XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:36:39 +1000, Sylvia Else    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 24/07/2014 2:08 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)