XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: sylvia@not.at.this.address   
      
   On 9/07/2014 2:03 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)