GOD made the world and GOD started evolution!
Jasper Tiler
intelligently designed by GOD and therefore
they are able to adapt. Evolution has been started
by GOD and GOD has created humans together
with apes.
Humans are not related to apes.Thes are two different
species. GOD has designed humans.
Humans did not evolve from apes.Humans were there
when apes were there.
That's the truth! GOD has designed the world!
John Stockwell
Sorry, no, let me check my records. Tiler, Tiler,... Ah, there it
is. Jasper Tiler. Yep, it's all from that
DNA swab we took the last time you were in the dentist's office.
Yep, 98% chimp. Guess you'll have to be more respectful when you
go to the zoo. (Let my people go, and all of that.)
-John
DNA Identity division of the New World Order
Will in New Haven
You have made no argument and presented no evidence. That you believe
this is fine but there is no reason to declare it to others and expect
them/us to listen.
--
Will in New Haven
Frank J
You might want to talk to this guy:
http://groups.google.com/group/de.alt.augenoptik/msg/7565db1d10354767?hl=en
On second thought, you better not. You'll get into an argument and
lose.
Ye Old One
<slimie...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Humans and animals and plants have been
>intelligently designed by GOD
There is no evidence for design, and even less evidence for gods.
>and therefore
>they are able to adapt. Evolution has been started
>by GOD and GOD has created humans together
>with apes.
Humans are apes.
>
>Humans are not related to apes.Thes are two different
>species. GOD has designed humans.
Humans are apes. Apes are not a species but a collection of species.
>
>Humans did not evolve from apes.Humans were there
>when apes were there.
Humans are apes.
>
>That's the truth! GOD has designed the world!
Prove it.
--
Bob.
[M]adman
98% common design
DNA Identity division of Old World Truth
Boikat
> Humans and animals and plants have been
> intelligently designed by GOD and therefore
> they are able to adapt. Evolution has been started
> by GOD and GOD has created humans together
> with apes.
If God started evolution, whey wouldhe create man separate for the
other apes, when it's obvious, thorugh morphology and DNA, that humans
are apes.
>
> Humans are not related to apes.Thes are two different
> species. GOD has designed humans.
The DNA evidence indicates otherwise. It's part of the "evolution"
thing that God started.
>
> Humans did not evolve from apes.Humans were there
> when apes were there.
Yes, as of now. However, there was a time when there were only non-
human apes.
>
> That's the truth! GOD has designed the world!
If that makes you feel happy. Just do not pretend it's a scinetific
perspective.
Boikat
John Smith
"Jasper Tiler" <slimie...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:045efcff-5d36-4146...@s28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
You wouldn't know "the truth" if it bit you in the ass.
David Hare-Scott
It's a strange God that goes to such a huge amount of trouble to make things
look like they are related if they are not.
It's a perverse God that makes the set of chromosomes of humans and chimps
look just like they had a common ancestor. Down the chimp lineage there are
24 pairs and the human 23. One of the 23 contains almost the same genes as
two of the 24, which would be the result if there had been a fusion along
the way from the common ancestor to humans but not chimps.
It is a trickster God who went to the trouble of leaving vestiges of the end
structures of fused pair in the middle of the fused result, no doubt
providing that just to mislead us so we would come to wrong conclusion that
there had in fact been a fusion to produce the modern human set.
David.
Sapient Fridge
<sec...@nospam.com> writes
And he must have gone to a lot of trouble to break the vitamin C
synthesis gene (GULOP) in exactly the same way in humans and the other
great apes, but differently in guinea pigs.
In fact why put in a broken gene anyway? What would be the point in
that?
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
TomS
<17b61b91-dbcd-42d9...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
>
>On Apr 3, 8:01=A0pm, Jasper Tiler <slimier_t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Humans and animals and plants have been
>> intelligently designed by GOD and therefore
>> they are able to adapt. Evolution has been started
>> by GOD and GOD has created humans together
>> with apes.
>>
>> Humans are not related to apes.Thes are two different
>> species. GOD has designed humans.
If X and Y are related species, then X and Y are different species.
If God designed humans, then God designed humans to be much like
the rest of the world of life (same biochemistry, same structure
of DNA, and so on); and God designed humans to be much more like
chimps and other apes than like other living things. God wanted
humans to be much like chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and so on.
>>
>> Humans did not evolve from apes.Humans were there
>> when apes were there.
This is rather more confused than usual, isn't it?
If X evolved from Y, then obviously Y had to be there when X was
first there. X can't have evolved from something that wasn't there.
>>
>> That's the truth! GOD has designed the world!
The evidence for evolution is a real part of the world. Therefore,
God designed the evidence for evolution. Whether God designed the
evidence for evolution, when evolution is not true, that is up to
the creationists to explain.
>
>You might want to talk to this guy:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/de.alt.augenoptik/msg/7565db1d10354767?hl=3D=
>en
>
>On second thought, you better not. You'll get into an argument and
>lose.
>
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
roki...@cox.net
Ask someone like Sean Pitman to explain it to you. The common design
hypothesis doesn't work with the current data. If you really look at
the data humans are not willy-nilly 98% similar in DNA sequence to the
other apes, but the genome data tells us that there was an order to
creation. Humans were not created with the other primates. One
genome was created before another. It wasn't fiat or at the same
time. If all the various "kinds" were created at the same time there
had to be a plan, and we can read the road map of the plan in the
genomes of the "kinds." Just try to get any body that understand the
DNA data to figure out how to obtain the existing genome sequences
with out the cordate genome preceding the vertebrate fish genome, the
vertebrate fish genome coming before the amphibian genome, the
amphibian genome coming before the reptillian genome, and the
reptillian genome coming before the mammalian genome. That isn't even
the worst of it for special creationists. The nesting of the data
doesn't stop with the major types of organisms on earth. It continues
within each major type. Just as if all the extant organisms on earth
evolved from ancestors just as evolutionary theory would predict. It
is even worse than that because we have the fossil evidence that has
snap shots of what life was like at various times on this earth.
There may be 3.8 billion years of history of life that they are trying
to figure out from the rocks on this earth.
Were the Physicists of Darwin's day correct about the age of the
earth. What does it tell you when scientists from biology and geology
could be more correct in their estimate of the possible age of the
earth than guys like Kelvin? All the geologists had was their own
findings and they came up with an ancient earth. Kelvin had to wait
until radioactive decay and nuclear fusion were discovered to find out
that they had to rewrite the first law of thermodyamics and determine
that the geologists were right and Kelvin was wrong. The earth is
just very old. Biologists have just about nothing to do with
determining the current age of the earth. Darwin, himself, admitted
that he would have to go with who ever was correct. He would prefer
to have the geologist be correct, but if Kelvin was correct, there was
nothing he could do about it.
Just think what all this means. There were no vertebrates in the
Cambrian explosion (over half a billion years ago) that the
creationists scam artists are always using to fool the ignorant.
There were organisms that might be cordates. Vertebrates evolved
later. Mammals (humans are mammals) did not evolve until hundreds of
millions of years later. Primates did not evolve until the last
hundred million years. What you would call a monkey wouldn't have
been around until the last 50 million years and "apes" would not have
appeared until around 20 million years ago. Chimps and humans shared
a common ancestor within the last 10 million years, and modern human
fossils are only found in the youngest sediments of around 100,000
years old or less.
We can now go to the DNA genomes of the extant animals and confirm the
order of branching.
Geology, modern physics and biology all come to the same conclusions.
It isn't some screwy world wide conspriacy to denigrate a minority
religious belief in the United States. It is just what we have found
out about nature.
Ron Okimoto
roki...@cox.net
roki...@cox.net
Sorry clicked the wrong button.
My take is probable troll. Guys this far gone usually have a fetish
that they can't write out the name of GOD. It is a sin, so they
usually put in some Xs or other screwy things like "Designer."
Ron Okimoto
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Jasper Tiler
<slimie...@hotmail.com>:
Thanks for the unsolicited and unsupported opinion.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et>:
>John Stockwell wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 6:01 pm, Jasper Tiler <slimier_t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Humans and animals and plants have been
>>> intelligently designed by GOD and therefore
>>> they are able to adapt. Evolution has been started
>>> by GOD and GOD has created humans together
>>> with apes.
>>>
>>> Humans are not related to apes.Thes are two different
>>> species. GOD has designed humans.
>>>
>>> Humans did not evolve from apes.Humans were there
>>> when apes were there.
>>>
>>> That's the truth! GOD has designed the world!
>>
>>
>> Sorry, no, let me check my records. Tiler, Tiler,... Ah, there it
>> is. Jasper Tiler. Yep, it's all from that
>> DNA swab we took the last time you were in the dentist's office.
>> Yep, 98% chimp. Guess you'll have to be more respectful when you
>> go to the zoo. (Let my people go, and all of that.)
>> DNA Identity division of the New World Order
>98% common design
Creationist PAT answer #3,729.
stew dean
> Humans and animals and plants have been
> intelligently designed by GOD and therefore
> they are able to adapt.
I have no reason to believe you so I don't.
You can start by saying which god you mean - there are a lot of them
according various humans through history.
Devils Advocaat
Which equates to 2% evolution, if one takes your reasoning as sound.
>
> DNA Identity division of Old World Truth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Devils Advocaat
wrote:
> In message <gr6v5a$bj...@news.albasani.net>, David Hare-Scott
And what about putting the same 1000 olfactory receptor genes that
land based mammals have, into the genomes of the cetaceans, and
breaking all of them?
Genes for a sense of smell, but no sense of smell seems a rather odd
way of designing something, whereas it is clear evidence that the
cetaceans evolved from a land based mammal wouldn't you think?
> --
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
> Kill:http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org- Hide quoted text -
marks...@yahoo.com
God created apes first and then man. Did he steal from the ape for his
design for man ?
no wait ! god created man in his own image ... that makes things
tough, is God then an Ape or a man ? merely a biped with head on top
and bilaterly symetrical ? I am now confused, why did god make a lot
of stuff appear to be one thing if its actually not ? Why does God
like killing big groups of people and raining fire from the sky ?
brimstone ? theres brimstone in Heaven ?
Dwib
So, Jasper. Are you still out there? Or do you pop up, burp out, and
disappear?
Dwib
John Stockwell
Allegedly Man is created in the Image of God,
so that must mean that God is 98% chimp to!
-John
Ray Martinez
> Humans and animals and plants have been
> intelligently designed by GOD and therefore
> they are able to adapt.
Okay....
> Evolution has been started
> by GOD....
What is your source for this claim?
"Evolution" since Darwin means "God is NOT involved with biological
production." There can be no source in existence that says "God
created by a process where He is not involved."
Ray
> ....and GOD has created humans together
Boikat
> On Apr 3, 5:01 pm, Jasper Tiler <slimier_t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Humans and animals and plants have been
> > intelligently designed by GOD and therefore
> > they are able to adapt.
>
> Okay....
>
> > Evolution has been started
> > by GOD....
>
> What is your source for this claim?
>
> "Evolution" since Darwin means "God is NOT involved with biological
> production." There can be no source in existence that says "God
> created by a process where He is not involved."
Who are you to say that the "God Thing" (If it exists) did not tweak
the genome along the way to create man? Sort of like flipping a coin,
praying for heads, and getting heads, because the "God" thing heard
your prayer? How can you logically rule that out as a possibility?
And if someone (actually probably a great many people) wants to
believe that, who are you to say they are wrong, if you cannot refute
the concept of divinely guided evolution?
<snip>
Boikat
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why is an well known Atheist-evolutionist (= Boikat) advocating the
involvement of God in nature?
Whatever the reason the advocacy must be disingenuous, having a
nefarious ulterior motive since Boikat fanatically opposes the theory
that advocates nature to be the product of invisible Designer (=
Creationism-ID).
We have always said that evolutionists are brazen self-evident liars,
now you know why.
Ray
Boikat
A) As I've pointed out before, I am an agnostic, or possibley an
apatheticist. To narrow minded people like you, I may appeaqr to be
an atheist because I challenge anyone who clims there is a "God"
thingy to present their verifiable and testable evidence. That is not
the same thing as *denying* the existence of a "God" thingy.
B) Challenging your assertion does not mean I am supporting the
involvement of a " God" thingy in nature. It means I am challenging
your assertion. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Whatever the reason the advocacy must be disingenuous, having a
> nefarious ulterior motive
Actually, I was hoping for a straight forward, honest, logical and
reasonable answer. Curses, my evil and nefarious plot has been foiled
again.
> since Boikat fanatically opposes the theory
> that advocates nature to be the product of invisible Designer (=
> Creationism-ID).
Actually, I oppose junk science (=creationism = ID="Godidit" - the
supporting evidence)).
> We have always said that evolutionists are brazen self-evident liars,
> now you know why.
Do tell. Where was the lie in my question, Ray (= god smacked
delusionist)?
By the way, Ray (=the grand evader), why have you not answered this
question: Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
Boikat
Rolf
avoid showing evidence, which you have not. Disgusting, that's what you are.
It is not only self-evident that you know nothing about science, it is a
fact to, demonstrated by all you ever have posted here. Now that's some
evidence, and proof that your paper never will amount to anything. If you
were serious you wouldn't have bothered wasting time posting so much
nonsense here.
> Ray
Rolf
> On Apr 3, 5:01 pm, Jasper Tiler <slimier_t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Humans and animals and plants have been
>> intelligently designed by GOD and therefore
>> they are able to adapt.
>
> Okay....
>
>> Evolution has been started
>> by GOD....
>
> What is your source for this claim?
>
wf3h
> On Apr 3, 5:01 pm, Jasper Tiler <slimier_t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Humans and animals and plants have been
> > intelligently designed by GOD and therefore
> > they are able to adapt.
>
> Okay....
>
> > Evolution has been started
> > by GOD....
>
> What is your source for this claim?
1. god created nature
2. nature has rules
3 one of these is evolution
4 god created evolution
so simple a child...but not a creationist...could figure it out.
Dana Tweedy
> On Apr 3, 5:01 pm, Jasper Tiler <slimier_t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Humans and animals and plants have been
>> intelligently designed by GOD and therefore
>> they are able to adapt.
>
> Okay....
>
>> Evolution has been started
>> by GOD....
>
> What is your source for this claim?
What's the source for any of your claims, Ray?
>
> "Evolution" since Darwin means "God is NOT involved with biological
> production."
No, it means that populations change over time due to variation and natural
selection. If God is involved, it's beyond the ability of science to tell.
>There can be no source in existence that says "God
> created by a process where He is not involved."
If God uses the process, obviously he is involved.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>
> Why is an well known Atheist-evolutionist (= Boikat) advocating the
> involvement of God in nature?
He's pointing out that God's involvement in nature is not a matter that
science can tell. Ironically, it's you who is taking the atheist position
here. You claim that if God isn't seen by science, God doesn't exist.
Then you try to change the definition of "science" to suit your beliefs.
>
> Whatever the reason the advocacy must be disingenuous, having a
> nefarious ulterior motive since Boikat fanatically opposes the theory
> that advocates nature to be the product of invisible Designer (=
> Creationism-ID).
Creationism is not a theory, it's a religious belief. He's saying that the
religious belief that God used evolution is no more or less testable than
yours.
>
> We have always said that evolutionists are brazen self-evident liars,
> now you know why.
Who is the "we" here, Ray? You've claimed that "evolutionists" are "brazen
liars", but everyone knows you are lying about that. Evolution supporters
don/t need to lie, nor do they lie as matter of course.
DJT.
Boikat
I'm sorry. Did I scare you off?
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
> On Apr 3, 5:01 pm, Jasper Tiler <slimier_t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Humans and animals and plants have been
> > intelligently designed by GOD and therefore
> > they are able to adapt.
>
> Okay....
>
> > Evolution has been started
> > by GOD....
>
> What is your source for this claim?
>
> "Evolution" since Darwin means "God is NOT involved with biological
> production." There can be no source in existence that says "God
> created by a process where He is not involved."
>
> Ray
>
artificial breeding. Immutability refers to species that exist in the
undisturbed wild. Wherever a new species is found----that is where it
was introduced by a direct act of special creation ex materia. There
is no other way for species to appear"?
>
> > ....and GOD has created humans together
> > with apes.
>
> > Humans are not related to apes.Thes are two different
> > species. GOD has designed humans.
>
> > Humans did not evolve from apes.Humans were there
> > when apes were there.
>
Boikat
Just a reminder that Raytard is a coward.
Boikat
Boikat
Awwww, come on Ray. It's not that hard of a question to answer, is
it? It looks simple enough to me. Do you not understand the
question or something? What part of the question is tripping you up?
Maybe I can clarify it for you.
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
I wonder how many more people Ray will eventually not respond to?
It may be that in the not too distant future he will become a drive-by
poster.
Could this happen?
Boikat
Maybe he's evolving? Darwin would be pleased.
Boikat
Ray Martinez
Like Atheists, Agnostics believe there is no evidence of God in
reality.
> To narrow minded people like you, I may appeaqr [sic] to be
> an atheist because I challenge anyone who clims [sic] there is a "God"
> thingy to present their verifiable and testable evidence. That is not
> the same thing as *denying* the existence of a "God" thingy.
>
It is self-evident that the thought above makes no sense: It admits to
challenging the existence of God; then it claims there is no evidence
to support the God hypothesis; then it does an about face and denies
the challenge and the claim.
Did the writer of the thought make a bad mistake, or is he unaware of
the egregious contradiction and gross illogic?
> B) Challenging your assertion does not mean I am supporting the
> involvement of a " God" thingy in nature. It means I am challenging
> your assertion. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
>
>
> > Whatever the reason the advocacy must be disingenuous, having a
> > nefarious ulterior motive
>
> Actually, I was hoping for a straight forward, honest, logical and
> reasonable answer. Curses, my evil and nefarious plot has been foiled
> again.
>
> > since Boikat fanatically opposes the theory
> > that advocates nature to be the product of invisible Designer (=
> > Creationism-ID).
>
> Actually, I oppose junk science (=creationism = ID="Godidit" - the
> supporting evidence)).
>
> > We have always said that evolutionists are brazen self-evident liars,
> > now you know why.
>
> Do tell. Where was the lie in my question, Ray (= god smacked
> delusionist)?
>
Boikat has plainly advocated a guided evolution. So does Sean Pitman.
But Boikat rejects Pitman.
Ray
> By the way, Ray (=the grand evader), why have you not answered this
> question: Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
>
Boikat
False.
>
> > To narrow minded people like you, I may appeaqr [sic] to be
> > an atheist because I challenge anyone who clims [sic] there is a "God"
> > thingy to present their verifiable and testable evidence. That is not
> > the same thing as *denying* the existence of a "God" thingy.
>
> It is self-evident that the thought above makes no sense: It admits to
> challenging the existence of God; then it claims there is no evidence
> to support the God hypothesis; then it does an about face and denies
> the challenge and the claim.
How is expecting evidence to support a claim a denial of the possible
existence of the object of the claim?
>
> Did the writer of the thought make a bad mistake, or is he unaware of
> the egregious contradiction and gross illogic?
>
No. But the point of the thought obviously have soared over your
head. BTW, don'ttry to evoke "logic". You are totally lacking in
that department.
>
>
>
>
> > B) Challenging your assertion does not mean I am supporting the
> > involvement of a " God" thingy in nature. It means I am challenging
> > your assertion. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hello?
>
> > > Whatever the reason the advocacy must be disingenuous, having a
> > > nefarious ulterior motive
>
> > Actually, I was hoping for a straight forward, honest, logical and
> > reasonable answer. Curses, my evil and nefarious plot has been foiled
> > again.
Silly me. What the hell was *I* thinking?
>
> > > since Boikat fanatically opposes the theory
> > > that advocates nature to be the product of invisible Designer (=
> > > Creationism-ID).
>
> > Actually, I oppose junk science (=creationism = ID="Godidit" - the
> > supporting evidence)).
Nothing?
>
> > > We have always said that evolutionists are brazen self-evident liars,
> > > now you know why.
>
> > Do tell. Where was the lie in my question, Ray (= god smacked
> > delusionist)?
>
> Boikat has plainly advocated a guided evolution. So does Sean Pitman.
> But Boikat rejects Pitman.
No. I have plainly not advocated it, I plainly have not ruled it out.
What about that *simple* concept eludes you?
>
> Ray
Oh! Don't go away Ray! You forgot to answer the following question:
>
> > By the way, Ray (=the grand evader), why have you not answered this
> > question: Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
Well? Do you, punk?
Boikat
Ray Martinez
SNIP....
>
> By the way, Ray (=the grand evader), why have you not answered this
> question: Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
>
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Question is rhetorical, it presupposes that I am not a born-again
Protestant Christian. Since Boikat is a person who represents the
Atheism agenda his rejection of me to be a real Christian is the best
evidence that I am since the Atheism agenda would never recognize a
real Christian. Case in point: Judge Jones who accepted an award from
an Atheist organization in response to his anti-ID ruling. The fact
proves Jones is not a real Christian because Atheists would never
approve of a real Christian.
Ray (Protestant Evangelical)
Boikat
> On Apr 8, 9:39 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> SNIP....
>
>
>
> > By the way, Ray (=the grand evader), why have you not answered this
> > question: Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
>
> > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Question is rhetorical, it presupposes that I am not a born-again
<snip>
Is that a "yes"?
Boikat
Boikat
> On Apr 8, 9:39 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> SNIP....
>
>
>
> > By the way, Ray (=the grand evader), why have you not answered this
> > question: Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
>
> > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Question is rhetorical, it presupposes that I am not a born-again
> Protestant Christian. Since Boikat is a person who represents the
> Atheism agenda his rejection of me to be a real Christian is the best
> evidence that I am since the Atheism agenda would never recognize a
> real Christian.
BTW, I also do not recognize you as a penguin. Does that mean you
have a sudden craving for raw fish?
> Case in point: Judge Jones who accepted an award from
> an Atheist organization in response to his anti-ID ruling. The fact
> proves Jones is not a real Christian because Atheists would never
> approve of a real Christian.
>
> Ray (Protestant Evangelical)
Boikat
redd...@bresnan.net
> On Apr 8, 9:39 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > A) As I've pointed out before, I am an agnostic, [SNIP....]
>
> Like Atheists, Agnostics believe there is no evidence of God in
> reality.
The set of people who believe that includes a great many devout
believers as well. The idea that God must leave evidence of his
existence goes against the idea of having faith in God.
>
> > To narrow minded people like you, I may appeaqr [sic] to be
> > an atheist because I challenge anyone who clims [sic] there is a "God"
> > thingy to present their verifiable and testable evidence. That is not
> > the same thing as *denying* the existence of a "God" thingy.
>
> It is self-evident that the thought above makes no sense:
Ray, claiming "self evident" is just a dodge to get out of showing
your work. It makes much more sense than your delusions about eels,
and pyramids.
> It admits to
> challenging the existence of God; then it claims there is no evidence
> to support the God hypothesis; then it does an about face and denies
> the challenge and the claim.
Challenging the existence of God is not the same thing as denying the
existence of God. God is not a hypothesis, because a hypothesis
must be testable. The idea of God is not testable in any real
way. One either believes on faith, or does not.
>
> Did the writer of the thought make a bad mistake, or is he unaware of
> the egregious contradiction and gross illogic?
Again, Ray, you have no more grasp of logic than a tadpole has of
nuclear physics.
>
>
snip
> > Actually, I oppose junk science (=creationism = ID="Godidit" - the
> > supporting evidence)).
>
> > > We have always said that evolutionists are brazen self-evident liars,
> > > now you know why.
>
> > Do tell. Where was the lie in my question, Ray (= god smacked
> > delusionist)?
>
> Boikat has plainly advocated a guided evolution. So does Sean Pitman.
> But Boikat rejects Pitman.
Because Boikat knows the difference between a religious belief, and a
scientific theory.
DJT
redd...@bresnan.net
> On Apr 8, 9:39 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> SNIP....
>
>
>
> > By the way, Ray (=the grand evader), why have you not answered this
> > question: Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
>
> > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Question is rhetorical,
It doesn't appear to be rhetorical. Why not take a swipe at
answering it?
> it presupposes that I am not a born-again
> Protestant Christian.
No, it asks if you are, or are not.
> Since Boikat is a person who represents the
> Atheism agenda his rejection of me to be a real Christian is the best
> evidence that I am since the Atheism agenda would never recognize a
> real Christian.
This is the 'best evidence' that you really have no grasp of logic.
The "best evidence" of your Christianity would be actions befitting a
Christian. You haven't shown any of that.
> Case in point: Judge Jones who accepted an award from
> an Atheist organization in response to his anti-ID ruling.
The "anti ID ruling" was supported and applauded by most the
mainstream Christian denominations.
> The fact
> proves Jones is not a real Christian because Atheists would never
> approve of a real Christian.
Atheists, like most other people, approve of those who are honest,
upstanding, and who do their job well. Why wouldn't they support a
"Real Christian" such as Judge Jones?
>
> Ray (Protestant Evangelical) Who "evades" the question again.
DJT
wf3h
just out of curiosity, ray...what do you think of einstein...atheist
who formulated relativity, and won a nobel prize?