It appeared to me that you were making educated >guesses related to most of the answers. Do you have evidence related to >all of answers or do you just have guesses? Whenever I make a statement in >a post such as "God created mankind; some plants; and some animals"--there >is always someone asking me for evidence that it happened that way. If >people except me to provide evidence, do I have the right to ask you to >provide evidence for your statements and answers? Have you provided "evidence that it happened that way"? Doing this would confer a degree of "right" upon you. And, of course, if your evidence is a book, the counter-evidence can be a book. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <Xns994298509D6Efreddybear@66.150.105.47>, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > news:Jason-0106071219240001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > > > In article <1180717090.777257.145820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 31 mayo, 21:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > >> > > >> > >> > > You have never seen a human? > >> > > >> > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >> > > >> > When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a > >> > living cell. When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; > >> > some plants and some animals. After the creation process was > >> > finished--evolution kicked in. > >> > >> Jason, Jason, my dear. > >> If any god wanted to create humans beings, he created a too excessive > >> Universe for such a trifle as some million human beings. > >> If he wanted to make us happy, he did too many errors, to achieve > >> such an aim. If he wanted to make us at his own image, a perfect > >> animal machine, he made rather imperfect, for an almighty god. > >> If he is benevolent he is not almighty, and not omnisciente. > >> If god were omnisciente, he would had not created the man in any > >> case. > >> You are in a philosophical cule-de-sack, Jason. You are trapped and > >> you know it. > >> Bramble > > > > Bramble, > > You need to re-read the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Adam and > > Eve were perfect and they were made in the image of God. They lost > > that perfection after they sinned. You may not realize it, but you are > > the one that is trapped. When are you going to answer the 10 > > questions? jason > > > > When are you going to address my answers, Jason? I read the answers. It appeared to me that you were making educated guesses related to most of the answers. Do you have evidence related to all of answers or do you just have guesses? Whenever I make a statement in a post such as "God created mankind; some plants; and some animals"--there is always someone asking me for evidence that it happened that way. If people except me to provide evidence, do I have the right to ask you to provide evidence for your statements and answers? jason > > -- > 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." Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <f3ppnd$4ng$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <chvu53lvdmv8ta1fcnhq5mmrd9me89or6l@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:00:50 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >>> Has any scientist done an experiment which has indicated that a one-celled > >>> life form can evolve from non-life? > >> Answer this question: is there anything to prevent it from > >> happening? And please don't say the law of biogenesis, since there's > >> no such thing. > >> > >> Don > >> --- > >> aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > >> Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > >> > >> "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > >> Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" > > > > No--but if it happened once--scientists should be able to cause it to > > happen again. > > "f [the sun's forming] happened once--scientists should be able to > cause it to happen again [should be able to make another sun.]" > > Once you figure out what's wrong with the above statement, you'll begin > to realize what's wrong with yours. I fully realize your point but you still have not realized my point. You believe this (eg solar system, earth, sun, earth, life, mankind, etc) happened by chance. My point is that it DID NOT happen by chance. There was a designer and a creator that caused it to happen the way that it did happen. Evolution was even part of the master plan. When God created mankind, plants and animals--he created within those plants and animals (and even mankind) the ability to adapt and change to various types of environment. Darwin used this name for God--"creator". Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In article <w7SdndDd_5Vm8f3bnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@comcast.com>, AT1 <notyourbusiness@godblows.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <v8bv53p0hl0lhao6igf98vtvf50c5dj2j0@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 21:22:47 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> > >>> In article <egvu53t51qd4idp1259l0j184bg8jdvmeb@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > >>> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:30:31 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >>>> (Jason) let us all know that: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I have stated in other posts that the main source of disagreement is in > >>>>> relation to abiogenesis and common descent. I have also stated that I > >>>>> believe that God created mankind; some animals; some plants and after the > >>>>> creation process was finished--that evolution kicked in. Even Darwin > >>>>> mentioned the 'Creator" in his famous book. Darwin used these words in the > >>>>> last paragraph of chapter 14: > >>>>> "...breathed into a few forms or into one..." That appears to me to be > >>>>> related to information in the first chapter of Genesis. > >>>>> > >>>> Yes or no question: Is Darwin the be-all/end-all of evolution? > >>>> > >>> He developed the theory of evolution. > >> Yes or no question: Is Darwin the be-all/end-all of evolution? > >> > >> I'll keep asking until you give a yes or no answer. > >> > >> Don > >> --- > >> aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > >> Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > >> > >> "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > >> Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" > > > > No--however, he was the founder of evolution theory. > > > > > > He may have founded evolution theory, but it has grown and expounded > beyond his original discovery. No one believes that he was infallable, > unlike you christers' beliefs that Jesus was. He was simply a man who > developed a good theory that other scientists have expounded and added to. > > You're trying to put him in the same light as jesus; as someone that is > supposedly beyond reproach...thus when you find something that is > contradictory, you think it proves your BS point. > > How absurdly, ridiculously wrong you are; yet again. People were ridiculing another advocate of creation science and myself. I posted the information about Darwin to let people know that the founder of evolution also appeared to believe that there was a "creator" involved in relation to the life on this planet. Some of the other members of this newsgroup tried to convince me that life evolved from non-life. Without evidence, I don't believe it and I doubt that Darwin believed it. Evolution is mainly about how animals and plants can change and adapt to various types of environments. The advocates of creation science call it adaption. Jason Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:25:47 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <v8bv53p0hl0lhao6igf98vtvf50c5dj2j0@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 21:22:47 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <egvu53t51qd4idp1259l0j184bg8jdvmeb@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > >> >> In alt.atheism On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:30:31 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >I have stated in other posts that the main source of disagreement is in >> >> >relation to abiogenesis and common descent. I have also stated that I >> >> >believe that God created mankind; some animals; some plants and after the >> >> >creation process was finished--that evolution kicked in. Even Darwin >> >> >mentioned the 'Creator" in his famous book. Darwin used these words in the >> >> >last paragraph of chapter 14: >> >> >"...breathed into a few forms or into one..." That appears to me to be >> >> >related to information in the first chapter of Genesis. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Yes or no question: Is Darwin the be-all/end-all of evolution? >> >> >> >> >He developed the theory of evolution. >> >> Yes or no question: Is Darwin the be-all/end-all of evolution? >> >> I'll keep asking until you give a yes or no answer. >No--however, he was the founder of evolution theory. Ok. Good. Now then: since he's not the be-all/end-all of evolution, why do you treat him as if he is? Don't say you don't. That's what : > > > > Darwin used these words in the >> >> >last paragraph of chapter 14: >> >> >"...breathed into a few forms or into one..." That appears to me to be >> >> >related to information in the first chapter of Genesis. means. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:50:21 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >10 Questions for Evolutionists > > > > 1. When the "Big Bang" That's cosmology, not biology. Where did god come from? Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 1, 2007 Posted June 1, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:19:24 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <1180717090.777257.145820@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 31 mayo, 21:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1180607019.955565.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >> > >> >> > > You have never seen a human? >> > >> > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> > >> > When you see a human, you think that the human evolved from a living cell. >> > When I see a human, I think that God created mankind; some plants and some >> > animals. After the creation process was finished--evolution kicked in. >> >> Jason, Jason, my dear. >> If any god wanted to create humans beings, he created a too excessive >> Universe for such a trifle as some million human beings. >> If he wanted to make us happy, he did too many errors, to achieve such >> an aim. If he wanted to make us at his own image, a perfect animal >> machine, he made rather imperfect, for an almighty god. >> If he is benevolent he is not almighty, and not omnisciente. >> If god were omnisciente, he would had not created the man in any >> case. >> You are in a philosophical cule-de-sack, Jason. You are trapped and >> you know it. >> Bramble > >Bramble, >You need to re-read the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Adam and Eve >were perfect and they were made in the image of God. You need to re-read Genesis 3:22. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" 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.