NO EVIDENCE
Bill M
objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
active imaginations.
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
"Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1_7Rj.56876$rC6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
that's correct, religion is nothing but a bunch of horsecrap
Just Visiting
wrote:
Bill M,
Why don't you quit wasting your life with this? Live the happiest life
that you possibly can have until you die. Your belief doesn't convince
most people anyway. Granted, many people have taken the Bible out of
context on many issues. However, you're wasting your precious life
away by sitting on your butt posting these redundant comments and
questions. You have the right to make up your own religion if it makes
you happy but, Bill, please, you're not helping anybody here. Okay?
Just Visiting
And by what authority should we believe what you have to say?
Somebody's got to have the upper hand here. Why don't you start your
own religion and define what is moral and immoral, sin or not sin,
good or evil. You think you know the truth. Why not make a difference
and take a stand for what you believe in instead of sitting on your
butt, posting these redundant messages and wasting your life away. Are
you really doing anybody any good other than spending money? Just live
the happiest life that you can before you die.
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
I do not believe the HORSESHIT RAMBLINGS of superstitious cave dwellers and
goat fuckers
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
Bill helps out a lot of people to not believe the HORSESHIT RAMBLINGS of a
bunch of superstitious cave dwellers and goat fuckers from a few thousand
years ago
Just Visiting
Quite frankly, I see you sitting in a corner by yourself so to speak.
It makes me feel sorry for you - no, really, it does. Something is
obviously motivating you to do this on a routine basis. If people are
getting something out of believing in God, why not let them have it.
I'm sorry if anyone has tried to shove Christianity down your throat.
That's not the way it's suppose to happen. It didn't work for me like
that either. Many people have represented Jesus in a bad way. Anyway,
we must work together so Islam doesn't become stronger in America or
we'll both have to deal with other problematic issues. After all,
Obama is getting Muslim support.
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
"Just Visiting" <nospam-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2r8a14daijb4d6ha3...@4ax.com...
ALL religions should be banned, they are nothing but a crock of crap
the christian retards think their sky pixie is the one true sky pixie
the muslim scum think their sky pixie is the one true sky pixie
the "insert name of horseshit religion here" think their sky pixie is the
one true sky pixie
the bible, the koran, etc. are nothing but the BULLSHIT RAMBLINGS of a bunch
of superstitious cave dwellers and goat fuckers
if 3,000 years ago some religious nuts started worshipping the great white
bunny, today the christian and muslim scum would be worshipping the great
white bunny instead of their various sky pixies
Richo
wrote:
> Bill helps out a lot of people to not believe the HORSESHIT RAMBLINGS of a
> bunch of superstitious cave dwellers and goat fuckers from a few thousand
> years ago
I really dont think so - he just rants and froths at people.
His communication and reasoning skills are not the best advertisement
for atheism.
He nearly drives me to religion and goat lovin'. (OK thats an
exaggeration)
Cheers, Mark.
bob young
Just Visiting wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:38:23 -0400, "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim"
> <kil...@killgod.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:1_7Rj.56876$rC6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >>I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
> >> objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
> >>
> >> No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
> >>
> >> the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
> >> active imaginations.
> >
> >that's correct, religion is nothing but a bunch of horsecrap
> >
>
> And by what authority should we believe what you have to say?
> Somebody's got to have the upper hand here. Why don't you start your
> own religion and define what is moral and immoral, sin or not sin,
> good or evil.
Idiot. Atheists have no interest in religions or imaginary
gods. We know what is good and bad [we do not use
overworked biblical gobbledygook such as, 'sin' and 'evil']
as any other decent person does. Do you think every
Christian is good? How about the dozens of clergymen
buggering young boys?
You think you know the truth.
the truth is gods are made by man - THAt we know
Why not make a difference
> and take a stand for what you believe in instead of sitting on your
> butt, posting these redundant messages and wasting your life away.
My life is not wasted, YOURS is because you waste it on an
imaginary mythological deity
Are
> you really doing anybody any good other than spending money? Just live
> the happiest life that you can before you die.
Amen to that
bob young
Smile. Bill is simply asking over and over again
for people to prove their god exists
and up to now no one has.
bob young
Yes, it would be nice to have factual responses, rather than
off target innuendoes
That regrettably is all we seem to get, so we must assume
that no god can be proven or indeed exists
Take away the period of infant brainwashing that religious
parents insist on their children going thru, then the talk
of gods and the outrageous claims that go along with them
would be much reduced.
The cramming of religious dogma into children below age
fourteen should be outlawed like, smoking, drinking and drug
taking, but I hold out little hope.
Nice to see your original 'nym' back in use Bill
Bob
dieHard
<kil...@killgod.com> wrote:
extremely PROFITABLE horsecrap
dieHard
I love how the religious zealots have their cute way of making anyone
who doesn't share their views sound as though there's something wrong
with THEM.
Sort of like the world's queers calling anyone who doesn't approve of
THEIR lifestyle "homophobes" - they even made up a word for it, so
that if you don't approve of men cornholing each other, sucking each
other's dicks and spreading aids, then there's something wrong with
YOU. heh, nice try assholes/
taken to the extreme, islamic extremists are so certain of THEIR
superiority that anyone who doesn't agree is an infidel and must be
murdered wherever they are found - wiped off the earth till none
exist.
Ain't religion grand? Look at all it's done for mankind. Murders,
genocides, wars... hell, look no further than Texas and the rape of
underage girls "in god's name". Those braindeads are nothing more
than tax-evading, wife-swapping, gang-banging, child molesters.
But hey, as long as it's done in "god's" name I guess it's ok...
Don Martin
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:18:11 -0400, Just Visiting
> Ain't religion grand? Look at all it's done for mankind. Murders,
> genocides, wars... hell, look no further than Texas and the rape of
> underage girls "in god's name". Those braindeads are nothing more
> than tax-evading, wife-swapping, gang-banging, child molesters.
> But hey, as long as it's done in "god's" name I guess it's ok...
Anybody can do a murder on his own; genocide needs a religion.
Just Visiting
wrote:
>
>
>Just Visiting wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:38:23 -0400, "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim"
>> <kil...@killgod.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> >news:1_7Rj.56876$rC6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> >>I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
>> >> objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
>> >>
>> >> No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
>> >>
>> >> the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
>> >> active imaginations.
>> >
>> >that's correct, religion is nothing but a bunch of horsecrap
>> >
>>
>> And by what authority should we believe what you have to say?
>> Somebody's got to have the upper hand here. Why don't you start your
>> own religion and define what is moral and immoral, sin or not sin,
>> good or evil.
>
>Idiot. Atheists have no interest in religions or imaginary
>gods. We know what is good and bad [we do not use
>overworked biblical gobbledygook such as, 'sin' and 'evil']
>as any other decent person does. Do you think every
>Christian is good? How about the dozens of clergymen
>buggering young boys?
There are a lot of Christians out there that walk, talk and live like
people who don't claim to be religious.
>
>You think you know the truth.
>
>the truth is gods are made by man - THAt we know
No, you think you know. Amazing that you put more faith in evolution
that still leaves you hanging with questions - not exactly a solid
foundation.
>
> Why not make a difference
>> and take a stand for what you believe in instead of sitting on your
>> butt, posting these redundant messages and wasting your life away.
>
>My life is not wasted, YOURS is because you waste it on an
>imaginary mythological deity
Purely your opinion.
bob young
Want some solid fundation to show that man ceates gods? -
Take a look at the 'A' list
[I have the entire alphabet running into thousands]:
Aeron War [goddess] Wales War
Aeval [goddess] Love, Magic. Ireland
Ahura Mazda
Agrona [goddesss] Destroyer of life
Achall [goddess]Earth and Nature; unhappiness. Ireland
Achtan [goddess] Hunting and wild animals. Ireland
Allah
Adsullata [goddess]
Aphrodite, Ares, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Abalim[Judaic]
Abba Amona[Judaic] Abraxis[Judaic]
Adam Beliyya'al'[Judaic] Adam Kadmon[Judaic]
Adonai[Judaic] Adonaiel[Judaic]
Aibell [goddess] Beauty; Arts; Magic
Aille [goddess]Justice. Ireland
Aige [goddess] Demi-animals
Aimend [goddess] Sun and Day. Ireland
Aine [goddess] Love and Sexuality
Ailinn [goddess] Love. Ireland
Aidin [goddess] [Aideen] Love and sexuality. Ireland
Aibheaog [goddess] Fire.
Airmed [goddess] Health and healing; Immortality Ireland
Aide [goddess] Water. Ireland - Wife of the Irish god Enna
Artio [goddess] Hunting and Wild Animals Switzerland
Akatriel-Yah[Judaic] Alitha[Judaic]
Alukah(Arpad Yiddish: Estrie)[Judaic] Anafiel[Judaic]
Angels[Judaic] Archons[Judaic] Asherah(Asherah)[Judaic]
Asmodeus(Asmodaios)[Judaic [goddess] Goodness. Ireland
Abaangui Guarani
Aba-khatun [goddess] Russia
Abaris Greek
Abas Greek
Abassi Nigeria/Africa
Abderus Greek
Abeguwo [goddess] Oceania
Abeona [goddess] Roman
Abere [goddess] Oceania
Ab Kin Xoc Maya
Abnoba [goddess] Celtic
Abraxas Roman
Abuk [goddess] Dinka/Africa
Abundantia [goddess] Roman
Acamas Greek
Acantha [goddess] Greek
Acat Maya
Acaviser [goddess] Roman
Acca [goddess] Roman
Acca Larentia [goddess] Roman
Achall [goddess] Irish
Achelois [goddess] Greek
Achelous Greek
Achilles Greek
Achtan [goddess] Irish
Achtland [goddess] Celtic
Acis Greek
Aclla [goddess] Inca
Acna [goddess] Maya/Mexico
Actaeon Greek
Adad Babylonian
Adamanthea [goddess] Greek
Adamisil Wedo [goddess] Haiti
Adapa Babylonian
Adaro Oceania
Adeona [goddess] Roman
Aditi [goddess] Asian
Adityas Asian
Admeta [goddess] Roman
Admete [goddess] Greek
Admetus Greek
Adonis Greek
Adrammelech Babylonia
Adrastus Greek
Adsagsona [goddess] Celtic
Adu Ogyinae Ashanti/Africa
Aeacus Greek
Aebh [goddess] Celtic
Aed Celtic
A don [goddess] Greek
Aedos [goddess] Roman
Aega [goddess] Greek
Aegeria [goddess] Roman
Aegeus Greek
Aegina [goddess] Greek
Aegir Norse
Aegis Greek
Aegisthus Greek
Aegyptus Greek
Aello [goddess] Greek Amazon
Aeneas Greek
Aeneas Roman
Aeolus Greek
Aero [goddess] Greek
Aeron Celtic
Aerope [goddess] Greek
Aesculapius Asclepius Greek
Aesir Norse
°s S£dhe Celtic
Aestas [goddess] Roman
Aether Greek
Aethra [goddess] Greek
Aetna [goddess] Roman
Afekan [goddess] Oceania
Agaman Nibo [goddess] Haiti
Agamedes Greek
Agamemnon Greek
Agasaya [goddess] Semite
Agave [goddess] Greek
Agdos [goddess] Asia Minor
Ag Dahomey/Africa
Aglaia [goddess] Greek
Aglauros [goddess] Greek
Agni India
Agwe [goddess] Benin/Africa
Agwe [goddess] Haiti
Agweta [goddess] Haiti
Ahat [goddess] Egypt
Ahau Chamahez Maya
Ahau Kin [goddess] Maya
Ah Chuy Kak Maya
Ah Cun Can Maya
Ahemait [goddess] Egypt
Ah Kinchil Maya
Ahmakiq Maya
Ahnt Alis Pok' [goddess] Mexico
Ahnt Kai [goddess] Mexico
Ah Puch Maya
Ahriman Persia
Ahsonnutli Navajo
Ahti [goddess] Egypt
Ah Uaynih [goddess] Haiti
Ah Uaynih [goddess] Guatemala
Ahuic [goddess] Aztec/Mexico
Ahulane Maya
Ahura Mazda Persia
Ahurani [goddess] Persia
Ah Wink-ir Masa [goddess] Guatemala
Ai-ada Turkey
'Aiaru [goddess] Oceania
Aigiarm [goddess] Mongolia
Ain [goddess] Celtic
Ainia [goddess] Greek Amazon
Airmed [goddess] Irish
Ai Tupua'i [goddess] Oceania
Aja [goddess] Babylonia
Aje [goddess] Yoruba/Africa
Aji-Suki-Taka-Hi-Kone Japan
Ajok Africa
Ajtzak AmerIndian
Ajysyt [goddess] Siberia
Aka [goddess] Turkey
Akert-khentet-auset-s [goddess] Egypt
Akewa [goddess] Argentina
Akhet [goddess] Egypt
Akhushtal [goddess] Maya
Akonadi [goddess] Ghana/Africa
Akongo Africa
Akuj Africa
Akusaa [goddess] Egypt
Akycha AmerIndian
Ala [goddess] Ibo/Africa
Alaghom Naom Tzentel [goddess] Maya
Alalahe [goddess] Oceania
Ala Muki [goddess] Oceania
Alator Britain
Alastor Greek
Alberich Norse
Albina [goddess] Roman
Albion Greek
Albunea [goddess] Roman
Alcestis [goddess] Greek
Alcibie [goddess] Greek Amazon
Alcimedes Greek
Alcippe Greek
Alcippe [goddess] Greek Amazon
Alcmaeon Greek
Alcmene [goddess] Greek
Alcyon [goddess] Greek
Alecto [goddess] Greek
Alectrona [goddess] Greek
Alectryon Greek
Alemona [goddess] Roman
Alinga [goddess] Australia
Alkaia [goddess] Greek Amazon
Alkonost [goddess] Russia
Al-Lat [goddess] Arabia
Almoshi [goddess] Russia
Alpan [goddess] Roman
Alphito [goddess] Greek
Altan-Telgey [goddess] Mongol
Altria [goddess] Roman
Alu Babylonia
Alvis Germanic
Ama [goddess] Russia
Amaethon Britain
Amalthea Greek
Amalthea [goddess] Greek
Ama no Uzume [goddess] Japan
Ama-terasu [goddess] Japan
Amatsu Mikaboshi Japan
Amaunet [goddess] Egypt
Amazons Greek
Ambika [goddess] Hindu
Ambrosia Greek
Amelia [goddess] Haiti
Amemet [goddess] Egypt
Ament [goddess] Egypt
Amenti Egypt
Amma [goddess] Norse
Amma Dogon/Africa
Ammavaru [goddess] India
Amit [goddess] Egypt
Ammit [goddess] Egypt
Amn [goddess] Egypt
Amon Egypt
Amor Roman
Amphitrite [goddess] Greek
Amphitryon Greek
Amset Egypt
Amymone [goddess] Greek
An Sumeria
Anagtia [goddess] Roman
Anahita [goddess] Persia
Ananke [goddess] Greek
Anansi West Africa
Ananta Shesha Hindu
Anapel [goddess] Russia
Anath Anat [goddess] Phoenician
Anatha [goddess] Egypt
Anatis [goddess] Egypt
Anatu [goddess] Mesopotamia
Anaxarete [goddess] Greek
Anceta [goddess] Roman
Anchises Greek
Andraste [goddess] Britain
Androgyne Greek
Andromache Greek
Andromache [goddess] Greek Amazon
Andromeda [goddess] Greek
Andromeda [goddess] Greek Amazon
Androphonos Greek
Angerboda [goddess] Scandinavia
Angerona [goddess] Roman
Angina [goddess] Roman
Angita [goddess] Roman
Angitia [goddess] Greek
Angpetu WiAmerIndian
Angus Celtic
Anieros [goddess] Roman
Anima Mundi [goddess] Roman
Anius Greek
Anjea [goddess] Australia
Anka [goddess] Egypt
Ankhtith [goddess] Egypt
Ankt [goddess] Egypt
Anna Perenna [goddess] Etruscan
Annapurna Hindu
Annwn Britain
Antaboga Indonesia
Antaeus Greek
Antaios Egypt
Antandre [goddess] Greek Amazon
Anteros Greek
Anteros Roman
Antevorta [goddess] Roman
Anthat [goddess] Egypt
Antianara [goddess] Greek
Antianara [goddess] Greek Amazon
Antibrote [goddess] Greek Amazon
Anticlea [goddess] Greek
Antigone [goddess] Greek
Antinuous Greek
Antiope [goddess] Greek
Antiope [goddess] Greek Amazon
Anu Babylonian
Anu Celtic
Anubis Egypt
Anuket [goddess] Egypt
Anunitu [goddess] Babylonia
An-Zu [goddess] Assyria
Apate [goddess] Greek
Apep Egypt
Aphareus Greek
Aphrodite [goddess] Greek
Apis Egypt
Apis Egypt
Apollo Greek
Apozanolotl [goddess] Aztec/Mexico
Appiades, The [goddess] Roman
Appias [goddess] Roman
Apsu Babylonian
Apunga [goddess] Abrigine
Arachne [goddess] Greek
Arahuta [goddess] New Zealand
Ararat [goddess] Anatolia
Ardwinna Celtic
Ares Greek
Arete [goddess] Greek
Arethusa [goddess] Greek
Areto [goddess] Greek Amazon
Aretz [goddess] Israel
Argonaut Greek
Argos Greek
Ariadne [goddess] Greek
Arianrhod Wales
Aricia [goddess] Roman
Ariki [goddess] New Zealand
Arinna [goddess] Hittite
Arion Greek
Arnamentia [goddess] Britain
Arne [goddess] Greek
Arohirohi [goddess] New Zealand
Arria [goddess] Roman
Arsino [goddess] Greek
Artemis [goddess] Greek
Artio Celtic
Aruna [goddess] Hindu
Aryong Jong [goddess] Korea
Asase Yaa [goddess] Ghana/Africa
As-ava [goddess] Russia
Ascanius Roman
Asclepius Greek
AsgardNorse
Asgaya Gigagei Cherokee
Asherali [goddess] Canaan
Ashiakle [goddess] Ghana/Africa
Ashnan [goddess] Sumeria
Ashtoreth Phoenician
Ashtoreth [goddess] Egypt
Ashur Assyria
Ashvins Hindu
Askr and Embla Norse
Astarte [goddess] Phoenicia
Asteria [goddess] Greek
Astraea [goddess] Greek
Astraeos Greek
Astrea [goddess] Roman
Asuras Asian
Atalanta [goddess] Greek
Atanea [goddess] South Pacific
Atar [goddess] Iran
Ate [goddess] Greek
At-Em [goddess] Egypt
Aten Aton Egypt
Athena [goddess] Greek
Athirat [goddess] Canaan
Athor [goddess] Egypt
Athtart [goddess] Canaan
Atl Aztec
Atlacamani [goddess] Aztec/Mexico
Atlacoya [goddess] Aztec/Mexico
Atlas Greek
Atlatonin [goddess] Aztec/Mexico
Atreus Greek
Atropos [goddess] Greek
Attis Roman
Atum Egypt
Auchimalgen [goddess] Chile
Au-Co Vietnamese
Audjal [goddess] Caroline Islands
Auilix Maya
Aura [goddess] Greek
Aurita [goddess] Roman
Aurora [goddess] Roman
Ausaitis Lithuania
Austeja Lithuania
Autolycus Greek
Autonoe [goddess] Greek
Auxesia [goddess] Greek
Averna [goddess] Roman
Avernales [goddess] Roman
Averruncus [goddess] Roman
Aversa [goddess] Roman
Awonawilona [goddess] Pueblo/Zuni
Aya [goddess] Mesopotamia
Ayaba [goddess] Dahomey/Africa
Ayauhteotl [goddess] Aztec/Mexico
Ayida [goddess] Haiti
Ayizan [goddess] Haiti
Ayt'ar Russia
Azacca Haiti
Aziri [goddess] Africa
Babaluaye, Bacchus, Baldur, Bast, Bellona, Brahma, Brigid,
Badb [goddess] War:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss
all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
dismiss yours."
[Stephen Roberts]
> >
> > Why not make a difference
> >> and take a stand for what you believe in instead of sitting on your
> >> butt, posting these redundant messages and wasting your life away.
> >
> >My life is not wasted, YOURS is because you waste it on an
> >imaginary mythological deity
>
> Purely your opinion.
Right - and it is one based on logic, common sense and
devoid of any influence from ancient supersitions
Pastor Frank
mythological deity". It's all your very own, infantile,`personal and private
fantasy.
Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in
Jesus Christ giving His life for us sinners on the cross of Calvary. We
therefore know our God and have seen Him through Jesus Christ, our Lord
and Saviour. (Jesus in John 14:6-10)
Atheists don't know our God and therefore can't see manifestations of
love and care in human beings, and to the death if need be, such as we see
in Jesus Christ. (Jesus in John 3:3)
bob young
Pastor Frank wrote:
>
> "Just Visiting" <nospam-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4onc14pae3428b5b2...@4ax.com...
> > On 28 Apr 2008 00:58:03 -0500, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>My life is not wasted, YOURS is because you waste it on an
> >>imaginary mythological deity
> >
> That's your religion talking again, for we don't know any "imaginary
> mythological deity".
Your God should:
Speak to someone today as it is claimed 'it' spoke to Moses
on the mountain top.
Show itself to someone today; as it is claimed it 'revealed'
itself to Moses on the mountain top.
(The biblical claim - And he saw God face to face, and he
talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses;
therefore Moses could endure his presence.)
Create another son and have him sort out the current
international mess that makes the world of Jesus seem like
paradise by comparison.
This new 'Son of God' can then do more of the following:
A) Walk on water
B) Cure a selected number of cripples and lepers - not all
of them of course, since this was not the case before. [And
we know why don't we?]
C) Feed the world with five loaves and fishes in readiness
for the forecasted serious food shortage, particularly in
Africa where thousands are currently starving.
D) Prevent tsunamis of the kind we saw two years back which
swept over two thousand innocent children out to sea to
drown, leaving behind around six thousand life long grieving relatives.
E) Heal another epileptic boy and another Centurion's
servant. [This time let's make it a 'politicians servant]
And he should heal *every* epileptic boy and *every*
politicians servant that is about to die, rather than just
opportunistic ones.
This should be enough for starters.
firefly
the greatest part of evidence?
---firefly
"Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1_7Rj.56876$rC6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
bob young
firefly wrote:
>
> How would you know if there was evidence or not, since you already missed
> the greatest part of evidence?
Which is ?
Christopher A. Lee
<firef...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>How would you know if there was evidence or not, since you already missed
>the greatest part of evidence?
What "evidence"? It is obvious there is none because otherwise
believers would have given it instead of just waffling about the
existence of this evidence and lying about our ignoring it, missing it
etc.
Fallacy-ladened "arguments" try to pluck information out of thin air,
are hardly a substitute for evidence.
Especially when the missing information they haven't got in the first
place, would be the evidence they haven't got.
So these bogus "Arguments" wouldn't even be needed.
Antares 531
wrote:
>I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
And, just how would you cope with it if someone did provide you with
such empirical proof? You would no longer have any sovereign choice as
to believing in or not believing in God. You would be overwhelmed and
thus compelled to do God's will. You would no longer be anything more
than a mere puppet of God's. And, being a puppet isn't what God wants
you or any of us to develop into.
Gordon
DanielSan
How do you know how we'd react to such empirical proof? What leads you
to believe that we'd act in such a way?
Christopher A. Lee
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:27:27 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
>>objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
>>
>>No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
>>
>>the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
>>active imaginations.
>>
>And, just how would you cope with it if someone did provide you with
>such empirical proof?
Then we'd believe it existed, moron.
> You would no longer have any sovereign choice as
>to believing in or not believing in God.
So what?
> You would be overwhelmed and
>thus compelled to do God's will.
Assuming for the sake of argument that it actually was real outside
the fantasies of your religious belief.
> You would no longer be anything more
>than a mere puppet of God's. And, being a puppet isn't what God wants
>you or any of us to develop into.
Where did you demonstrate its existence outside your deluded fantasies
before asking such a mind-bogglingly stupid question?
>Gordon
Ben Goren
Let's turn that around for a moment. How would *you* cope if
somebody provided you with irrefutable proof that none of your
gods could possibly exist?
If you'd like to find out, then all you have to do is tell me
what, exactly, your gods are. Define them, if you will.
``My god, <insert name here>, is nothing if she / he / it isn't
<insert essential property here>.''
Common answers for the first include, ``YHWH,'' ``Jesus,''
``Allah,'' and the like; for the second, it's usually
``omnipotent,'' ``omnibenevolent,'' ``the creator of Life, the
Universe, and Everything,'' and so on.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Antares 531
My thinking is that not many persons with a rational mind would rebel
against God if they were absolutely certain that He existed.
Antares 531
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 May 2008 08:43:42 -0500, Antares 531
><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:27:27 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
>>>objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
>>>
>>>No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
>>>
>>>the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
>>>active imaginations.
>>>
>>And, just how would you cope with it if someone did provide you with
>>such empirical proof?
>
>Then we'd believe it existed, moron.
>
It wouldn't be "belief" it would be knowledge if this were the
situation.
Antares 531
wrote:
>Antares 531 wrote:
>
> > Bill M wrote:
> >
> >> I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
> >> objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
> >>
> >> No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
> >>
> >> the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in
> >> peoples over active imaginations.
> >
> > And, just how would you cope with it if someone did provide
> > you with such empirical proof? You would no longer have any
> > sovereign choice as to believing in or not believing in God. You
> > would be overwhelmed and thus compelled to do God's will. You
> > would no longer be anything more than a mere puppet of
> > God's. And, being a puppet isn't what God wants you or any of us
> > to develop into.
>
>Let's turn that around for a moment. How would *you* cope if
>somebody provided you with irrefutable proof that none of your
>gods could possibly exist?
>
I don't really know how I would cope if it were possible for someone
to "prove" to me that God does not exist.
>
>If you'd like to find out, then all you have to do is tell me
>what, exactly, your gods are. Define them, if you will.
>
>``My god, <insert name here>, is nothing if she / he / it isn't
><insert essential property here>.''
>
>Common answers for the first include, ``YHWH,'' ``Jesus,''
>``Allah,'' and the like; for the second, it's usually
>``omnipotent,'' ``omnibenevolent,'' ``the creator of Life, the
>Universe, and Everything,'' and so on.
>
>Cheers,
>
>b&
>
I don't think it would be possible for me or for anyone else, for that
matter, to explain this to you as long as your mind-set is totally
against it.
You remind me of the allegory involving a group of sentient
computers...
A bunch of sentient computers were discussing the Internet and those
computers that had never had a working Internet connection were
arguing that the Internet did not actually exist but was just a
figment of the imaginations of those computers who were arguing that
it DID exist.
The gist of this allegory is that the doubting computers could connect
to the Internet if they would do so volitionally, but they can not be
coerced or forced to make the connection. As long at they adamantly
reject the whole idea it is very unlikely that any of them will
"volitionally" connect themselves with the Internet and experience it
first hand. So, they will live out their lives, then be tucked away in
the landfill, still doubting that the Internet exists. But, their
doubting it does not make their position true.
Christopher A. Lee
What a fucking moron.
Free Lunch
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 May 2008 07:55:27 -0700, Ben Goren <b...@trumpetpower.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Antares 531 wrote:
>>
>> > Bill M wrote:
>> >
>> >> I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
>> >> objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
>> >>
>> >> No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
>> >>
>> >> the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in
>> >> peoples over active imaginations.
>> >
>> > And, just how would you cope with it if someone did provide
>> > you with such empirical proof? You would no longer have any
>> > sovereign choice as to believing in or not believing in God. You
>> > would be overwhelmed and thus compelled to do God's will. You
>> > would no longer be anything more than a mere puppet of
>> > God's. And, being a puppet isn't what God wants you or any of us
>> > to develop into.
>>
>>Let's turn that around for a moment. How would *you* cope if
>>somebody provided you with irrefutable proof that none of your
>>gods could possibly exist?
>>
>I don't really know how I would cope if it were possible for someone
>to "prove" to me that God does not exist.
You don't have to worry. You believe in something that is utterly
without any rational or logical foundation and completely unsupported by
any evidence. You will never allow anyone to prove to you that God does
not exist. No one will ever persuade you that you are delusional.
>>If you'd like to find out, then all you have to do is tell me
>>what, exactly, your gods are. Define them, if you will.
>>
>>``My god, <insert name here>, is nothing if she / he / it isn't
>><insert essential property here>.''
>>
>>Common answers for the first include, ``YHWH,'' ``Jesus,''
>>``Allah,'' and the like; for the second, it's usually
>>``omnipotent,'' ``omnibenevolent,'' ``the creator of Life, the
>>Universe, and Everything,'' and so on.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>b&
>>
>I don't think it would be possible for me or for anyone else, for that
>matter, to explain this to you as long as your mind-set is totally
>against it.
That's your excuse. You believe something that is without evidence and
get mad at others for pointing your failings out to you.
>You remind me of the allegory involving a group of sentient
>computers...
>
>A bunch of sentient computers were discussing the Internet and those
>computers that had never had a working Internet connection were
>arguing that the Internet did not actually exist but was just a
>figment of the imaginations of those computers who were arguing that
>it DID exist.
>
>The gist of this allegory is that the doubting computers could connect
>to the Internet if they would do so volitionally, but they can not be
>coerced or forced to make the connection. As long at they adamantly
>reject the whole idea it is very unlikely that any of them will
>"volitionally" connect themselves with the Internet and experience it
>first hand. So, they will live out their lives, then be tucked away in
>the landfill, still doubting that the Internet exists. But, their
>doubting it does not make their position true.
Your story reflects your foolishness.
Christopher A. Lee
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
A liar as well as an idiot.
>You remind me of the allegory involving a group of sentient
>computers...
What a fucking moron.
Ben Goren
> Ben Goren wrote:
>> Antares 531 wrote:
>>> Bill M wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
>>>> objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
>>>>
>>>> No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
>>>>
>>>> the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in
>>>> peoples over active imaginations.
>>>
>>> And, just how would you cope with it if someone did provide
>>> you with such empirical proof? You would no longer have any
>>> sovereign choice as to believing in or not believing in
>>> God. You would be overwhelmed and thus compelled to do God's
>>> will. You would no longer be anything more than a mere puppet
>>> of God's. And, being a puppet isn't what God wants you or any
>>> of us to develop into.
>>
>> Let's turn that around for a moment. How would *you* cope if
>> somebody provided you with irrefutable proof that none of your
>> gods could possibly exist?
>
> I don't really know how I would cope if it were possible for
> someone to "prove" to me that God does not exist.
Well, if you'd care to find out, re-read these next three
paragraphs that you totally ignored, do what they ask you to do,
and I'm quite confident that I'll prove any and all of your gods
to be as logically idiotic as the archetypal square circle.
>> If you'd like to find out, then all you have to do is tell me
>> what, exactly, your gods are. Define them, if you will.
>>
>> ``My god, <insert name here>, is nothing if she / he / it isn't
>> <insert essential property here>.''
>>
>> Common answers for the first include, ``YHWH,'' ``Jesus,''
>> ``Allah,'' and the like; for the second, it's usually
>> ``omnipotent,'' ``omnibenevolent,'' ``the creator of Life, the
>> Universe, and Everything,'' and so on.
>
> I don't think it would be possible for me or for anyone else,
> for that matter, to explain this to you as long as your mind-set
> is totally against it.
>
> You remind me of the allegory involving a group of sentient
> computers...
A completely inane and irrelevant allegory. What, you think that
no atheist has ever encountered theism before, that none of us
have ever been theists, that we've never had anybody preach to us
before, that not one of us has ever sincerely tried to believe?
You'd have to look for a long, long, long time before you found
even a single atheist who fit your fantasy image of us.
bob young
Antares 531 wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:27:27 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
> >objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
> >
> >No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
> >
> >the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
> >active imaginations.
> >
> And, just how would you cope with it if someone did provide you with
> such empirical proof?
ROFL would probably second think the existence of a god -
so where's this evidence? trot it out
You would no longer have any sovereign choice as
> to believing in or not believing in God.
If the evidence were authentic and provable you are right.
So trot it OUT
You would be overwhelmed and
> thus compelled to do God's will.
Aaaah here we have it yet again - a human speaking on behalf
of it's god, and yet you deny humans created it in the first place
You would no longer be anything more
> than a mere puppet of God's. And, being a puppet isn't what God wants
> you or any of us to develop into.
See above comments about humans speaking on behalf of a god
they claim created the entire universe.
Now why does this god need YOU to speak for it ?
>
> Gordon
Bill M
"Richo" <m.richa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3f1b87c-2d77-403c...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 11:05 am, "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" <kill...@killgod.com>
> wrote:
>> Bill helps out a lot of people to not believe the HORSESHIT RAMBLINGS of
>> a
>> bunch of superstitious cave dwellers and goat fuckers from a few thousand
>> years ago
>
> I really dont think so - he just rants and froths at people.
> His communication and reasoning skills are not the best advertisement
> for atheism.
> He nearly drives me to religion and goat lovin'. (OK thats an
> exaggeration)
>
> Cheers, Mark.
And your evidence to support this nasty rambling is ???
Antares 531
Are you trying to convince me that you would indeed rebell against God
even if His existence could be empirically proven to you? Or, would
you surrender your sovereign will and puppy up to Him?
Christopher A. Lee
DanielSan
For me, it would depend on if God had the same parameters as the Bible
gives him. If so, I would certainly rebel against such a mass killer.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I do not believe in God because I do not *
* believe in Mother Goose." *
* --Clarence Darrow, 1925 *
****************************************************
Ben Goren
> Are you trying to convince me that you would indeed rebell
> against God even if His existence could be empirically proven to
> you? Or, would you surrender your sovereign will and puppy up to
> Him?
If you're talking about the gods of the Bible...well, let's
just say that they damn well better pray that they don't
exist. Because, if they *did* exist, I'd be the worst damned
nightmare any of them could possibly imagine.
There may well be other religions with gods I wouldn't find so
abhorrent, but I haven't as yet run across them. Not that I'd
really care who had the nicest imaginary friends, of course -- but
you *did* start with the whole hypothetical thing.
Antares 531
wrote:
>I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
>objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
>
>No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
>
>the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
>active imaginations.
>
Bill, would you consider the Cambrian Explosion of life forms, which
is very congruent with the Genesis story of God's creation, to be
evidence that God was in charge of the creation of life forms on this
planet?
The evidence of this Cambrian Explosion is certainly verifiable, and
indeed has been verified my many paleontologists, geologists and
biologists.
All phyla that have ever existed came into existence during this very
brief Cambrian Explosion interval. No phyla have come into existence
since. This certainly slams Darwinian Evolution down. So, what does
explain this sequence of events?
Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:27:27 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
>>objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
>>
>>No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
>>
>>the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
>>active imaginations.
>>
>Bill, would you consider the Cambrian Explosion of life forms, which
>is very congruent with the Genesis story of God's creation, to be
>evidence that God was in charge of the creation of life forms on this
>planet?
Where did you demonstrate this hypothetical god's existence before
asking such a remarkably stupid question?
>The evidence of this Cambrian Explosion is certainly verifiable, and
>indeed has been verified my many paleontologists, geologists and
>biologists.
>
>All phyla that have ever existed came into existence during this very
>brief Cambrian Explosion interval. No phyla have come into existence
>since. This certainly slams Darwinian Evolution down. So, what does
>explain this sequence of events?
How does it do that, moron?
>Gordon
Antares 531
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2008 20:36:15 -0500, Antares 531
><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:27:27 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
>>>objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
>>>
>>>No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
>>>
>>>the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
>>>active imaginations.
>>>
>>Bill, would you consider the Cambrian Explosion of life forms, which
>>is very congruent with the Genesis story of God's creation, to be
>>evidence that God was in charge of the creation of life forms on this
>>planet?
>
>Where did you demonstrate this hypothetical god's existence before
>asking such a remarkably stupid question?
>
I didn't "demonstrate" anything. I just asked a civil question. Do you
have an answer, or any rational ideas, or are you limited to juvenile
level ranting?
>
>>The evidence of this Cambrian Explosion is certainly verifiable, and
>>indeed has been verified my many paleontologists, geologists and
>>biologists.
>>
>>All phyla that have ever existed came into existence during this very
>>brief Cambrian Explosion interval. No phyla have come into existence
>>since. This certainly slams Darwinian Evolution down. So, what does
>>explain this sequence of events? Gordon
>
>How does it do that, moron?
>
Darwinian evolution, if it is valid, should have kept on working, even
after the Cambrian Explosion. Why didn't it? What caused it to stop?
On the other hand, the Bible says that God's creation was completed
and he rested. This is congruent with the observable facts described
above.
Christopher A. Lee
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2008 21:52:12 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 May 2008 20:36:15 -0500, Antares 531
>><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:27:27 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
>>>>objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
>>>>
>>>>No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
>>>>
>>>>the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
>>>>active imaginations.
>>>>
>>>Bill, would you consider the Cambrian Explosion of life forms, which
>>>is very congruent with the Genesis story of God's creation, to be
>>>evidence that God was in charge of the creation of life forms on this
>>>planet?
>>
>>Where did you demonstrate this hypothetical god's existence before
>>asking such a remarkably stupid question?
>>
>I didn't "demonstrate" anything. I just asked a civil question. Do you
>have an answer, or any rational ideas, or are you limited to juvenile
>level ranting?
No , you didn't.
You should have done before asking such a mind-bogglingly stupid
question.
Learn to read.
>>>The evidence of this Cambrian Explosion is certainly verifiable, and
>>>indeed has been verified my many paleontologists, geologists and
>>>biologists.
>>>
>>>All phyla that have ever existed came into existence during this very
>>>brief Cambrian Explosion interval. No phyla have come into existence
>>>since. This certainly slams Darwinian Evolution down. So, what does
>>>explain this sequence of events? Gordon
>>
>>How does it do that, moron?
>>
>Darwinian evolution, if it is valid, should have kept on working, even
>after the Cambrian Explosion. Why didn't it? What caused it to stop?
It didn't stop, pig-ignorant moron.
It "kept on working".
It happens today.
Why do you imagine you have to keep taking the full course of
antibiotics even after you feel you're cured?
And why do you imagine this has any more to do with not believing in
your pretend friend, than pizza has with not collecting stamps?
>On the other hand, the Bible says that God's creation was completed
>and he rested.
What have one particular religion's fairy tales got to do with
anything, idiot?
> This is congruent with the observable facts described
>above.
What "observed facts", lying moron?
Free Lunch
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2008 21:52:12 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 May 2008 20:36:15 -0500, Antares 531
>><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:27:27 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
>>>>objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
>>>>
>>>>No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
>>>>
>>>>the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
>>>>active imaginations.
>>>>
>>>Bill, would you consider the Cambrian Explosion of life forms, which
>>>is very congruent with the Genesis story of God's creation, to be
>>>evidence that God was in charge of the creation of life forms on this
>>>planet?
>>
>>Where did you demonstrate this hypothetical god's existence before
>>asking such a remarkably stupid question?
>>
>I didn't "demonstrate" anything. I just asked a civil question. Do you
>have an answer, or any rational ideas, or are you limited to juvenile
>level ranting?
You would have to show how the Cambrian explosion is congruent with a
well-defined theory of creation.
>>>The evidence of this Cambrian Explosion is certainly verifiable, and
>>>indeed has been verified my many paleontologists, geologists and
>>>biologists.
>>>
>>>All phyla that have ever existed came into existence during this very
>>>brief Cambrian Explosion interval. No phyla have come into existence
>>>since. This certainly slams Darwinian Evolution down. So, what does
>>>explain this sequence of events? Gordon
>>
>>How does it do that, moron?
>>
>Darwinian evolution, if it is valid, should have kept on working, even
>after the Cambrian Explosion. Why didn't it? What caused it to stop?
Your question assumes facts that are contrary to the evidence. Evolution
has not stopped working.
>On the other hand, the Bible says that God's creation was completed
>and he rested. This is congruent with the observable facts described
>above.
Which facts? Please specify why creation explains better than current
theories of cosmology and of evolution.
Antares 531
<dj...@7Tsimmery.axe> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 May 2008 22:42:32 GMT, Antares 531
><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>>I don't really know how I would cope if it were possible for someone
>>to "prove" to me that God does not exist.
>
>I really don't think you have to worry. All the screaming and epithet
>hurling I see in this group (I'm reading only talk.atheism, not the
>other 6 in this cross-posted thread) seem to "prove" nothing to
>anyone!
>
>But I find this statement of yours very important (touching,
>actually), and I'm curious to know just why you would have difficulty
>coping if God could be proved not to exist--in other words, if God did
>not exit.
>
>--John Wells
>
John, the point I was making is that my life is centered around the
concept of continued existence, after this mortal phase is finished.
This mortal phase of my existence isn't the most important, since it
lasts only a brief "three score and ten years" nominally. So, if it
could be proven that God does not exist, I would, in effect, be
deprived of all but this very trivial mortal phase of my existence.
That would indeed be a very devastating shock!
I'm not concerned that God's existence can ever be falsified, so I'm
not at all apprehensive about this. I see too many things that
indicate God's existence, and I see nothing that falsifies it.
Superstring Theory and Membrane Theory, sometimes combined and
referred to as SSM Theory, present some very interesting insights that
seem to corroborate the Biblical information. SSM Theory posits 10
spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension in a multiverse that
includes this three dimensional space and one time dimension universe
we perceive. Those other dimensions that form the other universes
(levels of Heaven) in the multiverse are rolled up like a scroll (as
the Bible puts it) to less than a Planck length (as SSM Theory puts
it).
The phyla of life on this planet underwent an enormous surge during a
10 - 20 million year interval called the Cambrian Explosion, about 540
million years ago, then stopped at the end of this interval. There is
an abundance of geological, paleontological information to verify
this.
The Bible tells us that God created all the creatures, then rested.
This Biblical information is congruent with the verified Cambrian
Explosion information.
If Darwinian evolution is right, why did it work do vigorously for
about 10 million years, then stop, abruptly, at the end of the
Cambrian Explosion of life forms, some 540 million years ago?
Gordon
Free Lunch
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2008 20:02:18 -0700, John W. Wells
><dj...@7Tsimmery.axe> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 May 2008 22:42:32 GMT, Antares 531
>><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't really know how I would cope if it were possible for someone
>>>to "prove" to me that God does not exist.
>>
>>I really don't think you have to worry. All the screaming and epithet
>>hurling I see in this group (I'm reading only talk.atheism, not the
>>other 6 in this cross-posted thread) seem to "prove" nothing to
>>anyone!
>>
>>But I find this statement of yours very important (touching,
>>actually), and I'm curious to know just why you would have difficulty
>>coping if God could be proved not to exist--in other words, if God did
>>not exit.
>>
>>--John Wells
>>
>John, the point I was making is that my life is centered around the
>concept of continued existence, after this mortal phase is finished.
Why? There's no evidence at all to support any separate existence or an
existence that goes past death. Why waste your time on such stories?
>This mortal phase of my existence isn't the most important, since it
>lasts only a brief "three score and ten years" nominally. So, if it
>could be proven that God does not exist, I would, in effect, be
>deprived of all but this very trivial mortal phase of my existence.
>That would indeed be a very devastating shock!
There is no reason to claim that there is anything but the life we see.
>I'm not concerned that God's existence can ever be falsified, so I'm
>not at all apprehensive about this. I see too many things that
>indicate God's existence, and I see nothing that falsifies it.
No evidence supports claims about gods. No evidence supports claims
about life after death.
>Superstring Theory and Membrane Theory, sometimes combined and
>referred to as SSM Theory, present some very interesting insights that
>seem to corroborate the Biblical information. SSM Theory posits 10
>spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension in a multiverse that
>includes this three dimensional space and one time dimension universe
>we perceive. Those other dimensions that form the other universes
>(levels of Heaven) in the multiverse are rolled up like a scroll (as
>the Bible puts it) to less than a Planck length (as SSM Theory puts
>it).
>
>The phyla of life on this planet underwent an enormous surge during a
>10 - 20 million year interval called the Cambrian Explosion, about 540
>million years ago, then stopped at the end of this interval. There is
>an abundance of geological, paleontological information to verify
>this.
>
>The Bible tells us that God created all the creatures, then rested.
>This Biblical information is congruent with the verified Cambrian
>Explosion information.
How silly. Do you know anything about science?
>If Darwinian evolution is right, why did it work do vigorously for
>about 10 million years, then stop, abruptly, at the end of the
>Cambrian Explosion of life forms, some 540 million years ago?
Evolution is happening this very day. Don't let people lie to you.
Antares 531
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:23:17 -0500, Antares 531
><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 May 2008 21:52:12 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
(snip)
>>>
>>>Where did you demonstrate this hypothetical god's existence before
>>>asking such a remarkably stupid question?
>>>
>>I didn't "demonstrate" anything. I just asked a civil question. Do you
>>have an answer, or any rational ideas, or are you limited to juvenile
>>level ranting?
>
>You would have to show how the Cambrian explosion is congruent with a
>well-defined theory of creation.
>
The Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago and lasted
for about 10 - 20 million years, during which time all phyla that
exist today came into being. I'm talking macro-evolution here, not
micro-evolution.
After the end of the Cambrian Explosion, this macro-evolution process
stopped and no new phyla have come into existence since. "And God
rested after His creation work."
How should one explain how the Darwinian macro-evolution process
worked so vigorously during the Cambrian Explosion, then stopped
completely, afterward? Gordon
>>>>
>>>>The evidence of this Cambrian Explosion is certainly verifiable, and
>>>>indeed has been verified my many paleontologists, geologists and
>>>>biologists.
>>>>
>>>>All phyla that have ever existed came into existence during this very
>>>>brief Cambrian Explosion interval. No phyla have come into existence
>>>>since. This certainly slams Darwinian Evolution down. So, what does
>>>>explain this sequence of events? Gordon
>>>
>>>How does it do that, moron?
>>>
>>Darwinian evolution, if it is valid, should have kept on working, even
>>after the Cambrian Explosion. Why didn't it? What caused it to stop?
>
>Your question assumes facts that are contrary to the evidence. Evolution
>has not stopped working.
>
There are two levels of evolution...micro and macro. We have verified
micro-evolution in our domestic animals. That is, by selective
breeding we have produced a very large number of variations in our
domestic animals. This micro-evolution process also continues in
nature, without human intervention. So, yes, this aspect of Darwinian
evolution is still working.
But, macro-evolution seems to have ceased and we have not been able to
revitalize or demonstrate it at all. Not one new phyla has come into
existence since the end of the Cambrian Explosion, some 520 million
years ago.
>
>>On the other hand, the Bible says that God's creation was completed
>>and he rested. This is congruent with the observable facts described
>>above.
>
>Which facts? Please specify why creation explains better than current
>theories of cosmology and of evolution.
>
Geological/Paleontological records that show no new phyla after the
end of the Cambrian Explosion of life forms.
Creation and cosmology are in very harmonious agreement as far as I
can tell. The beginning...without form and void (neither form (matter)
nor void (empty space), just a point, then the big bang
occurred)..."Let there be light"...the initiation of light after some
of the big bang quark soup had transformed into matter that could emit
light. And so on through the entire process.
Gordon
dieHard
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>I'm not concerned that God's existence can ever be falsified, so I'm
>not at all apprehensive about this. I see too many things that
>indicate God's existence, and I see nothing that falsifies it.
>
how about this?
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm
Free Lunch
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:36:46 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:23:17 -0500, Antares 531
>><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 May 2008 21:52:12 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>(snip)
>>>>
>>>>Where did you demonstrate this hypothetical god's existence before
>>>>asking such a remarkably stupid question?
>>>>
>>>I didn't "demonstrate" anything. I just asked a civil question. Do you
>>>have an answer, or any rational ideas, or are you limited to juvenile
>>>level ranting?
>>
>>You would have to show how the Cambrian explosion is congruent with a
>>well-defined theory of creation.
>>
>The Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago and lasted
>for about 10 - 20 million years, during which time all phyla that
>exist today came into being. I'm talking macro-evolution here, not
>micro-evolution.
Please define macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Scientists don't
generally use those words, so I don't know exactly what you are stating.
>After the end of the Cambrian Explosion, this macro-evolution process
>stopped and no new phyla have come into existence since. "And God
>rested after His creation work."
If you are arguing for theistic evolution, I don't have a problem, but I
don't see any clear evidence that the Bible is describing this.
>How should one explain how the Darwinian macro-evolution process
>worked so vigorously during the Cambrian Explosion, then stopped
>completely, afterward? Gordon
Your question assumes facts not in evidence. You also imply, without any
evidentiary support that there is something different about
'macro-evolution' (whatever you mean by that) from evolution as it is
observed.
>>>>>The evidence of this Cambrian Explosion is certainly verifiable, and
>>>>>indeed has been verified my many paleontologists, geologists and
>>>>>biologists.
>>>>>
>>>>>All phyla that have ever existed came into existence during this very
>>>>>brief Cambrian Explosion interval. No phyla have come into existence
>>>>>since. This certainly slams Darwinian Evolution down. So, what does
>>>>>explain this sequence of events? Gordon
>>>>
>>>>How does it do that, moron?
>>>>
>>>Darwinian evolution, if it is valid, should have kept on working, even
>>>after the Cambrian Explosion. Why didn't it? What caused it to stop?
>>
>>Your question assumes facts that are contrary to the evidence. Evolution
>>has not stopped working.
>>
>There are two levels of evolution...micro and macro.
Please define.
>We have verified
>micro-evolution in our domestic animals. That is, by selective
>breeding we have produced a very large number of variations in our
>domestic animals. This micro-evolution process also continues in
>nature, without human intervention. So, yes, this aspect of Darwinian
>evolution is still working.
That's evolution.
>But, macro-evolution seems to have ceased and we have not been able to
>revitalize or demonstrate it at all. Not one new phyla has come into
>existence since the end of the Cambrian Explosion, some 520 million
>years ago.
What opportunity would there be for new phyla?
>>>On the other hand, the Bible says that God's creation was completed
>>>and he rested. This is congruent with the observable facts described
>>>above.
>>
>>Which facts? Please specify why creation explains better than current
>>theories of cosmology and of evolution.
>>
>Geological/Paleontological records that show no new phyla after the
>end of the Cambrian Explosion of life forms.
Why do you think that matters?
>Creation and cosmology are in very harmonious agreement as far as I
>can tell. The beginning...without form and void (neither form (matter)
>nor void (empty space), just a point, then the big bang
>occurred)..."Let there be light"...the initiation of light after some
>of the big bang quark soup had transformed into matter that could emit
>light. And so on through the entire process.
I can see how you can try to map Genesis to science, but the story
itself doesn't really fit.
Christopher A. Lee
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:36:46 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:23:17 -0500, Antares 531
>><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 May 2008 21:52:12 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>(snip)
>>>>
>>>>Where did you demonstrate this hypothetical god's existence before
>>>>asking such a remarkably stupid question?
>>>>
>>>I didn't "demonstrate" anything. I just asked a civil question. Do you
>>>have an answer, or any rational ideas, or are you limited to juvenile
>>>level ranting?
What "juvenile level ranting", liar?
Your question was hardly civil. You rudely and stupidly asked an
atheist something that presumed your pretend friend.
There was nothing to answer.
You don't have any rational ideas.
And are a thoroughly nasty individual who is totally out of touch with
reality otherwise you would not have lied about "juvenile level
ranting".
Get an education and you might have something to discuss.
>>You would have to show how the Cambrian explosion is congruent with a
>>well-defined theory of creation.
>>
>The Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago and lasted
>for about 10 - 20 million years, during which time all phyla that
>exist today came into being. I'm talking macro-evolution here, not
>micro-evolution.
Both of which are creationist canards.
>After the end of the Cambrian Explosion, this macro-evolution process
>stopped and no new phyla have come into existence since. "And God
>rested after His creation work."
You know perfectly well that it didn't.
And you also know that "God" is merely a character in the fairy
stories of somebody else's religion.
>How should one explain how the Darwinian macro-evolution process
>worked so vigorously during the Cambrian Explosion, then stopped
>completely, afterward? Gordon
It didn't stop afterwards, liar.
Why do you keep repeating this stupid lie, which only shows you have
no idea what you are talking about.
You know it's a lie because you have been repeatedly corrected.
Go to any natural history museum instead of pretending to be so
stupidly ignorant.
Or even google for "observed instances of speciation".
But in any case there is no such thing as "microevolution" or
"macroevolution". Just evolution.
Which was the label coined more than two centuries ago for the
observed change and divergence in collected, collated and catalogued
fossil collections.
And Darwin's wasn't even the first explanation for it - just the first
scientifically derived one.
Antares 531
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:38:59 -0500, Antares 531
><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:36:46 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>wrote:
>>
(snip)
>
>>The Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago and lasted
>>for about 10 - 20 million years, during which time all phyla that
>>exist today came into being. I'm talking macro-evolution here, not
>>micro-evolution.
>
>Please define macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Scientists don't
>generally use those words, so I don't know exactly what you are stating.
>
Macro-evolution entails developing a new species or a variant of a
species that can no longer cross-breed with the original members of
the source species.
Micro-evolution is much less complex, and is what we observe in our
domestic animal selective breeding and in things like SARS drug
resistant bacteria. For example, a Siberian Husky dog and a Border
Collie dog both came from the same ancestral roots, and are still the
same species, but they are significantly different in many respects.
Gordon
>
>>After the end of the Cambrian Explosion, this macro-evolution process
>>stopped and no new phyla have come into existence since. "And God
>>rested after His creation work."
>
>If you are arguing for theistic evolution, I don't have a problem, but I
>don't see any clear evidence that the Bible is describing this.
>
That is my point, too. There is no CLEAR evidence but there seems to
be some reasonable connection or some very phenomenal chance involved
in the writings of the Biblical passages on the creation. My purpose
for opening this thread was to encourage cross-talk with others who
might be able to shed some light on the subject. I'm searching for
answers, not caustic arguments, but for some reason a great many
atheists seem to take my questions as a challenge of their position
and therefore they respond very caustically. Maybe they really are
very insecure...who knows???
I'm not stating that I KNOW that God used some form of evolution to
create the creatures of this planet, but at the same time I can't
argue that He did not. What we see in the paleontological/geological
records and interpret as a 10-20 million year process of evolutionary
development may have happened in an instant, and may have been
accomplished by means other than the Darwinian evolutionary process.
The jury is still out on this, so to speak, and I'm not willing to
cross either option off the list until I learn a LOT more about the
whole scenario.
The thing that blocks me from accepting the Darwinian Evolution
explanation is that what ever it was that progressed so vigorously
during the Cambrian Explosion seems to have halted entirely at the end
of this 10 - 20 million year interval and has remained halted during
the 520 million years since. On the other hand, the Biblical Genesis
story about God having created the creatures then He rested seems to
fit amazingly well. Gordon
>
>>How should one explain how the Darwinian macro-evolution process
>>worked so vigorously during the Cambrian Explosion, then stopped
>>completely, afterward? Gordon
>
>Your question assumes facts not in evidence. You also imply, without any
>evidentiary support that there is something different about
>'macro-evolution' (whatever you mean by that) from evolution as it is
>observed.
>
Google macro evolution or micro evolution. There are many very well
presented sites on these subjects. Here's a link to one such site;
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml
There is indeed an enormous difference between macro and
micro-evolution. We can produce micro-evolution quite easily, and it
doesn't even require a sophisticated lab setup. Domestic animal
selective breeding is a micro-evolution example.
But, macro-evolution has never been demonstrated in the lab, and no
paleontologic/geologic evidence has ever been found indicating that
macro-evolution has happened since the end of the Cambrian Explosion
of animal life on this planet. Maybe the Cambrian Explosion was the
result of this planet having been "seeded" by aliens or some such. ;-)
What ever the case, there are far more questions to be answered than
there are existing answers. To duck behind Darwinian Evolution and
conclude that this explains it all is a VERY serious mistake. Gordon
This is a very prudent question. I simply do not have the insights
that would enable me to determine what would be needed or what would
instill a new phylum. As a crude guess, just to illustrate what I'm
talking about, perhaps some life forms based upon silica instead of
carbon might be possible. Please note that I am not suggesting that
this is possible. I am just using this bit of fiction to express the
idea that I'm talking about. The main thing is that I can't accept
that the present 7 or 8 phyla are all that have room to exist on this
planet. Something like 28 phyla existed during the Cambrian Explosion,
but most of them died off, later. Gordon
>
>>>>On the other hand, the Bible says that God's creation was completed
>>>>and he rested. This is congruent with the observable facts described
>>>>above.
>>>
>>>Which facts? Please specify why creation explains better than current
>>>theories of cosmology and of evolution.
>>>
>>Geological/Paleontological records that show no new phyla after the
>>end of the Cambrian Explosion of life forms.
>
>Why do you think that matters?
>
I'm not saying that it matters, it you mean by "matters," that the
earth could not have been workable with any different sequence of
events. All I'm saying here is that it whets my curiosity. Why did the
Bible describe a creature creation sequence that fits so harmoniously
with the paleontologic/geologic records that are attributed to
Darwinian Natural Selection evolution? Gordon
>
>>Creation and cosmology are in very harmonious agreement as far as I
>>can tell. The beginning...without form and void (neither form (matter)
>>nor void (empty space), just a point, then the big bang
>>occurred)..."Let there be light"...the initiation of light after some
>>of the big bang quark soup had transformed into matter that could emit
>>light. And so on through the entire process.
>
>I can see how you can try to map Genesis to science, but the story
>itself doesn't really fit.
>
I disagree here. I think the Genesis story fits amazingly well with
the science we know, and as we gain more insights into science I
expect we will find an even more exact match. God created the entire
multiverse, including all the natural laws. Why would He have used
something "outside" these natural laws to do all this?
The Genesis story was given to us in a very primitive
language/communication style, and this was done so the earliest people
who received this information could grasp the core meaning and
understand all that they needed to know.
Then, 3500 years later, as humanity advanced into the age of science,
and we are motivated to search for greater in-depth understanding, we
are still able to read those ancient writings and fit them into the
science we now understand.
We find that science corroborates the Bible and the Bible corroborates
science. No one at any time was at an advantage or a disadvantage
because of their social structure and level of scientific
understanding. All could read and glean the necessary information from
those ancient writings. Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:52:07 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:38:59 -0500, Antares 531
>><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:36:46 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>(snip)
>>
>>>The Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago and lasted
>>>for about 10 - 20 million years, during which time all phyla that
>>>exist today came into being. I'm talking macro-evolution here, not
>>>micro-evolution.
>>
>>Please define macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Scientists don't
>>generally use those words, so I don't know exactly what you are stating.
>>
>Macro-evolution entails developing a new species or a variant of a
>species that can no longer cross-breed with the original members of
>the source species.
>
>Micro-evolution is much less complex, and is what we observe in our
>domestic animal selective breeding and in things like SARS drug
>resistant bacteria. For example, a Siberian Husky dog and a Border
>Collie dog both came from the same ancestral roots, and are still the
>same species, but they are significantly different in many respects.
>Gordon
They're both creationist canards so they can pretend one doesn't
happen.
All there is, is evolution.
>>>After the end of the Cambrian Explosion, this macro-evolution process
>>>stopped and no new phyla have come into existence since. "And God
>>>rested after His creation work."
>>
>>If you are arguing for theistic evolution, I don't have a problem, but I
>>don't see any clear evidence that the Bible is describing this.
>>
>That is my point, too. There is no CLEAR evidence but there seems to
>be some reasonable connection or some very phenomenal chance involved
>in the writings of the Biblical passages on the creation. My purpose
>for opening this thread was to encourage cross-talk with others who
>might be able to shed some light on the subject. I'm searching for
>answers, not caustic arguments, but for some reason a great many
>atheists seem to take my questions as a challenge of their position
>and therefore they respond very caustically. Maybe they really are
>very insecure...who knows???
1. Stop lying.
2. The Bible is irrelevant in the real world outside your religion.
3. Evolution is nothing to do with atheism or vice versa.
4. You're not challenging anything.
5. You get the reaction you do because you are a pig-ignorant, stupid
liar.
Was that clear enough even for you?
>I'm not stating that I KNOW that God used some form of evolution to
>create the creatures of this planet, but at the same time I can't
>argue that He did not. What we see in the paleontological/geological
>records and interpret as a 10-20 million year process of evolutionary
>development may have happened in an instant, and may have been
>accomplished by means other than the Darwinian evolutionary process.
>The jury is still out on this, so to speak, and I'm not willing to
>cross either option off the list until I learn a LOT more about the
>whole scenario.
God is utterly irrelevant in the real world because it is merely one
of hundreds of different religious beliefs.
The jury is only "out" in the deluded fantasies of religious
fundamentalists incapable of thinking outside their religion.
>The thing that blocks me from accepting the Darwinian Evolution
>explanation is that what ever it was that progressed so vigorously
>during the Cambrian Explosion seems to have halted entirely at the end
>of this 10 - 20 million year interval and has remained halted during
>the 520 million years since. On the other hand, the Biblical Genesis
>story about God having created the creatures then He rested seems to
>fit amazingly well. Gordon
Get an education and stop wiping your stupidity and ignorance in our
faces.
>>>How should one explain how the Darwinian macro-evolution process
>>>worked so vigorously during the Cambrian Explosion, then stopped
>>>completely, afterward? Gordon
>>
>>Your question assumes facts not in evidence. You also imply, without any
>>evidentiary support that there is something different about
>>'macro-evolution' (whatever you mean by that) from evolution as it is
>>observed.
>>
>Google macro evolution or micro evolution. There are many very well
>presented sites on these subjects. Here's a link to one such site;
>http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml
Macroevolution and microevolution are creationist canards.
There is no controversy outside the deluded imagination of
creationists who are in denial about the real world.
>There is indeed an enormous difference between macro and
>micro-evolution. We can produce micro-evolution quite easily, and it
>doesn't even require a sophisticated lab setup. Domestic animal
>selective breeding is a micro-evolution example.
Macroevolution and microevolution are creationist canards.
>But, macro-evolution has never been demonstrated in the lab, and no
>paleontologic/geologic evidence has ever been found indicating that
>macro-evolution has happened since the end of the Cambrian Explosion
>of animal life on this planet.
Liar.
Go to your nearest Natural History museum, and you will see what you
pretend doesn't exist.
> Maybe the Cambrian Explosion was the
>result of this planet having been "seeded" by aliens or some such. ;-)
What a fucking moron.
>What ever the case, there are far more questions to be answered than
>there are existing answers. To duck behind Darwinian Evolution and
>conclude that this explains it all is a VERY serious mistake. Gordon
Good thing that is just your dishonest straw man.
Then get an education.
>>>>>On the other hand, the Bible says that God's creation was completed
>>>>>and he rested. This is congruent with the observable facts described
>>>>>above.
>>>>
>>>>Which facts? Please specify why creation explains better than current
>>>>theories of cosmology and of evolution.
>>>>
>>>Geological/Paleontological records that show no new phyla after the
>>>end of the Cambrian Explosion of life forms.
>>
>>Why do you think that matters?
>>
>I'm not saying that it matters, it you mean by "matters," that the
>earth could not have been workable with any different sequence of
>events. All I'm saying here is that it whets my curiosity. Why did the
>Bible describe a creature creation sequence that fits so harmoniously
>with the paleontologic/geologic records that are attributed to
>Darwinian Natural Selection evolution? Gordon
It didn't, moron.
>>>Creation and cosmology are in very harmonious agreement as far as I
>>>can tell. The beginning...without form and void (neither form (matter)
>>>nor void (empty space), just a point, then the big bang
>>>occurred)..."Let there be light"...the initiation of light after some
>>>of the big bang quark soup had transformed into matter that could emit
>>>light. And so on through the entire process.
>>
>>I can see how you can try to map Genesis to science, but the story
>>itself doesn't really fit.
>>
>I disagree here. I think the Genesis story fits amazingly well with
>the science we know, and as we gain more insights into science I
>expect we will find an even more exact match. God created the entire
>multiverse, including all the natural laws. Why would He have used
>something "outside" these natural laws to do all this?
It doesn't, moron.
Why do you keep talking about your pretend friend as though it were
granted as real outside your religion?
>The Genesis story was given to us in a very primitive
>language/communication style, and this was done so the earliest people
>who received this information could grasp the core meaning and
>understand all that they needed to know.
It is their fairy tales, moron.
>Then, 3500 years later, as humanity advanced into the age of science,
>and we are motivated to search for greater in-depth understanding, we
>are still able to read those ancient writings and fit them into the
>science we now understand.
Hardly, liar.
>
>We find that science corroborates the Bible and the Bible corroborates
>science.
Where, liar?
> No one at any time was at an advantage or a disadvantage
>because of their social structure and level of scientific
>understanding. All could read and glean the necessary information from
>those ancient writings. Gordon
Hardly, liar.
Ben Goren
> John, the point I was making is that my life is centered around
> the concept of continued existence, after this mortal phase is
> finished. This mortal phase of my existence isn't the most
> important, since it lasts only a brief "three score and ten
> years" nominally.
What a profoundly immoral, selfish, and anti-social foundation for
a life.
> So, if it could be proven that God does not exist, I would, in
> effect, be deprived of all but this very trivial mortal phase of
> my existence. That would indeed be a very devastating shock!
So? What makes you think that reality gives a flying fuck whether
or not you find it pleasing?
Do you still think that, if you clap your hands loud enough,
Tinkerbell will live?
Why should your gods and your Elysian fields be any different?
I truly feel sorry for you that your life is so miserable you
consider it worthless and completely devoid of meaning. Then
again, with your philosophy, you've clearly consciously decided to
make it so -- both to you and to everybody else. It's quite
pathetic, really.
> I'm not concerned that God's existence can ever be falsified, so
> I'm not at all apprehensive about this. I see too many things
> that indicate God's existence, and I see nothing that falsifies
> it.
But that's only because you stick your fingers in your ear and
sing, ``la la la I can't hear you'' anytime somebody even hints as
much.
A number of times I've offered to prove to you that your gods are
all logically absurd, if you would but tell us of their defining
characteristics.
That you so steadfastly ignore my offer, instead inventing yet
another inane faery tale about the poor little PC who refused to
plug in his ethernet cable, should be more than ample proof that
you know full well that your beliefs cannot stand even the
impression of close scrutiny.
The unexamined life truly is not worth living -- and you're doing
your utmost to demonstrate that to us.
But, of course, that's *your* problem, not ours.
Ben Goren
> Free Lunch wrote:
>> Antares 531 wrote:
>>
>>> The Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago
>>> and lasted for about 10 - 20 million years, during which time
>>> all phyla that exist today came into being. I'm talking
>>> macro-evolution here, not micro-evolution.
>>
>> Please define macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Scientists
>> don't generally use those words, so I don't know exactly what
>> you are stating.
>
> Macro-evolution entails developing a new species or a variant of
> a species that can no longer cross-breed with the original
> members of the source species.
According to this definition, your ``macro-evolution'' is
something that's even been demonstrated in high school biology
labs, right across the hallway from where they calculate absolute
zero or determine the proper titration for buffer systems.
Now, one of two things are going to happen. Either you're going to
spend some serious quality time here:
especially starting here:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
and begin to realize the profound depths of the lies your handlers
have been feeding you, or you'll start doing a pathetically
transparent song-and-dance like Gabriel's ``there are no [rat]s.''
DanielSan
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:52:07 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:38:59 -0500, Antares 531
>> <gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:36:46 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>> wrote:
>>>
> (snip)
>>> The Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago and lasted
>>> for about 10 - 20 million years, during which time all phyla that
>>> exist today came into being. I'm talking macro-evolution here, not
>>> micro-evolution.
>> Please define macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Scientists don't
>> generally use those words, so I don't know exactly what you are stating.
>>
> Macro-evolution entails developing a new species or a variant of a
> species that can no longer cross-breed with the original members of
> the source species.
Thank you very much, finally, for the definition. Macroevolution =
Speciation
This has been observed. And shown. On countless occasions.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for *
* a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord *
* doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked *
* Him to forgive me." --Emo Philips *
****************************************************
Free Lunch
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:52:07 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:38:59 -0500, Antares 531
>><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:36:46 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>(snip)
>>
>>>The Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago and lasted
>>>for about 10 - 20 million years, during which time all phyla that
>>>exist today came into being. I'm talking macro-evolution here, not
>>>micro-evolution.
>>
>>Please define macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Scientists don't
>>generally use those words, so I don't know exactly what you are stating.
>>
>Macro-evolution entails developing a new species or a variant of a
>species that can no longer cross-breed with the original members of
>the source species.
That is called speciation. It has been observed occuring through natural
processes. Plants have even more fun. Speciation in animals is almost
always a result of isolated populations drifting apart. There is nothing
special that happens to turn this variation into speciation, it's just
one step further.
>Micro-evolution is much less complex, and is what we observe in our
>domestic animal selective breeding and in things like SARS drug
>resistant bacteria. For example, a Siberian Husky dog and a Border
>Collie dog both came from the same ancestral roots, and are still the
>same species, but they are significantly different in many respects.
And, under natural circumstances, some of the breeds of dogs would not
be interbreeding and thus considered separate species. Species do not
interbreed both for genetic and behavioral reasons.
>Gordon
>>
>>>After the end of the Cambrian Explosion, this macro-evolution process
>>>stopped and no new phyla have come into existence since. "And God
>>>rested after His creation work."
>>
>>If you are arguing for theistic evolution, I don't have a problem, but I
>>don't see any clear evidence that the Bible is describing this.
>>
>That is my point, too. There is no CLEAR evidence but there seems to
>be some reasonable connection or some very phenomenal chance involved
>in the writings of the Biblical passages on the creation.
I don't see that at all. The stories in the Bible are consistent with
stories that were told by other pre-scientific tribes explaining their
universe.
> My purpose
>for opening this thread was to encourage cross-talk with others who
>might be able to shed some light on the subject. I'm searching for
>answers, not caustic arguments, but for some reason a great many
>atheists seem to take my questions as a challenge of their position
>and therefore they respond very caustically. Maybe they really are
>very insecure...who knows???
It depends on how the questions are posed. When they appear to be
rhetorical insults to science, those who understand science are hardly
likely to be happy with something that appears to be a studied insult.
>I'm not stating that I KNOW that God used some form of evolution to
>create the creatures of this planet, but at the same time I can't
>argue that He did not. What we see in the paleontological/geological
>records and interpret as a 10-20 million year process of evolutionary
>development may have happened in an instant, and may have been
>accomplished by means other than the Darwinian evolutionary process.
There are examples of other times that there was a large change in the
biome after dieoffs. The Cambrian is not unique as you imply.
>The jury is still out on this, so to speak, and I'm not willing to
>cross either option off the list until I learn a LOT more about the
>whole scenario.
The jury isn't out on ID/creationism. They have lost. They have nothing
to do with science. They offer no scientific explanations. Read the
Kitzmiller decision to see how dishonest the ID/Creationists are.
>The thing that blocks me from accepting the Darwinian Evolution
>explanation is that what ever it was that progressed so vigorously
>during the Cambrian Explosion seems to have halted entirely at the end
>of this 10 - 20 million year interval and has remained halted during
>the 520 million years since.
Your understanding of evolution is erroneous. Of course, it doesn't make
sense to throw science away completely just because you don't understand
what science has discovered.
>On the other hand, the Biblical Genesis
>story about God having created the creatures then He rested seems to
>fit amazingly well. Gordon
No. You are fitting a story to some of the evidence and ignoring the
rest.
>>>How should one explain how the Darwinian macro-evolution process
>>>worked so vigorously during the Cambrian Explosion, then stopped
>>>completely, afterward? Gordon
>>
>>Your question assumes facts not in evidence. You also imply, without any
>>evidentiary support that there is something different about
>>'macro-evolution' (whatever you mean by that) from evolution as it is
>>observed.
>Google macro evolution or micro evolution. There are many very well
>presented sites on these subjects. Here's a link to one such site;
>http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml
That is a terrible explanation. Variations are variations. None are
defined as the kind that automatically confer speciation. The author
lied about the facts. There are facts that strongly support common
ancestry. Here are some of the lines of evidence that force scientists
to conclude that evolution has happened and continues to happen:
- Vestigial structures.
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- Vast and elaborate fossil record
- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies
- Behavioral studies
- Radiometric dating
- Radically different collection of flora and fauna
during progressive eras
- DNA and genetic data
- Related to nested hierarchies
- and recent observed events of speciation
The three critical flaws that the sermonizer wrote are all flaws in his
understanding of science. Not one of them is valid. Sure, many
variations cause an organism to become less fit for the niche and die
out, but once they are dead, the variations don't matter. The argument
about incremental variations shows a lack of understanding of
developmental biology. People with small variations, either genetically
or developmentally, do not add half a finger, they get a whole new one.
Some have fingers that are all useful. Some do not, but the development
of a sixth finger is not the collection of a lot of different genetic
changes. Its relatively simple. Bats also had relatively simple changes
and there are intermediate forms that are useful.
The claim "Jay Gould proposed the idea that every living cell could
possibly be encoded with the ability to change into any other living
thing. He believes that an external stimulus causes this jump." is
unsupported by any reference to any article, popular or scientific that
Stephen Jay Gould wrote. I don't know if the writer made this up or read
what was written out of context. Either way, the author is
misrepresenting science. Since Gould didn't say what the author claims,
his attack on it must be dismissed. Lamarck was demonstrated to be wrong
a century ago.
For item two, the writer does not understand the role that chromosomes
or genes play nor how variation is introduced into the genetic material.
Quoting a convicted criminal who has no scientific background and
garbles what he is talking about does not persuade me that the author of
the sermon you chose knows what he is talking about or is even capable
of separating knowledge from nonsense. The rock pigeon example is not an
example of a failure of evolution. The author and Colson, presumably,
confuse the inherent available variability within a population with the
variation that happens over time when new alleles are introduced.
"No evolutionary change (i.e. micro evolution) ever adds information to
the genetic material."
That claim is flat out wrong. Every imperfect replication adds such
information. Some is useful. Some is culled.
The discussion of hybrids again shows a confusion about the difference
between currently available alleles and new alleles that arise from
imperfect replication.
The Dawkins story is misleading to the point of dishonesty. The
explanation of adaptive bacteria is just wrong. The bacteria that are
immune are not necessarily weaker as your author claims.
Natural selection does cull. New variation does add.
Your author needs to learn about science before he writes his next
science-bashing sermon.
His conclusion about 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution' is false
because it is drawn on mistaken understanding of science and the
evidence about evolution. He is the one who refused to engage in
critical analysis. He is the one who misrepresents what has happened.
>There is indeed an enormous difference between macro and
>micro-evolution. We can produce micro-evolution quite easily, and it
>doesn't even require a sophisticated lab setup. Domestic animal
>selective breeding is a micro-evolution example.
Not really, but the definition of micro-evolution and the definition of
macro-evolution need to be tied down much better than they are before I
am able to point out why this is nonsense. The author of the sermon you
recommended appears to have shifting definitions within the article.
>But, macro-evolution has never been demonstrated in the lab, and no
>paleontologic/geologic evidence has ever been found indicating that
>macro-evolution has happened since the end of the Cambrian Explosion
>of animal life on this planet. Maybe the Cambrian Explosion was the
>result of this planet having been "seeded" by aliens or some such. ;-)
>What ever the case, there are far more questions to be answered than
>there are existing answers. To duck behind Darwinian Evolution and
>conclude that this explains it all is a VERY serious mistake. Gordon
Nonsense. You don't have an explanation and your claims about the lack
of evidence are just retreads of the tire old lies of creationists.
Until you know enough science to offer a valid scientific critique of
evolution (at which time you will understand why your current criticisms
are worthless) you are doing nothing but parroting creationist lies.
Then why do you claim that new phyla should have continued to arise?
>As a crude guess, just to illustrate what I'm
>talking about, perhaps some life forms based upon silica instead of
>carbon might be possible. Please note that I am not suggesting that
>this is possible. I am just using this bit of fiction to express the
>idea that I'm talking about. The main thing is that I can't accept
>that the present 7 or 8 phyla are all that have room to exist on this
>planet. Something like 28 phyla existed during the Cambrian Explosion,
>but most of them died off, later. Gordon
The success of humans has endangered thousands of species. Is that an
argument against evolution? How?
>>>>>On the other hand, the Bible says that God's creation was completed
>>>>>and he rested. This is congruent with the observable facts described
>>>>>above.
>>>>
>>>>Which facts? Please specify why creation explains better than current
>>>>theories of cosmology and of evolution.
>>>>
>>>Geological/Paleontological records that show no new phyla after the
>>>end of the Cambrian Explosion of life forms.
>>
>>Why do you think that matters?
>>
>I'm not saying that it matters, it you mean by "matters," that the
>earth could not have been workable with any different sequence of
>events. All I'm saying here is that it whets my curiosity. Why did the
>Bible describe a creature creation sequence that fits so harmoniously
>with the paleontologic/geologic records that are attributed to
>Darwinian Natural Selection evolution? Gordon
The Bible describes nothing. The theory of evolution by variation and
natural selection is consistent with all of the evidence and takes it
into account. The stories told by herders does neither.
>>>Creation and cosmology are in very harmonious agreement as far as I
>>>can tell. The beginning...without form and void (neither form (matter)
>>>nor void (empty space), just a point, then the big bang
>>>occurred)..."Let there be light"...the initiation of light after some
>>>of the big bang quark soup had transformed into matter that could emit
>>>light. And so on through the entire process.
>>
>>I can see how you can try to map Genesis to science, but the story
>>itself doesn't really fit.
>>
>I disagree here. I think the Genesis story fits amazingly well with
>the science we know, and as we gain more insights into science I
>expect we will find an even more exact match. God created the entire
>multiverse, including all the natural laws. Why would He have used
>something "outside" these natural laws to do all this?
Then you don't really understand science well enough to have an opinion
worth listening to. The Genesis stories are all wrong as science. The
order of creation is wrong -- in both creation stories. The Flood story
is wrong. The Babel story is wrong. The Exodus story is wrong. The
evidence shows that they are all wrong. Nothing in Genesis is
scientifically accurate.
>The Genesis story was given to us in a very primitive
>language/communication style, and this was done so the earliest people
>who received this information could grasp the core meaning and
>understand all that they needed to know.
Not at all.
>Then, 3500 years later, as humanity advanced into the age of science,
>and we are motivated to search for greater in-depth understanding, we
>are still able to read those ancient writings and fit them into the
>science we now understand.
You have to twist those stories until they scream to get them to fit
modern scientific discoveries. Of course, you cannot do that, the
stories are screaming and you are still making excuses for why you
reject some of the scientific evidence.
>We find that science corroborates the Bible and the Bible corroborates
>science. No one at any time was at an advantage or a disadvantage
>because of their social structure and level of scientific
>understanding. All could read and glean the necessary information from
>those ancient writings. Gordon
Not even close. The Bible is wrong when it comes to science.
Antares 531
wrote:
>Antares 531 wrote:
>
> > Free Lunch wrote:
> >> Antares 531 wrote:
> >>
> >>> The Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago
> >>> and lasted for about 10 - 20 million years, during which time
> >>> all phyla that exist today came into being. I'm talking
> >>> macro-evolution here, not micro-evolution.
> >>
> >> Please define macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Scientists
> >> don't generally use those words, so I don't know exactly what
> >> you are stating.
> >
> > Macro-evolution entails developing a new species or a variant of
> > a species that can no longer cross-breed with the original
> > members of the source species.
>
>According to this definition, your ``macro-evolution'' is
>something that's even been demonstrated in high school biology
>labs, right across the hallway from where they calculate absolute
>zero or determine the proper titration for buffer systems.
>
Ben, thanks for the site links below. There is a lot of interesting
material in those links, but using a modernized definition of
"species" doesn't resolve the questions that led to this thread.
According to the information in the second link you provided, below,
we should identify Holstein and Guernsey cattle as separate species.
Please explain in a bit more detail how macro-evolution has been
demonstrated in your high school biology labs.
Even if we go along with these definitions of species, this still
doesn't answer the original set of questions. To reiterate;
1) Why was there such a burst of new life forms during the 10 - 20
million year long Cambrian Explosion, then no new phyla in the 520 -
530 million years since that time?
2) What explains the apparent congruency between the Biblical Genesis
story and the available paleontologic/geologic information? In the
beginning, God created....and when He had completed His creation he
rested...stopped creating new phyla, etc.
3) How did the eye develop in so many species, separately, and quite
different, physiologically, even though the evolutionary process would
have been very long and complex with no tangible benefits that would
have promoted natural selection until this evolutionary process was
nearly complete?
4) How did other complex organs such as the heart, kidneys, etc.,
evolve in so many different species, yet in such strikingly similar
physical configurations?
5) Was all the DNA for these and many other animal traits
pre-programmed into the predecessors of all the complex phyla that
popped into existence during the Cambrian Explosion? If so, what
pre-programmed this DNA?
Gordon
Free Lunch
Not so.
Darrell Stec
> The Bible tells us that God created all the creatures, then rested.
> This Biblical information is congruent with the verified Cambrian
> Explosion information.
Actually it doesn't. Except for this very brief Genesis account, the word
mistranslated as 'created', the Hebrew word 'bara' is translated as 'to
fill-up' or to 'fatten' in all the other numerous places it appears in the
Old Testament.
Methinks you are using a poor translation however almost all of them are
just as poor in that respect. The Elohim, the gods (yes plural), sons of
god, council of god did not create anything including the earth. It was
already in existence under the waters that already existed at the time they
began to fill it up, after separating the rain waters from the oceans and
streams by a hard rounded helmet with holes in it to let the rainwater
down.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Ben Goren
No, not at all. At least, not yet -- they're still quite
interfertile. Maybe after several thousand years of intense
breeding, such as what we've seen with dogs and are starting to
see with horses.
> Please explain in a bit more detail how macro-evolution has been
> demonstrated in your high school biology labs.
Not mine; my biology class wasn't that exciting. Off the top of my
head, I can't point you to a specific example of a high school
that does it, but any of the classic Drosophila experiments from
the 50s and 60s should be well within the reach of any high
school.
> Even if we go along with these definitions of species,
> this still doesn't answer the original set of questions. To
> reiterate;
Your questions are all straw men indicating you know nothing about
the subject past what you've read in religious tracts.
Complete answers would require an entire college career to
begin to answer. My very short answers below I'm sure you'll
find unsatisfactory, but they'll get you pointed in the right
direction.
> 1) Why was there such a burst of new life forms during the 10 -
> 20 million year long Cambrian Explosion, then no new phyla in
> the 520 - 530 million years since that time?
Because that represents a profound mischaracterization of what
really happened. The talk.origins Web site can explain the
Cambrian ``Explosion'' to you in much greater detail.
I will point out, though, that displacing a successful organism is
much less likely than becoming successful when no other organism
exists to displace. It's inevitable that there should be an
initial flurry of experimentation after which things settle down.
> 2) What explains the apparent congruency between the Biblical
> Genesis story and the available paleontologic/geologic
> information? In the beginning, God created....and when He had
> completed His creation he rested...stopped creating new phyla,
> etc.
The explanation is an archetypal example of salad-bar Biblical
study. You can find the exact same ``apparent congruncey'' in the
phone book, if you look hard enough.
The Bible is actually pathetically and profoundly worng when it
comes to paleontology and geology. The Flood is the perfect
example: everything it describes, at small and large scale, is
trivially provably worng.
The Genesis 1 initial creation story also gets things so horribly
worng that it's only by squinting very, very, very hard that you
can convince yourself that the general outline is sorta vaguely
similar. It's kinda like remarking on the similarity between a
snowflake and a pigeon dropping.
> 3) How did the eye develop in so many species, separately, and
> quite different, physiologically, even though the evolutionary
> process would have been very long and complex with no tangible
> benefits that would have promoted natural selection until this
> evolutionary process was nearly complete?
The evolution of the eye has been so well documented so for long
that, by asking that question, you display such a profound
ignorance of biology that I can't even imagine where to begin. I
suggest you start with the Wikipedia article on the subject and go
from there.
> 4) How did other complex organs such as the heart, kidneys,
> etc., evolve in so many different species, yet in such
> strikingly similar physical configurations?
The basic answer is the same as for the eye -- though, of course,
the details will vary.
> 5) Was all the DNA for these and many other animal traits
> pre-programmed into the predecessors of all the complex phyla
> that popped into existence during the Cambrian Explosion? If so,
> what pre-programmed this DNA?
This question demonstrates that you not only know nothing about
DNA, but that what you *think* you know about it is so far from
reality that, once again, I haven't a clue where to start. It's
like you think it's some sort of magic token that confers upon its
holder the super-property the magician infused it with when it was
made.
Might I suggest taking a freshman biology course at your nearest
secular university? That should at least get you pointed in the
right direction. I'd suggest a community college, but, in my
experience in topics I'm expert in, the quality of instruction is
hit-or-miss.
Barring that, Dawkins is far and above the best at explaining
evolutionary biology to the general public. His books and his BBC
programmes would all be excellent sources of learning.
Pastor Frank
news:cdSdnfE9HZUUVbjV...@comcast.com...
our Christian God incarnate, is in no way a "mass killer".
Fred Jones
"Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote in message
news:f2f09$48286494$d1d89a6b$19...@PRIMUS.CA...
Ben Goren
> Christ, our Christian God incarnate, is in no way a "mass
> killer".
Bull fucking shit.
Luke 19:27, for the most obvious starting place, along with
Matthew 10:34-39 and Luke 12:49-53 and plenty others.
And that's completely ignoring the fact that Jesus has a perpetual
hard-on for torture that pops out every time he ejaculates the
word, ``Hell.'' Shit, even the Sermon on the Mount is all
self-mutilation this and fire and brimstone that -- not to mention
the rank stench of hypocrisy that runs throughout.
Indeed, your Christ's only redeeming feature is his fictitious
nature.
But, then again, you *ARE* Pester Fuck. It's your job to lie for
Jesus, after all. But don't you think you could possibly try for
at least a bit more subtlety?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
> objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
> No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
Zeus begat many sons, of whom many were gods. Why is that not sufficient
evidence?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Antares 531
author(s), whom ever he/she/they was/were, know that aquatic plant
life had to precede aquatic animal life, then plant life had to move
out of the water onto land.
Terrestrial animals had to have something to eat. There is no doubt
that the Genesis author(s) understood this and placed Terrestrial
animal life at the end of the sequence of the Terrestrial life
development process.
How did they know that humans had to come at the very end of this life
forming process? Why did they not, instead, put humans near the first
on the development sequence and have them involved in the formation of
many of the other life forms. "Humans needed (fill in the blank) so
they bred and cultured the animals and plants they needed, or
something like that."
Why did the author(s) if Genesis not reason that Terrestrial plant
life came first, followed by Terrestrial animal life, then when their
refuse began to wash into the oceans and lakes, aquatic life was the
result? How did they, instead, surmise that life forms could/did
wash/crawl up out of the water onto land? Why didn't those primitive
minds "assume" that Terrestrial life forms washed down the streams
into the lakes and oceans rather than having climbed up out of the
oceans/lakes against the flow of the streams. Did they think those
early aquatic life forms had legs or that they could crawl like worms
such as to enable them to go against the flow, so to speak?
How did those Genesis authors blunder around in the darkness, so to
speak, and get this so very nearly right in all important respects?
Gordon
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Antares 531 broadcast on alt.atheism:
> How did those Genesis authors blunder around in the darkness, so to
> speak, and get this so very nearly right in all important respects?
Of course they didn't get it right. They had green plants before they had
light, they had aquatic mammals before they had land animals. And of course
in Genesis 2.4 there is another, contradictory, sequence even more fouled
up: trees before rain, man before cattle. They were as ignorant then and
the three religions that claim them are today.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 251 days to go.
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Antares 531 broadcast on alt.atheism:
> How did those Genesis authors blunder around in the darkness, so to
> speak, and get this so very nearly right in all important respects?
Of course they didn't get it right. They had green plants before they had
light, they had aquatic mammals before they had land animals. And of course
in Genesis 2.4 there is another, contradictory, sequence even more fouled
up: trees before rain, man before cattle. They were as ignorant then as
Kelsey Bjarnason
> When the book of Genesis was written, some 2300 years ago, how did the
> author(s), whom ever he/she/they was/were, know that aquatic plant life
> had to precede aquatic animal life, then plant life had to move out of
> the water onto land.
Just fired up Gen 1 and took a read. Here's the order listed:
Light
Firmament in waters
Grass, herbs, trees
Sun, moon, stars
Whales, moving creatues, fowl
Beasts of the earth, cattle, creeping things
Man
Hmm. Grass, herbs and trees, no mention _at all_ of aquatic plant life.
I'm sure you'll point out *exactly* where it says "aquatic plant life",
right?
raven1
>When the book of Genesis was written, some 2300 years ago, how did the
>author(s), whom ever he/she/they was/were, know that aquatic plant
>life had to precede aquatic animal life, then plant life had to move
>out of the water onto land.
Nowhere does Genesis state or even imply this.
Uncle Vic
> When the book of Genesis was written, some 2300 years ago, how did the
> author(s), whom ever he/she/they was/were, know that aquatic plant
> life had to precede aquatic animal life, then plant life had to move
> out of the water onto land.
Show us where reality states that a river can be turned into blood, snakes
can talk, a sea can be parted with a magic wand, the dead can be brought
back to life, and a man can die so that others never have to.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
John Locke
>speak, and get this so very nearly right in all important respects?
>
They were a bunch of ancient morons who simply looked around at their
world and created a childish mythical story to explain how everything
go there. They were ignorant. They didn't have the scientific
resources we have today to get to the actual truth. That's all
there is to it. Its nonsense. A monkey could write Genesis.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
John Baker
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
Odd how nobody noticed that this stuff was in the Bible until *after*
science discovered it, don't you think?
The truth is they *didn't* know.
>
>Gordon
Claude Hopper (11) 5. ?
--
Claude Hopper :)
? ? ¥
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
> objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
> No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
> the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
> active imaginations.
That is NOT the logical conclusion.
Adonis
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:g0epp8$b78$3...@reader2.panix.com...
> In alt.religion.christian Bill M <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
>> objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
>
>> No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
>
>> the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
>> active imaginations.
>
> That is NOT the logical conclusion.
>
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
> news:g0epp8$b78$3...@reader2.panix.com...
> > In alt.religion.christian Bill M <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
> >> objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
> >
> >> No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
> >
> >> the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
> >> active imaginations.
> >
> > That is NOT the logical conclusion.
> >
> Ok if the conclusion is not logical, what conclusion do you say is?
Nobody has supplied you with proof. That is all you can conclude.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> In alt.religion.christian Adonis <zeroca...@msn.com> wrote:
> > <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:g0epp8$b78$3...@reader2.panix.com...
> > > In alt.religion.christian Bill M <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
> > >> objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
> > >
> > >> No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
> > >
> > >> the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
> > >> active imaginations.
> > >
> > > That is NOT the logical conclusion.
> > >
> > Ok if the conclusion is not logical, what conclusion do you say is?
> Nobody has supplied you with proof. That is all you can conclude.
Should be" Nobody has supplied you with evidence".
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian Adonis <zeroca...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:g0epp8$b78$3...@reader2.panix.com...
>> > In alt.religion.christian Bill M <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
>> >> objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
>> >
>> >> No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
>> >
>> >> the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
>> >> active imaginations.
>> >
>> > That is NOT the logical conclusion.
>> >
>> Ok if the conclusion is not logical, what conclusion do you say is?
>
>Nobody has supplied you with proof. That is all you can conclude.
Except of course that each and every cop out, excuse, claim that the
evidence exists without providing it, ad hominem etc is a data point
against.
So far there are zillions against and none for.
In spite of what you pretend the conclusion is obvious.
As well as falsfiiable.
It stands until it is falsified.
Adonis
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:g0ev1v$r4e$3...@reader2.panix.com...
> In alt.religion.christian Adonis <zeroca...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:g0epp8$b78$3...@reader2.panix.com...
>> > In alt.religion.christian Bill M <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
>> >> objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
>> >
>> >> No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
>> >
>> >> the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
>> >> active imaginations.
>> >
>> > That is NOT the logical conclusion.
>> >
>> Ok if the conclusion is not logical, what conclusion do you say is?
>
> Nobody has supplied you with proof. That is all you can conclude.
>
Why are you contradicting your self?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> >> >
> >> > That is NOT the logical conclusion.
> >> >
> >> Ok if the conclusion is not logical, what conclusion do you say is?
> >
> > Nobody has supplied you with proof. That is all you can conclude.
> >
> Why are you contradicting your self?
I'm not.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:04:31 +0000 (UTC), EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> wrote:
> >In alt.religion.christian Adonis <zeroca...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
> >> news:g0epp8$b78$3...@reader2.panix.com...
> >> > In alt.religion.christian Bill M <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> I have asked numerous times for someone to provide any
> >> >> objective verifiable evidence that any gods actually exist.
> >> >
> >> >> No one has ever supplied it. Not even any god.
> >> >
> >> >> the logical conclusion is that no real gods exist except in peoples over
> >> >> active imaginations.
> >> >
> >> > That is NOT the logical conclusion.
> >> >
> >> Ok if the conclusion is not logical, what conclusion do you say is?
> >
> >Nobody has supplied you with proof. That is all you can conclude.
> Except of course that each and every cop out, excuse, claim that the
> evidence exists without providing it, ad hominem etc is a data point
> against.
Nope.
> So far there are zillions against and none for.
So?
> In spite of what you pretend the conclusion is obvious.
No reliable conclusions can be drawn without evidence. Isn't
that your very point?
> As well as falsfiiable.
> It stands until it is falsified.
You jump to conclusions without any reliable evidence.
Adonis
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:g0feli$6ai$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> In alt.religion.christian Adonis <zeroca...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > That is NOT the logical conclusion.
>> >> >
>> >> Ok if the conclusion is not logical, what conclusion do you say is?
>> >
>> > Nobody has supplied you with proof. That is all you can conclude.
>> >
>
>> Why are you contradicting your self?
>
> I'm not.
>
there are more facts to ponder, you do not know about them. Then the conclusion
is logical. Yes it may be all you can conclude, but it is based on the logic you
have. The statement 2+2=4 is the only logical conclusion you can come to. If
2+2=4 is not the full statement, some parts of the statement are with held, it
is still the only logical conclusion you can come to. If some one were to change
the statement 2+2=4 to -|2|+2=4 you can then by logic know that the statement is
false.
Adonis
"Fred Jones" <support...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:aqqdnUOy2t_h-rXV...@comcast.com...
Good question, is your god the same god told about in the bible?
James
>Re: How did they know?
>In our last episode, <mrrj245j6no2trsi8...@4ax.com>, the
>lovely and talented Antares 531 broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
>> How did those Genesis authors blunder around in the darkness, so to
>> speak, and get this so very nearly right in all important respects?
>
>Of course they didn't get it right. They had green plants before they had
>light, they had aquatic mammals before they had land animals. And of course
>in Genesis 2.4 there is another, contradictory, sequence even more fouled
>up: trees before rain, man before cattle. They were as ignorant then and
>the three religions that claim them are today.
Hello,
Actually, Genesis got it right, if you research Genesis carefully.
For example, I'll just discuss your first example:
>They had green plants before they had light,
No, the light came first. The sun was not created on the fourth day,
but before that. Ge 1:1,
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)
Thus if we stop right here what do we have? We have the earth created,
but in this verse it doesn't say what shape it is in. We also have the
creation of the "heavens". Thus suns, moons, planets and whatever,
have already been created, including our sun and moon. Also notice
that it didn't give a clue as to how long ago this occurred. It could
have been billions of years ago, which is what many science
disciplines of today suggest.
The next verse (vs 2) starts out by talking about the conditions of
this already created earth. It was formless and darkness upon, or
over, the "surface". If the sun was already created in vs 1, why would
there be darkness on the surface? Was something blocking it?
[Verses 1 and 2 are introductory verses, and are not part of any of
the "first day" verses. Verse 3 onward starts discussing the steps God
took (in unspecified lengths of time called 'days') to prepare the
already created barren earth for habitation.]
Lets go on.
Verses 3-5 talk about light now reaching what was once dark. What was
dark before? The "surface" of the earth. So now light was hitting the
surface. What light? Light from the already created sun of Ge 1:1. But
up to this point we still do not know what was originally blocking the
light. The next verses help clear that up. (Also, since in these
verses a division occurred between the light and darkness, the
rotation of the earth was beginning.)
Next, Ge 1:6-8 talks about a division between waters and waters. This
isn't land because He talks about land in Verses 9,10. In Verse 7 God
talks about waters "above the expanse". So in the beginning, the earth
was covered with water on the surface and had a great cloud canopy of
waters in the atmosphere. In Verse 3 the light referred to here is
light from the already created sun penetrating the thick water canopy
above the earth. However, at this stage, this light is highly diffused
so that no celestial objects are discernable. Can clouds block out the
sun so much as to cause darkness? Even today, when certain atmospheric
phenomena occur such as tornadoes, it has been known to briefly cause
day to turn into night. Then there are other 'hazy' days, where you
see light, but find it difficult to find the source. Such must have
been the case at this stage. But more changes were to come.
Interestingly, Moses used two different words for "light". In Verse 2
the word for "light" is 'ohr' which means light in a general sense.
But in Verse 14 the word is 'maohr' which refers to a luminary, or a
source of light. (that is why the NWT more accurately translates the
word 'maohr' as "luminary". See also YLT) So evidently things were
about to change in relation to the water canopy above the earth.
In Verse 16 also observe that it doesn't use the Hebrew word 'bara'
meaning 'create' that he used at Ge 1:1; instead it uses the Hebrew
word 'asah' meaning 'make'.
Since the "heavens" in Verse 1 already contained the sun, moon, and
stars then the statement in Verse 15 meant that these luminaries now
became visible as distinct celestial objects through the water canopy
as observed from the surface of the earth. Men would now be able to
use them to keep track of time, etc.
Thus the Genesis account of Creation makes sense and does not
contradict true science, when taking into account the Hebrew words
used by Moses. Of course, later when God caused the world-wide flood
of Noah's day, much of the source of the water for the flood came from
this great water canopy. And with an earth 3/4 covered with water, we
can see the evidence left over from the global flood.
If you want to discuss your other examples etc, just let me know.
Sincerely, James
**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads
***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
James
>Re: How did they know?
>On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:13:10 -0500, Antares 531 wrote:
Hello,
I just wanted to comment on one specific thing in your order of
events, and see if it makes sense to you. You have "Sun, moon, stars"
listed as #4, but in actuality, they would be #1. This was my reply to
the poster, which contains the details showing why they would be #1:
James
>Re: How did they know?
>On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:13:10 -0500, Antares 531
><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>How did those Genesis authors blunder around in the darkness, so to
>>speak, and get this so very nearly right in all important respects?
>>
>They didn't get it right. They were bewildered by their surroundings.
>They were a bunch of ancient morons who simply looked around at their
>world and created a childish mythical story to explain how everything
>go there. They were ignorant. They didn't have the scientific
>resources we have today to get to the actual truth. That's all
>there is to it. Its nonsense. A monkey could write Genesis.
Hello,
You might be surprised to learn that this creation account in Genesis
is more accurate than you think. Here are some details on one aspect
that the poster mentioned. See if it might make some sense to you.
Lets go on.
Sincerely, James
>
>
James
>Re: How did they know?
>They knew nothing. They were a bunch of superstitious retards
Hello,
If you never have studied Genesis in some depth, you are missing its
accuracy. Here was my reply to the poster. See if this helps:
James
>Re: How did they know?
>On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:13:10 -0500, Antares 531
Hello,
Whether or not all Bible readers correctly understood Genesis, does
not alter the fact that Genesis got it scientifically correct. I
discussed the first example of the poster, showing where he made a
common mistake. Here was my reply:
Christopher A. Lee
>>John Locke <johnloc...@comcast.net>
>
>>Re: How did they know?
>
>>On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:13:10 -0500, Antares 531
>><gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>How did those Genesis authors blunder around in the darkness, so to
>>>speak, and get this so very nearly right in all important respects?
>>>
>>They didn't get it right. They were bewildered by their surroundings.
>>They were a bunch of ancient morons who simply looked around at their
>>world and created a childish mythical story to explain how everything
>>go there. They were ignorant. They didn't have the scientific
>>resources we have today to get to the actual truth. That's all
>>there is to it. Its nonsense. A monkey could write Genesis.
>
>Hello,
>
>You might be surprised to learn that this creation account in Genesis
>is more accurate than you think. Here are some details on one aspect
>that the poster mentioned. See if it might make some sense to you.
A liar and an idiot.
>**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
>do not follow ng threads
As well as a coward running away from backing up his stupidity and
bullshit.
Christopher A. Lee
>>Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com>
>
>>Re: How did they know?
>
>>In our last episode, <mrrj245j6no2trsi8...@4ax.com>, the
>>lovely and talented Antares 531 broadcast on alt.atheism:
>>
>>> How did those Genesis authors blunder around in the darkness, so to
>>> speak, and get this so very nearly right in all important respects?
>>
>>Of course they didn't get it right. They had green plants before they had
>>light, they had aquatic mammals before they had land animals. And of course
>>in Genesis 2.4 there is another, contradictory, sequence even more fouled
>>up: trees before rain, man before cattle. They were as ignorant then and
>>the three religions that claim them are today.
>
>Hello,
>
>Actually, Genesis got it right, if you research Genesis carefully.
A liar as well as a fucking moron.
>**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
>do not follow ng threads
And a craven, snivelling coward .
>***********************************
>Want a Free home Bible study?
>Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
That explains it.
duke
>>Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com>
>
>>Re: How did they know?
>
>>In our last episode, <mrrj245j6no2trsi8...@4ax.com>, the
>>lovely and talented Antares 531 broadcast on alt.atheism:
>>
>>> How did those Genesis authors blunder around in the darkness, so to
>>> speak, and get this so very nearly right in all important respects?
>>
>>Of course they didn't get it right. They had green plants before they had
>>light, they had aquatic mammals before they had land animals. And of course
>>in Genesis 2.4 there is another, contradictory, sequence even more fouled
>>up: trees before rain, man before cattle. They were as ignorant then and
>>the three religions that claim them are today.
>
>Hello,
>
>Actually, Genesis got it right, if you research Genesis carefully.
Genesis did get it right, because Genesis 1-11 is not a scientific accounting of
God's creation of the universe and of mankind, but instead Israel's faith
statement of same.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Christopher A. Lee
How did this lunatic get out of the killfile?
<re-plonk>
duke
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2008 17:47:51 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>How did this lunatic get out of the killfile?
Aw, does miss crissy cringed when she can't offer response. Nothing new.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Atheists don't know our God and therefore can't see manifestations of
> love and care in human beings,
Is that dogma or heresy? In either case, it is plainly false.
Pastor Frank
news:g1k70e$ch8$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> In alt.religion.christian Pastor Frank <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Atheists don't know our God and therefore can't see manifestations of
>> love and care in human beings,
>
> Is that dogma or heresy? In either case, it is plainly false.
>
manifestation of our Christian God.