XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:57:57 +1000, Sylvia Else    
   wrote:   
      
   >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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)