XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:21:53 +1000, Sylvia Else    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 27/07/2014 4:08 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)