XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
From: sylvia@not.at.this.address
On 20/07/2014 6:55 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
> 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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
