XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:49:04 +1000, Sylvia Else    
   wrote:   
   .   
   >On 3/07/2014 1:26 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:27:51 -0400, James <1rilu2@windstream.net> wrote:   
   >> .   
   >>> Bob Casanova    
   >>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by James <1rilu2@windstream.net>:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Bob Casanova    
   >>>>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by James <1rilu2@windstream.net>:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> mur@.not.   
   >>>>>>>>     For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding   
   "evidence" of   
   >>>>>>>> God's existence? For quite a while, we know that. Yet when challenged   
   to try to   
   >>>>>>>> explain WHAT sort of evidence they think "should be" where, they   
   can't even   
   >>>>>>>> address the challenge. When challenged to explain WHERE the supposed   
   evidence   
   >>>>>>>> "should be" they again are helpless. When challenged to explain WHY   
   it "should   
   >>>>>>>> be" to God's benefit to provide us with it AGAIN they have no clue at   
   all what   
   >>>>>>>> they think they think, or even what they want other people to think   
   they think   
   >>>>>>>> they think. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire   
   group of   
   >>>>>>>> atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, nor   
   can they as a   
   >>>>>>>> group figure out what they think they're trying to talk about. Why is   
   it sad?   
   >>>>>>>> Because it would be interesting to learn what they thought they were   
   trying to   
   >>>>>>>> talk about IF they had any idea themselves. We've seen that they   
   don't.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he   
   >>>>>>> will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with   
   >>>>>>> his personal beliefs.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,   
   >>>>>> *especially* evidence which will help to refute current   
   >>>>>> theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word   
   >>>>>> "objective", which eliminates personal testimony and   
   >>>>>> untestable claims in religious texts.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Yes, some scientists think more of their reputation than being   
   >>>>> truthful about their evidence. That is unfortunate.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Missed the part about "objective evidence", huh? No problem;   
   >>>> most believers do.   
   >>>   
   >>> They don't go that way when they have a reputation to maintain.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,   
   >>>>> archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any   
   >>>> book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories   
   >>>> about actual places have been confirmed (or were already   
   >>>> known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities   
   >>>> which haven't been.   
   >>>   
   >>> Most of what you say are the miracles. I can't prove them, and you   
   >>> can't disprove them. They are sitting in the history books.   
   >>   
   >>      One of the very basic starting lines that atheists can't get as "far"   
   as is   
   >> the fact that if God does exist and did the things that are recorded in the   
   >> Bible, then ALL of those things are evidence of what he did. Even if God   
   doesn't   
   >> exist and did none of those things the written accounts are still evidence,   
   but   
   >> in that case they're false evidence. I have known some of these stupid   
   clowns to   
   >> hilariously try to deny that false evidence exists at all, in their maniacal   
   >> desperation to deny all evidence.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>> But atheists are apparently a different breed.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective   
   >>>>>> evidence.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their   
   >>>>>>> personal beliefs.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> My IronyMeter has started to smoke...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific   
   >>>>>> evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by   
   >>>>>> many believers?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Because the fossil record is more in line with the Bible, than that   
   >>>>> pathetic theory of macroevolution.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That's ridiculous. The fossil record, among other things,   
   >>>> shows that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, and that   
   >>>> plant and animal populations have only existed for   
   >>>> approximately half a billion years, *and* that they have   
   >>>> changed multiple times over that period, with no species   
   >>>> lasting more than a few million years. And in contradiction   
   >>>> to the Bible, the existence of the sun preceded that of the   
   >>>> Earth by many millions of years, as did the stars ("And He   
   >>>> made the stars also").   
   >>>   
   >>> Nonsense. Genesis 1 :1 shows when the sun was made. Ge 1:1,   
   >>>   
   >>> "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)   
   >>>   
   >>> Thus in verse 1 the sun is shining brightly in the heavens. Since the   
   >>> order here is "heavens" and then the earth, the earth was created   
   >>> after the heavens. If you have any more questions about the early   
   >>> chapters of Genesis, just ask.   
   >>   
   >>      Some of the seqeunces don't go along with reality though. For example   
   if I'm   
   >> not mistaken it was written that plants were created before the stars, when   
   in   
   >> fact the stars existed long before plants on this planet or even the planet   
   >> itself. That doesn't mean there still couldn't be truth to it, but it does   
   mean   
   >> that how it could be true is not clear to us.   
   >> . . .   
   >>> Since God created each life form full and complete on the spot,   
   >>   
   >>      Not necessarily. To me it seems obvious that if God did control the   
   >> development of life on Earth he made great use of the evolutionary method.   
   But   
   >> he did it deliberately and not randomly which is the way things appear to   
   have   
   >> gone, unlike just entirely by random chance as atheists would like us to   
   >> believe. I've noticed that as they try to argue in favor of that situation   
   they   
   >> also try to deny it at the same time, acting like it was random, but   
   somehow at   
   >> the same time not random.   
   >>   
   >>> there   
   >>> would not be the millions of transitional life forms needed to satisfy   
   >>> that theory, there would be none.   
   >>   
   >>      That is what makes it appear that God does exist and made use of   
   evolution   
   >> imo. IF it was all just random then there should be LOTS of examples of   
   >> creatures in transition like from reptiles to birds. Instead I'm only   
   familiar   
   >> with one such example: Archaeopteryx. If it was all random there should be   
   a LOT   
   >> of DIFFERENT similar examples as well as others like flying mammals   
   developing.   
   >> Also there should STILL be examples of creatures in such transition states   
   >> today.   
   >   
   >You mean like   
   >   
   >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_glider   
   >   
   >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Squirrel   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)