Re: Neurosurgeon admit's that evolution is all a pack of lies

[Father Haskell]

On May 24, 5:55 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly just a bunch
> of quack's, but this guy know's what he's talking about!
>
> Notice the last line:
>
> " It all comes down to "faith"--and I don't have enough to believe in
> evolution. I'm too logical!"
>
> Indeed, Brother Carson.
>
> http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> Like this computer: If you came into this room and saw the computer,
> you wouldn't think it had just happened. It didn't come about by
> random events.

It's a convergence of other, existing technologies. Like every
other technology.

[casey]

On 24 May, 14:55, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly
> just a bunch of quack's, but this guy know's what he's
> talking about!

Code for: I agree with what is says so he must know
what he is talking about.

> So why do so many people prefer to believe in the
> random formation of the universe--and of life itself?

And so the lie is repeated yet again that evolution
claims it was all the result of chance alone.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:37:40 -0400, Brother Love
<BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>Then do you admit it couldn't of happened by chance?

Scientists don't claim evolution happens by chance, nor do they claim
that life arose by chance.

[casey]

On 24 May, 15:37, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT), casey
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Then do you admit it couldn't of happened by chance?

It happens by chance AND necessity.

Don't you understand the *selection*
part of natural selection?


>
> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> Chiropractic Physician
> Doctor of Homeopathy
> Master of Reiki Therapy
>
> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
> Yes! Each and every one of you!

[Father Haskell]

On May 24, 6:14 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:02:20 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell

> Exactly, Brother Father. As you note, it has not happened by random
> event's.

So what technologies converged to create your asshole god?

[Father Haskell]

On May 24, 6:37 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT), casey
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Then do you admit it couldn't of happened by chance?

Chemistry.

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <m8ovp859klg5hh3ma...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Can you prove evolution? No. Can you prove creation? No. Can you use
> the intellect God has given you to decide whether something is logical
> or illogical? Yes, absolutely. It all comes down to "faith"--and I

> don't have enough to believe in evolution. I'm too logical!

Then you don't have enough faith to believe in any god's either, as
there is far more objective physical evidence supporting the reality of
evolution than there is for alleged the reality of gods in general, much
less any god in particular.

[Father Haskell]

On May 24, 7:45 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:04:31 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell

> <PLONK>

Spank.

[August Rode]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 7:53:20 PM UTC-4, Brother Love wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:05:17 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
> <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> >> Then do you admit it couldn't of happened by chance?
> >
> >Chemistry.
>

> What do you know about Chemistry, Haskell? I'm a Doctor.

What do *you* know about it? You believe that the potency of a drug is inversely proportional to the amount of it you have.

> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT

> Doctor of Homeopathy <==========================

[Father Haskell]

On May 24, 7:53 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:05:17 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> What do you know about Chemistry, Haskell? I'm a Doctor.

The rules by which chemistry operates are invariable, and
apply everywhere in the Universe. Biology doesn't obey
god, it obeys Mendeleev.

[casey]

On 24 May, 16:52, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:40:41 -0700 (PDT), casey

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >On 24 May, 15:37, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT), casey
>
> >> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> >On 24 May, 14:55, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly
> >> >> just a bunch of quack's, but this guy know's what he's
> >> >> talking about!
>
> >> >Code for:  I agree with what is says so he must know
> >> >what he is talking about.
>
> >> >> So why do so many people prefer to believe in the
> >> >> random formation of the universe--and of life itself?
>
> >> >And so the lie is repeated yet again that evolution
> >> >claims it was all the result of chance alone.
>
> >> Then do you admit it couldn't of happened by chance?
>
> >It happens by chance AND necessity.
>
> >Don't you understand the *selection*
> >part of natural selection?
>

> Only if God selected it.


So you imagine God selected the animal behaviors?
He decided their population should be controlled
by starvation or by being eaten alive? It was God
who thought up the macabre reproductive behavior
of the emerald wasp? Is God a sadist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_cockroach_wasp

[casey]

Medeleev didn't write the laws of chemistry they
were discovered through experimentation.

As far as we can tell things change over time
in a determinate or statistically determinate
way for reasons we don't know.

Saying all movement is done by the invisible
hand of a invisible super humanoid is just
replacing one mystery with another mystery
and thus fails as an explanation.

[August Rode]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 8:45:44 PM UTC-4, Brother Love wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), casey
> <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

<snip>

> >So you imagine God selected the animal behaviors?
> >He decided their population should be controlled
> >by starvation or by being eaten alive? It was God
> >who thought up the macabre reproductive behavior
> >of the emerald wasp? Is God a sadist?
>

> No, that happened because of man's sin.

By "man's sin," I assume you mean "God's curse."

[Father Haskell]

He just wrote the cookbook.

> As far as we can tell things change over time
> in a determinate or statistically determinate
> way for reasons we don't know.
>
> Saying all movement is done by the invisible
> hand of a invisible super humanoid is just
> replacing one mystery with another mystery
> and thus fails as an explanation.

It demands additional explanations.

[Father Haskell]

On May 24, 8:45 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:22:18 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell

> Care to provide an example, idiot?

Pray me up a flask of argon hydroxide.

[Brian Gordon]

In article <m8ovp859klg5hh3ma...@4ax.com>,

Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly just a bunch
>of quack's, but this guy know's what he's talking about!

> [...]

I would have read further if you had used "MDs", "quacks" and "knows". You know,
like standard English?

--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| Brian Gordon -->bri...@panix.com<-- brian dot gordon at cox dot net |
+ briang...@hotmail.com Bass: Lexington "Main Street Harmonizers" chorus +
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <mavvp81lp06e8irqb...@4ax.com>,

Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:05:17 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell

> What do you know about Chemistry, Haskell? I'm a Doctor.
>
>

> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> Chiropractic Physician
> Doctor of Homeopathy
> Master of Reiki Therapy

A "doctor" of Chiropractic can be just as ignorant and stupid as anyone
else, and DC is certainly proving himself to be as ignorant and stupid
as anyone else.
>
> Always remember: Homo's love's you and so do I!

[Virgil]

In article <2c20q8ptdk1u4his8...@4ax.com>,

Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >The rules by which chemistry operates are invariable, and
> >apply everywhere in the Universe. Biology doesn't obey
> >god, it obeys Mendeleev.
>

> Care to provide an example

Go to any drugstore and be overwhelmed with examples.

On the other hand, there is no objective physical evidence that any gods
exist, much less that one as stupid as "Br. Love"'s religion would
require exists.
--

[Virgil]

In article <v9vvp89f3bnv9rc8p...@4ax.com>,

Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >Don't you understand the *selection*
> >part of natural selection?
> >
>

> Only if God selected it.

Which means, since there is no reason for supposing any gods exist,
That Brother Lust does not understand anything about nature, much less
about natural selection.
--

[Virgil]

In article <5d20q8l3kf7ll8841...@4ax.com>,

Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >So you imagine God selected the animal behaviors?
> >He decided their population should be controlled
> >by starvation or by being eaten alive? It was God
> >who thought up the macabre reproductive behavior
> >of the emerald wasp? Is God a sadist?
>

> No, that happened because of man's sin.

Bro Luv may confess to being sinful himself, but cannot show that
anyone else has to be.
--

[Virgil]

In article <h4vvp81p058f9tq3a...@4ax.com>,

Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >Scientists don't claim evolution happens by chance, nor do they claim
> >that life arose by chance.
>

> Of course they don't

Actually, no proper scientist would claim to know better.

Life almost certainly arose by chance, at least there is a total absence
of any physical evidence that it might have arisen in any other way.

And chance mutations/variations are a large part of the mechanism of
evolution, the rest of it being natural selection.

That anyone claiming to be educated would deny this is his stupidity.
--

[Virgil]

In article <8suvp85ij1ruk8630...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:04:31 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
> <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> >So what technologies converged to create your asshole god?
>

> <PLONK>
>
Which proves that Bro Luv has run out of answers, and is concedeing his
errors.
--

[Virgil]

In article <7t00q8ljt6bvgndrc...@4ax.com>,

Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> >So what technologies converged to create your asshole god?
> >>
> >> <PLONK>
> >
> >Spank.
>

> <PLONK>

Failure to answer concedes having been defeated.
--

[Devils Advocaat]

On 24 May, 22:55, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly just a bunch
> of quack's, but this guy know's what he's talking about!
>

> Notice the last line:
>
> " It all comes down to "faith"--and I don't have enough to believe in
> evolution. I'm too logical!"

It's clear that this is contrived, a conversation between two
individuals who accept a theistic point of view regarding the origin
of life.

Making the point that one of them is a neurosurgeon turns it into an
argument from authority.

Logical fallacies such as these are often employed by extremists on
either side of the evolution/creation debate.

To really put a spanner in the works for the theory of evolution,
creationists would have to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that
some organism, structure, organ, tissue, cell type, or biochemical
process couldn't come about solely by evolution.

So far no such spanner has arisen, all apparent spanners have been
thrown back into the creationist toolbox.

Sadly, some creationists find these old spanners in the bottom of the
toolbox and wave them in the faces of those who accept evolution.

And once again the spanner is thrown back in the toolbox.

>
> Indeed, Brother Carson.
>
> http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>
> Like this computer: If you came into this room and saw the computer,
> you wouldn't think it had just happened. It didn't come about by
> random events.
>

> JG: So why do so many people prefer to believe in the random formation
> of the universe--and of life itself? Or to put it another way, Why is
> the matter of evolution so important?
> BC: It comes down to a matter of ownership. Who owns the universe, who
> owns the earth, who owns your life? Those who believe in evolution,
> and in a naturalistic explanation of the universe, ultimately see
> themselves as end-owners--as the creator and ultimate source of
> authority. In this way they answer to nothing and nobody, for there is
> nothing higher than themselves.
>
> How does this happen? What are the consequences of accepting
> evolutionary views of human origins? How does this affect society and
> the way we see ourselves?
> By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate morality
> and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such thing as
> moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make everything
> relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher values.
>
> If we are all the product of chance, the random assortment of atoms,
> living in a deterministic universe that is simply the consequence of
> physical interactions, doesn't it all seem so futile?
> Yes, in my education I had to learn evolutionary theories, and as a
> God-fearing Christian I wondered how to make God and evolution mesh.
> The truth is that you can't make them mesh--you have to choose one or
> the other.
>
> Too many Christians have given up too much to "science," conceding not
> just the observed data but the anti-God interpretations. Are you often
> questioned about being both a logical scientist and a Christian?
> Yes, my answer is that the more you understand science, the less you
> can believe all this is an accident! Just look at the brain, with its
> billions and billions of neurons, and 100 billions of connections, and
> how it remembers everything it has ever seen and heard . . .
>
> Everything? This does not seem to be a correct portrayal of my brain
> at least! I'm forgetting things all the time.
> Put a probe on the hippocampus of an 80-year-old man, and he can tell
> you verbatim the words of a book he read 60 years ago. This is a
> highly complex and sophisticated organ. Not a likely result of chance
> processes.
>
> Not even by slow degrees?
> Even if you allow the formation of a single cell. And a single-celled
> organism is also amazingly complex--the cell membranes, the nucleus,
> the nucleolus, the mitochondria. . . . Plus, we give evolutionists too
> much if we start with a single cell. Try starting with inert
> substances!
>
> But just supposing you did have that first cell?
> Even if you accept evolutionary theory--developing a more
> sophisticated organism in this theoretically "logical" fashion, then
> there should be a continuum of organisms. And why did evolution divert
> in so many directions--birds, fish, elephants, apes, humans--if there
> is some force evolving to the maximum? Why isn't everything a human--a
> superior human? Darwin specifically stated that his theory hung on the
> discovery of intermediate forms, and was sure that we would find them.
> More than a hundred years later we still haven't found them. Even the
> earliest fossils don't show such intermediates.
>
> Take the simple case of ape to human. It should be easy to find
> abundant fossil remains since, according to evolutionary theory, this
> is the most recent transition. If we can find so many fossils of
> dinosaurs, which are further back in the evolutionary scheme, we
> should have plenty of evidence of intermediates between apes and
> humans. But we don't have them. We have very few supposed
> intermediates--like "Lucy," based on fanciful reconstruction with a
> lot of filling in. Today we have people with significant congenital
> abnormalities whose skeletal remains would seem like a missing link.
> So "Lucy" does not make the case, and there should be multiple "Lucys"
> if the transition from ape to human were true.
>
> Also, there's the whole subject of irreducibly complex organisms--the
> idea that everything has to be there all at once for it to work. How
> could all the complex items evolve simultaneously--as in the eye, for
> example?
>
> Would so many scientists who disagree with your views be a concern to
> you? After all, 99 percent may say you're wrong!
> Before Darwin most scientists were Christian. Even Darwin was brought
> up a Christian, but he became embittered. He set out to prove another
> explanation to life. I have to give the man credit--he was a powerful
> observer. On the Galápagos Islands he found thick-billed finches whose
> bills were capable of breaking apart hard seeds. He also discovered
> iguanas and tortoises with different adaptations. Therefore, he
> concluded that these organisms were evolving, and he was right in
> terms of microevolution--adaptation to the environment. Imagine if you
> only got fed if you could dunk a basketball . . .
>
> (Now I was really wondering where he was going with this one! Evolving
> basketball players? But then he made a telling point.)
> Only tall people would be fed and would survive. They would pass on
> their tall genes to their offspring. Is this evolution or adaptation?
> Obviously it's the latter. But evolution means one organism eventually
> changing into another quite different, and there's no evidence for
> such change. God allowed for adaptation, which speaks of a wonderful
> Creator who gave His creatures a genetic structure flexible enough to
> adapt. But that's not evolution.
>
> (Then we turned the conversation heavenward.)
> Look at the complexity of the universe, too. The Hubble telescope has
> revealed much more to us. But our galaxy is just a tiny dot in the
> great scheme of the universe, and there's much more beyond what we
> know. Even in our own solar system--we orbit 93 million miles from the
> sun. If it were 92 million miles, we'd be incinerated; 94 million
> miles, and we'd be a frozen iceball. There's so much--it's all so
> extraordinarily organized with such complexity. How does that happen?
>
> Then take the ideas of the origins of the universe. The scientists
> speak about the second law of thermodynamics, which states that
> everything tends toward a state of disorganization . . .
>
> (Maybe he has seen my desk, a stray thought occurs to me as it streaks
> across my brain!)
> So how could our incredibly organized universe come about as the
> result of a big bang? This flies in the face of the second law, which
> says it would be less organized as a result, not more! Scientists have
> to be consistent.
>
> A few closing thoughts?
> Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics,
> you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your
> own conscience based on your own desires. You have no reason for
> things such as selfless love, when a father dives in to save his son
> from drowning. You can trash the Bible as irrelevant, just silly
> fables, since you believe that it does not conform to scientific
> thought. You can be like Lucifer, who said, "I will make myself like
> the Most High."

>
> Can you prove evolution? No. Can you prove creation? No. Can you use
> the intellect God has given you to decide whether something is logical

> or illogical? Yes, absolutely. It all comes down to "faith"--and I

> don't have enough to believe in evolution. I'm too logical!
>

> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> Chiropractic Physician
> Doctor of Homeopathy
> Master of Reiki Therapy
>

> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!

[Virgil]

> > Can you prove evolution?


You can prove that evolution makes more sense than any of the
creationist's idiotic counter-theories.

No. Can you prove creation? No.

> > Can you use
> > the intellect God has given you

Not unless there was actually a god to give it to you, which is a
presumption unsupported by any physical evidence whatsoever, rather than
natural selection selecting for it, for which considerable objective
physical evidence exists.

> > or illogical? Yes, absolutely. It all comes down to "faith"--and I
> > don't have enough to believe in evolution.

And scientists, finding faith an unreliable source of knowledge, do not
accept faith as a source of knowledge.
--

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <knpe7l$mnn$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

bri...@panix.com (Brian Gordon) wrote:

> In article <m8ovp859klg5hh3ma...@4ax.com>,
> Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly just a bunch
> >of quack's, but this guy know's what he's talking about!
> > [...]
>
> I would have read further if you had used "MDs", "quacks" and "knows". You
> know,
> like standard English?

It's our troll Zachie of the zillion nyms doing it deliberately. So we
ignore the deliberate misspellings unless there's a good joke to be made
at his expense.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <8tqvp8t04mve7j17a...@4ax.com>,

Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT), casey

> <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
> >On 24 May, 14:55, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly
> >> just a bunch of quack's, but this guy know's what he's
> >> talking about!
> >

> >Code for: I agree with what is says so he must know
> >what he is talking about.
> >

> >> So why do so many people prefer to believe in the
> >> random formation of the universe--and of life itself?
> >

> >And so the lie is repeated yet again that evolution
> >claims it was all the result of chance alone.
> >
> >
>
> Then do you admit it couldn't of happened by chance?

Of course we all do. Not one of us has EVER claimed it did?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <mavvp81lp06e8irqb...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:05:17 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
> <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 24, 6:37 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>

> >wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT), casey
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> >On 24 May, 14:55, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly
> >> >> just a bunch of quack's, but this guy know's what he's
> >> >> talking about!
> >>
> >> >Code for:  I agree with what is says so he must know
> >> >what he is talking about.
> >>
> >> >> So why do so many people prefer to believe in the
> >> >> random formation of the universe--and of life itself?
> >>
> >> >And so the lie is repeated yet again that evolution
> >> >claims it was all the result of chance alone.
> >>
> >> Then do you admit it couldn't of happened by chance?
> >

> >Chemistry.
>
> What do you know about Chemistry, Haskell? I'm a Doctor.
>
>

> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> Chiropractic Physician
> Doctor of Homeopathy
> Master of Reiki Therapy

Three kinds of quack medicine don't add up to real medicine, you know.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <2c20q8ptdk1u4his8...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Care to provide an example, idiot?

You don't know 1st year chemistry???? How can you become a doctor, even
a triple quack doctor, without at the very least 1st year chemistry?

If you're going to invent a moronic character, you're still required to
make some logical sense.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<2bb785a0-e901-4fbd...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

<giggle>

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <virgil-120D2B....@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM>,

I don't think they realize how those medicines they take are created; I
think they just mix stuff together like you do for a cake, a little
flour, a little sugar....

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<5e53f6f7-fe9a-4d39...@fq2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

But what he did was create a whole new way of looking at chemistry. It
created focus.

> As far as we can tell things change over time
> in a determinate or statistically determinate
> way for reasons we don't know.
>
> Saying all movement is done by the invisible
> hand of a invisible super humanoid is just
> replacing one mystery with another mystery
> and thus fails as an explanation.

But they don't think their god is a mystery. I really can't understand
why, but there you are.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <h4vvp81p058f9tq3a...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:40:08 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:37:40 -0400, Brother Love
> ><BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

> >
> >>On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT), casey

> >><jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 24 May, 14:55, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly
> >>>> just a bunch of quack's, but this guy know's what he's
> >>>> talking about!
> >>>
> >>>Code for: I agree with what is says so he must know
> >>>what he is talking about.
> >>>
> >>>> So why do so many people prefer to believe in the
> >>>> random formation of the universe--and of life itself?
> >>>
> >>>And so the lie is repeated yet again that evolution
> >>>claims it was all the result of chance alone.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Then do you admit it couldn't of happened by chance?
> >

> >Scientists don't claim evolution happens by chance, nor do they claim
> >that life arose by chance.
>

> Of course they don't, not if they believe in God. Unfortunately,
> though, most scientests are evolutionists.

What's an evolutionist?

[John Ritson]

On 24/05/2013 22:55, Brother Love wrote:
>
> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly just a bunch
> of quack's, but this guy know's what he's talking about!
>

> Notice the last line:

>
> " It all comes down to "faith"--and I don't have enough to believe in

> evolution. I'm too logical!"

>
> Indeed, Brother Carson.
>
>
> http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html

{snip}

>
> (Then we turned the conversation heavenward.)
> Look at the complexity of the universe, too. The Hubble telescope has
> revealed much more to us. But our galaxy is just a tiny dot in the
> great scheme of the universe, and there's much more beyond what we
> know. Even in our own solar system--we orbit 93 million miles from the
> sun. If it were 92 million miles, we'd be incinerated; 94 million
> miles, and we'd be a frozen iceball. There's so much--it's all so
> extraordinarily organized with such complexity. How does that happen?

It doesn't.
The Earth's orbit is an ellipse. The nearest point is 91,445,000 miles,
the furthest is 94,555,000 miles. So according to this idiot we are all
incinerated and frozen every year.

>
> Then take the ideas of the origins of the universe. The scientists
> speak about the second law of thermodynamics, which states that
> everything tends toward a state of disorganization . . .
>
> (Maybe he has seen my desk, a stray thought occurs to me as it streaks
> across my brain!)
> So how could our incredibly organized universe come about as the
> result of a big bang? This flies in the face of the second law, which
> says it would be less organized as a result, not more! Scientists have
> to be consistent.

Remember that very big sun you were talking about in a previous
paragraph? It gets incredibly disorganized, and the tiny area known as
Earth gets a bit more organized. The 2LoT applies to a complete system,
not a part of it. Or do you want to try explaining how a tiny fertilized
egg can become a complex adult creature without violating the 2LoT?

>
> A few closing thoughts?
> Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics,
> you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your
> own conscience based on your own desires. You have no reason for
> things such as selfless love, when a father dives in to save his son
> from drowning. You can trash the Bible as irrelevant, just silly
> fables, since you believe that it does not conform to scientific
> thought. You can be like Lucifer, who said, "I will make myself like
> the Most High."
>
> Can you prove evolution? No. Can you prove creation? No. Can you use
> the intellect God has given you to decide whether something is logical

> or illogical? Yes, absolutely. It all comes down to "faith"--and I

> don't have enough to believe in evolution. I'm too logical!

>
>
> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> Chiropractic Physician
> Doctor of Homeopathy
> Master of Reiki Therapy
>

> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
> Yes! Each and every one of you!
>

--
John Ritson

[Dakota]

None of us claim that evolution has anything to do with the formation
of the Universe either.

<movies and wrestling gone>

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 19:50:02 -0400, Brother Love
<BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:40:08 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

>wrote:
>

>>On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:37:40 -0400, Brother Love
>><BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>

>>>On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT), casey
>>><jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 24 May, 14:55, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly
>>>>> just a bunch of quack's, but this guy know's what he's
>>>>> talking about!
>>>>
>>>>Code for: I agree with what is says so he must know
>>>>what he is talking about.
>>>>
>>>>> So why do so many people prefer to believe in the
>>>>> random formation of the universe--and of life itself?
>>>>
>>>>And so the lie is repeated yet again that evolution
>>>>claims it was all the result of chance alone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then do you admit it couldn't of happened by chance?
>>

>>Scientists don't claim evolution happens by chance, nor do they claim
>>that life arose by chance.
>
>Of course they don't, not if they believe in God. Unfortunately,
>though, most scientests are evolutionists.

Of course the vast majority of scientists, even those not in biology,
accept the evidence that shows that evolution is happening. It takes a
religious commitment to self-delusion and ignorance to deny that
evolution happens.

>Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
>Chiropractic Physician
>Doctor of Homeopathy
>Master of Reiki Therapy

Someone who claims to be trained in those fraudulent fields would know
how to mislead folks.

[Uncle Vic]

Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:m8ovp859klg5hh3ma...@4ax.com:

> I usually don't read

Maybe you should try it some time.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Budikka666]

Budikka writes:

When are you going to learn how to use the apostrophe?

More interestingly, why are you spamming irrelevant news groups with your
messages? This is not the behavior of someone who loves; it is the
behavior of someone who merely wants to annoy and cause trouble.

More importantly, why are you still running from my debate challenge? I
have offered you three to do nothing more than provide five items of
evidence for any one of the following:

1. This god you claim exists
2. The existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of this god.
3. The Noahic flood

And you've run from all of these. Why would anyone believe a word you
post when you've shown yourself three times over to be unable to supply
evidence or to defend your claims?

Each of these challenges pertains to your claim that "Jesus loves us",
yet you have now, by your vacuity, effectively thrice denied Christ. I
find that rather pathetic.

Budikka

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 13:18:39 -0400, Brother Love
<BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>On Sat, 25 May 2013 04:21:09 +0000 (UTC), bri...@panix.com (Brian
>Gordon) wrote:
>
>>In article <m8ovp859klg5hh3ma...@4ax.com>,

>>Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly just a bunch
>>>of quack's, but this guy know's what he's talking about!

>>> [...]
>>
>>I would have read further if you had used "MDs", "quacks" and "knows". You know,
>>like standard English?
>

>I teach college level English in a Christian School.

>
>Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
>Chiropractic Physician
>Doctor of Homeopathy
>Master of Reiki Therapy
>

>Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
>Yes! Each and every one of you!

My condolences to the students who will leave the class knowing less
than they did when they arrived.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <fhs1q8h9vdvmdm4np...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 02:22:33 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <8tqvp8t04mve7j17a...@4ax.com>,

> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT), casey
> >> <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>

> >> >On 24 May, 14:55, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly
> >> >> just a bunch of quack's, but this guy know's what he's
> >> >> talking about!
> >> >

> >> >Code for: I agree with what is says so he must know
> >> >what he is talking about.
> >> >
> >> >> So why do so many people prefer to believe in the
> >> >> random formation of the universe--and of life itself?
> >> >
> >> >And so the lie is repeated yet again that evolution
> >> >claims it was all the result of chance alone.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Then do you admit it couldn't of happened by chance?
> >

> >Of course we all do. Not one of us has EVER claimed it did?
>

> No one except the evolutionists, that is.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <afs1q8llebmc86955...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:59:11 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist <a...@bbb.ccc>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <mavvp81lp06e8irqb...@4ax.com>,

> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:05:17 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
> >> <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On May 24, 6:37 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>

> >> >wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT), casey
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> >On 24 May, 14:55, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly
> >> >> >> just a bunch of quack's, but this guy know's what he's
> >> >> >> talking about!
> >> >>
> >> >> >Code for:  I agree with what is says so he must know
> >> >> >what he is talking about.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> So why do so many people prefer to believe in the
> >> >> >> random formation of the universe--and of life itself?
> >> >>
> >> >> >And so the lie is repeated yet again that evolution
> >> >> >claims it was all the result of chance alone.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then do you admit it couldn't of happened by chance?
> >> >

> >> >Chemistry.
> >>
> >> What do you know about Chemistry, Haskell? I'm a Doctor.
> >>
> >>

> >> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> >> Chiropractic Physician
> >> Doctor of Homeopathy
> >> Master of Reiki Therapy
> >

> >A "doctor" of Chiropractic can be just as ignorant and stupid as anyone
> >else, and DC is certainly proving himself to be as ignorant and stupid
> >as anyone else.
> >>
>
> I admit that Chiropractic has lost a lot of its original apeal, but
> I'm also a Doctor of Homeopathy.

An even bigger fraud.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <qbs1q8t2mhecl341j...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 02:27:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <2c20q8ptdk1u4his8...@4ax.com>,
> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:22:18 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
> >> <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On May 24, 7:53 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
> >> >wrote:

> >> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:05:17 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On May 24, 6:37 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT), casey
> >> >>
> >> >> >> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On 24 May, 14:55, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly
> >> >> >> >> just a bunch of quack's, but this guy know's what he's
> >> >> >> >> talking about!
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Code for:  I agree with what is says so he must know
> >> >> >> >what he is talking about.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> So why do so many people prefer to believe in the
> >> >> >> >> random formation of the universe--and of life itself?
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >And so the lie is repeated yet again that evolution
> >> >> >> >claims it was all the result of chance alone.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Then do you admit it couldn't of happened by chance?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Chemistry.
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you know about Chemistry, Haskell? I'm a Doctor.
> >> >

> >> >The rules by which chemistry operates are invariable, and
> >> >apply everywhere in the Universe. Biology doesn't obey
> >> >god, it obeys Mendeleev.
> >>

> >> Care to provide an example, idiot?
> >
> >You don't know 1st year chemistry???? How can you become a doctor, even
> >a triple quack doctor, without at the very least 1st year chemistry?
>
> I've taken seven years of chemistry, Jeanne.

Then why don't you know something from 1st year chemistry?


> >If you're going to invent a moronic character, you're still required to
> >make some logical sense.
>
> Your the only mornic character in this thread, Jeanne.

Poor poor zachie.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <oas1q8du4esq5md7s...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 02:28:57 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><2bb785a0-e901-4fbd...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 24, 8:45 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>

> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:22:18 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >

> >> Pray me up a flask of argon hydroxide.
> >
> ><giggle>
>
> Poor little girl. Giggling because she doesn't understand the
> conversation between to educated adults.

Where's that flask of argon hydroxide?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <o7s1q85v49jodnkq2...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:13:17 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell

> Argon hydroxide is of course impossible, since argon is just a
> fictitious compound invented by a comic book writer during the 1960's.

So, if argon is fictional, what is actually element 18?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <3sr1q8lu9davv21us...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 02:58:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <h4vvp81p058f9tq3a...@4ax.com>,

> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:40:08 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:37:40 -0400, Brother Love
> >> ><BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

> >> >
> >> >>On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT), casey
> >> >><jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On 24 May, 14:55, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly
> >> >>>> just a bunch of quack's, but this guy know's what he's
> >> >>>> talking about!
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Code for: I agree with what is says so he must know
> >> >>>what he is talking about.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> So why do so many people prefer to believe in the
> >> >>>> random formation of the universe--and of life itself?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>And so the lie is repeated yet again that evolution
> >> >>>claims it was all the result of chance alone.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>Then do you admit it couldn't of happened by chance?
> >> >

> >> >Scientists don't claim evolution happens by chance, nor do they claim
> >> >that life arose by chance.
> >>
> >> Of course they don't, not if they believe in God. Unfortunately,
> >> though, most scientests are evolutionists.
> >

> >What's an evolutionist?
>
> People who believe in evolution, although they just except it on
> authority and not on facts. Almost none of them really understand what
> evolution is about.

Liar.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <Q91ot.23331$Vo5....@fx23.am4>,
John Ritson <j.ri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> On 24/05/2013 22:55, Brother Love wrote:
> >
> > I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly just a bunch
> > of quack's, but this guy know's what he's talking about!
> >

> > Notice the last line:
> >
> > " It all comes down to "faith"--and I don't have enough to believe in
> > evolution. I'm too logical!"
> >
> > Indeed, Brother Carson.
> >
> >
> > http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
> {snip}
> >
> > (Then we turned the conversation heavenward.)
> > Look at the complexity of the universe, too. The Hubble telescope has
> > revealed much more to us. But our galaxy is just a tiny dot in the
> > great scheme of the universe, and there's much more beyond what we
> > know. Even in our own solar system--we orbit 93 million miles from the
> > sun. If it were 92 million miles, we'd be incinerated; 94 million
> > miles, and we'd be a frozen iceball. There's so much--it's all so
> > extraordinarily organized with such complexity. How does that happen?
>
> It doesn't.
> The Earth's orbit is an ellipse. The nearest point is 91,445,000 miles,
> the furthest is 94,555,000 miles. So according to this idiot we are all
> incinerated and frozen every year.


The analogy I learned in school was that the difference between apogee
and perigee is the same as standing 30 feet from a campfire and stepping
back a foot.

[Father Haskell]

On May 24, 8:45 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>

wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT), casey
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >On 24 May, 16:52, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:40:41 -0700 (PDT), casey
>
> >> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> >> >On 24 May, 15:37, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT), casey
>

> >> >> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> >> >> >On 24 May, 14:55, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly
> >> >> >> just a bunch of quack's, but this guy know's what he's
> >> >> >> talking about!
>

> >> >> >Code for:  I agree with what is says so he must know
> >> >> >what he is talking about.
>
> >> >> >> So why do so many people prefer to believe in the
> >> >> >> random formation of the universe--and of life itself?
>
> >> >> >And so the lie is repeated yet again that evolution
> >> >> >claims it was all the result of chance alone.
>
> >> >> Then do you admit it couldn't of happened by chance?
>

> >> >It happens by chance AND necessity.
>
> >> >Don't you understand the *selection*
> >> >part of natural selection?
>
> >> Only if God selected it.
>
> >So you imagine God selected the animal behaviors?
> >He decided their population should be controlled
> >by starvation or by being eaten alive? It was God
> >who thought up the macabre reproductive behavior
> >of the emerald wasp? Is God a sadist?
>
> No, that happened because of man's sin.

No, it happened because god is an asshole.

[Father Haskell]

On May 25, 1:13 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Used as a shielding gas when welding, preventing
the hot metal from oxidizing. Used in light bulbs to
reduce the rate at which the filament boils off, extending
the bulb's life and allowing it to run hotter, and hence
whiter. Third most prevalent gas in the Earth's atmosphere.

> However, sodium hydroxide exists and was one of the ingredients God
> used to create the oceans. The other was hydrochloric acid.

Leached from the ground by rainwater over billions of years.

> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
> Yes! Each and every one of you!

So does MisterRogers. He's fucking dead, too.

[Father Haskell]

On May 25, 1:15 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>

> I've taken seven years of chemistry, Jeanne.

So it *is* chronic.

[Father Haskell]

On May 25, 1:16 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>

> I admit that Chiropractic has lost a lot of its original apeal, but
> I'm also a Doctor of Homeopathy.

What's the homeopathic cure for drowning?

[Landis Ragon]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:20:03 -0400, Brother Love
<BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:52:05 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
><father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 24, 7:45 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:04:31 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >On May 24, 6:14 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:02:20 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
>>>
>>> >> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> >On May 24, 5:55 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
>>> >> >wrote:

>>> >> >> I usually don't read what MD's say because there mostly just a bunch
>>> >> >> of quack's, but this guy know's what he's talking about!
>>>

>>> >> >> Notice the last line:
>>>
>>> >> >> " It all comes down to "faith"--and I don't have enough to believe in
>>> >> >> evolution. I'm too logical!"
>>>
>>> >> >> Indeed, Brother Carson.
>>>
>>> >> >>http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
>>>

>>> >> >> Like this computer: If you came into this room and saw the computer,
>>> >> >> you wouldn't think it had just happened. It didn't come about by
>>> >> >> random events.
>>>
>>> >> >It's a convergence of other, existing technologies. Like every
>>> >> >other technology.
>>>
>>> >> Exactly, Brother Father. As you note, it has not happened by random
>>> >> event's.
>>>
>>> >So what technologies converged to create your asshole god?
>>>
>>> <PLONK>
>>
>>Spank.
>
><PLONK>
>

<PLANK>