XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:34:37 +1000, Sylvia Else    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:18:51 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>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").   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)