XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 23:46:07 +1000, Sylvia Else    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 18/07/2014 8:15 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:10:02 +1000, Sylvia Else    
   >> wrote:   
   >> .   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)