Someone Help Mike Painter
Jason Gastrich
questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get these
questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious as this is,
I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his questions.
Regards,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 90,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ
has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140 . AIM: MrJasonGastrich . YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
David
> Mike Painter has been chasing me around saying he wants me to answer
> questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get these
> questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious as
this is,
> I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his questions.
Has the music stopped, Jason?
Here are just some of Mike's questions:
>>>> Here are a few simple questions. Your previous response was to
post
>>>> an entire set of "notes" from a survey course. There was one or
two
>>>> references to the subject at hand.
>>>>
>>>> What is the proper name for the subject at hand?
>>>> Have you read any current *books* on the subject since then?
>>>> Not talked with any one or asked a friend, not reread your notes
>>>> but read a *book* that outlines what all major schools of theology
>>>> in the world teach as most likely.
>>>>
>>>> If you have not read a book on the subject have you obtained "the
>>>> necessary training in languages, biblical archeology, and literary
>>>> and historical skills to work on the problem" ?
These are from:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/e9e584dcc6303077?dmode=source
Or
And they took me all of 10 seconds or so to find, and another 20 or so
to copy and paste the original URL, as well as get you a tinyurl
All of that dancing and avoiding, Jason, and you could have answered so
long ago.
Then again, I'm thinking you COULDN'T answer, and that's why we have
seen what we have seen.
Why do you try so HARD to humiliate God?
What did he ever do to yo...
Scratch that. Never mind.
Jason Gastrich
> Mike Painter has been chasing me around saying he wants me to answer
> questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get these
> questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious as
> this is, I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his
> questions.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
Isn't anyone going to help this boy? He says he really wants answers to
some questions, but he can't remember them or else he'd post them. He
claims that they are somewhere on the web.
Good luck!
Mike Painter
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
>> Mike Painter has been chasing me around saying he wants me to answer
>> questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get these
>> questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious as
>> this is, I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his
>> questions.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>
> Isn't anyone going to help this boy? He says he really wants answers
> to some questions, but he can't remember them or else he'd post them.
> He claims that they are somewhere on the web.
>
> Good luck!
Note the dishonest snipping of the responses to this question the first
time asked.
This is a lie of ommision and a sin.
Could Earl and Jason be soulmates?
Budikka666
trademark, so don't come whining that someone isn't doing your work for
you. That's what Google is for. If you want to truly answer the
questions, find them on Google and answer them. Or do you lack the
intellectual wherewithal and honesty to do that?
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>Mike Painter has been chasing me around saying he wants me to answer
>questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get these
>questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious as this is,
>I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his questions.
Don't worry about mikey. He still thinks he disproved the biblical flood
because he went scuba diving.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
duke
wrote:
No, mikey, you know better than that. God gives us our own souls at our
conception. Jason has his, earl has his, and I duke have mine.
duke
Well, you yourself lack the intellectual wherewithal and honesty to recognize
when you have been fully corrected. Whenever you get the answers you DON'T
want, you accuse your respondent of running away.
It's your loser trademark, bud.
Larry Heath
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1q3h11llkas0ujch7...@4ax.com...
Hi Duke,
This "soul" you speak of, could you tell me just exactly where it resides?
Is it some part of each and every cell? If so it would need to be
incorporated as part of the genetic code, so that it could be passed to
other cells, as they divide and multiply. What part of the genetic code,
codes for the soul? On what chromosome would these codes be located? Is it
some type of protein? What cells produce and secrete it? If not part of the
intimate structure of the cells based in the genetic code, then where is it
located. Is it some attachment to the external physical structure of the
zygote? If so could you provide some indication of its size and location?
How and where it attaches to the physical structure of the zygote?
What physical form does this soul take? Is it a chemical or protein of some
sort? What is its structure, atomic weight,ect? Is it a energy field of some
sort? What are its characteristics, wavelength, frequency, ect?
Any help along these lines would be greatly appreciated.
Later Larry
Robibnikoff
"Jason Gastrich" <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:E24Sd.7309$VD5....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Incidentally, the unbelievers are using a peculiar MO, now. I'm here in
> plain sight ready to answer ANY question under the Sun, so the only way
> they
> can paint me in a bad light is to say I won't answer questions and that I
> "run" from them.
>
> Of course, I'm here. Of course, I'm asking for the questions. However,
> nobody will post them.
>
> Only if these people knew how silly they looked. Saying I'm "running"
> when
> I'm in plain sight. Saying I'm "avoiding" when I'm asking for questions.
> Haha.
You are so full of shit your eyes are turning brown. Everyone has seen you
repeatedly run away. You're clearly delusional if you think otherwise. All
is clearly documented. Apparently Google is definitely not YOUR friend.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
lizzard woman
"Jason Gastrich" <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:E24Sd.7309$VD5....@twister.socal.rr.com...
| Incidentally, the unbelievers are using a peculiar MO, now. I'm here in
| plain sight ready to answer ANY question under the Sun, so the only way
they
| can paint me in a bad light is to say I won't answer questions and that I
| "run" from them.
Yeah? Why don't you answer McHugh's question about your post-resurrection
chronology that you promised to answer? He posted it on January 25, 2005.
I've reposted it several times and you have ignored it each time.
It is under the sun and you ran from it. There's a reason you did that. It
is one of several questions that undermine your "harmonization" of the four
gospel accounts.
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
"Easy -- he's the Right Reverend Admiral Jason Gastrich, BSc, MSc, DVM, ThD,
PhD, MD, JD, Esq, US Navy (Ret). If the bible happened to put things in the
wrong order, well, our boy the Doctor will just fix it right up there!" --
Rightshu (IIDB, 2004)
Jason Gastrich
plain sight ready to answer ANY question under the Sun, so the only way they
can paint me in a bad light is to say I won't answer questions and that I
"run" from them.
Of course, I'm here. Of course, I'm asking for the questions. However,
nobody will post them.
Only if these people knew how silly they looked. Saying I'm "running" when
I'm in plain sight. Saying I'm "avoiding" when I'm asking for questions.
Haha.
Regards,
Jason Gastrich
> I've frequently asked you questions from which you've run.
Either:
1. Prove it.
2. Repost them.
3. Admit you're lying.
> It's your
> trademark, so don't come whining that someone isn't doing your work
> for you.
Nobody knows what Mike's questions are. He doesn't even know.
I think Mike had some long, rambling paragraphs. I don't think he had any
questions and this is probably why he cannot ask succint questions. He
doesn't have any. He wanted to hear himself talk just like he wants to hear
himself talk, now.
Jason Gastrich
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:31:38 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
> <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Painter has been chasing me around saying he wants me to answer
>> questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get these
>> questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious as
>> this is, I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his
>> questions.
>
> Don't worry about mikey. He still thinks he disproved the biblical
> flood because he went scuba diving.
Oh yeah? Sounds about right.
I'm not worried. Worry is a sin.
I really want to answer his questions. So far, Mike keeps making himself
look worse and worse as I'm NOT running and NOT avoiding anything. His last
hope is to say I am so he doesn't have to ask his questions again. It's
pretty comical, actually.
Regards,
Jason
> duke
> *****
> Matthew 22
> 14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
> *****
--
kathryn
> Budikka666 wrote:
>> I've frequently asked you questions from which you've run.
>
> Either:
>
> 1. Prove it.
>
> 2. Repost them.
>
> 3. Admit you're lying.
>
>> It's your
>> trademark, so don't come whining that someone isn't doing your work
>> for you.
>
> Nobody knows what Mike's questions are. He doesn't even know.
>
> I think Mike had some long, rambling paragraphs. I don't think he had any
> questions and this is probably why he cannot ask succint questions. He
> doesn't have any. He wanted to hear himself talk just like he wants to
> hear
> himself talk, now.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
> --
>
> --------
>
> Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
> http://www.jcsm.org
> Over 90,000 web pages!
>
You either have trouble reading or are particularily stupid. Some of the
questions were reposted for you, I had no trouble understanding them. Maybe
it's because you're too lazy to reread the original discussion.
Questions from Budikka...http://tinyurl.com/3oqnn
Really...it's not that difficult
1. The Bible claims the entire universe was created out of nothing
and the Earth created and populated in a period of six, literal 24
hour successive days. Are you saying this is true? If so, please
post your three best evidences supporting such a claim. If not,
please withdraw your claim that he Bible is inerrant.
2. Has everyone sinned or not? According to John 15:22, there were at
least some people who had no sins until Jesus talked to them, and from
that point on they were apparently awash in sin: "If I had not come
and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak
for their sin." But Paul, the inventor of christianity, said, "For
all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Ro 3:23). So
which is it?
3. How many people were at the tomb of Jesus when it was discovered
to be empty? Was it Miriam of Magdala and Miriam the mother of
Jacobus (according to Matthew), or was it Miriam of Magdala, an
unnamed israelite or Christian whose name became Joanna/Salome over
retellings, Miriam the mother of Jacobus, and a host of women
(according to Mark/Luke), or was it Miriam of Magdala alone (according
to John)?
4. Why are there two different genealogies, different names, different
lengths, given for Jesus, one in Matthew 1, and the other in Luke 3?
And what is the point of these detailed genealogies if Joseph was not
Jesus' father anyway?
5. Why does god use the word 'us' to describe himself in several
instances, such as gen 1:26, 11:7, etc?
6. Was man really made from silicon (dirt) and woman from calcium
(bone?). If so, how come they are essentially made from the same
things nowadays?
7. Which generation was Jesus talking about in Matthew 24:34?
8. Just what did the inscription on the cross say, since there is a
different description of it in each of the gospels. Are all of these
differing inscriptions inerrant?
"THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Matthew)
"THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Mark)
"THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Luke)
"JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS" (John)
9. If Jesus' "death" on the cross destroyed the devil, as Hebrews
suggests (Heb 2:14: "...he also himself likewise took part of the
same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of
death, that is, the devil.") why is he still alive and well today?
10. Why didn't Adam die "in the day" he ate of the tree of knowledge,
as God had predicted in Gen 2:17?
David D.
Jason will claim you are question bombing and run. It's his standard
tactic to avoid questions. Best bet is pick one and go with it. Of
course be prepared for a frustrating discussion. logic is not oine of
Jason strong suits and it can get very frustrating working through his
mazes of contradictory explanations.
I notice he has taken his arrogance pills this weekend so my bet is no
questions will be answered since they are below him. It is clear his
tactic at the moment is to wind poeple up. So it's best to let him
stew in his own ego for a while.
Reality will hit him pretty quick, especially when his next rent check
arrives. Then he'll be off trying to generate more traffic to his
sponsors by posting more zoo pics. Of course maybe he has conned one
of his Christian flock to let him stay rent free in an apartment. It
really wouldn't surprise me.
The Lamb of God
George Peatty
wrote:
>This "soul" you speak of, could you tell me just exactly where it resides?
>Is it some part of each and every cell?
The soul is the proof that the first law of thermodynamics is wrong, for it
exists, and is neither matter, nor energy. It doesn't reside in the genetic
code, or in any other place that might be isolated or described. However,
it is joined to the body in ways that are barely understood, even within
theology. Its final separation from the body is defined in some quarters as
death.
Enkidu
news:u7qh11dpgdigfomls...@4ax.com:
I loved this phrase: " . . . barely understood, even within theology."
The soul is something, but not matter or energy. It is somewhere, but
not "here" or "there". It is joined to the body "in ways that are barely
understood . . . ."
So you don't know where it is, what it is, what it does, or how it does
it. Yet you claim it exists, that it is vitally important, that we all
have one, and that it "lives" forever. Can't you understand, just a
little bit, why we doubt the existence of things like this?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-- Carl Sagan
Now playing: Lazy Boy - Theme From Headtrader
Uncle Davey
Uzytkownik "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:di3h11td38g445f8k...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:31:38 GMT, "Jason Gastrich" <usene...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Painter has been chasing me around saying he wants me to answer
> >questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get these
> >questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious as this
is,
> >I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his questions.
>
> Don't worry about mikey. He still thinks he disproved the biblical flood
> because he went scuba diving.
>
Hee!
Uncle Davey
Mike Painter
> duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:31:38 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
>> <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Painter has been chasing me around saying he wants me to answer
>>> questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get these
>>> questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious as
>>> this is, I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his
>>> questions.
>>
>> Don't worry about mikey. He still thinks he disproved the biblical
>> flood because he went scuba diving.
>
> Oh yeah? Sounds about right.
>
> I'm not worried. Worry is a sin.
>
> I really want to answer his questions. So far, Mike keeps making
> himself look worse and worse as I'm NOT running and NOT avoiding
> anything. His last hope is to say I am so he doesn't have to ask his
> questions again. It's pretty comical, actually.
You and Earl should spend some time together. You both use the same tactics.
Ask him to document the SCUBA diving comment.
Gregory A Greenman
Gastrich <usene...@yahoo.com> declared...
> Incidentally, the unbelievers are using a peculiar MO, now. I'm here in
> plain sight ready to answer ANY question under the Sun, so the only way they
> can paint me in a bad light is to say I won't answer questions and that I
> "run" from them.
>
> Of course, I'm here. Of course, I'm asking for the questions. However,
> nobody will post them.
>
> Only if these people knew how silly they looked. Saying I'm "running" when
> I'm in plain sight. Saying I'm "avoiding" when I'm asking for questions.
> Haha.
Jason,
I'm not sure why you think it's funny to act in such a childish
manner, but since you insist that you'll answer questions that
are put to you, how about the questions I asked you three times
at:
and then again at:
and yet again at:
You'll note that in that third attempt to get you to answer my
questions, I put your name in the subject line (which ought to
have given you quite a thrill) and it was already going into
free.christians. Are there any other hoops I have to jump through
before you'll answer?
Now, for a fourth time, here are the questions:
Is it your belief that the evolution from Plecco to Plecostomus,
from Plecostomus to Plecco or both from a common ancestor may
have been observed? If so how long do you think it took and who
do you think may have made the observation?
Also:
Here's something you said in a prior post:
"I'm a firm believer in the evolution that we have observed. I'm
a sincere skeptic in the evolution that some people assume
happened."
From this, it sounds like you think that Plecco/Plecostomus
evolution may have been observed. Is that the case? And, if so,
how do you think the observation was made? Do you think that a
scientist put a Plecco in a fish tank, watched it for a few days
and then said "Aha! Just as I expected. The Plecco has just given
birth to a Plecostomus!"?
--
Greg
----
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Budikka666
> Well, you yourself lack the intellectual wherewithal
> and honesty to recognize when you have been fully corrected.
Now, Duke, you've just described yourself there, because I just got
through correcting your lies, showing you the error of your ways,
demonstrating beyond rebuttal that you're failing in your self-imposed
Christian duties: that you're bearing false witness and that you're not
doing unto others as you would be done by, and you still don't get it
(talk about lack of intellect).
> Whenever you get the answers you DON'T want,
You mean the non-existent ones, in the case of that thread, and many
others, Duke? I can't wait to see you tell that to the judge and see
how he likes you playing dumb.
Or so you mean the dishonest ones, Duke? The lies? The evasions? The
unsupported assertions, Duke? I can't wait to see you tell *those* to
the judge.
> you accuse your respondent of running away.
A "respondent" you're not, since that word implies that someone
responds.
Your main "response" consists of avoiding my messages apparently for no
other reason than that I consistently have you on the ropes. How does
that make you a respondent in any sense of the word? Is avoiding
dealing with your lie about plagiarism **in the case of each and every
one of all fifty questions**, responding? It looks to me like you need
another trip to the dictionary, Duke.
Another favorite of yours is making unsupported assertions, which
generate follow up questions that you then run away from. This is how
there came to be fifty questions in the first place Duke! None of them
stolen from someone else as you lied (and have apparently admitted,
judged by your inability to present evidence), but all of them
generated in exchanges with you because of your repeated unsupported
assertions and your evasions, as I did demonstrate.
Your inability to grapple competently with those fifty questions is
such an embarrassment to you now that you've been forced to abandon all
pretence at certain Christian principles and begun bearing false
witness about me regarding them.
It wasn't an accusation, it was a statement of fact, Duke. You did not
rebut even one of the fifty demonstrations, one per question, that they
could not possibly have been plagiarized. And the reason for this is
that you know perfectly well they were not. You know you are lying and
do not have the courage, intellectual integrity and honesty to come
clean.
I made my case. You had no case. You realized this. You ran away,
thereby admitting your guilt. It's that simple.
> It's your loser trademark, bud.
The judge will decide that, Duke. Now here's your last chance:
I require that you post (in each Internet news group where you've
accused me, either directly or indirectly, of plagiarism) a retraction
of your lie, an apology for even stating it in the first place, and an
assurance that you will not ever again make this accusation regarding
those fifty questions.
I don't think you understand just how serious I am. You seem to think
that I'm joking and to be treating a serious and unfounded accusation
with
dangerous levity. Rest assured that my next step is to start legal
proceedings, which you will lose, and once they begin, Duke, there will
be no more discussion, no more courtesies to you.
Budikka
Jason Gastrich
> In article <E24Sd.7309$VD5....@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
> Gastrich <usene...@yahoo.com> declared...
>> Incidentally, the unbelievers are using a peculiar MO, now. I'm
>> here in plain sight ready to answer ANY question under the Sun, so
>> the only way they can paint me in a bad light is to say I won't
>> answer questions and that I "run" from them.
>>
>> Of course, I'm here. Of course, I'm asking for the questions.
>> However, nobody will post them.
>>
>> Only if these people knew how silly they looked. Saying I'm
>> "running" when I'm in plain sight. Saying I'm "avoiding" when I'm
>> asking for questions. Haha.
>
>
>
> Jason,
>
> I'm not sure why you think it's funny to act in such a childish
> manner, but since you insist that you'll answer questions that
> are put to you, how about the questions I asked you three times
> at:
Sure, Greg. In your case, I have read some insulting and demeaning things
from you to me. This has caused you to move lower on my priority list. I
will answer your questions now, though.
> http://tinyurl.com/42dyf
>
>
> and then again at:
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5kf2p
>
>
> and yet again at:
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3oevr
>
>
> You'll note that in that third attempt to get you to answer my
> questions, I put your name in the subject line (which ought to
> have given you quite a thrill) and it was already going into
> free.christians. Are there any other hoops I have to jump through
> before you'll answer?
>
>
> Now, for a fourth time, here are the questions:
>
> Is it your belief that the evolution from Plecco to Plecostomus,
> from Plecostomus to Plecco or both from a common ancestor may
> have been observed?
I don't know.
> If so how long do you think it took and who
> do you think may have made the observation?
>
>
> Also:
>
> Here's something you said in a prior post:
>
> "I'm a firm believer in the evolution that we have observed. I'm
> a sincere skeptic in the evolution that some people assume
> happened."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5uv3u
>
> From this, it sounds like you think that Plecco/Plecostomus
> evolution may have been observed. Is that the case? And, if so,
> how do you think the observation was made? Do you think that a
> scientist put a Plecco in a fish tank, watched it for a few days
> and then said "Aha! Just as I expected. The Plecco has just given
> birth to a Plecostomus!"?
I sincerely don't know if this has been observed or not. I think I see
where you're going with this though, and it hardly authenticates microbe to
man evolution.
Budikka666
> Don't worry about mikey. He still thinks he
> disproved the biblical flood
> because he went scuba diving.
This is documented Duke lie #10. You said that Mike had stated that
"...there could not have been a biblical flood because you went scuba
diving...I remember very distinctly you making that very comment."
What Mike Painter actually said is this:
(http://tinyurl.com/5rq4m)
"SCUBA diving is not science. For those curious one of the reasons
such a flood could not have happened is introduced in most SCUBA
classes. Ten year olds understand the argument. I'm not sure Earl
ever did."
So quite clearly, he did *not* say, as you claim, that there could not
have been a flood *because* he went SCUBA diving, but that *one of the
reasons there could not have been a flood is **INTRODUCED** in most
SCUBA classes."
Of course, anyone with the requisite intellect could refute this by
providing some **EVIDENCE** such as a URL or a thread and message where
he said such a thing, but we all know this is another of your lies and
you cannot provide a shred of supportive evidence, as usual.
Budikka
Grinder
> The soul is the proof that the first law of
> thermodynamics is wrong, for it exists, and
> is neither matter, nor energy.
For reference, this is the First Law of Thermodynamics:
The total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow
of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained
within the system. In other words, energy can be converted from one
form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
How does the soul violate this law? If the soul obtains no energy or
matter, I don't see how this law would even apply to it, much less be
violated by it.
Grinder
>> Incidentally, the unbelievers are using a peculiar MO,
>> now. I'm here in plain sight ready to answer ANY
>> question under the Sun, so the only way they can paint
>> me in a bad light is to say I won't answer questions
>> and that I "run" from them.
lizzard woman wrote:
> Yeah? Why don't you answer McHugh's question about your
> post-resurrection chronology that you promised to answer?
> He posted it on January 25, 2005. I've reposted it several
> times and you have ignored it each time.
> It is under the sun and you ran from it. There's a reason
> you did that. It is one of several questions that undermine
> your "harmonization" of the four gospel accounts.
I've quoted Sharon here so that you can see her response if you have
kill filed her.
I'll additionally comment on this remark of Jason's:
> Nobody knows what Mike's questions are. He doesn't
> even know.
He does know because I've seen him repost them recently. Because of
that I know what they are as does David Sienkiewicz:
> These are from:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/e9e584dcc6303077
David
> Incidentally, the unbelievers are using a peculiar MO, now. I'm here
in
> plain sight ready to answer ANY question under the Sun, so the only
way they
> can paint me in a bad light is to say I won't answer questions and
that I
> "run" from them.
>
> Of course, I'm here. Of course, I'm asking for the questions.
However,
> nobody will post them.
>
> Only if these people knew how silly they looked. Saying I'm
"running" when
> I'm in plain sight. Saying I'm "avoiding" when I'm asking for
questions.
> Haha.
Jason is so free with his "love."
Jason, the questions have been posted.
There are many questions you continue to dodge.
And pretty much everyone knows that your pathetic attempts to divert,
misdirect and dodge them expose you as a liar, a hypocrite, and a
coward.
And you want to pretend to run a MINISTRY?
You want to tell us that you "love" us and want to show us "God's
love?"
How can you run a ministry when you can't even manage your personal
finances and had to file for protection from your creditors under
Chapter 7 (in 1999)?
And how is your current behavior any indication of "love" or "God's
love?"
If you want, I'll put those questions in a separate thread.
I'll create all the threads you want.
David
> Budikka666 wrote:
> > I've frequently asked you questions from which you've run.
>
> Either:
>
> 1. Prove it.
>
> 2. Repost them.
>
> 3. Admit you're lying.
>
> > It's your
> > trademark, so don't come whining that someone isn't doing your work
> > for you.
>
> Nobody knows what Mike's questions are. He doesn't even know.
>
> I think Mike had some long, rambling paragraphs. I don't think he
had any
> questions and this is probably why he cannot ask succint questions.
Ah, ha!
We have an admission here, audience.
So the problem isn't that you didn't see the questions, it's that they
were contained in "long, rambling paragraphs" and were not "succint."
Is THAT the NEW claim, Jason?
Is this the beginning of some new excuses?
< snip >
David
> duke wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:31:38 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
> > <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Mike Painter has been chasing me around saying he wants me to
answer
> >> questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get
these
> >> questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious
as
> >> this is, I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his
> >> questions.
> >
> > Don't worry about mikey. He still thinks he disproved the biblical
> > flood because he went scuba diving.
>
> Oh yeah? Sounds about right.
>
> I'm not worried. Worry is a sin.
So are lying, cowardice, avarice, greed, and vanity, Jason.
I suspect that turning your Father's house into a house of commerce is
also a sin, if Jesus's encounter with the moneychangers is any
indication.
But, of course, you're afraid of me, and you won't discuss that
episode, or anything else.
> I really want to answer his questions.
If that were so, you would have answered them, or sought them out
yourself.
You're such a terrible liar, Jason.
< snip >
David
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:31:38 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usene...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Painter has been chasing me around saying he wants me to answer
> >questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get these
> >questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious as
this is,
> >I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his questions.
>
> Don't worry about mikey. He still thinks he disproved the biblical
flood
> because he went scuba diving.
Can you document this?
David
Not so fast, Davey.
Jim07D5
Jason, can you imagine any words on this page, or any words, pictures,
diagrams, etc. on any other page to which you could be directed, that
would authenticate, for you, microbe to man evolution? Or, for the
believer in evolution, that would disauthenticate it? The issue really
is: what brings people to believe those words? After all, in the
medium we are using, words, diagrams and pictures, are all that we
have.
But, can you imagine any words that would change your mind? I don't
expect those on either side of this can come up with any such words;
whether true or not. Try to think what they would be and who it would
take to utter them. I'd like to know.
Jim07D5
Jason Gastrich
Hi Jim,
Nice to meet you. Or have we met?
Please answer your question for me, then I'll consider answering it.
God bless,
Jason Gastrich
Jason wrote:
>> Nobody knows what Mike's questions are. He doesn't
>> even know.
>
> He does know because I've seen him repost them recently. Because of
> that I know what they are as does David Sienkiewicz:
No, I'm not talking about the recent questions (e.g. have you read any books
lately). I'm talking about the original questions that I promised to answer
if he repeated. The original questions from months ago . . . the ones he
complains about me not answering. I'm not sure if they even exist; at least
in the form of a question. We'll see, though.
Someone reposted one of them, so I'll get on that right away. Maybe it's
"the" question. I don't know.
Regards,
Jason
>> These are from:
>>
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/e9e584dcc6303077
>>
>> Or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6zs4b
>>
>> And they took me all of 10 seconds or so to find, and
>> another 20 or so to copy and paste the original URL,
>> as well as get you a tinyurl
>>
>> All of that dancing and avoiding, Jason, and you could
>> have answered so long ago.
>>
>> Then again, I'm thinking you COULDN'T answer, and that's
>> why we have seen what we have seen.
>>
>> Why do you try so HARD to humiliate God?
>>
>> What did he ever do to yo...
>>
>> Scratch that. Never mind.
--
David
> Grinder wrote:
> Jason wrote:
> >> Nobody knows what Mike's questions are. He doesn't
> >> even know.
> >
> > He does know because I've seen him repost them recently. Because
of
> > that I know what they are as does David Sienkiewicz:
>
> No, I'm not talking about the recent questions (e.g. have you read
any books
> lately). I'm talking about the original questions that I promised to
answer
> if he repeated. The original questions from months ago . . . the
ones he
> complains about me not answering.
If you know those aren't the "original" questions, Jason, then it's
fair to assume that you DO know what the original questions were, so
all of this is a diversionary sham, isn't it?
< snip >
David
< snip >
I'm assuming this is a slip of the brain, and the first "answer" should
be "ask."
It seems to me that Jim DID ask you some questions, Jason.
Answer them, if you have the courage.
Or can we expect another bit of misdirection and a set of lies from
you?
< snip >
Jim07D5
Only a few exchanges while you were a write in candidate.
>
>Please answer your question for me, then I'll consider answering it.
>
To answer the question for you would be presumptive. But I can't
imagine any; that's my impression. You could change that impression.
Jim07D5
Larry Heath
"George Peatty" <pttyg4...@copper.net> wrote in message
news:u7qh11dpgdigfomls...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:00:29 -0500, "Larry Heath" <lgh...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>This "soul" you speak of, could you tell me just exactly where it resides?
>>Is it some part of each and every cell?
>
> The soul is the proof that the first law of thermodynamics is wrong, for
> it
> exists, and is neither matter, nor energy.
In this universe, I believe that it is very well understood, founded in
masses of data derived from many many experiments, that there are two basic
forms, matter and energy, interchangeable and operating on one another
through many operators. How is it then that a soul can operate on,
generating effects in common matter and or energy? How is it that we know of
this soul, if none of the means of determining the presence of matter or
energy, that we being made up of these stuffs are intimate in the use there
of. You claim intimate knowledge of this soul but have no means of detection
thereof, or proof of existence.
> It doesn't reside in the genetic
> code, or in any other place that might be isolated or described. However,
> it is joined to the body in ways that are barely understood, even within
> theology.
Does theology have some means of detection of this soul, what experiments
does theology use that detect it, and describe its properties? It is neither
matter or energy, what is it then. It sounds suspiciously like some sort of
philosophical construct, and therefore does not really exist, in the
physical world. Except as a manifestation of a mind that can not or does not
wish to deal with the high probability that on its death, that it is all
over there is no more life or sentient existence.
Its final separation from the body is defined in some quarters as
> death.
I was under the impression that death occurs when the body's cells can no
longer adequately performer there functions well enough to sustain
homeostasis causing the cascading failure of major organ systems resulting
in brain death. I have lost or discarded many philosophical constructs over
my life, yet I am not dead.
I think basically you are telling me that this soul you speak of exists
simply because you and a group of theological philosophers say so.
You need a good bit more empirical data to make a case that has a
significantly high probability to begin to allow me to believe in your soul.
Later Larry
Gregory A Greenman
> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > In article <E24Sd.7309$VD5....@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
> > Gastrich <usene...@yahoo.com> declared...
> >> Incidentally, the unbelievers are using a peculiar MO, now. I'm
> >> here in plain sight ready to answer ANY question under the Sun, so
> >> the only way they can paint me in a bad light is to say I won't
> >> answer questions and that I "run" from them.
> >>
> >> Of course, I'm here. Of course, I'm asking for the questions.
> >> However, nobody will post them.
> >>
> >> Only if these people knew how silly they looked. Saying I'm
> >> "running" when I'm in plain sight. Saying I'm "avoiding" when I'm
> >> asking for questions. Haha.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jason,
> >
> > I'm not sure why you think it's funny to act in such a childish
> > manner, but since you insist that you'll answer questions that
> > are put to you, how about the questions I asked you three times
> > at:
>
> Sure, Greg. In your case, I have read some insulting and demeaning things
> from you to me. This has caused you to move lower on my priority list. I
> will answer your questions now, though.
Your words sting, Jason. Your words sting.
Above, I said you were acting in a childish manner. Besides that,
what insulting and demeaning things have I said to or about you?
I have bent over backwards to be civil to you, despite your
obvious contempt for me and other atheists.
> > Is it your belief that the evolution from Plecco to Plecostomus,
> > from Plecostomus to Plecco or both from a common ancestor may
> > have been observed?
>
> I don't know.
You don't know if you believe that this may have been observed or
not? How can you not know what you believe?
> > If so how long do you think it took and who
> > do you think may have made the observation?
> >
> >
> > Also:
> >
> > Here's something you said in a prior post:
> >
> > "I'm a firm believer in the evolution that we have observed. I'm
> > a sincere skeptic in the evolution that some people assume
> > happened."
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/5uv3u
> >
> > From this, it sounds like you think that Plecco/Plecostomus
> > evolution may have been observed. Is that the case? And, if so,
> > how do you think the observation was made? Do you think that a
> > scientist put a Plecco in a fish tank, watched it for a few days
> > and then said "Aha! Just as I expected. The Plecco has just given
> > birth to a Plecostomus!"?
>
> I sincerely don't know if this has been observed or not.
I didn't ask if it had been observed. I was asking what you
thought would constitute such an observation.
Let me rephrase:
Do you believe that no such observation could be made by a means
other than someone sitting around watching fish breed?
> I think I see
> where you're going with this though, and it hardly authenticates microbe to
> man evolution.
I'm just trying to see what you think the evidence, if it exists
for Plecco/Plecostomus evolution, would consist of.
Michelle Malkin
"BDK" <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c835c3be...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> In article <KTQRd.5614$VD5....@twister.socal.rr.com>, usenetspam1
> @yahoo.com says...
> > Mike Painter has been chasing me around saying he wants me to answer
> > questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get these
> > questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious as this
is,
> > I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his questions.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
>
>
> I think you're the one who needs help, Jason. It might be easier to just
> answer the questions, even though your answers will probably do nothing
> more than makes a lot of us chuckle..
>
>
> BDK
If Mike posted those question 79 times, Jason would still say that he
hasn't seen them. Of course, he hasn't. It's called deliberate avoidance.
If he admitted that he has seen them...several times..., he'd have to
answer them. He knows that he can't, so he'll never admit it.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list name collector
BAAWA Knight & EAC Bible thumper thumper
BDK
duke
>Hi Duke,
>This "soul" you speak of, could you tell me just exactly where it resides?
>Is it some part of each and every cell?
It's your essence.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm
>Any help along these lines would be greatly appreciated.
>Later Larry
Later, Later.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
BDK
says...
>
> "BDK" <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c835c3be...@news.buckeye-express.com...
> > In article <KTQRd.5614$VD5....@twister.socal.rr.com>, usenetspam1
> > @yahoo.com says...
> > > Mike Painter has been chasing me around saying he wants me to answer
> > > questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get these
> > > questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious as this
> is,
> > > I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his questions.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Jason
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > I think you're the one who needs help, Jason. It might be easier to just
> > answer the questions, even though your answers will probably do nothing
> > more than makes a lot of us chuckle..
> >
> >
> > BDK
>
> If Mike posted those question 79 times, Jason would still say that he
> hasn't seen them. Of course, he hasn't. It's called deliberate avoidance.
> If he admitted that he has seen them...several times..., he'd have to
> answer them. He knows that he can't, so he'll never admit it.
>
>
>
Yeah, I guess he would rather dance around with Pastor Dave about how
the other one is "wrong", and how they are right. Dave says in a post I
just saw that Jason is playing word games. What else do christers do,
but argue the meaning of words?
I'll never understand religious fanatics..
BDK
Larry Heath
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jggj11d9ivmfpkl0j...@4ax.com...
"The question of the reality of the soul and its distinction from the body
is among the most important problems of philosophy, for with it is bound up
the doctrine of a future life."
The quote above is the first line that comes from the definition of soul
from the link provided by Duke at the above link.
Again, quoting myself from the question previous to this response:
"Does theology have some means of detection of this soul, what experiments
does theology use that detect it, and describe its properties? It is neither
matter or energy, what is it then.
***********
It sounds suspiciously like some sort of philosophical construct, and
therefore does not really exist, in the physical world.
***********
Except as a manifestation of a mind that can not or does not
wish to deal with the high probability that on its death, that it is all
over there is no more life or sentient existence."
It appears that Duke has pointed me to a description of soul that in its
first sentence seems to indicate that indeed the term soul is a
philosophical construct. It would therefore seem that Duke is agreeing that
the soul does not exist, by my definition as well as by the quote/link he
provides me as a definition of soul. The soul is a philosophical construct
of the mind, not a real thing.
Later Larry
AA#2216
George Peatty
>For reference, this is the First Law of Thermodynamics:
>The total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow
>of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained
>within the system. In other words, energy can be converted from one
>form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
>How does the soul violate this law? If the soul obtains no energy or
>matter, I don't see how this law would even apply to it, much less be
>violated by it.
My first answer has apparently disappeared into the cyber-ether. This is a
poor reconstruction ..
I have used wikipedia myself on occasion, but I do not feel it is the best
source for information on most subjects, certainly not politics or science.
To at least attempt to answer your question, I must expand the discussion to
quote first Carl Sagan:
"The cosmos is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be." It
follows from Sagan and the first law of thermodynamics that all there is,
all there was, or all there ever will be is either matter or energy.
And, this from an online article I read: "The two principal laws of
thermodynamics apply only to closed systems, that is, entities with which
there can be no exchange of energy, information, or material. The universe
in its totality might be considered a closed system of this type; this would
allow the two laws to be applied to it."
The question of whether the universe is a closed system is an assumption,
one that does not require proof, if proof is even possible.
If the soul exists, one of two conclusions must follow: 1) either the
universe is not a closed system, and TD1 does not apply, or 2) the universe
is a closed system, but within that system there exists that which is
neither matter nor energy, and TD1 is untrue for that element, or untrue
altogether.
In this context, there is assumed no distinction between matter and energy.
Matter is simply one of the forms that energy might take.
duke
>"The question of the reality of the soul and its distinction from the body
>is among the most important problems of philosophy, for with it is bound up
>the doctrine of a future life."
>The quote above is the first line that comes from the definition of soul
>from the link provided by Duke at the above link.
>Again, quoting myself from the question previous to this response:
>"Does theology have some means of detection of this soul, what experiments
>does theology use that detect it, and describe its properties? It is neither
>matter or energy, what is it then.
Again, it is the essence of what you are. It is neither mass nor energy. It is
spirit if anything. God is spirit.
>***********
> It sounds suspiciously like some sort of philosophical construct, and
>therefore does not really exist, in the physical world.
>***********
We certainly can't touch it like we can our fingers.
>Except as a manifestation of a mind that can not or does not
>wish to deal with the high probability that on its death, that it is all
>over there is no more life or sentient existence."
Why not? Why would God put you here to suffer thru 70 years of life for which
you contributed and then have you die and all is gone.
It makes more sense that something of you moves onward, rather than is tossed
aside.
>It appears that Duke has pointed me to a description of soul that in its
>first sentence seems to indicate that indeed the term soul is a
>philosophical construct. It would therefore seem that Duke is agreeing that
>the soul does not exist, by my definition as well as by the quote/link he
>provides me as a definition of soul. The soul is a philosophical construct
>of the mind, not a real thing.
Hardly. That would be true only if your spirit is false. For it also is
neither mass nor energy. Your thoughts are neither mass nor energy. Why not
your soul?
>Later Larry
Later, later.
George Peatty
wrote:
>In this universe, I believe that it is very well understood, founded in
>masses of data derived from many many experiments, that there are two basic
>forms, matter and energy, interchangeable and operating on one another
>through many operators. How is it then that a soul can operate on,
>generating effects in common matter and or energy? How is it that we know of
>this soul, if none of the means of determining the presence of matter or
>energy, that we being made up of these stuffs are intimate in the use there
>of. You claim intimate knowledge of this soul but have no means of detection
>thereof, or proof of existence.
Well, as for proving the soul exists, that's easy. As a preacher once told
me, you don't have a soul. You *are* one. Body and soul becomes a
meaningful distinction only for the deceased; for the living, it is a
tautology, or a distinction without a difference.
George Peatty
wrote:
>Does theology have some means of detection of this soul, what experiments
>does theology use that detect it, and describe its properties? It is neither
>matter or energy, what is it then. It sounds suspiciously like some sort of
>philosophical construct, and therefore does not really exist, in the
>physical world.
That conclusion only holds when you assume only that which is detectible,
measurable, quantifiable can be said to exist. I make different
assumptions, and therefore reach different conclusions ..
George Peatty
wrote:
>You need a good bit more empirical data to make a case that has a
>significantly high probability to begin to allow me to believe in your soul.
That, sir, is exactly my point. I postulate the existence of that for which
no empirical evidence is possible. My philosophy professor gave me an
illustration.
Imagine the illusion of a cat. We know that it is an illusion, and that
therefore no cat exists, but does the illusion exist? Is it a cat? We
don't know, and we can never know. It is ludicrous to say "I see a cat."
It is equally ludicrous to say "I see nothing." So, what do we see, and how
do we prove it?
George Peatty
wrote:
>You claim intimate knowledge of this soul but have no means of detection
>thereof, or proof of existence.
I have no scientific knowledge that proves a soul. That is not to say there
is no knowledge at all. There are other disciplines for unraveling the
fundamental questions of life: theology, for example.
Enkidu
So Tinkerbell exists for you? Got any reason to say "No"? Any reason
that doesn't also apply to God?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who
crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion have always
proved themselves intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?
-- Robert E. Lee
Now playing: Beat Farmers - Riverside
George Peatty
wrote:
>In this universe, I believe that it is very well understood, founded in
>masses of data derived from many many experiments, that there are two basic
>forms, matter and energy, interchangeable and operating on one another
>through many operators.
The flaw in your logic is the assumption that this interaction between
matter and energy is the only action going on. Your statement that there
are two basic forms, matter and energy, assumes a closed system; it does not
prove one. To claim otherwise is to reason in circles: It's closed,
therefore there are only two basic forms; there are only two basic forms,
which prove it's closed. I don't believe either statement.
Enkidu
>>You need a good bit more empirical data to make a case that has a
>>significantly high probability to begin to allo
>>wmetobelieveinyoursoul.
>
> That, sir, is exactly my point. I postulate the existence of that for
> which no empirical evidence is possible. My philosophy professor
> gave me an illustration.
Posulate away. That's no reason to believe in something.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that
whosoever would believe in him would probably believe just about anything.
-- unknown
Enkidu
Wishful thinking, you mean.
George Peatty
wrote:
>You claim intimate knowledge of this soul but have no means of detection
>thereof, or proof of existence.
The brain is the soul's interface to the material world. There was a Star
Trek episode which demonstrated this metaphorically better than I ever
could. The episode was called Interface.
Laforge had created a device that would project an intangible replica of
himself when he stood inside it. This allowed him to work in environments
that were otherwise life threatening. This replica, though noncorporeal,
was able to interact with its environment. Laforge steps into the interface
chamber, and voila! he was somewhere else .. So, here's the metaphor
Soul___________________Brain_______________Body
Body__________________Interface_________Hologram
When he's inside the chamber there is no distinction between his real self,
and his projection. When Geordi stepped out of the interface chamber, the
projection ceased to function. When our soul steps out of our brain, we
cease to function. It is something of a paradox that a body can be a
metaphor for a soul, and a hologram can be a metaphor for a body, but there
you are. I don't claim that this illustration proves anything, but it does
describe the soul's relation to the body ..
Jason Gastrich
Jim,
I'm not asking you to answer the question for me. I'm asking you to answer
the question as if it was directed toward you.
Regards,
Jason Gastrich
> In article <KTQRd.5614$VD5....@twister.socal.rr.com>, usenetspam1
> @yahoo.com says...
>> Mike Painter has been chasing me around saying he wants me to answer
>> questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get these
>> questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious as
>> this is, I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his
>> questions.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>>
>
>
> I think you're the one who needs help, Jason. It might be easier to
> just answer the questions,
That's the very point. There are no questions.
Regards,
Jason
> even though your answers will probably do
> nothing more than makes a lot of us chuckle..
>
>
> BDK
--
Jason Gastrich
> "BDK" <kingrat...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c835c3be...@news.buckeye-express.com...
>> In article <KTQRd.5614$VD5....@twister.socal.rr.com>, usenetspam1
>> @yahoo.com says...
>>> Mike Painter has been chasing me around saying he wants me to answer
>>> questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get these
>>> questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious as
>>> this is, I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his
>>> questions.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think you're the one who needs help, Jason. It might be easier to
>> just answer the questions, even though your answers will probably do
>> nothing more than makes a lot of us chuckle..
>>
>>
>> BDK
>
> If Mike posted those question 79 times, Jason would still say that he
> hasn't seen them. Of course, he hasn't. It's called deliberate
> avoidance. If he admitted that he has seen them...several times...,
> he'd have to answer them. He knows that he can't, so he'll never
> admit it.
Oh sure. There's a question I can't answer, eh? Even by saying, "I don't
know," you still think I can't answer? You think I can't do some research
if I don't know something and at least post some kind of answer? You
obviously don't know me at all.
Regards,
Jason
Jason Gastrich
Bent over backwards, eh?
My obvious contempt? How do you figure?
I've considered keeping detailed records of people I meet on usenet, the
things they say, etc. It would surely be something interesting to reveal
them when these same people shove things in my face that they say I've done
or intended. Nonetheless, I haven't started keeping these records, yet.
I'm not even sure that I will. It would probably be pretty depressing to
have a written record from various people regarding their swearing and
misbehavior; only to use it in defense when I'm attacked. I suppose I have
better things to do with my time.
In the past few days, you've said some mean-spirited things to me. Check
the archives if you can't remember.
>>> Is it your belief that the evolution from Plecco to Plecostomus,
>>> from Plecostomus to Plecco or both from a common ancestor may
>>> have been observed?
>>
>> I don't know.
>
>
> You don't know if you believe that this may have been observed or
> not? How can you not know what you believe?
I don't know if this was observed or not.
>>> If so how long do you think it took and who
>>> do you think may have made the observation?
>>>
>>>
>>> Also:
>>>
>>> Here's something you said in a prior post:
>>>
>>> "I'm a firm believer in the evolution that we have observed. I'm
>>> a sincere skeptic in the evolution that some people assume
>>> happened."
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/5uv3u
>>>
>>> From this, it sounds like you think that Plecco/Plecostomus
>>> evolution may have been observed. Is that the case? And, if so,
>>> how do you think the observation was made? Do you think that a
>>> scientist put a Plecco in a fish tank, watched it for a few days
>>> and then said "Aha! Just as I expected. The Plecco has just given
>>> birth to a Plecostomus!"?
>>
>> I sincerely don't know if this has been observed or not.
>
>
> I didn't ask if it had been observed. I was asking what you
> thought would constitute such an observation.
>
> Let me rephrase:
>
> Do you believe that no such observation could be made by a means
> other than someone sitting around watching fish breed?
I have no idea.
>> I think I see
>> where you're going with this though, and it hardly authenticates
>> microbe to man evolution.
>
>
> I'm just trying to see what you think the evidence, if it exists
> for Plecco/Plecostomus evolution, would consist of.
K.
Don Kresch
<pttyg4...@copper.net> let us all know that:
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:23:08 -0500, "Larry Heath" <lgh...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In this universe, I believe that it is very well understood, founded in
>>masses of data derived from many many experiments, that there are two basic
>>forms, matter and energy, interchangeable and operating on one another
>>through many operators. How is it then that a soul can operate on,
>>generating effects in common matter and or energy? How is it that we know of
>>this soul, if none of the means of determining the presence of matter or
>>energy, that we being made up of these stuffs are intimate in the use there
>>of. You claim intimate knowledge of this soul but have no means of detection
>>thereof, or proof of existence.
>
>Well, as for proving the soul exists, that's easy. As a preacher once told
>me, you don't have a soul. You *are* one.
Argument by blatant assertion.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Jason Gastrich
And those that reject God are easier to understand?
I plonked "Pastor" Dave awhile ago, so I won't be dancing with him any time
soon.
David
Rejection of you doesn't necessarily equate to a rejection of God,
Jason.
> I plonked "Pastor" Dave awhile ago, so I won't be dancing with him
any time
> soon.
You plonked "Pastor" Dave, "Doctor," because you tried to place
irrelevant and unnecessary restrictions on a direct discussion of the
actual issues, and he wouldn't dance to YOUR tune.
I'm no fan of "Pastor" Dave, "Doctor," but it's quite clear to me that
you plonked him - assuming that you truly "plonk" anyone - because you
couldn't answer the issues that existed between the two of you.
In short, "Doctor," you were AFRAID of "Pastor" Dave.
David
> Jim07D5 wrote:
< snip >
> >> Hi Jim,
> >>
> >> Nice to meet you. Or have we met?
> >
> > Only a few exchanges while you were a write in candidate.
> >>
> >> Please answer your question for me, then I'll consider answering
it.
> >>
> >
> > To answer the question for you would be presumptive. But I can't
> > imagine any; that's my impression. You could change that
impression.
> >
> > Jim07D5
>
> Jim,
>
> I'm not asking you to answer the question for me. I'm asking you to
answer
> the question as if it was directed toward you.
Why not just answer the question as it was put to YOU, Jason, without
going through all of this nonsense?
David
Do you have a rebuttal that can indicate this isn't true, Jason?
Gregory has been civil to you - as have most of your questioners, quite
frankly, - and you have taken his questioning as hostile because it is
based on a presume that at least appears to disagree with yours.
And you can't have disagreement.
Disagreement with YOU is tantamount to disagreement with GOD.
I think that's a common impression that you convey.
> My obvious contempt? How do you figure?
I think he EXPLAINED how he "figured," Jason.
> I've considered keeping detailed records of people I meet on usenet,
the
> things they say, etc. It would surely be something interesting to
reveal
> them when these same people shove things in my face that they say
I've done
> or intended. Nonetheless, I haven't started keeping these records,
yet.
Have a talk with one, Doctor Peter Nyikos, at the University of South
Carolina, about keeping lists, Jason. He's a pro.
Of course, he's got a REAL doctorate, but he was rather commonly found
in the defense of the often-indefensible. You might find a sympathetic
ear.
> I'm not even sure that I will. It would probably be pretty
depressing to
> have a written record from various people regarding their swearing
and
> misbehavior; only to use it in defense when I'm attacked. I suppose
I have
> better things to do with my time.
Like posting lies and more lies to Usenet?
Like showing people constant disrespect - while disobeying Jesus - and
praying for them in public?
And so on.
And so on.
And so on.
> In the past few days, you've said some mean-spirited things to me.
Check
> the archives if you can't remember.
Why not just cite specifics, Jason?
And by the way, you really not to stop whining about "mean-spirited"
things said to you.
You engage in those things readily and often with little or no cause.
> >>> Is it your belief that the evolution from Plecco to Plecostomus,
> >>> from Plecostomus to Plecco or both from a common ancestor may
> >>> have been observed?
> >>
> >> I don't know.
> >
> > You don't know if you believe that this may have been observed or
> > not? How can you not know what you believe?
>
> I don't know if this was observed or not.
See how easy that was, Jason?
And, as it turns out, you have no idea, yet you extrapolated it to
something that may or may not have been intended, you dismissed it
outright, and you have no intention of telling us what you think the
evidence should look like, because you just don't know.
Fascinating.
David
Actually, Jason, if that's her appraisal of you, she knows you quite
well.
It needs to start occurring to you that if this is a widespread
perception of you - and it is - that maybe the problem is your approach
and not in what has been observed thus far.
But you'll never get that.
David
> BDK wrote:
> > In article <KTQRd.5614$VD5....@twister.socal.rr.com>, usenetspam1
> > @yahoo.com says...
> >> Mike Painter has been chasing me around saying he wants me to
answer
> >> questions. Well, as most of you know, I've been trying to get
these
> >> questions out of him and he won't tell them to me. As delirious
as
> >> this is, I'm hoping someone can help Mike either recall or ask his
> >> questions.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Jason
> >
> > I think you're the one who needs help, Jason. It might be easier to
> > just answer the questions,
>
> That's the very point. There are no questions.
Of course there are.
You're lying, Jason.
A refusal to answer doesn't mean that the questions don't exist.
"Pastor" Dave tried that exact same tactic, and ran when I exposed it -
among other things.
You two really aren't any different, are you, except that he seems to
know and can argue his Bible better than you can.
Jim07D5
As I said, "I don't expect those on either side of this can come up
with any such words; whether true or not." That's my answer, and I
gave it at the start. You are invited to answer that way, or another
way, or not at all.
Jim07D5
Jason Gastrich
Jim,
There is a zero percent chance of my "deconversion." I've simply seen,
learned, and experienced far too much of God to ever deny Him.
God bless,
Mark K. Bilbo
Gastrich lumbered into the room and mumbled:
> There is a zero percent chance of my "deconversion."
Yeah. You're just not bright enough...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
David
< snip >
> Jim,
>
> There is a zero percent chance of my "deconversion." I've simply
seen,
> learned, and experienced far too much of God to ever deny Him.
Yes, God did keep you from having to wear glasses, right, Jason?
He tells you jokes.
He fixes your car and your computer CD device.
As far as *I* know - and I know more than you - God doesn't bother with
those things. So I guess I'd want to know how you decided that this
was "God."
Other than the fact that you are about as far from God as anyone can
get, Jason, I'd have to agree with you, though. Any thought that YOU
would "deconvert" would imply that you'd have the courage to look at
these issues objectively.
You don't have the courage to do that; and you'll never have it.
Mike Painter
>>
>> I think you're the one who needs help, Jason. It might be easier to
>> just answer the questions,
>
> That's the very point. There are no questions.
>
At 4:13, just a few minutes earlier Jason wrote:
"Some people have come to your aid and posted some of your past questions.
You should thank them. I'll be answering them in that thread."
Tell me, Jason, did the questions disappear in that time span?
Did you forget?
Mike Painter
>>>
>>> I think you're the one who needs help, Jason. It might be easier to
>>> just answer the questions, even though your answers will probably do
>>> nothing more than makes a lot of us chuckle..
>>>
>>>
>>> BDK
>>
>> If Mike posted those question 79 times, Jason would still say that he
>> hasn't seen them. Of course, he hasn't. It's called deliberate
>> avoidance. If he admitted that he has seen them...several times...,
>> he'd have to answer them. He knows that he can't, so he'll never
>> admit it.
>
> Oh sure. There's a question I can't answer, eh? Even by saying, "I
> don't know," you still think I can't answer? You think I can't do
> some research if I don't know something and at least post some kind
> of answer? You obviously don't know me at all.
>
Can't , won't, it doesn't matter. You have not answered them even though you
said you would answer them and then said they didn't exist.
Larry Heath
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:uqrk11tm4b5fsgeh9...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:34:41 -0500, "Larry Heath" <lgh...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"The question of the reality of the soul and its distinction from the body
>>is among the most important problems of philosophy, for with it is bound
>>up
>>the doctrine of a future life."
>
>>The quote above is the first line that comes from the definition of soul
>>from the link provided by Duke at the above link.
>
>>Again, quoting myself from the question previous to this response:
>>"Does theology have some means of detection of this soul, what experiments
>>does theology use that detect it, and describe its properties? It is
>>neither
>>matter or energy, what is it then.
>
> It is
> spirit if anything. God is spirit.
"Spirit" is this another Philosophical construct, it seems so to me. Which
it seems in some way makes me a god? Soul = spirit = god. You say everyone
has a soul therefore everyone must be a god. Man let me take off my shirt
the shit is getting to deep to save my pants. I tell you what there are a
heck of a lot of, VERY, poor gods running around.
>
>>***********
>> It sounds suspiciously like some sort of philosophical construct, and
>>therefore does not really exist, in the physical world.
>>***********
>
> We certainly can't touch it like we can our fingers.
There are many things that I can't put my fingers on, but I have mounds of
very well documented evidence for the existence of.
>>Except as a manifestation of a mind that can not or does not
>>wish to deal with the high probability that on its death, that it is all
>>over there is no more life or sentient existence."
>
> Why not? Why would God put you here to suffer thru 70 years of life for
> which
> you contributed and then have you die and all is gone.
I started off with soul, thinking that you might be able to provide some
significant evidence for that, now you wish to use another unsupported
theological construct. Now add to that the side track that I am some how
suffering. Are you suffering? I am enjoying every second of life as best as
I can.
>
> It makes more sense that something of you moves onward, rather than is
> tossed
> aside.
Makes sense? That you have an idea, that is unsupported, by any physical,
consistently reproducible information. I would describe that as NON-sense.
>
>>It appears that Duke has pointed me to a description of soul that in its
>>first sentence seems to indicate that indeed the term soul is a
>>philosophical construct. It would therefore seem that Duke is agreeing
>>that
>>the soul does not exist, by my definition as well as by the quote/link he
>>provides me as a definition of soul. The soul is a philosophical construct
>>of the mind, not a real thing.
>
> Hardly. That would be true only if your spirit is false. For it also is
> neither mass nor energy. Your thoughts are neither mass nor energy.
Thoughts are neither mass nor energy?
No! That is not so. You can put any person in a PET (Positron Emission
Tomography) scanner and literally watch thoughts occurring inside the brain.
It takes energy for the cells of the brain produce thoughts, thoughts are
known to be chemical reactions (energy) in the cells of the brain, those are
made of matter. This can be done consistently and reproducibly.
Or you can do a good old fashioned, EEG and watch the electrical activity
occurring in the brain. Dude you really need to think before you type, you
seem to keep shooting yourself in the foot.
My spirit is false? What is this some sort of American Indian thing? (no
offence to American Indians) I would say this as psycho-babble, considering
the source it seems a reasonable description.
Later Larry
AA# 2216
David
One of the reasons that Jason is a pathological liar is because of his
psychological issues AND that he never learned the lesson the rest of
us learned as children.
When you tell a lie, you have to tell other lies to cover it up, and
you lose track of the lies.
In Jason's case, it didn't take long.
Mike Painter
George, please move this to another thread. Jason has promised to answer my
questions here and earlier today, just before he said there were none, he
indicated, once again that he would.
Jason has a hard time staying on task.
Thank's
Mark K. Bilbo
<1109039758.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, David lumbered
into the room and mumbled:
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>> Jim,
>>
>> There is a zero percent chance of my "deconversion." I've simply
> seen,
>> learned, and experienced far too much of God to ever deny Him.
>
> Yes, God did keep you from having to wear glasses, right, Jason?
>
> He tells you jokes.
Okay now *that is creepy...
David
> In our last episode
> <1109039758.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, David
lumbered
> into the room and mumbled:
>
> > Jason Gastrich wrote:
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> >> Jim,
> >>
> >> There is a zero percent chance of my "deconversion." I've simply
> > seen,
> >> learned, and experienced far too much of God to ever deny Him.
> >
> > Yes, God did keep you from having to wear glasses, right, Jason?
> >
> > He tells you jokes.
>
> Okay now *that is creepy...
Well, only if the jokes aren't funny.
But then, you don't dare fail to laugh, I should think.
Jason said this in an "interview" with The Infidel Guy
(www.infidelguy.com) and he also told Dan Barker in THAT "interview"
that God talks to him.
When Dan Barker asked the quite logical question, "what does God sound
like," Jason was quite put off and though the was being ridiculed.
Now, whether he was or not, it was a reasonable question and, as I
recall, Jason wouldn't answer it.
I think Jason has some rather serious psychological issues, and that's
just another reason he shouldn't be running a ministry.
Jason Gastrich
> "Jason Gastrich" <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f14Sd.7308$VD5....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> Budikka666 wrote:
>>> I've frequently asked you questions from which you've run.
>>
>> Either:
>>
>> 1. Prove it.
>>
>> 2. Repost them.
>>
>> 3. Admit you're lying.
>>
>>> It's your
>>> trademark, so don't come whining that someone isn't doing your work
>>> for you.
>>
>> Nobody knows what Mike's questions are. He doesn't even know.
>>
>> I think Mike had some long, rambling paragraphs. I don't think he
>> had any questions and this is probably why he cannot ask succint
>> questions. He doesn't have any. He wanted to hear himself talk
>> just like he wants to hear
>> himself talk, now.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>> --
>>
>> --------
>>
>> Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
>> http://www.jcsm.org
>> Over 90,000 web pages!
>>
>
>
> the questions were reposted for you, I had no trouble understanding
> them. Maybe it's because you're too lazy to reread the original
> discussion.
>
> Questions from Budikka...http://tinyurl.com/3oqnn
Please avoid name-calling. This isn't a playground.
I'm talking about MIKE's questions. Not BUDIKKA's questions. You
apparently reposted some old questions from someone other than Mike. Do you
realize this?
> Really...it's not that difficult
>
> 1. The Bible claims the entire universe was created out of nothing
> and the Earth created and populated in a period of six, literal 24
> hour successive days. Are you saying this is true? If so, please
> post your three best evidences supporting such a claim. If not,
> please withdraw your claim that he Bible is inerrant.
Yes.
1. The inerrancy of the verifiable scriptures
2. My personal relationship with the biblical God
3. Fulfilled prophecy
> 2. Has everyone sinned or not? According to John 15:22, there were at
> least some people who had no sins until Jesus talked to them, and from
> that point on they were apparently awash in sin: "If I had not come
> and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak
> for their sin." But Paul, the inventor of christianity, said, "For
> all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Ro 3:23). So
> which is it?
Even the Skeptic's Annotated Bible doesn't list this as an alleged error.
You've grossly misinterpreted John 15:22.
Here is Adam Clarke's comments on it:
But now they have no cloke for their sinó(margin: Or, excuse) They are
without excuse. See the note on John 9:41. Christ had done such works as
demonstrated him to be the Messiahóyet they rejected him: here lay their
sin; and this sin, and the punishment to which it exposed them, still
remain; for they still continue to reject the Lord that bought them.
Here is how the Living Bible paraphrases this verse:
"They would not be guilty if I had not come and spoken to them. But now they
have no excuse for their sin.
> 3. How many people were at the tomb of Jesus when it was discovered
> to be empty? Was it Miriam of Magdala and Miriam the mother of
> Jacobus (according to Matthew), or was it Miriam of Magdala, an
> unnamed israelite or Christian whose name became Joanna/Salome over
> retellings, Miriam the mother of Jacobus, and a host of women
> (according to Mark/Luke), or was it Miriam of Magdala alone (according
> to John)?
I've already answered this in another thread. Here it is again, though.
* John does not say that only one woman visited the tomb. John records Mary
Magdalene's visit to the tomb (in the dark).
* Matthew 28:1 reports that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were visiting
the tomb at dawn.
* Mark reports that Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome were visiting
the tomb while the sun was rising.
* Luke uses the word "they" and does not indicate who was visiting the tomb.
He only indicates who told the account to the disciples.
* These accounts do not contradict. First, there can be no argument from
silence. With this in mind, there are no conflicting stories, only separate
accounts. In order for a true conflict, one author would need to say that
one of the women listed, in one or more of the gospels, was not there.
* If we take these accounts literally and assume each author knew exactly
who was where at all times, then Mary Magdalene went to the tomb first.
Next, the other Mary joined her. Immediately thereafter, Salome joined
them. After this, they returned and told the disciples what had happened.
Citation: The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained,
http://skepticsannotatedbible.org
> 4. Why are there two different genealogies, different names, different
> lengths, given for Jesus, one in Matthew 1, and the other in Luke 3?
> And what is the point of these detailed genealogies if Joseph was not
> Jesus' father anyway?
* Both of these lists contain some omissions. They don't contradict each
other, though.
* Luke reveals the genealogy of Mary. Matthew lists the genealogy of
Joseph.
Citation: The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained,
http://skepticsannotatedbible.org
> 5. Why does god use the word 'us' to describe himself in several
> instances, such as gen 1:26, 11:7, etc?
He is referring to the trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the
Holy Spirit. They are one.
> 6. Was man really made from silicon (dirt) and woman from calcium
> (bone?). If so, how come they are essentially made from the same
> things nowadays?
Yes.
I don't know.
> 7. Which generation was Jesus talking about in Matthew 24:34?
I've answered this in another thread. Here it is again, though.
The Greek word for generation is "genea." Here is the definition from
Strong's:
From (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication an age
(the period or the persons):óage, generation, nation, time.
This is referring to the Church Age. We are currently in the Church Age.
> 8. Just what did the inscription on the cross say, since there is a
> different description of it in each of the gospels. Are all of these
> differing inscriptions inerrant?
> "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Matthew)
> "THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Mark)
> "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Luke)
> "JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS" (John)
* All of these accounts mention an inscription that was written in Latin,
Greek, and Hebrew. Mark and Luke record it saying "The King of the Jews."
Matthew records, "Jesus the King of the Jews." John records, "Jesus of
Nazareth, King of the Jews." These differences are negligible and are not
contradicting. A disagreement or contradiction would be one saying, "Jesus
of Lebanon, King of the Greeks." All of the gospels record similar and
congruent statements.
Citation: The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained,
http://skepticsannotatedbible.org
> 9. If Jesus' "death" on the cross destroyed the devil, as Hebrews
> suggests (Heb 2:14: "...he also himself likewise took part of the
> same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of
> death, that is, the devil.") why is he still alive and well today?
This word "destroy" can be used figuratively.
Here is Adam Clarke's comments:
The children are partakers of flesh and bloodóSince those children of God,
who have fallen and are to be redeemed, are human beings; in order to be
qualified to redeem them by suffering and dying in their stead, He himself
likewise took part of the sameóhe became incarnate; and thus he who was God
with God, became man with men. By the children here we are to understand,
not
only the disciples and all genuine Christians, as in verse 13, but also the
whole
human race; all Jews and all Gentiles; so John 11:51, 52: He prophesied that
Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but also
that he
should gather together in one the CHILDREN of GOD that were scattered
abroad;
meaning, probably, all the Jews in every part of the earth. But collate this
with 1
John 2:2, where: the evangelist explains the former words: He is the
propitiation
for our sins, (the Jews), and not for ours only, but for the sins of the
WHOLE
WORLD. As the apostle was writing to the Hebrews only, he in general uses a
Jewish phraseology, pointing out to them their own privileges; and rarely
introduces the Gentiles, or what the Messiah has done for the other nations
of the
earth.
That through deathóThat by the merit of his own death, making atonement
for sin, and procuring the almighty energy of the Holy Spirit, he might
counterwork Í·Ù·Ò„ÁÛÁ, or render useless and ineffectual, all the operations
of
him who had the power, ÍÒ·ÙÔÚ, or influence, to bring death into the world;
so
that death, which was intended by him who was a murderer from the beginning
to
be the final ruin of mankind, becomes the instrument of their exaltation and
endless glory; and thus the death brought in by Satan is counterworked and
rendered ineffectual by the death of Christ.
Him that had the power of deathóThis is spoken in conformity to an
opinion prevalent among the Jews, that there was a certain fallen angel who
was
called ˙ÂÓ‰ ͇ÏÓ malak hammaveth, the angel of death; i.e. one who had
the power of separating the soul from the body, when God decreed that the
person should die. There were two of these, according to some of the Jewish
writers: one was the angel of death to the Gentiles; the other, to the Jews.
Thus
Tob haarets, fol. 31: "There are two angels which preside over death: one is
over
those who die out of the land of Israel, and his name is Sammael; the other
is he
who presides over those who die in the land of Israel, and this is Gabriel."
Sammael is a common name for the devil among the Jews; and there is a
tradition
among them, delivered by the author of Pesikta rabbetha in Yalcut Simeoni,
par.
2, f. 56, that the angel of death should be destroyed by the Messiah! "Satan
said
to the holy blessed God: Lord of the world, show me the Messiah. The Lord
answered: Come and see him. And when he had seen him he was terrified, and
his countenance fell, and he said: Most certainly this is the Messiah who
shall
cast me and all the nations into hell, as it is written Isaiah 25:8, The
Lord shall
swallow up death for ever." This is a very remarkable saying, and the
apostle
shows that it is true, for the Messiah came to destroy him who had the power
of
death. Dr. Owen has made some collections on this head from other Jewish
writers which tend to illustrate this verse; they may he seen in his
comment, vol.
i., p. 456, 8vo. edition.
> 10. Why didn't Adam die "in the day" he ate of the tree of knowledge,
> as God had predicted in Gen 2:17?
His death wasn't a physical death. It was a spiritual death. He was in
need of redemption after sinning against God.
Regards,
Gregory A Greenman
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David <hdsien...@yahoo.com>
declared...
Hoops. There wouldn't be enough of them. Jason will happily
answer any question asked of him, provided you jump through a few
dozen hoops first.
--
Greg
----
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
David
> kathryn wrote:
< snip >
> Please avoid name-calling. This isn't a playground.
When you refer to people as "evil," among other things, that's not
"name-calling?"
< snip >
> > Really...it's not that difficult
> >
> > 1. The Bible claims the entire universe was created out of nothing
> > and the Earth created and populated in a period of six, literal 24
> > hour successive days. Are you saying this is true? If so, please
> > post your three best evidences supporting such a claim. If not,
> > please withdraw your claim that he Bible is inerrant.
>
> Yes.
>
> 1. The inerrancy of the verifiable scriptures
Define "verifiable scriptures."
> 2. My personal relationship with the biblical God
Ah, yes, the jokes being told to you, the talks you have had (were you
planning on telling Dan what God sounds like in your "rematch,"
Jason?), the sponaneous healings so you don't have to wear glasses, and
the repairs on your car and your CD drive?
Of course, none of these things are verifiable and could easily be
viewed as self-serving - even dishonest - claims.
> 3. Fulfilled prophecy
Your examples of "fulfilled prophesy" have been shown to be false.
< snip the rest for later >
David
I'm 6'8" and somewhere in the vicinity of 280 pounds, but I was
horribly awkward and terrible at basketball.
So I would rather prefer straight answers.
Jason knows that, and he knows he doesn't have them.
Hence, his "oath to God."
Mark K. Bilbo
<1109042222.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David lumbered
into the room and mumbled:
> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>> In our last episode
>> <1109039758.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, David
> lumbered
>> into the room and mumbled:
>>
>> > Jason Gastrich wrote:
>> >
>> > < snip >
>> >
>> >> Jim,
>> >>
>> >> There is a zero percent chance of my "deconversion." I've simply
>> > seen,
>> >> learned, and experienced far too much of God to ever deny Him.
>> >
>> > Yes, God did keep you from having to wear glasses, right, Jason?
>> >
>> > He tells you jokes.
>>
>> Okay now *that is creepy...
>
> Well, only if the jokes aren't funny.
>
> But then, you don't dare fail to laugh, I should think.
Heh. Speaking of the Godfather. <g>
> Jason said this in an "interview" with The Infidel Guy
> (www.infidelguy.com) and he also told Dan Barker in THAT "interview" that
> God talks to him.
>
> When Dan Barker asked the quite logical question, "what does God sound
> like," Jason was quite put off and though the was being ridiculed.
You know, I knew somebody who could tell you.
(And I'm related to them. You wanna talk creepy? <brrrrr>)
> Now, whether he was or not, it was a reasonable question and, as I recall,
> Jason wouldn't answer it.
>
> I think Jason has some rather serious psychological issues, and that's
> just another reason he shouldn't be running a ministry.
I suspect you have a point there...
Gregory A Greenman
> > Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > > In article <Hc8Sd.7342$VD5....@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
> > > Gastrich <usene...@yahoo.com> declared...
> > >> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
>
> > >>> Is it your belief that the evolution from Plecco to Plecostomus,
> > >>> from Plecostomus to Plecco or both from a common ancestor may
> > >>> have been observed?
> > >>
> > >> I don't know.
> > >
> > > You don't know if you believe that this may have been observed or
> > > not? How can you not know what you believe?
> >
> > I don't know if this was observed or not.
>
> See how easy that was, Jason?
David,
You're giving Jason too much credit here. He still has not
answered the question. I'm asking if he thinks it was possible
such an observation was made, or IOW, might that evolution have
actually happened. He didn't tell me if he thinks it is possible,
he just told me he doesn't know if it happened.
An analogy:
Detective Greg:
Is it possible that the suspect committed the crime?
Witness Jason:
I don't know if the suspect committed the crime.
Mark K. Bilbo
<1109042554....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David lumbered
into the room and mumbled:
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
>> kathryn wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>> Please avoid name-calling. This isn't a playground.
>
> When you refer to people as "evil," among other things, that's not
> "name-calling?"
Of course not! Widdle Jasy is daddy god's favowite shugar pants.
Yes he is! Yes he is!
Gregory A Greenman
> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > In article <Hc8Sd.7342$VD5....@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
> > Gastrich <usene...@yahoo.com> declared...
> >> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> >>> Gastrich <usene...@yahoo.com> declared...
> >>>> Incidentally, the unbelievers are using a peculiar MO, now. I'm
> >>>> here in plain sight ready to answer ANY question under the Sun, so
> >>>> the only way they can paint me in a bad light is to say I won't
> >>>> answer questions and that I "run" from them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course, I'm here. Of course, I'm asking for the questions.
> >>>> However, nobody will post them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Only if these people knew how silly they looked. Saying I'm
> >>>> "running" when I'm in plain sight. Saying I'm "avoiding" when I'm
> >>>> asking for questions. Haha.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jason,
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure why you think it's funny to act in such a childish
> >>> manner, but since you insist that you'll answer questions that
> >>> are put to you, how about the questions I asked you three times
> >>> at:
> >>
> >> Sure, Greg. In your case, I have read some insulting and demeaning
> >> things from you to me. This has caused you to move lower on my
> >> priority list. I will answer your questions now, though.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Above, I said you were acting in a childish manner. Besides that,
> > what insulting and demeaning things have I said to or about you?
> > I have bent over backwards to be civil to you, despite your
> > obvious contempt for me and other atheists.
>
> Bent over backwards, eh?
Alot of people have accused you of lying. I have not done so. Nor
have I used any offensive language toward you.
> My obvious contempt? How do you figure?
Oh, I don't know. How about praying for people that you know
would prefer not to be prayed for? How about repeatedly telling
us we're going to hell, while bragging about how saved you are?
How about the games you play with people that try to ask you
questions?
> I've considered keeping detailed records of people I meet on usenet, the
> things they say, etc. It would surely be something interesting to reveal
> them when these same people shove things in my face that they say I've done
> or intended. Nonetheless, I haven't started keeping these records, yet.
> I'm not even sure that I will. It would probably be pretty depressing to
> have a written record from various people regarding their swearing and
> misbehavior; only to use it in defense when I'm attacked. I suppose I have
> better things to do with my time.
Well, conveniently, google does that work for you.
> In the past few days, you've said some mean-spirited things to me. Check
> the archives if you can't remember.
You made the accusation, you need to support the claim. I believe
it is untrue. Cite some of my comments and prove me wrong or
withdraw the claim.
> >>> Is it your belief that the evolution from Plecco to Plecostomus,
> >>> from Plecostomus to Plecco or both from a common ancestor may
> >>> have been observed?
> >>
> >> I don't know.
> >
> >
> > You don't know if you believe that this may have been observed or
> > not? How can you not know what you believe?
>
> I don't know if this was observed or not.
My question is: Do you think it is even possible that such an
observation could have been made? Not: Do you think such an
observation was made?
>
> >>> If so how long do you think it took and who
> >>> do you think may have made the observation?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Also:
> >>>
> >>> Here's something you said in a prior post:
> >>>
> >>> "I'm a firm believer in the evolution that we have observed. I'm
> >>> a sincere skeptic in the evolution that some people assume
> >>> happened."
> >>>
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/5uv3u
> >>>
> >>> From this, it sounds like you think that Plecco/Plecostomus
> >>> evolution may have been observed. Is that the case? And, if so,
> >>> how do you think the observation was made? Do you think that a
> >>> scientist put a Plecco in a fish tank, watched it for a few days
> >>> and then said "Aha! Just as I expected. The Plecco has just given
> >>> birth to a Plecostomus!"?
> >>
> >> I sincerely don't know if this has been observed or not.
> >
> >
> > I didn't ask if it had been observed. I was asking what you
> > thought would constitute such an observation.
> >
> > Let me rephrase:
> >
> > Do you believe that no such observation could be made by a means
> > other than someone sitting around watching fish breed?
>
> I have no idea.
In another post, you said:
"I'm a firm believer in the evolution that we have observed.
I'm a sincere skeptic in the evolution that some people
assume happened."
Now, you are in effect saying that you have no idea what might
constitute an observation. So, a paraphrase of that first
sentence might look like this:
"I'm a firm believer in the evolution that meets a criteria that
I have no knowledge of."
If you have no idea what that criteria is, how do you know what
evolution meets it and what doesn't? You seem to think that
Plecco/Plecostomus evolution might meet it. How about Ape/Human?
How about Lion/Tiger or Horse/Zebra or Lion/Zebra?
Jason Gastrich
> In article <1109033305.259758.219000
> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David <hdsien...@yahoo.com>
> declared...
>> Jason Gastrich wrote:
>>> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
>>>> In article <Hc8Sd.7342$VD5....@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
>>>> Gastrich <usene...@yahoo.com> declared...
>>>>> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Is it your belief that the evolution from Plecco to Plecostomus,
>>>>>> from Plecostomus to Plecco or both from a common ancestor may
>>>>>> have been observed?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know if you believe that this may have been observed or
>>>> not? How can you not know what you believe?
>>>
>>> I don't know if this was observed or not.
>>
>> See how easy that was, Jason?
>
>
>
> David,
>
> You're giving Jason too much credit here. He still has not
> answered the question. I'm asking if he thinks it was possible
> such an observation was made, or IOW, might that evolution have
> actually happened. He didn't tell me if he thinks it is possible,
> he just told me he doesn't know if it happened.
I don't know whether or not it's possible.
> An analogy:
>
> Detective Greg:
> Is it possible that the suspect committed the crime?
>
> Witness Jason:
> I don't know if the suspect committed the crime.
--
--------
Jason Gastrich
I don't feel as if I'm repeatedly telling you that you're going to Hell.
I'm not sure if I've ever told you this.
I don't brag about my salvation as if it has anything to do with my good
deeds. I'm a sinner saved by God's grace and love.
I'm not aware of any games that I play when people try and ask me questions.
I'm happy to answer questions to the best of my ability.
Don't buy the hype. People know I answer questions. If they didn't, then
they'd repeat them. I see nothing repeated, so it's safe to say that the
questions have been answered. They just don't like the answers.
>> I've considered keeping detailed records of people I meet on usenet,
>> the things they say, etc. It would surely be something interesting
>> to reveal them when these same people shove things in my face that
>> they say I've done or intended. Nonetheless, I haven't started
>> keeping these records, yet. I'm not even sure that I will. It would
>> probably be pretty depressing to have a written record from various
>> people regarding their swearing and misbehavior; only to use it in
>> defense when I'm attacked. I suppose I have better things to do
>> with my time.
>
>
> Well, conveniently, google does that work for you.
>
>
>
>
>> In the past few days, you've said some mean-spirited things to me.
>> Check the archives if you can't remember.
>
>
> You made the accusation, you need to support the claim. I believe
> it is untrue. Cite some of my comments and prove me wrong or
> withdraw the claim.
Like I said, I'm not going to hunt through archives to quote you or anyone
else. I simply felt like some of your posts to me where inappropriate; not
inappropriate enough to plonk you, as I've plonked many, lately.
>>>>> Is it your belief that the evolution from Plecco to Plecostomus,
>>>>> from Plecostomus to Plecco or both from a common ancestor may
>>>>> have been observed?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know.
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't know if you believe that this may have been observed or
>>> not? How can you not know what you believe?
>>
>> I don't know if this was observed or not.
>
>
> My question is: Do you think it is even possible that such an
> observation could have been made? Not: Do you think such an
> observation was made?
I don't know.
Regards,
Jason
David
< snip >
> I'm not aware of any games that I play when people try and ask me
questions.
> I'm happy to answer questions to the best of my ability.
>
> Don't buy the hype. People know I answer questions.
Which people, Jason?
> If they didn't, then they'd repeat them.
They DO repeat them.
In fact, Davey whined about precisely that in the comments to which I
responded in the rebuttal thread to "the man they love to hate."
> I see nothing repeated, so it's safe to say that the
> questions have been answered. They just don't like the answers.
Does anyone - or everyone - see a problem with this?
And that's all I have time for tonight.
See you all tomorrow.
You, too, Jason.
< snip for later >
Jim07D5
I would like to ask you, then to describe your motivation in such
posts as this, of yours, quoted from above:
>>>>>>> I sincerely don't know if this has been observed or not. I
>>>>>>> think I see where you're going with this though, and it hardly
>>>>>>> authenticates microbe to man evolution.
...since it appears that *nothing* would authenticate for you,
anything that would "deconvert" you.
I also want to point out, and get your response to the fact, that
there are many theists who believe that God used the mechanism of
biological evolution to arrive at the human biological form. Would
your having such a believe require that you "deny" God? It seems so,
but I want to check in case I have it wrong.
Please take note of the fact that I am not disparaging your position.
I want to understand why it is that there are theists to whom
biological evolution stands as a challenge to their belief in deity.
What is so compelling and necessary to your faith, about direct
creation of all species? But you are free to cut this off if you want.
Jim07D5
Grinder
>>> The soul is the proof that the first law of
>>> thermodynamics is wrong, for it exists, and
>>> is neither matter, nor energy.
Grinder wrote:
>> For reference, this is the First Law of Thermodynamics:
>> The total inflow of energy into a system must equal the
>> total outflow of energy from the system, plus the
>> change in the energy contained within the system. In
>> other words, energy can be converted from one form to
>> another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
>> How does the soul violate this law? If the soul obtains
>> no energy or matter, I don't see how this law would even
>> apply to it, much less be violated by it.
George Peatty wrote:
> While I use wikipedia myself on occasion, I'm not sure
> it's the best source for information.
It gives a good rhetorical description of the law, and it's principle
implication -- that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it is
conserved. Eric Weisstein has it as:
dE = dQ - dW
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ThermodynamicLaws.html
Change in energy of a system (dE) must be equal to the change in heat
(dQ) less the work done (dW). Since "heat" and "work" have presumptive
meanings with respect to energy, I opted for the more liberal, but
still correct, description found in the wiki. Really, it's fine.
> As for the laws of thermodynamics, one must expand the
> discussion to include statements derived from them, such
> as Carl Sagan's
Must? I'll ride along, but if you intend to show that the existence of
souls invalidates the First Law of Thermodynamics (FLoT), you should be
able to demonstrate the conflict in its terms.
> "The cosmos is all there is, all there was, and all there
> ever will be." Not only does this statement require the
> universe to be a closed system, but it is the *only*
> closed system.
How is this a derivation of the FLoT?
I hope you'll permit me a analogy. The First Law of Birth Parties is:
The total inflow of partygoers into the living room must equal the
total outflow of partygoers out of the living room plus the change in
the count of the partygoers in the living room.
Is it a derivation of this law that my house does not permit any
partygoers to enter or leave the premises?
> Consider also this from an online article I read; "The two
> principal laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed
> systems, that is, entities with which there can be no
> exchange of energy, information, or material. The universe
> in its totality might be considered a closed system of this
> type; this would allow the two laws to be applied to it."
That's true for The Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLoT), but not the
first.
> One of two conclusions must hold, based on this statement
> and the reality of the soul: 1) the universe is not a
> closed system, and TD1 does not apply 2) the universe is
> a closed system, and TD1 is untrue.
Overlooking the mistaken impression of the FLoT as mentioned above, I
can still address this.
> Attempts to validate TD1 by claims that the soul does not
> exist, or that it exists, but is energy, and therefore subject
> to TD1 are not tenable.
Answering one question for me would take me to the heart of what you
are saying. Do you believe that the soul is comprised of energy?
> Attempts to disprove or cast doubt upon the reality of the
> soul by reference to TD1 are equally untenable.
I agree. I believe that any attempt to apply discovered natural laws
to supernatural events/phenomena would be misguided. It reminds me of
something Steve Martin once said: (likely paraphrased) "Talking about
music makes about as much sense as dancing about painting." I won't
say much more, however, until I'm clear on what you are saying -- see
the question immediately above.
David D.
George Peatty wrote:
> In article <1109074746.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Grinder
> says...
>
> >> Consider also this from an online article I read; "The two
> >> principal laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed
> >> systems, that is, entities with which there can be no
> >> exchange of energy, information, or material. The universe
> >> in its totality might be considered a closed system of this
> >> type; this would allow the two laws to be applied to it."
> >
> >That's true for The Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLoT), but not the
> >first.
>
but physics
> is not a subject on which I can be dogmatic. You'll need to exceed
my level of
> expertise (not hard; we're about there), or show additional support
for why I
> should believe your statement over that of the article I quote.
First this admission is admirable. Almost every time I see arguments
on this topic they probaly never should have started based on the high
level of ignorance of all parties involved.
This brings us to a further point. Why do you think the author of the
article you quote has a better understanding than experts in
thermodynamics? He may actually be at the same level as yourself but
is not intelligent enough to realise his limits.
Grinder
> [The soul] is neither matter nor energy. That is
> what creates the problem. However, it has in common
> with matter and energy the property that it, too, is
> conserved, that is, cannot be created or destroyed.
This makes it quite simple to specify the soul's implication on the
First Law of Thermodynamics, and vice versa -- there is none. The FLoT
(briefly) says that energy is conserved. If the soul is *not* energy,
the law simply does not apply to it.
> I'm afraid I'm in over my head. I can follow a lot of
> this stuff, but physics is not a subject on which I can
> be dogmatic. You'll need to exceed my level of expertise
> (not hard; we're about there), or show additional support
> for why I should believe your statement over that of the
> article I quote.
I had hoped the First Law of Birthday Parties analogy would have been
of some use in showing how the FLoT actually describes an *open*
system. You can see it from the rhetorical description. Note the
emphasized words:
>> The total *inflow* of energy into a system must equal the
>> total *outflow* of energy from the system, plus the
>> change in the energy contained within the system. In
>> other words, energy can be converted from one form to
>> another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
Two of the three terms in the equation are describing energy that comes
into or goes out of the system.
At any rate, I suspect the article you read may not have made as
explicit of an association as you now hold. Moreover if it is not a
discussion of physics, it may be abusing a metaphorical version of the
laws to make its point. Can you offer me a hyperlink so that I might
read it for myself?
Oh, here we go, you have addressed my analogy:
>> I hope you'll permit me a analogy. The First Law of
>> Birth Parties is:
>> The total inflow of partygoers into the living room
>> must equal the total outflow of partygoers out of the
>> living room plus the change in the count of the
>> partygoers in the living room.
>> Is it a derivation of this law that my house does not
>> permit any partygoers to enter or leave the premises?
> No, of course not. But, the difference between your
> house may not be simply a difference in degree. It may
> be a difference in kind. While guests may come and go,
> there is no "someplace else" with respect to the universe.
> That is why, if I'm understanding any of this, that it is
> assumed to be a closed system. I think (hope) that's
> what a closed system means.
That is a good understanding of "closed system." To be a bit more
specific, *energy* has no "someplace else" to go.
Whether or not the doors of the house (not the room) are impassable
does not affect the first law however, guests are still free to come
and go from the living room as the law dictates. That's the point of
my analogy.
> And, this whole concept of a closed system is what I
> focused on as I began to think about my earlier reply.
> Because, with respect to metaphysical notions like God
> and the soul, there *is* a "someplace else" And, since
> FLoT does not allow for a "someplace else" it cannot be
> true in an absolute sense.
That's fine, that's for explaining. If the FLoT required that the
universe be a closed system (in terms of energy transfer), and you
*knew* that it was not, then I would agree that the FLoT is not
compatible with your belief system. Since the FLoT explicitly
describes open systems, however, you don't have to worry about it.
> Of course, that does not mean it is devoid of truth
> altogether. Newton used his laws of motion to derive
> Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Eistein showed that
> as velocity approaches c, Newton's Laws do not hold, but
> that certainly doesn't mean that Kepler was wrong, or
> Newton was, or that Einstein was right.
Agreed. In fact, I'll go so far as to say no law of physics is "true"
in the philosophical sense. They just are better or worse descriptions
of the observations of the *natural* world. God is still free to use
*supernatural* agency to get around whatever mechanisms manage the
daily affairs of the universe.
>> How is this a derivation of the FLoT?
> I've heard FLoT used by some online as proof that
> everything that exists is either matter or energy,
> and Sagan's statement as proof of that.
That notion would be called materialism, and is a philosophical
position, not a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. Your quote
from Sagan does affirm that, but it does not indicate that it is
*derived* or even *justified* by the First Law of Thermodynamics.
> I simply reasoned backward to the beginnings of the
> argument.
Can you reason forwards from the FLoT to the supposition in question?
That's generally how a *derivation* works. I don't mean this as a
challenge, but if you can, please show me the specific steps your are
taking in this derivation.
> The universe is everything - Sagan Everything in the
> universe is matter or energy - FLoT (To say it another
> way, FLoT applies everywhere to everything) Ergo, souls,
> which are neither cannot, exist in the universe.
The FLoT says nothing about processes/entities that do
not involve energy, just as my First Law of Birthday
Parties makes no claims about magazine subscriptions. It
simply does not apply.
> Inductively, from the above syllogism, proof of the soul
> refutes any claim that FLoT applies to all processes in
> the universe. I am glad to hear you suggest that it
> (FLoT) does not apply in metaphysical areas. It will
> give me some ammunition in future discussions when those
> less well-schooled in this subject than you would try to
> persuade me otherwise.
Is this a reasonable description of your syllogism?
(1) Souls exist and are neither matter nor energy.
(2) The FLoT says that everything that exists is matter and/or energy.
Therefore: The FLoT is wrong.
If I have reasonably described your argument, then I can point to the
problem. Premise 2 is wrong -- the FLoT just does not bother itelf
with anything other than energy transfer.
I just want to take a moment to say that this discussion has been
interesting to me, and that I hope that you feel the same.
Larry Heath
"George Peatty" <pttyg4...@copper.net> wrote in message
news:m5sk1114ee1d9ig9u...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:23:08 -0500, "Larry Heath" <lgh...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>You need a good bit more empirical data to make a case that has a
>>significantly high probability to begin to allow me to believe in your
>>soul.
>
> That, sir, is exactly my point. I postulate the existence of that for
> which
> no empirical evidence is possible. My philosophy professor gave me an
> illustration.
In the above quote you use the word "postulate", I have not asked for
postulates. I have asked you and others of the theological bent, for hard
evidentiary data. Yet you regale me with philosophies, postulates.
>
> Imagine the illusion of a cat. We know that it is an illusion, and that
> therefore no cat exists, but does the illusion exist? Is it a cat? We
> don't know, and we can never know. It is ludicrous to say "I see a cat."
> It is equally ludicrous to say "I see nothing." So, what do we see, and
> how
> do we prove it?
Yes, you can imagine all the illusions of cats and other things that you
wish, but they are all still illusions. Things of the mind, things that
man's mind dreams up. They are not real in the physical sense. I find it
ludicrous when somebody presents me with the concept of an illusion as the
basis for a physical reality, illusions are just that, things of the mind.
The mind can dream up, all manner of things unlikely, and improbable
unrealitys. It appears that you live in a dreamland populated by illusions,
and the soul that you speak of is simply one of these illusions. I live in
a physical world dominated by the ability to make physical contact with on a
consistent repeatable observable basis, those things that populate this
world.
I think that it is obvious that this soul that you speak of is simply a
philosophical illusion of the mind.
The dictionary provides us with a number of definitions of the word
illusion. They are as follows:
An erroneous perception of reality.
An erroneous concept or belief.
The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an erroneous
belief or perception.
You are therefore postulating the existence of a soul, based on an erroneous
perception of reality, and erroneous concepts or beliefs, you are in the
condition of being deceived by false perceptions or beliefs. Not only that,
you have this fantastic plan or desire, the belief in a soul, God or gods,
that causes erroneous beliefs or perceptions. I make these statements,
because of you yourself use of the word illusion. The soul is an illusion
as you yourself state, your God is an illusion, you are living a life based
on false precepts and belief's.
You base your life on illusions, false beliefs and erroneous perceptions a
reality. That is exactly how you describe your life, based on philosophical
constructs and illusions. How sad for you, living a lie, incapable of
discerning illusion from reality.
Later Larry.
AA # 2216.
David D.
Grinder wrote:
> George Peatty wrote:
>
> > [The soul] is neither matter nor energy. That is
> > what creates the problem. However, it has in common
> > with matter and energy the property that it, too, is
> > conserved, that is, cannot be created or destroyed.
>
> This makes it quite simple to specify the soul's implication on the
> First Law of Thermodynamics, and vice versa -- there is none. The
FLoT
> (briefly) says that energy is conserved. If the soul is *not*
energy,
> the law simply does not apply to it.
A while back Jason cited experiments that claimed that bodies lost
weight at death. Up to 21g. This would imply that Jason believes
souls are energy. And who am I to disagree with his interpretation
since he has a direct line to God.