Origin of Life... An Overview
Fool For Christ
"primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in a
primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of
life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores... Hold it, not so fast
here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living
things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:
1. EARLY ATMOSPHERE -
For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and be
sustained.
2. SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -
We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life.
3. LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -
The simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large
molecules.
4. BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -
Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed.
5. LIVING CELL -
And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to
form a highly complex living cell.
When each of these steps are examined scientifically, we see that each has
tremendous problems and requires large leaps of faith to believe that they
ever happened. To explain the origin of life by non-supernatural means we
must have a plausible explanation for each of these steps. An artist's
conception of lighting striking a sea of organic soup and then jumping to
self-replicating life is woefully inadequate. In fact, it is very
misleading.
Although the origin of life by mechanistic means is routinely taken for
granted by the popular press, it is, in reality still a mystery to
evolutionary scientists.
Next Time... "Origin of Life: The Early Atmosphere"
Richard S. Crawford
More tripe based on a completely mistaken understanding of evolution.
These things sound more convincing when you know what you're talking about.
Fool For Christ
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in
message news:c3dbmq$o9q$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
We'll see...
:)
AC
We could start with the strawman about things being assembled as complex
living cells. Can you please cite where any researcher into abiogenesis
claims early cells were anywhere near as complex as they even become from
the earliest fossils?
It doesn't bode well for you when you start out with strawmen of that
nature. It also doesn't help that there is at least some evidence to
suggest that early life may have evolved around deep-sea vents. Perhaps you
should bone up the latest theories first.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
raven1
<tea...@ourchurch.com> wrote:
>When each of these steps are examined scientifically, we see that each has
>tremendous problems and requires large leaps of faith to believe that they
>ever happened. To explain the origin of life by non-supernatural means we
>must have a plausible explanation for each of these steps. An artist's
>conception of lighting striking a sea of organic soup and then jumping to
>self-replicating life is woefully inadequate. In fact, it is very
>misleading.
In fact, it is a strawman.
Eric Gill
news:405a341f$0$3954$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
*We* already have. And produced useful, very real products from
Abiogenesis research.
Your new nickname is the best yet, Fool, though I suspect most Christians
would rather you didn't implicate their savior as a co-conspirator.
Richard S. Crawford
He won't. His delusions are much more comforting than reality. By
feeding people his line of bull, he can keep them more "in the dark",
and make it easier for them to give him their money.
Richard S. Crawford
Oh, crap, it's him again, isn't it.
Damn.
*plonk*
Dana Tweedy
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in
Yep, sure looks that way.
>
> Damn.
>
> *plonk*
I'm with you.
DJT
>
Bobby D. Bryant
> We'll see...
Without a doubt.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> Perhaps you should bone up the latest theories first.
Why would he bone up on stuff that undercuts his desired conclusions?
Steve Knight
<tea...@ourchurch.com> wrote:
snippage
>Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of
>"primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in a
>primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of
>life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores... Hold it, not so fast
>here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living
>things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:
>
It really irks you creationist bozos that main stream science
ignores superstitious fantasy.
Isn't it strange that the only science you dimwits get hysterical
about is evolution and biogenesis. (Yes. They are two different fields
of study, Moron.) And yet you haven't a shred of evidence to prove a
god or that it made us magically from dirt.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Fool For Christ
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in
> Eric Gill wrote:
>
> > "Fool For Christ" <tea...@ourchurch.com> wrote in
> > news:405a341f$0$3954$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>More tripe based on a completely mistaken understanding of evolution.
> >>>
> >>>These things sound more convincing when you know what you're talking
> >>
> >>about.
> >>
> >>We'll see...
> >>:)
> >
> >
> > *We* already have. And produced useful, very real products from
> > Abiogenesis research.
> >
> > Your new nickname is the best yet, Fool, though I suspect most
Christians
> > would rather you didn't implicate their savior as a co-conspirator.
> >
>
> Oh, crap, it's him again, isn't it.
>
> Damn.
>
> *plonk*
Well you now have the dubious honour of being the first person in two and a
half years of newsgroup posting to *plonk* me...
And you included some ad hominem bias about my Christian faith also... good
for you! That must make you a real "man".
I have posted it here in order to gain a greater understanding of the
arguments for and against creationism vs. evolution... Now if you actually
willing to provide evidence- instead of argumentum ad hominem- to dispute my
posting, then please do... I welcome it with open arms in order to gain that
greater insight... otherwise, you can go and *plonk* yourself for all I
care.
Yours amicably,
FFC.
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written,
"He catches the wise in their own craftiness."
(1 Cor 3:19)
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but
to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
(1 Cor 1:21)
catshark
<tea...@ourchurch.com> wrote:
>Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of
>"primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in a
>primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of
>life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores... Hold it, not so fast
>here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living
>things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:
[Snip same ol' same ol']
Are you any of the people listed here:
<http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/us.htm>
[The ever popular " . . . group of engineers and professionals with
graduate degrees, largely in Computer Science.]
If not, to you have permission to copy their work, here?:
<http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ol0.htm>
>
>Next Time... "Origin of Life: The Early Atmosphere"
Don't bother. Anyone interested can find it here:
<http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ol1.htm>
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
It is not best to use our morals weekdays,
it gets them out of repair for Sunday.
-- Mark Twain --
John Thompson
> Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of
> "primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in a
> primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of
> life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores...
> Hold it, not so fast
> here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living
> things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:
>
> 1. EARLY ATMOSPHERE -
> For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and be
> sustained.
Or conversely life must have developed in a way that is compatible
with the environment (which is what all scientists think). Unless you
can argue that the early atmosphere would be destructive to the
formation of life there is no point here.
>
> 2. SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -
> We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life.
>
No, we need to see that there is way for such molecules to come into
existence. There is no need for them to be "constructed". Such
molecules are in fact produced naturally in a wide variety of
circumstances, so we already know that this step is not a problem.
> 3. LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -
> The simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large
> molecules.
Again, there is no need for molecules to "be assembled", just ot come
into existence. There is lots of research to suggest that this can
happen in a variety of natural environments.
>
> 4. BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -
> Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed.
Again you improperly use words like "constructed". Also, what exactly
are bilogical systems, as diffentiated say from chemical systems.
>
> 5. LIVING CELL -
> And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to
> form a highly complex living cell.
Highly complex cells almost certainly developed from slightly less
comples systems. This is simply wrong.
>
> When each of these steps are examined scientifically, we see that each has
> tremendous problems and requires large leaps of faith to believe that they
> ever happened.
Absolutely false. Some of your steps, such as the formation of simple
organic molecules, have absolutely no problems associated with them at
all. Other steps are areas of active research. There is no faith
involved at all, although this is a common claim of creationists who
can't see the diffenence between faith and knowledge.
> To explain the origin of life by non-supernatural means we
> must have a plausible explanation for each of these steps. An artist's
> conception of lighting striking a sea of organic soup and then jumping to
> self-replicating life is woefully inadequate. In fact, it is very
> misleading.
So what? No scientists propose anything like this, although
creationists frequently lie and say that they do.
>
> Although the origin of life by mechanistic means is routinely taken for
> granted by the popular press, it is, in reality still a mystery to
> evolutionary scientists.
So you are saying that the popular press is frequently inaccurate but
scientists themselves know better? I think most people here will agree
with you. Why you do you consider honesty by scientists to be a bad
thing ?
>
> Next Time... "Origin of Life: The Early Atmosphere"
John
IKnowHimDoYou
rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com wrote:
__________________________________________________________
Why don't you answer him with an intelligent evolved brain?
Are you afraid of the truth and you really have not answers?
Any evolutionist should be able to produce evidence to support their opinions.
IKnowHimDoYou
Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
________________________________________________________
So we can take it you have nothing to contribute either?
What a lovely lot these evolutionary religionist are.
Don't take any time to think-it maight hurt your brain.
IKnowHimDoYou
mightym...@hotmail.com wrote:
_______________________________________________________
Strawmen didn't evolve either! Perhaps you are the one who needs to bone
up(fossils which appear suddenly and are buried in mass groups by hydralic
action) certainly do suggest a world wide flood.
IKnowHimDoYou
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
____________________________________________________
Brillant!
And for your next trick?
AC
If you wish to believe fantasies that's your business. There was no
world-wide flood, and I have no more reason to believe in Noah than I do in
Gorgons.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Mark Richardson
<tea...@ourchurch.com> wrote:
<snip>
>When each of these steps are examined scientifically, we see that each has
>tremendous problems and requires large leaps of faith to believe that they
>ever happened.
Life exists - they must have happened.
Mark.
JR
"Fool For Christ" <tea...@ourchurch.com> wrote in message
news:405a31a3$0$3956$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of
> "primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in a
> primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy
of
> life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores... Hold it, not so fast
> here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living
> things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:
The basic problem here is mistaking the result for the cause. If none of
these things had occured, then the Earth would still be lifeless.
>
> 1. EARLY ATMOSPHERE -
> For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and be
> sustained.
>
> 2. SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -
> We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life.
The "favourable" conditions apparently cover quite a wide range, given that
we have proof that 19 out of 20 "biotic" amino acids can form on meteorites.
Not speculation. We have the meteorite with over 90 amino acids and some
other complex "organic" molecules. The "means" is evidently quite
simple... a few chemicals and an energy source.
>
> 3. LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -
> The simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large
> molecules.
Autocatalytic sets. Hypercycles. Chaos. Self-replicating molecules (yes,
we have self-replicating peptides).
>
> 4. BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -
> Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed.
See above.
>
> 5. LIVING CELL -
> And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to
> form a highly complex living cell.
No, it doesn't. We have life that isn't cellular (eg: viruses). Then there
are those lovely non-living prions. Life doesn't have to start with highly
complex cells.
>
> When each of these steps are examined scientifically, we see that each has
> tremendous problems and requires large leaps of faith to believe that they
> ever happened.
No, they require basic understanding of a wide variety of scientific fields,
and active inquiry into what research is being done. Not always the easiest
of tasks, granted, but hardly a leap of faith.
>To explain the origin of life by non-supernatural means we
> must have a plausible explanation for each of these steps.
Which we have...
>An artist's
> conception of lighting striking a sea of organic soup and then jumping to
> self-replicating life is woefully inadequate. In fact, it is very
> misleading.
But that's an artist, commiting a meme to shorthand, not a scientist.
>
> Although the origin of life by mechanistic means is routinely taken for
> granted by the popular press,
Who aren't scientists...
> it is, in reality still a mystery to
> evolutionary scientists.
>
Define "mystery". It's not completely unknown territory. It's not
imagination. We have these things, we've done these things. Are there
still things to learn, yes. But that doesn't mean that we know nothing.
-JR
Dana Tweedy
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKno...@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-180...@pm8-28.kalama.com...
snipping
>
> Strawmen didn't evolve either! Perhaps you are the one who needs to bone
> up(fossils which appear suddenly and are buried in mass groups by hydralic
> action) certainly do suggest a world wide flood.
Mass fossil graves indicate localized flooding. Finely laminated shales,
interspersed with sandstones, and conglomerate layers argue more forcefully
against a global flood. Where exactly did you do get your geological
education?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKno...@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-180...@pm8-28.kalama.com...
snipping
> > > Oh, crap, it's him again, isn't it.
> >
> > Yep, sure looks that way.
> >
> > >
> > > Damn.
> > >
> > > *plonk*
> >
> > I'm with you.
> >
> > DJT
> ________________________________________________________
>
> So we can take it you have nothing to contribute either?
>
> What a lovely lot these evolutionary religionist are.
>
> Don't take any time to think-it maight hurt your brain.
Oh, another sock puppet. How ordinary
plonk
DJT
>
raven1
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
>In article <mudk50943q9orr113...@4ax.com>, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:24:52 +0000 (UTC), "Fool For Christ"
>> <tea...@ourchurch.com> wrote:
>>
>> >When each of these steps are examined scientifically, we see that each has
>> >tremendous problems and requires large leaps of faith to believe that they
>> >ever happened. To explain the origin of life by non-supernatural means we
>> >must have a plausible explanation for each of these steps. An artist's
>> >conception of lighting striking a sea of organic soup and then jumping to
>> >self-replicating life is woefully inadequate. In fact, it is very
>> >misleading.
>>
>> In fact, it is a strawman.
>Brillant!
>
>And for your next trick?
Well, when is your next strawman due?
R. Baldwin
news:405a31a3$0$3956$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
[snip drivel]
Quite changing names to avoid killfiles.
>plonk!<
Seppo Pietikainen
I think we already saw...
Seppo P.
Geoff
news:is0l505f5uqm99e34...@4ax.com...
It was right under your nose and you missed it.
Geoff
news:405a459b$0$27384$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote
in
> message news:c3de1j$pg0$2...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> > Eric Gill wrote:
> > > *We* already have. And produced useful, very real products from
> > > Abiogenesis research.
> > >
> > > Your new nickname is the best yet, Fool, though I suspect most
> Christians
> > > would rather you didn't implicate their savior as a co-conspirator.
> > >
> >
> > Oh, crap, it's him again, isn't it.
> >
> > Damn.
> >
> > *plonk*
>
> Well you now have the dubious honour of being the first person in two and
a
> half years of newsgroup posting to *plonk* me...
On what do you base your conclusions? Do you get vertified mail each time
someone decided to killfile your ass?
> And you included some ad hominem bias about my Christian faith also
Wrong...it was an ad hominem attack on your intelligence. Unless you
are saying that you have to be an idiot to be a Christian. As far as I
know, it is not a requirement, but neither is it a stopper.
(Note: no ad hominem here...merely sarcasm)
> ... good for you! That must make you a real "man".
>
> I have posted it here in order to gain a greater understanding of the
> arguments for and against creationism vs. evolution... Now if you actually
> willing to provide evidence- instead of argumentum ad hominem- to dispute
my
> posting, then please do... I welcome it with open arms in order to gain
that
> greater insight.
My your arms must be full from all the intelligent replies you get.
Your task, should you accept it, is to objectively evaluate the
replies and do some independent research...report back in 48
hours.
This post will self-destruct in 5 seconds.
Geoff
news:IKnowHim-180...@pm8-28.kalama.com...
> Why don't you answer him with an intelligent evolved brain?
Little mpd going on here?
> Are you afraid of the truth and you really have not answers?
Some people have a way with words. Other people...uh...um...not have way?
> Any evolutionist should be able to produce evidence to support their
opinions.
You are right. And they can. You can spend the next few weeks reading
and digesting the voluminous information at www.talkorigins.org.
When you're done with that, let me know and I'll fill your plate again.
raven1
Actually, I ignored it.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Are you any of the people listed here:
>
> <http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/us.htm>
>
> [The ever popular " . . . group of engineers and professionals with
> graduate degrees, largely in Computer Science.]
Guess I can't make fun of salemesque engineers anymore.
Though it's a sad sign if CS is the only specialty they are willing to
mention. Wonder what the heck the rest of them are.
Bobby D. Bryant
> When each of these steps are examined scientifically, we see that each
> has tremendous problems and requires large leaps of faith to believe
> that they ever happened.
Compared to what? At least we know that molecules and atmospheres exist.
> To explain the origin of life by non-supernatural means we must have a
> plausible explanation for each of these steps.
Whereas the supernatural explanation merely requires a wave of the hands,
right?
You can start by giving us your definition of 'supernatural', and we'll
take it one step at a time from there.
johac
Steve Knight <who...@sonic.net> wrote:
The last sentence shows why it it is a waste of time to argue with these
loons. They hope to prove their case by trying to poke tiny pinholes in
scientific theory by attacking the evidence. They never provide any
evidence for their argument that a creator/designer exists. You can't
prove one theory by disproving another. They provide no evidence, but
ignore the mountains of evidence that support evolution.
They also confound the origin of life, or abiogenesis, or biogenesis
with evolution. These are separate phenomena. The origin of life is more
speculative, not because of the lack of a valid scientific hypothesis,
but because there are several. At present we simply don't have enough
data to choose among them. Science is working on it.
( e.g. Just this week: http://www.astrobio.net/news/article876.html
or: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994786)
As far as I have seen, none of the literature, or data suggest that a
supernatural sky-pixie need be involved. If they have evidence showing
otherwise, let them show it.
Evidence talks, creationist bullshit walks.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
Richard Forrest
<snipped as leading to high blood pressure>
> Strawmen didn't evolve either! Perhaps you are the one who needs to bone
> up(fossils which appear suddenly and are buried in mass groups by hydralic
> action) certainly do suggest a world wide flood.
Have you ever collected fossils in the field?
Please tell me where I can find evidence of animals being buried in
'mass groups by hydralic(sic) action'. I have been grubbing around in
quarries, road cuttings, sea cliffs and anywhere I can get access to
rocks for around 40 years, and have never come across anything to
suggest such an implausible event.
RF
JPG
>On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:24:52 +0000 (UTC), "Fool For Christ"
><tea...@ourchurch.com> wrote:
>
>>Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of
>>"primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in a
>>primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of
>>life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores... Hold it, not so fast
>>here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living
>>things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:
>
>[Snip same ol' same ol']
>
>Are you any of the people listed here:
>
><http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/us.htm>
As an engineer I'm disgusted that we, who have to put scientific theory and
principles into practice, should have such fantasists in our midst.
I can only hope they compartmentalise sufficiently otherwise I might be scared
to drive my car, fly in an airplane or switch on my dish-washer.
JPG
Jos Flachs
<tea...@ourchurch.com> wrote:
>Well you now have the dubious honour of being the first person in two and a
>half years of newsgroup posting to *plonk* me...
I'll make you feel real proud today, Fool.
<plonk>
catshark
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:36:00 +0000, catshark wrote:
>
>> Are you any of the people listed here:
>>
>> <http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/us.htm>
>>
>> [The ever popular " . . . group of engineers and professionals with
>> graduate degrees, largely in Computer Science.]
>
>Guess I can't make fun of salemesque engineers anymore.
Don't take it to heart. After all, I've got Phil Johnson . . .
>
>Though it's a sad sign if CS is the only specialty they are willing to
>mention. Wonder what the heck the rest of them are.
"Sanitary engineers"?
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
- Unseen University Motto -
ZenIsWhen
"Fool For Christ" <tea...@ourchurch.com> wrote in message
news:405a31a3$0$3956$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Fool? Yes.
for Christ? Only in your ignorant dreams!
(snip creationist ignorance)
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:36:00 +0000 (UTC), catshark <cats...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:24:52 +0000 (UTC), "Fool For Christ"
>><tea...@ourchurch.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of
>>> "primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in
>>> a primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the
>>> energy of life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores... Hold
>>> it, not so fast here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one
>>> filled with living things, we would have to pass through a number of
>>> stages:
>>
>> [Snip same ol' same ol']
>>
>> Are you any of the people listed here:
>>
>> <http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/us.htm>
>
> As an engineer I'm disgusted that we, who have to put scientific theory
> and principles into practice, should have such fantasists in our midst.
The only one I can find any concrete information on is Jason Browning, MS
in CS -
<http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:eTFYt2JUtyIJ:emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/society/allnotes.doc+%22Jason+Browning%22+graduate+degree&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>
Given the creationist tendency to tout their credentials to the heavens,
that's a bad sign. The good doctor doesn't even claim to have the de
rigueur "Ph.D. in science".
Eric Gill
news:405a459b$0$27384$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
>
> "Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
> wrote in message news:c3de1j$pg0$2...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
>> Eric Gill wrote:
>>
>> > "Fool For Christ" <tea...@ourchurch.com> wrote in
>> > news:405a341f$0$3954$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
>> >
>> >
> <snip>
>> >>>
>> >>>More tripe based on a completely mistaken understanding of
>> >>>evolution.
>> >>>
>> >>>These things sound more convincing when you know what you're
>> >>>talking
>> >>
>> >>about.
>> >>
>> >>We'll see...
>> >>:)
>> >
>> >
>> > *We* already have. And produced useful, very real products from
>> > Abiogenesis research.
>> >
>> > Your new nickname is the best yet, Fool, though I suspect most
> Christians
>> > would rather you didn't implicate their savior as a co-conspirator.
>> >
>>
>> Oh, crap, it's him again, isn't it.
>>
>> Damn.
>>
>> *plonk*
>
> Well you now have the dubious honour of being the first person in two
> and a half years of newsgroup posting to *plonk* me...
> And you included some ad hominem bias
Was that supposed to make sense, Fool?
> about my Christian faith also...
> good for you!
Your ridiculous charicature with anti-intellectualism and blatant
dishonesty thrown in, you mean?
> That must make you a real "man".
>
> I have posted it here in order to gain a greater understanding of the
> arguments for and against creationism vs. evolution...
That is, of course, why your post was simply an attack against
evolution...or what you think is evolution.
> Now if you
> actually willing to provide evidence-
You mean, besides the many posters that for some inexplicable reason wasted
their time doing so but you completely ignored?
Well- look! I did, too, but you ignored that as well!
> instead of argumentum ad hominem-
Hypocritical Liar is a title you worked hard to earn, Fool. It wasn't an
attempt at argument, but simply contempt.
> to dispute my posting, then please do... I welcome it with
> open arms in order to gain that greater insight...
Well, you're a whole-hearted liar, I'll give you that.
<spit>
> otherwise, you can
> go and *plonk* yourself for all I care.
Eric Gill
news:IKnowHim-180...@pm8-28.kalama.com:
<snip>
> So we can take it you have nothing to contribute either?
Oh, look- sock Fool-boy has sock puppets!
Admit it, Fool - you in fact despise Christianity and are doing your
damndest to make the entire religion look bad.
<snip>
C. Thompson
snip
>
> Strawmen didn't evolve either! Perhaps you are the one who needs to
> bone up(fossils which appear suddenly and are buried in mass groups
> by hydralic action) certainly do suggest a world wide flood.
No, please! Not that one!
Hydrodynamic sorting! BWAHAHA!
You really cannot be serious. Are you? Please tell me it ain't so. That
argument was demolished decades ago, and there were no survivors.
Chris
C. Thompson
> Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of
> "primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in
> a primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the
> energy of life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores... Hold
> it, not so fast here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one
> filled with living things, we would have to pass through a number of
> stages:
>
> For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and be
> sustained.
>
> 2. SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -
> We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life.
>
> 3. LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -
> The simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large
> molecules.
>
> 4. BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -
> Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed.
>
> 5. LIVING CELL -
> And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled
> together to form a highly complex living cell.
>
Whoa, there, Fool! Stop right there.
Please describe in detail the examinations you made. At least provide a
reference, OK? You can't just wave your hands and say "This was done".
Let's see the experiments, the protocols, the data, the conclusions.
What? No literature search?
Shame on you.
Bye.
Chris
Joe Dunckley
<'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:50:03 +0000 (UTC), "Fool For Christ"
> <tea...@ourchurch.com> wrote:
>
>> Well you now have the dubious honour of being the first person in two
>> and a
>> half years of newsgroup posting to *plonk* me...
No, I did after after the fifth bollocks thread in a row that you started.
--
Joe Dunckley <m...@removethisspamblock.steinsky.me.uk>
http://www.steinsky.me.uk - http://www.cotch.net
Check out the mooircd network: http://www.mooircd.org
Read the current Syndicate of London Journal: http://www.soljo.org
Write the EvoWiki: http://www.evowiki.org
John Wilkins
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:14:23 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:36:00 +0000, catshark wrote:
> >
> >> Are you any of the people listed here:
> >>
> >> <http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/us.htm>
> >>
> >> [The ever popular " . . . group of engineers and professionals with
> >> graduate degrees, largely in Computer Science.]
> >
> >Guess I can't make fun of salemesque engineers anymore.
>
> Don't take it to heart. After all, I've got Phil Johnson . . .
>
> >
> >Though it's a sad sign if CS is the only specialty they are willing to
> >mention. Wonder what the heck the rest of them are.
>
> "Sanitary engineers"?
>
Civil engineers. They specialise in moving large amounts of dirt about.
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
Bobby D. Bryant
> IKnowHimDoYou wrote:
>
>> Strawmen didn't evolve either! Perhaps you are the one who needs to
>> bone up(fossils which appear suddenly and are buried in mass groups by
>> hydralic action) certainly do suggest a world wide flood.
>
> No, please! Not that one!
I'm still trying to parse the sentence.
Steve the Sauropodman
> Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of
> "primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in a
> primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of
> life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores... Hold it, not so fast
> here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living
> things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:
>
> 1. EARLY ATMOSPHERE -
> For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and be
> sustained.
Obviously there was a favorable environment. However that being said,
the first life forms clearly developed in an environment that would be
totally inhospitable to life as we know it today.
> 2. SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -
> We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life.
Simple organic molocules can be constructed in any decent college
Biology/Chemistry lab. Urey and Miller achieved it, even with a
partially incorrect recipe for the atmosphere for the early earth.
> 3. LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -
> The simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large
> molecules.
See DNA, RNA, Amylose, Amylopectin. Glycogen. Glycogen. Cellulose.
Cellulose. Glycosaminoglycan. Hyaluronate, Chondroitin, Chitin,
Heparin, et al.
> 4. BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -
> Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed.
Photosynthesis, Chemosynthesis, Glycolosis, etc.
> 5. LIVING CELL -
> And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to
> form a highly complex living cell.
Animalia, Plantae, Protocist, Fungi, Archeobacteria
> When each of these steps are examined scientifically, we see that each has
> tremendous problems and requires large leaps of faith to believe that they
> ever happened.
No not really. Valence Chemsitry is sufficient
>To explain the origin of life by non-supernatural means we
> must have a plausible explanation for each of these steps.
Yes, Physics!
>An artist's conception of lighting striking a sea of organic soup and
then >jumping to self-replicating life is woefully inadequate. In
fact, it is very
> misleading.
And cartoonishly simplistic. The origins of life underwent a far more
complex developmental process, and if one considers all the work done
in the last decade on extremophiles, the origins of life on earth may
not have begun on the planet's surface at all, but deep in the
recesses of deep sea hydrothermal vents!
> Although the origin of life by mechanistic means is routinely taken for
> granted by the popular press, it is, in reality still a mystery to
> evolutionary scientists.
Yes, many aspects are, and that's why we - professionals and amateur
scientists (and EVILutionists) alike - continue to study it, and not
allow ourselves to embrace mythology, and fantasy to understand the
world arund us.
> Next Time... "Origin of Life: The Early Atmosphere"
Oy!
Cheers!
"A curse on those geologists. When I read Scripture I can hear the
damned clinking of their infernal hammers in every verse"
- Bishop James Ruskin, 1874
Therion Ware
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:32:09 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, John Wilkins
(john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
>catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:14:23 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
>> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:36:00 +0000, catshark wrote:
>> >
>> >> Are you any of the people listed here:
>> >>
>> >> <http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/us.htm>
>> >>
>> >> [The ever popular " . . . group of engineers and professionals with
>> >> graduate degrees, largely in Computer Science.]
>> >
>> >Guess I can't make fun of salemesque engineers anymore.
>>
>> Don't take it to heart. After all, I've got Phil Johnson . . .
>>
>> >
>> >Though it's a sad sign if CS is the only specialty they are willing to
>> >mention. Wonder what the heck the rest of them are.
>>
>> "Sanitary engineers"?
>>
>Civil engineers. They specialise in moving large amounts of dirt about.
Sometimes using very large amounts of explosive, which may be a
compensation for the long qualification process.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
R.Schenck
> Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of
> "primordial soup".
thats probably about the understanding that most creationists have of
it. At least its one step ahead of 'rocks to man'. Its interesting,
because in their rejection of evolution the creationists subsist in a
pre-Darwinian world, and even the concepts of sciences that are not
part of evolution are no further advanced than they were in Darwins
day. The person who -originally- wrote the above post may well have
called it a 'small warm pond' like darwin did.
in 1999 Witc...@psynet.net aka Talesin posted this same crap here:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U20F126C7
but he at least had the sense/decency/honesty to give it source, which
was Gish as I am sure so many other people have quickly found out.
Perhaps 'talesin's' honesty and integrity can be attributed to the
fact that he is a pagan and -not-a christian. Not surprisingly, Fool
for Christ is giving ample evidence that it is a Liar for Christ.
What else was interesting about that thread is that its title is 'the
evolution debacle continues'. It was 1999. Evolution is stull
supreme in the scientific field, and the creationists have had to
resort to many sorry tactics in the meanwhile, claiming outright
defeats as victories and what not.
The same article by gish was discussed (via a quick google) a few
times in the past:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2CF616C7
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I1DF326C7
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V5EF216C7
perhaps it would be good for the Original Poster, assuming it wasn't
involved in these discussions previously, to look at the above links
also, if for nothign else then the context of the articles.
Perhaps it would also address the question of just what the poster
thought was going to be accomplished? Did it think that no one in the
evolution v creationism newsgroup had heard of gish?? Of course, by
plagarizing his work, no one would know that it was neccessarily gish,
but thats another matter. Perhaps the poster thought that there was a
good arguement there. Put in newsgroups its best to comment on the
particular portions that you were interested in and how they were
relevant, rather than just posting the text without giving credit
where credit is due. Realistically, this may have been from a webpage,
so a link to the webpage followed by an (optional of course)
commentary would've been the most effective thing to do, perhaps
quoteing the most powerful portion of the arguement.
Of course, since no part of any Gish arguement is in any way powerful,
its understandable that the poster couldn't do that.
snip
Robibnikoff
snip
>
>Why don't you answer him with an intelligent evolved brain?
>
>
LOL! Oh, the irony ;p
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Hiero5ant
"C. Thompson" <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3enp7$gpf$1...@pat.cis.cuny.edu...
Yes, but their remains were laid out in neatly sorted piles.
C. Thompson
You have to close your eyes and tickle your uvula with a cotton swab to
experience the gestalt.
Chris
Michael Howard
>
>"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in
>message news:c3de1j$pg0$2...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
>> Eric Gill wrote:
>>
>> > "Fool For Christ" <tea...@ourchurch.com> wrote in
>> > news:405a341f$0$3954$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
>> >
>> >
><snip>
>> >>>
>> >>>More tripe based on a completely mistaken understanding of evolution.
>> >>>
>> >>>These things sound more convincing when you know what you're talking
>> >>
>> >>about.
>> >>
>> >>We'll see...
>> >>:)
>> >
>> >
>> > *We* already have. And produced useful, very real products from
>> > Abiogenesis research.
>> >
>> > Your new nickname is the best yet, Fool, though I suspect most
>Christians
>> > would rather you didn't implicate their savior as a co-conspirator.
>> >
>>
>> Oh, crap, it's him again, isn't it.
>>
>> Damn.
>>
>> *plonk*
>
>Well you now have the dubious honour of being the first person in two and a
>half years of newsgroup posting to *plonk* me...
>And you included some ad hominem bias about my Christian faith also... good
>for you! That must make you a real "man".
>
>I have posted it here in order to gain a greater understanding of the
>arguments for and against creationism vs. evolution... Now if you actually
>willing to provide evidence- instead of argumentum ad hominem- to dispute my
>posting, then please do... I welcome it with open arms in order to gain that
>greater insight... otherwise, you can go and *plonk* yourself for all I
>care.
>
This isn't an altogether unreasonable request. However, I think your
credibility is shot on account of you plaigarized your "arguments."
Had you cited the source
(http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/cartoon.htm) you might have had a
chance at garnering some respect.
-----------------------------------
mike
"That's an interesting theory. Only one problem: It's stupid. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
The Mud and Mayhem Society
http://tmms.50megs.com
Now 100% content-free
MheathXX
It would seem to me that a worldwide flood would produce zillions of
deaths. But fossils? I don't know. They say that fossilization is a
rare process and takes the right conditions. So I would assume that
out of a great flood there would be some fossilization but probably
not very many. Might not be any.
If fossilization occured everytime something died, then we might have
evidence.
Im no expert so correct me where I err.
So if one was to go out fossil hunting then I would assume that they
would just find normal fossil stuff. No great world wide fossil
layer. I would also assume that geological processes that occur over
millions of years would somewhat mess up fossil layers. Wouldn't you?
Maybe God created all this mess the way it is so that there is no
proof of much of anything. So that we will search out his truth, give
him a try and see what happens. I know I have not been dissapointed.
I think FAITH is a major part of his program.
Now why did the massive Dinos die out? That could have been a flood.
Mekkala
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
>
> "Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
> wrote in message news:c3dbmq$o9q$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
>> Fool For Christ wrote:
>>
>> > Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of
>> > "primordial soup". There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients
>> > in a primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting
>> > the
> energy of
>> > life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores... Hold it, not
>> > so
> fast
>> > here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with
>> > living things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:
>> >
>> > 1. EARLY ATMOSPHERE -
>> > For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and
>> > be sustained.
>> >
>> > 2. SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -
>> > We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life.
>> >
>> > 3. LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -
>> > The simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful
>> > large molecules.
>> >
>> > 4. BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -
>> > Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed.
>> >
>> > 5. LIVING CELL -
>> > And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled
>> > together
> to
>> > form a highly complex living cell.
>> >
>> > When each of these steps are examined scientifically, we see that
>> > each
> has
>> > tremendous problems and requires large leaps of faith to believe
>> > that
> they
>> > ever happened. To explain the origin of life by non-supernatural
>> > means
> we
>> > must have a plausible explanation for each of these steps. An
>> > artist's conception of lighting striking a sea of organic soup and
>> > then jumping
> to
>> > self-replicating life is woefully inadequate. In fact, it is very
>> > misleading.
>> >
>> > Although the origin of life by mechanistic means is routinely taken
>> > for granted by the popular press, it is, in reality still a mystery
>> > to evolutionary scientists.
>> >
>> > Next Time... "Origin of Life: The Early Atmosphere"
>> >
>> >
>>
>> More tripe based on a completely mistaken understanding of evolution.
>>
>> These things sound more convincing when you know what you're talking
> about.
>
> We'll see...
>:)
Look, do you think the drivel you're spewing is somehow new or original?
We've heard it all before, and we're not taken in quite so easily as the
ignorant laymen who believe every word their preacher farts out at the
pulpit. I would refute everything you just said, but is it really worth
it? I can't count the times I've written up a full rebuttal of this
kind of tripe, and it gets a bit old, you know...
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
Hiero5ant
"MheathXX" <mhea...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:c3d9dd2.04031...@posting.google.com...
> ric...@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message
news:<892cb437.04031...@posting.google.com>...
> > IKno...@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote in message
news:<IKnowHim-180...@pm8-28.kalama.com>...
<snip>
> It would seem to me that a worldwide flood would produce zillions of
> deaths. But fossils? I don't know. They say that fossilization is a
> rare process and takes the right conditions. So I would assume that
> out of a great flood there would be some fossilization but probably
> not very many. Might not be any.
<snip>
> Now why did the massive Dinos die out? That could have been a flood.
Do you understand the tension between the paragraph above and your last
sentence?
Dana Tweedy
news:<892cb437.04031...@posting.google.com>...
> > IKno...@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote in message
news:<IKnowHim-180...@pm8-28.kalama.com>...
> >
> > <snipped as leading to high blood pressure>
> > > Strawmen didn't evolve either! Perhaps you are the one who needs to
bone
> > > up(fossils which appear suddenly and are buried in mass groups by
hydralic
> > > action) certainly do suggest a world wide flood.
> >
> > Have you ever collected fossils in the field?
> > Please tell me where I can find evidence of animals being buried in
> > 'mass groups by hydralic(sic) action'. I have been grubbing around in
> > quarries, road cuttings, sea cliffs and anywhere I can get access to
> > rocks for around 40 years, and have never come across anything to
> > suggest such an implausible event.
> >
> > RF
>
> It would seem to me that a worldwide flood would produce zillions of
> deaths.
Only if there were 'zillions' of living things at the time.
> But fossils? I don't know. They say that fossilization is a
> rare process and takes the right conditions. So I would assume that
> out of a great flood there would be some fossilization but probably
> not very many. Might not be any.
>
> If fossilization occured everytime something died, then we might have
> evidence.
Which is why we don't have a complete fossil record.
>
> Im no expert so correct me where I err.
>
> So if one was to go out fossil hunting then I would assume that they
> would just find normal fossil stuff. No great world wide fossil
> layer. I would also assume that geological processes that occur over
> millions of years would somewhat mess up fossil layers. Wouldn't you?
Many geological process do "mess up" fossil layers. Metamorphism, erosion,
etc.
>
> Maybe God created all this mess the way it is so that there is no
> proof of much of anything.
There's a great deal of evidence that no global flood ever took place.
> So that we will search out his truth, give
> him a try and see what happens. I know I have not been dissapointed.
> I think FAITH is a major part of his program.
Not in science however.
>
> Now why did the massive Dinos die out? That could have been a flood.
The dinosaurs, both the massive and the smaller sized ones, died for
any number of millions of different reasons. Old age, disease, predation,
accidents, natural catastrophes, and so on. All the dinosaurs in the fossil
record did not die out at the same time, they died over millions of years,
after showing a great deal of evolutionary change. The question is why are
dinosaurs (the non-avian ones anyway) not found after the Cretaceous
period? Presently the most plausible answer is that a mass extinction
event at the end of the Cretaceous ended most of the dinosaur linages that
had not already died out. The most favored theory right now on what caused
this extinction event is a meteor or comet impact, causing a drastic climate
change. There's no evidence that a flood killed off the dinosaurs.
DJT
Jim
> Maybe God created all this mess the way it is so that there is no
> proof of much of anything. So that we will search out his truth, give
> him a try and see what happens. I know I have not been dissapointed.
> I think FAITH is a major part of his program.
>
> Now why did the massive Dinos die out? That could have been a flood.
Not if the dinosaurs were on the ark!
Richard Forrest
Im getting a very garbled message here. One the one hand you claim (at
least I think you claim) that the fossil record is the result of
hyralic (sic) sorting, and on the other hand you say that the fossil
record is explained by 'geological processes over millions of years'
and that no fossils were formed in the flood.
Faith is nothing to do with it. There is no evidence whatsoever of a
world-wide flood event, and within the very robust theoretical
framework of our modern understanding of geological processes no way
on which a global flood could occur. It would require the sudden
appearance of vast quantities of water in a way which leaves no
evidence, and the removal of those same vast quantities of water in a
way that leaves no evidence.
You may be able to come up with a new way of interpreting the
geological record which does provide evidence for a flood, but to do
that you need to have a deep understanding of our current theoretical
framework, and a lot of direct experience of investigating the record.
We certainly don't need to invoke a flood event to explain the
dinosaur extinction event. There are plenty of other contending
theories which have the advantage of being based on physical evidence,
in particular the impact event, and the massive volcanism in southern
India.
RF
Ronald Dean
evolution!
It is in reference only to the origin of life. Most of which
is speculation. Before reproduction is possible an energy
conversion system is required. For example photosynthesis.
Directly or indirectly virtually all life of planet earth requires
a method for converting solar energy(light) to useable
energy. The energy conversion system of early RNA
or whatever molecule requires useful energy.
>
> These things sound more convincing when you know
what you're talking about.
>
more evidence that can be intrepred as support for
evolution than for the origin of life (abiogenesis). But
until the first life form appeared everything is little more
than supposition.
>
There is a catch - 22 situation involved with the origin
of the genetic code and life.
What makes the origin of life and the genetic code
a disturbing riddle is this: the code has no biological
function until after it is translated. However, the
machinery by which the code translates itself is
made up of some 50 macromolecular components
which also are encoded in the code.
Thus the code cannot be translated except by using
certain products of its own translation. This makes
for a really baffling circle: a vicious circle for any
attempt to form a model of the origin or the genetic
code.
(This quandary was identified by Karl Popper.
But try as I might I have not been able to locate
the article or book by Popper. But this is essentially
the meaning of his statement). If interested in the
source I will search further.
Ron
>
MheathXX
we dont know exactly 100% sure what was on that ark but it could have
been dinos that were genetically smaller and could have become extinct
shortly after the flood. the flood killed all the other bigger ones.
why? i wouldnt know but it could be a part of God's great plan.
AC
Or it could just be a Bronze age faery story that some rather silly people
still like to make believe actually happened. One advantage of this
explanation is that it fits the physical evidence and the observable
mindsets of those that adhere to Biblica literalism.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Skepticus
MheathXX wrote:
Except that there is no God, and cannot possibly be any such of a thing
due to the fatal problem (special pleading for that one thing) inherent
in the very idea of God, which was pointed out by Bertrand Russell:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
Virgil
Skepticus <sk...@theatheism.web> wrote:
> Except that there is no God, and cannot possibly be any such of a thing
> due to the fatal problem (special pleading for that one thing) inherent
> in the very idea of God, which was pointed out by Bertrand Russell:
An argument as flagrantly false as that of any flaming Christian
Fundamentalist, though in many respects, Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, resembles those flaming Christian Fundamentalists.
>
> "The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
> any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
> If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
> world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
> Russell (1872 - 1970)
One conversant with the process of reading what is written, instead of
what one want to see, will not that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has
again conflated Russels "must" with Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
"might". Russell never says that there is any problem with "there MIGHT
be a first cause", only that there is a problem with "there MUST be a
first cause".
Read it for yourself, and Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's falsehood
becomes glaringly apparent.
MheathXX
You have NO substantial proof that God does NOT exist. NONE.
Contrarily, there is substantial proof that Jesus walked the Earth,
claimed to be God, undertook GREAT miracles that were witnessed by
many many people and it was recorded. UNLIKE the origins of the
universe and man. Of which you have NO proof. Just hypothetical
statements that nobody saw or recorded back in time.
Finally, what I am trying to say on this board is that the evidence
and logical idea points MORE (not absolutely) to an intelligent
designer than to an unintelligent designer.
NATURE has never ever produced anything but form and structure over
time. You take life out of our picture and you would have a MOONSCAPE
here. Nothing more. Nothing less. Think about it.
And you want people to think that nature somehow produced life? You
cannot tell me one thing that nature has produced on its own without
an intelligent designer that has anything more complex than structure
and form.......for 4 billion years my friend. 4 billion.
catshark
wrote:
It can hardly be a surprise that there can be no "proof" of a negative,
especially where the proposed entity is omnipotent and can, therefore,
explain *any* result in the universe.
>
>Contrarily, there is substantial proof that Jesus walked the Earth,
There is scant evidence for this outside of *one* book written and edited
by people with an interest in making it appear to be true.
>claimed to be God,
There is no evidence for this outside of *one* book written and edited by
people with an interest in making it appear to be true.
>undertook GREAT miracles that were witnessed by
>many many people and it was recorded.
There is no evidence for this outside of *one* book written and edited by
people with an interest in making it appear to be true.
>UNLIKE the origins of the
>universe and man. Of which you have NO proof.
We have better . . . objective evidence.
>Just hypothetical
>statements that nobody saw or recorded back in time.
We have better . . . objective evidence.
>
>Finally, what I am trying to say on this board
Group . . . usenet *group*. But it no surprise that you don't even know
where you are . . .
>is that the evidence
>and logical idea points MORE (not absolutely) to an intelligent
>designer than to an unintelligent designer.
You have failed in rather spectacular fashion.
>
>NATURE has never ever produced anything but form and structure over
>time. You take life out of our picture and you would have a MOONSCAPE
>here. Nothing more. Nothing less. Think about it.
Why? You obviously haven't.
>
>And you want people to think that nature somehow produced life? You
>cannot tell me one thing that nature has produced on its own without
>an intelligent designer that has anything more complex than structure
>and form.......for 4 billion years my friend. 4 billion.
Well, at least you got past the 6,000 year-old universe idea. Keep working
on it and maybe you'll make it to the 21st Century yet.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement,
but we must not exaggerate ID's successes on the scientific front.
- William A. Dembski -
William
(MheathXX) wrote:
>Skepticus <sk...@theatheism.web> wrote
>
>> Except that there is no God, and cannot possibly be any such of a thing
>> due to the fatal problem (special pleading for that one thing) inherent
>> in the very idea of God, which was pointed out by Bertrand Russell:
>>
>> "The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
>> any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
>> If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
>> world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
>> Russell (1872 - 1970)
>
>You have NO substantial proof that God does NOT exist. NONE.
You never will have. Nor will you have substantial proof that ANY
invisible entity does not exist.
>Contrarily, there is substantial proof that Jesus walked the Earth,
>claimed to be God, undertook GREAT miracles that were witnessed by
>many many people and it was recorded.
No contemporary historians. NONE.
>UNLIKE the origins of the universe and man. Of which you have NO proof.
There is evidence. That's all science needs.
>Just hypothetical statements that nobody saw or recorded back in time.
>Finally, what I am trying to say on this board is that the evidence
>and logical idea points MORE (not absolutely) to an intelligent
>designer than to an unintelligent designer.
Please define 'intelligent' and 'design'. And then show how you can
tell something is intelligently designed by looking at it.
>NATURE has never ever produced anything but form and structure over
>time.
That all that is needed.
>You take life out of our picture and you would have a MOONSCAPE
>here.
Why should nature not have formed life? It produces form and
structure. Life is form and structure. It has the advantage of
self-replication which gives it a phenomenal potential for an
explosion in development.
William
mclark
I've had it with this copout assertion from atheists that there can be
no proof of a negative with respect to their inability to prove that
there is no God. If I lift a box, for example, and it feels light I can
assert that the box is empty. When I am asked to prove that there is
nothing in the box (other than air) I simply open the box to verify that
the box is empty. So the unthinking atheist assertion that there can be
no proof of a negative doesn't hold water.
M. Clark
catshark
wrote:
[...]
>>
>> It can hardly be a surprise that there can be no "proof" of a negative,
>> especially where the proposed entity is omnipotent and can, therefore,
>> explain *any* result in the universe.
>
>I've had it with this copout assertion from atheists
. . . and anyone else interested in logic . . .
>that there can be
>no proof of a negative with respect to their inability to prove that
>there is no God. If I lift a box, for example, and it feels light I can
>assert that the box is empty. When I am asked to prove that there is
>nothing in the box (other than air) I simply open the box to verify that
>the box is empty. So the unthinking atheist assertion that there can be
>no proof of a negative doesn't hold water.
Can't read well enough to get past the first line? In *very* constrained
circumstances, negative results can be *evidence* (not "proof"). But if
the the proposal is without limits, *no* evidence can be probative.
If I lift the box and it feels light, it is no evidence that there isn't a
creature inside that can magically make itself weigh nothing.
If I open the box and it looks empty, it is no evidence that there isn't a
creature inside that can magically make itself invisible.
Now, if you want to posit a god that *isn't* omnipotent, just start listing
the *limits* on the attributes and abilities of this hypothetical being and
we can get down to the task of seeing if we can devise a test . . .
[...]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The ultimate tragedy of creationism:
The inability to distinguish between one's personal ignorance and god.
- Howard Hershey -
Grinder
MheathXX wrote:
> > >You have NO substantial proof that God does NOT exist. NONE.
catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It can hardly be a surprise that there can be no "proof" of a negative,
> > especially where the proposed entity is omnipotent and can, therefore,
> > explain *any* result in the universe.
"mclark" <idont...@toemail.com> wrote:
> I've had it with this copout assertion from atheists that there can be
> no proof of a negative with respect to their inability to prove that
> there is no God. If I lift a box, for example, and it feels light I can
> assert that the box is empty. When I am asked to prove that there is
> nothing in the box (other than air) I simply open the box to verify that
> the box is empty. So the unthinking atheist assertion that there can be
> no proof of a negative doesn't hold water.
[snip]
You lost me on that last sentence. Let's work try to find a parallel:
> If I lift a box, for example, and it feels light I can
> assert that the box is empty. When I am asked
> to prove that there is nothing in the box (other
> than air) I simply open the box to verify that
> the box is empty.
Ok, so:
I can assert that there is no God. When I am asked to prove that there is
no GOD, I simply ... ??
What would be an *hypothetical* test for the non-existence of God?
Fred Stone
news:1gc18g6.agymso7rzx1cN%idont...@toemail.com:
> I've had it with this copout assertion from atheists that there can be
> no proof of a negative with respect to their inability to prove that
> there is no God. If I lift a box, for example, and it feels light I
> can assert that the box is empty. When I am asked to prove that there
> is nothing in the box (other than air) I simply open the box to verify
> that the box is empty. So the unthinking atheist assertion that there
> can be no proof of a negative doesn't hold water.
>
> M. Clark
So, which box is God in? And why, when we "look" where Christians like you
tell us to look, do we see *nothing*?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
William
(mclark) wrote:
>catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It can hardly be a surprise that there can be no "proof" of a negative,
>> especially where the proposed entity is omnipotent and can, therefore,
>> explain *any* result in the universe.
>
>I've had it with this copout assertion from atheists that there can be
>no proof of a negative with respect to their inability to prove that
>there is no God. If I lift a box, for example, and it feels light I can
>assert that the box is empty. When I am asked to prove that there is
>nothing in the box (other than air) I simply open the box to verify that
>the box is empty. So the unthinking atheist assertion that there can be
>no proof of a negative doesn't hold water.
Prove that god is not in the box.
William
mclark
Eric Gill
news:1gc1f90.1erbrqi16kwiioN%idont...@toemail.com:
"If you don't see it, you're looking in the wrong place, and I'm not going
to tell you where to look."
> Revelation 3:20
"A limited human can ignore an omnipotent supreme being so effectively that
they cannot even see that it exists."
Got something that isn't a copout, Clark?
Fred Stone
news:1gc1f90.1erbrqi16kwiioN%idont...@toemail.com:
So, no box. Not here, not there, not anywhere.
> Revelation 3:20
>
He who don't knocketh, can't cometh in.
Claytie the Umpire Slayer
>
>
> You have NO substantial proof that God does NOT exist. NONE.
You have no substantial proof that THE INVISIBLE PINK UNICORN that created
the universe out of his might magical horn doesn't exist and is in fact
sitting on your shoulder, deciding how you will have to spend eternity in
the giant bowl of unsalted porridge having your genital scraped with a
cheese grater for not believing in him. It's equally as credible as this
God thing you are talking about. Of course the fact that there is literally
NO evidence AT ALL for your God thing is something you conveniently left
out.
>
> Contrarily, there is substantial proof that Jesus walked the Earth,
There is no corroborating evidence what so ever for the literal existence of
Jesus. All you have is a book of mythology with fantastic and absurd
claims, which contradict reality, written after many, many years of Chinese
whispers style story telling, exaggerating and embellishing each step along
the way by people who were not there, finally written down long after the
events supposedly took place by people with a vested interest in the myth,
then rewritten and retranslated and re-edited and reinterpreted over and
over again until some versions were picked and chosen by a group of
power-hungry religious leaders again with a vested interest in the power of
the myth to support the version of the myth they personally wanted.
Yeah..how rock solid is that for evidence.
> claimed to be God, undertook GREAT miracles that were witnessed by
> many many people and it was recorded.
You don't have the first clue of what you are talking about. Get an
education, doofus!
UNLIKE the origins of the
> universe and man. Of which you have NO proof.
Supported by evidence unlike your silly book of fairy tales.
Just hypothetical
> statements that nobody saw or recorded back in time.
OH...THE IRONY. OH OH...the pot calling the polar bear black!
>
> Finally, what I am trying to say on this board is that the evidence
> and logical idea points MORE (not absolutely) to an intelligent
> designer than to an unintelligent designer.
You didn't even pass grade 5 did you?
>
> NATURE has never ever produced anything but form and structure over
> time. You take life out of our picture and you would have a MOONSCAPE
> here. Nothing more. Nothing less. Think about it.
>
> And you want people to think that nature somehow produced life? You
> cannot tell me one thing that nature has produced on its own without
> an intelligent designer that has anything more complex than structure
> and form.......for 4 billion years my friend. 4 billion.
You have to be putting this on...surely no education system could be so
incompetent than to produce a result like this!
Matt Silberstein
mhea...@excite.com (MheathXX):
[snip]
>You have NO substantial proof that God does NOT exist. NONE.
>
>Contrarily, there is substantial proof that Jesus walked the Earth,
>claimed to be God, undertook GREAT miracles that were witnessed by
>many many people and it was recorded. UNLIKE the origins of the
>universe and man. Of which you have NO proof. Just hypothetical
>statements that nobody saw or recorded back in time.
It sure seems to me that you are using more than one definition
for this "proof". What "proof" do you have of Jesus given the
standard that there is no proof of the origins of the Universe
and H. sapiens? I can point to 10s of thousands independent
pieces of evidence that tell us about the origins of the Universe
and of H. sapiens. If that is not "proof" then the account in a
book written generations after the fact is not proof.
>Finally, what I am trying to say on this board is that the evidence
>and logical idea points MORE (not absolutely) to an intelligent
>designer than to an unintelligent designer.
Then you can help me out an tell me what you mean by
"intelligent" and "designer". I don't understand these terms when
people use them in this context, they seem to contradict my usage
in other contexts. Since you assert this position you can tell me
what you mean by the term.
>NATURE has never ever produced anything but form and structure over
>time.
As opposed to what?
> You take life out of our picture and you would have a MOONSCAPE
>here. Nothing more. Nothing less. Think about it.
Remove the atmosphere and a hot core and we would have a
moonscape. That said, you seem to be saying what has nature
produce, other than life, that is like life. That seems like a
pretty silly question when put that way.
>And you want people to think that nature somehow produced life?
Nature is not a force, it is a rather vague and general term for
a wide variety of things.
> You
>cannot tell me one thing that nature has produced on its own without
>an intelligent designer that has anything more complex than structure
>and form.......for 4 billion years my friend. 4 billion.
What have intelligent designers produced that is like life? More
precisely, what designed object reminds you of life?
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by arsonists who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors.
www.candles-museum.com
mclark
> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) wrote in
> news:1gc1f90.1erbrqi16kwiioN%idont...@toemail.com:
>
> > Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
> >
> >> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) wrote in
> >> news:1gc18g6.agymso7rzx1cN%idont...@toemail.com:
> >>
> >> > I've had it with this copout assertion from atheists that there can
> >> > be no proof of a negative with respect to their inability to prove
> >> > that there is no God. If I lift a box, for example, and it feels
> >> > light I can assert that the box is empty. When I am asked to prove
> >> > that there is nothing in the box (other than air) I simply open the
> >> > box to verify that the box is empty. So the unthinking atheist
> >> > assertion that there can be no proof of a negative doesn't hold
> >> > water.
> >> >
> >> > M. Clark
> >>
> >> So, which box is God in? And why, when we "look" where Christians
> >> like you tell us to look, do we see *nothing*?
> >
> > Luke 17:20-21
>
> So, no box. Not here, not there, not anywhere.
>
> > Revelation 3:20
> >
>
> He who don't knocketh, can't cometh in.
Hebrews 4:7
M. Clark
Fred Stone
news:1gc1m1x.74d7p31iwwlwuN%idont...@toemail.com:
No, it's not my fault that your Christ is a figment of your imagination.
MheathXX
As opposed to a car, a computer or an airplane....all of which were
produced by an intelligent designer(s).
I try not to use the term nature and therefor should use the term
natural process. If you take life from this planet, all you would
have is form and structure. Nothing else. Just natural processes.
The atmosphere all formed through natural form and structure. Mars,
Jupiter and other planets are all good examples of a planet that has
no life and what natural processes have done with them.
Nature has NEVER produced anything beyond form and structure. It has
never been proven otherwise without reasonable doubt. The origin of
life is highly scrutinized and has all kinds of theories. The bottom
line is that they are all theories. Nobody knows the truth.
But in a more reasonable light:
It appears to be ludicrous then that one could even fathom the thought
that natural processes could have developed the incredible complexity
of life. When natural processes have NEVER EVER been observed to
produce anything beyond form and structure. It has been 4 billion
years now and it still hasnt been observed. Not too mention the other
chances for life to occur on other planets or stars.
Can natural processes produce a mousetrap? It if FAR less complex
than an ANT. How would natural processes know how to build one and
why to build one? Answer that question.
It is simple to see that anything that exists on this planet right now
that has any kind of complexity beyond form and structure has an
intelligent designer. A designer that KNEW when where and why to
build. A rock is a rock and exists due to natural processes.
Contrarily a building was made by an intelligent designer that had a
plan and knew what had to be done, how to do it, and why.
Life is highly complex. Way beyond simple natural form and structure.
It is almost silly to think that it came about from unintelligent
natural processes....processes that have NEVER produced even the
simplest mousetrap. NEVER, not in 4 billion years, anywhere.
AC
MheathXX <mhea...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> Life is highly complex. Way beyond simple natural form and structure.
> It is almost silly to think that it came about from unintelligent
> natural processes....processes that have NEVER produced even the
> simplest mousetrap. NEVER, not in 4 billion years, anywhere.
As has been demonstrated before, a hole and a slick rock make an excellent
mousetrap. Why do you bother repeating the same bafflegab over and over
again? Do you think this nonsense will become true if you just say it
enough.
I'm afraid that arguments from incredulity, which is all you have, don't
impress me. Provide me with some evidence for your creator, including what
processes it/he/she/they used to produce life.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Dick C
> I've had it with this copout assertion from atheists that there can be
> no proof of a negative with respect to their inability to prove that
> there is no God. If I lift a box, for example, and it feels light I can
> assert that the box is empty. When I am asked to prove that there is
> nothing in the box (other than air) I simply open the box to verify that
> the box is empty. So the unthinking atheist assertion that there can be
> no proof of a negative doesn't hold water.
Oh, Bull. You want to make that claim because you know that you have no
worthwhile proof that your god exists to begin with.
How can anybody prove the nonexistance of an invisible being that
supposedly acts on the universe but leaves no tracks, cures the sick
but does so only with the same regularity that medicine does. Supposedly
uses miracles, but none of which are in evidence. Answers prayers, but
not in the way the praying person wants.
--
Dick #1349
Damn it . . . Don't you dare ask God to help me.
To her housekeeper, who had begun to pray aloud.
~~ Joan Crawford, actress, d. May 10, 1977
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Matt Silberstein
mhea...@excite.com (MheathXX):
>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<3v6h70ljhks4j7tc2...@4ax.com>...
>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
>> mhea...@excite.com (MheathXX):
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >You have NO substantial proof that God does NOT exist. NONE.
>> >
>> >Contrarily, there is substantial proof that Jesus walked the Earth,
>> >claimed to be God, undertook GREAT miracles that were witnessed by
>> >many many people and it was recorded. UNLIKE the origins of the
>> >universe and man. Of which you have NO proof. Just hypothetical
>> >statements that nobody saw or recorded back in time.
>>
>> It sure seems to me that you are using more than one definition
>> for this "proof". What "proof" do you have of Jesus given the
>> standard that there is no proof of the origins of the Universe
>> and H. sapiens? I can point to 10s of thousands independent
>> pieces of evidence that tell us about the origins of the Universe
>> and of H. sapiens. If that is not "proof" then the account in a
>> book written generations after the fact is not proof.
Have you withdrawn this claim? If not, will you defend it?
>> >Finally, what I am trying to say on this board is that the evidence
>> >and logical idea points MORE (not absolutely) to an intelligent
>> >designer than to an unintelligent designer.
>>
>> Then you can help me out an tell me what you mean by
>> "intelligent" and "designer". I don't understand these terms when
>> people use them in this context, they seem to contradict my usage
>> in other contexts. Since you assert this position you can tell me
>> what you mean by the term.
How about defining your terms? It makes little sense to make
claims if you don't know what the terms you use mean.
>> >NATURE has never ever produced anything but form and structure over
>> >time.
>>
>> As opposed to what?
>
>As opposed to a car, a computer or an airplane....all of which were
>produced by an intelligent designer(s).
>
>I try not to use the term nature and therefor should use the term
>natural process. If you take life from this planet, all you would
>have is form and structure. Nothing else. Just natural processes.
And what about life is not a natural process?
>The atmosphere all formed through natural form and structure. Mars,
>Jupiter and other planets are all good examples of a planet that has
>no life and what natural processes have done with them.
So systems with life (and in a different place in the solar
system and with a different initial composition) look different
than those without life. So?
>Nature has NEVER produced anything beyond form and structure.
Asserting you conclusion does not support your conclusion.
> It has
>never been proven otherwise without reasonable doubt.
Is this your standard for all things or just this?
> The origin of
>life is highly scrutinized and has all kinds of theories. The bottom
>line is that they are all theories. Nobody knows the truth.
We know much more than we did 50 years ago. Are you asking people
to make a theological choice based on the hope that science does
not advance in this area?
>But in a more reasonable light:
>It appears to be ludicrous then that one could even fathom the thought
>that natural processes could have developed the incredible complexity
>of life.
If you know little about the subject it might well appear
ludicrous. Are you prepared to discuss, for example, the relative
merits of clay as a replication substrate? Or Kauffman's abstract
chemistries as a method of exploring the origin of life? If not,
why should I bother to listen to your assertions?
> When natural processes have NEVER EVER been observed to
>produce anything beyond form and structure.
What is this "form and structure" that you keep referring to? Is
life different? If so, how about the natural processes the led to
each and every life form we see today? Or do you assert that it
was not natural processes that took you from a separate egg and
sperm to the life form you are today?
> It has been 4 billion
>years now and it still hasnt been observed.
ROTFLMAO. That is so silly a comment. You are asking us to have
observed over 4 billion years life forming except that we can't
use the examples of observed life. Yes, other than what we have
observed we have not observed this.
> Not too mention the other
>chances for life to occur on other planets or stars.
>Can natural processes produce a mousetrap?
Sure. Cats, for example, Tight spots, holes in the ground, fallen
tree limbs, etc.
>It if FAR less complex
>than an ANT. How would natural processes know how to build one and
>why to build one? Answer that question.
They don't know anything. Life is not the goal of these natural
processes any more than soot is the goal of the natural process
of fire.
>It is simple to see that anything that exists on this planet right now
>that has any kind of complexity beyond form and structure has an
>intelligent designer.
Excepting, of course, for all that life. Asserting your
conclusion does not make it so.
> A designer that KNEW when where and why to
>build. A rock is a rock and exists due to natural processes.
>Contrarily a building was made by an intelligent designer that had a
>plan and knew what had to be done, how to do it, and why.
Buildings are *simpler* than the stuff they replace. The products
of *human* designers are *simple*, the products of evolution are
complex.
This subject came up just last night. Mitchell Coffee visited me
and my spouse and brought along his wife and kids. They live in
DC and Mitchell's daughter complained that the NYC subway system
was complex and confusing, not like the simply DC Metro system
she is used to. I explained that the DC Metro was designed, a
team sat down and figured out the layout and all of the stops.
The NYC system, however, grew, evolved. Companies formed and went
bankrupts, people added on and subtracted from the system. The
New York system is more life-like, more *complex*, than the DC
system.
>Life is highly complex. Way beyond simple natural form and structure.
> It is almost silly to think that it came about from unintelligent
>natural processes....processes that have NEVER produced even the
>simplest mousetrap. NEVER, not in 4 billion years, anywhere.
Please point to one complex system built by a non-human designer.
For fun, please tell me what you consider them most complex
system designed by human intelligent designers. All of the
complex systems I know of were not designed, they grew and
evolved.
mclark
> mclark wrote in talk.origins
>
> > I've had it with this copout assertion from atheists that there can be
> > no proof of a negative with respect to their inability to prove that
> > there is no God. If I lift a box, for example, and it feels light I can
> > assert that the box is empty. When I am asked to prove that there is
> > nothing in the box (other than air) I simply open the box to verify that
> > the box is empty. So the unthinking atheist assertion that there can be
> > no proof of a negative doesn't hold water.
>
> Oh, Bull. You want to make that claim because you know that you have no
> worthwhile proof that your god exists to begin with.
> How can anybody prove the nonexistance of an invisible being that
> supposedly acts on the universe but leaves no tracks, cures the sick
> but does so only with the same regularity that medicine does. Supposedly
> uses miracles, but none of which are in evidence. Answers prayers, but
> not in the way the praying person wants.
Nobody has ever become a christian because some other christian was able
to prove Jesus to them. Only Jesus' Holy Spirit can open your mind to
who Jesus is. And the Spirit will only open your mind to who Jesus is
by invitation as indicated by Revelation 3:20.
Indeed, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have
eternal life.
M. Clark
mclark
Now that you've asserted that Jesus is a figment of my imagination,
prove it.
M. Clark
Fred Stone
news:1gc2wij.10ti3uh10v7cxmN%idont...@toemail.com:
Prove it's not.
AC
And this has what to do with the subject at hand? Perhaps some of us have
found ways to fulfill our lives that do not require religious belief.
Perhaps those here who have found fulfillment in religious belief have no
need for silly platitudes like the one above.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
mclark
You're not passing the burden of proof to me because I didn't assert
anything in the first place. I volunteered an example that shows that
the assertion that you can't prove a negative is meaningless and also
posted some Bible verses. You're the one who was foolish enough to
stick your foot in your mouth by making an assertion about Jesus Christ
that you evidently cannot prove.
M. Clark
mclark
???????
???????
> found ways to fulfill our lives that do not require religious belief.
> Perhaps those here who have found fulfillment in religious belief have no
???????
???????
> need for silly platitudes like the one above.
Perhaps this, perhaps that, blah blah blah.
It's evident that you cannot state your assertions concerning
fulfillment with any resolve.
With respect to fulfillment consider John 4:13-15.
M. Clark
Dick C
How sad, you can't answer my point, so you fall back on proselytizing.
Guess what, we don't believe your claims about the existance of a god.
I am not claiming there is no god. It is you who is making the claim,
that there is a god, it is you who needs to prove to us that there
is a god, and then you need to show that it is your god that exists,
and not Roman or Greek or Norse or Hindu, or the gods of the Africans or
Native Americans. And then, you need to show that your understanding of
said god is the correct one, as opposed to
Jews/Muslims/Mormons/JW's/Catholics or any other Judeo-Muslim-Christian
sect.
>
> Indeed, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have
> eternal life.
Nah, you need to return Queen Maeve.
Nivlem
mclark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>No, it's not my fault that your Christ is a figment of your
>>>>imagination.
>>>
>>>Now that you've asserted that Jesus is a figment of my imagination,
>>>prove it.
>>>
>>
>>Prove it's not.
>
>
> You're not passing the burden of proof to me because I didn't assert
> anything in the first place. I volunteered an example that shows that
> the assertion that you can't prove a negative is meaningless and also
> posted some Bible verses. You're the one who was foolish enough to
> stick your foot in your mouth by making an assertion about Jesus Christ
> that you evidently cannot prove.
>
Unfortunately for you, there are some interesting and fairly
convincing arguments I've seen for the nonexistence of Jesus.
However, they are no more conducive to 100% certainty about the
matter than is your Bible. Only those who desperately want to believe
the claims presented will be swayed, same as your Bible. Can we not
do this, Mr. Missionary? It's bloody pointless.
Fred Stone
news:1gc30rf.1tdfowc1acc8hsN%idont...@toemail.com:
I thought I'd give you one last chance to run away but in your
arrogance, you insist upon being hoist by your own petard.
Your own verses are the proof: can't be found in the real world (Luke
17:20-21), only "knocks on the door" but doesn't "come in" unless the
believer let's it (Revelation 3:20), and anybody who
*doesn't* believe has "hardened their heart" (Hebrews 4:7).
That's a perfect description of a figment of the believer's imagination.
ltêr@freeway.com Phÿltêr
news:c3d9dd2.04041...@posting.google.com:
> Life is highly complex. Way beyond simple natural form and structure.
> It is almost silly to think that it came about from unintelligent
> natural processes....processes that have NEVER produced even the
> simplest mousetrap. NEVER, not in 4 billion years, anywhere.
>
Don't tell the Pitcher plant, it'll be miffed. My cats will get over it.
--
Phÿltêr
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://afjc.clickhalah.com/forum/index.php
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
mclark
[snip]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Revelation 3:20
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> He who don't knocketh, can't cometh in.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hebrews 4:7
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> No, it's not my fault that your Christ is a figment of your
> >> >> imagination.
> >> >
> >> > Now that you've asserted that Jesus is a figment of my imagination,
> >> > prove it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Prove it's not.
> >
> > You're not passing the burden of proof to me because I didn't assert
> > anything in the first place. I volunteered an example that shows that
> > the assertion that you can't prove a negative is meaningless and also
> > posted some Bible verses. You're the one who was foolish enough to
> > stick your foot in your mouth by making an assertion about Jesus
> > Christ that you evidently cannot prove.
> >
>
> I thought I'd give you one last chance to run away but in your
> arrogance, you insist upon being hoist by your own petard.
>
> Your own verses are the proof: can't be found in the real world (Luke
> 17:20-21), only "knocks on the door" but doesn't "come in" unless the
> believer let's it (Revelation 3:20), and anybody who
> *doesn't* believe has "hardened their heart" (Hebrews 4:7).
>
> That's a perfect description of a figment of the believer's imagination.
I have no doubt that you can squint your eyes in a way that allows you
to see right into people's imaginations.
M. Clark
mclark
Whatever
The bottom line is that the probability that Jesus Christ existed cannot
be 0. Also consider that Jesus told his apostles that blessed are those
who have not seen but have believed.
M. Clark
AC
I've read this book that claims Jesus said that. Of course, the earliest
dates for this set of texts is decades after the alleged death of Jesus.
Perhaps if you could provide some contemporary documentation.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Brian Henderson
(mclark) wrote:
>The bottom line is that the probability that Jesus Christ existed cannot
>be 0. Also consider that Jesus told his apostles that blessed are those
>who have not seen but have believed.
That's not true. While there might be a case to be made that the
individual upon whom the Jesus myth was based may have existed, the
character of Jesus in the Bible absolutely did not exist. Because the
Biblical Jesus didn't exist, he didn't tell his apostles anything of
the sort. The Biblical Jesus was simply a character in a book,
nothing more.
dave e
>
> Nobody has ever become a christian because some other christian was able
> to prove Jesus to them. Only Jesus' Holy Spirit can open your mind to
> who Jesus is. And the Spirit will only open your mind to who Jesus is
> by invitation as indicated by Revelation 3:20.
>
> Indeed, return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have
> eternal life.
>
> M. Clark
Try this:
Just for a brief trial, consciously will yourself to believe in some
religion other than the one you are naturally inclined to believe.
Say, Hinduism, for example. Open your mind to Hinduism. Let the
Hindu Gods into your heart. Return to Hinduism, and enjoy eternal
cycles of reincarnation.
Can't do it, eh? Well at least try to understand why non-Christians
have the same unwillingness and inability to meet your demands that we
should will ourselves to believe in the various alleged miracles of a
Christian God.
Dave
Fred Stone
news:1gc3pwf.1qtp01v1q6w728N%idont...@toemail.com:
I don't have to see into your imagination to know that (Luke 17:20-21),
(Revelation 3:20) and (Hebrews 4:7) describe and make excuses for a
fantasy.