Disproving Creation #3 - Creation "Predictions'
Budikka666
Item 1: http://tinyurl.com/28rt7kh
Item 2: http://tinyurl.com/2a2uvr8
A solid test of the validity of a scientific theory is whether it
makes predictions and when tested, those predictions prove true. The
Theory of Evolution has made scores of predictions. For example,
Charles Darwin himself predicted that human origins would be found in
Africa. They were.
What did the "Theory of Creation" predict? Well, nothing, since
there's no such theory, but since creationism and so-called
intelligent so-called design come directly from the scribbles of
ignorant ancient scribes (aka the Bible) and no other source, we can
take the Bible as their theory and take its predictions as the
predictions of the non-existent "Theory of Creation"
The Bible predicts human origins in the Middle East whether you take
it from the evidently fictional creation story or the equally
fictional global flood story. Either way the earliest humans were in
the Middle East according to creation "science".
So why aren't creation paleontologists digging there for evidence?
I'll tell you why: because they know as well as anyone that there is
no such evidence to be found. All of our earliest relatives are found
in Africa just as Darwin predicted based on his scientific theory and
on his scientific observations.
And Darwin made that prediction before we had anywhere near the wealth
of hominid fossils that we have today. In fact, by the publication of
his "On the Origin...", as far as I can tell, there existed only three
partial fossils humans, all of them Neanderthal.
What other predictions does creation make and fail in? Young-Earth
creation predicts the sudden appearance of fixed forms only 6,000
years ago. The Theory of evolution predicts no sudden appearance, but
geologically gradual appearances of forms which are very simple to
begin with and which then change as we progress through the rock
strata from bottom to top to end up looking mroe and mroe like modern
forms.
This is *exactly* what we find in the strata. There is no sudden
appearance of anything. even the so-called Cambrian explosion shows a
gradual change from Precambrian flora and fauna through the Cambrian
tending towards forms more recognizable as relatives of today's
forms. This is exactly what we find.
What else? Young-Earth creation predicts no relationship between the
genomes of living things since each was purportedly specially created,
so there is no reason at all why they should be alike. Evolution
predicts the opposite, and evolution is confirmed by the evidence.
What else? Young-Earth creation predicts perfect genomes since a
perfect divinity was supposed to have perfectly created them just
6,000 years ago and saw that it was good! Evolution predicts just the
opposite - a genome littered with evidence of evolution, and this is
*exactly* what we find.
Why does creation disprove itself and the Theory of Evolution become
confirmed by the evidence? Because the Theory of Evolution is based
not on dogma or religion, but *upon* *the* *evidence* *itself* -
therefore it cannot be out of conformity with the evidence.
Unlike the Theory of Evolution, creation does not start with the
evidence as Darwin did. On the contrary, it begins with blind
religious dogma and then is forced to perform acrobatics to get itself
into alignment with the evidence. Unlike Evolution, which is evidence-
based and evidence-directed science, creation cannot change, no matter
how decidedly the evidence disproves it.
Once again, creation disproves itself.
Budikka
Stephen B
The Bible contains information beamed into the heads of the human
authors, straight from God, who made them write down stuff they could
not have even understood themselves (e.g. cosmology, biology,
physics). Let's call this theory, "The Theory of Biblical Inerrancy".
... Based on this "theory", we would "predict" the following result:
Therefore, the Bible should contain all sorts of amazingly accurate
science that could not possibly have been known by these ancient
authors. For example, it should be centuries, or even millennia, ahead
in terms of accurately outlining - just for an example (a) how living
things came into their present form, and (b) how the motions of stars,
planets, etc. really work...
Instead, we find that the Bible is demonstrably wrong on both (a) and
(b). And many other issues that would take too long to go through
here.
This would prove the Theory of Biblical Inerrancy to be false.
What creationists are really trying to defend is Biblical Inerrancy.
In fact, they're prepared to stake the whole of Christian belief on
that theory. Other Christians, like myself, think this effort is
nonsense, an affront to intelligent believers, and necessarily leads
to all kinds of lying and hypocrisy that do far more damage than any
supposed "atheist conspiracy" ever could.
Budikka666
You make some good points! Biblical inerrancy is exactly the dogma
they're held prisoner by, and they're willing to tell any lie, ignore
any evidence, disregard any proof, and debase themselves to any
shameless degree in order to defend that doomed and ignorant
position. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with it! This is why
they're so pathetic.
Budikka
Stephen B
> You make some good points! Biblical inerrancy is exactly the dogma
> they're held prisoner by, and they're willing to tell any lie, ignore
> any evidence, disregard any proof, and debase themselves to any
> shameless degree in order to defend that doomed and ignorant
> position. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with it! This is why
> they're so pathetic.
Well, they want to have their cake and eat it. They are scared of
having "only" faith to go by, so they prefer to think that there is
all sorts of "evidence" for God and their "Biblical worldview" - this
makes them feel more secure. So they pretend (to themselves, as much
as to anyone else) that there is "scientific" proof of the things they
believe. Which there isn't (what on EARTH would a proof of God's
existence look like, anyway?!?), but they still want all the
reassurances of "science".
Then when faced with scientific responses to their supposed
"scientific" evidences, they backpedal and either want creationism to
be "not a theory", or ignore all evidence and arguments that show up
their pretence to be totally unfounded in anything like real science.
Andrew
>
>> You make some good points! Biblical inerrancy is exactly the dogma
>> they're held prisoner by, and they're willing to tell any lie, ignore
>> any evidence, disregard any proof, and debase themselves to any
>> shameless degree in order to defend that doomed and ignorant
>> position. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with it! This is why
>> they're so pathetic.
>
> Well, they want to have their cake and eat it. They are scared of
> having "only" faith to go by, so they prefer to think that there is
> all sorts of "evidence" for God and their "Biblical worldview" - this
> makes them feel more secure. So they pretend (to themselves, as much
> as to anyone else) that there is "scientific" proof of the things they
> believe.
You claim to be a Christian, but say that you have "no evidence".
You claim to have "faith". Yet you have no faith to believe what
Jesus actually said, and hold a worldview opposed to His teaching.
> Which there isn't (what on EARTH would a proof of God's
> existence look like, anyway?!?), but they still want all the
> reassurances of "science".
You believe in God, but say there is "no evidence" that He is.
> Then when faced with scientific responses to their supposed
> "scientific" evidences, they backpedal
Like where?
> and either want creationism to be "not a theory",
It is an origins model. Evidence supports such model
greater than the atheistic model which you embrace.
> or ignore all evidence and arguments that show up
> their pretence to be totally unfounded in anything like
> real science.
Like where?
panam...@hotmail.com
Well said, Stephen. I've often wondered why so many non
"fundamentalist" Christians aren't absolutely livid about the nonsense
the inerrancy folks say. I also notice in "Andrew"'s reply, he's
already trying to say you're "..not a real Christian." I'll be you
guys get tired of *that*, too..<g>
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Stephen B" <webtv...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1a38cf43-9243-4cf0...@u13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> You make some good points! Biblical inerrancy is exactly the dogma
>>> they're held prisoner by, and they're willing to tell any lie, ignore
>>> any evidence, disregard any proof, and debase themselves to any
>>> shameless degree in order to defend that doomed and ignorant
>>> position. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with it! This is why
>>> they're so pathetic.
>>
>> Well, they want to have their cake and eat it. They are scared of
>> having "only" faith to go by, so they prefer to think that there is
>> all sorts of "evidence" for God and their "Biblical worldview" - this
>> makes them feel more secure. So they pretend (to themselves, as much
>> as to anyone else) that there is "scientific" proof of the things they
>> believe.
>
>You claim to be a Christian, but say that you have "no evidence".
>You claim to have "faith". Yet you have no faith to believe what
>Jesus actually said, and hold a worldview opposed to His teaching.
Not every denomination is literalist, pdeluded psychopath.
>> Which there isn't (what on EARTH would a proof of God's
>> existence look like, anyway?!?), but they still want all the
>> reassurances of "science".
>
>You believe in God, but say there is "no evidence" that He is.
There isn't.
Believers take it on faith.
>> Then when faced with scientific responses to their supposed
>> "scientific" evidences, they backpedal
>
>Like where?
Like your own literalist bullshit.
>> and either want creationism to be "not a theory",
>
>It is an origins model. Evidence supports such model
>greater than the atheistic model which you embrace.
Liar.
And why do you keep equate origins science with atheism?
Evolution is accepted by an order of magnitude more Christans than
atheists in the USA, because atheists are such a small minority.
You know this so why do you keep repeating this deliberate lie?
And without it whole new spinoff sciences and technologies would not
even exist, that you take for granted. There would be no biotech so
modern medicine and agriculture would be completely different.
>> or ignore all evidence and arguments that show up
>> their pretence to be totally unfounded in anything like
>> real science.
>
>Like where?
Every time you have ignored explanations and repeated your lies.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
> You claim to be a Christian, but say that you have "no evidence".
> You claim to have "faith". Yet you have no faith to believe what
> Jesus actually said, and hold a worldview opposed to His teaching.
>
> > Which there isn't (what on EARTH would a proof of God's
> > existence look like, anyway?!?), but they still want all the
> > reassurances of "science".
>
> You believe in God, but say there is "no evidence" that He is.
You have only faith, nothing any more solid.
>
> > Then when faced with scientific responses to their supposed
> > "scientific" evidences, they backpedal
>
> Like where?
Into mere faith: the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen.
>
> > and either want creationism to be "not a theory",
>
> It is an origins model. Evidence supports such model
> greater than the atheistic model which you embrace.
Nonsense, nothing but pure faith without reason supports it.
Budikka666
> "Stephen B" <webtvmas...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1a38cf43-9243-4cf0...@u13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
And *exactly* as I predicted, the Poster Boy for Excuses Unlimited,
Chicken Andrew-a-Blank cannot find even a pretense of having evidence
to support his claims, all he can do is to keep on mindlessly chanting
those claims out of sheer desperation that someone, somewhere,
sometime, might, somehow, believe his bullshit.
Good Luck with that, lame-brain.
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
All they have are fail philosophical "proofs" that rely on fallacies
and are at most abstract "spot the logic error exercises".
They're too stupid to realise the message these send - that this is
the best they've got. If there were actually evidence they would point
to it and explain why it is evidence.
Budikka666
Exactly! And the fact that they're too dumb to see it is the biggest
joke of all!
Budikka
Andrew
> Exactly! And the fact that they're too dumb to see it is the biggest
> joke of all!
>
> Budikka
Why are our atheist friends too dumb to see the evidence?!
Here's the evidence they requested.
Here it is:
~ DNA ~
"DNA provides the set of CODED INSTRUCTIONS required by
every organism for specifying its traits."http://micurl.com/segsii
Coded information and instructions (as we find in DNA) ALWAYS
comes from, an INTELLIGENT SOURCE. Therefore since DNA
is found in the cells of every living thing, this is positive evidence
that the creation of life had an intelligent causation.
So there's your irrefutable evidence. There IS a divine, super
intelligent Creator, GOD.
Amen!
Andrew
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:c5d314b1-d7c9-4a26...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Exactly! And the fact that they're too dumb to see it is the biggest
> > joke of all!
> >
> > Budikka
>
> Why are our atheist friends too dumb to see the evidence?!
>
> Here's the evidence they requested.
>
> Here it is:
> ~ DNA ~
>
> "DNA provides the set of CODED INSTRUCTIONS required by
> every organism for specifying its traits."http://micurl.com/segsii
>
> Coded information and instructions (as we find in DNA) ALWAYS
> comes from, an INTELLIGENT SOURCE.
Often claimed but never proven.
And never even argued effectively.
It presumes, among many other things, that what we do not know how to do
today we will not ever learn how to do. And the history of science shows
how foolish such a presumption is.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:c5d314b1-d7c9-4a26...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Exactly! And the fact that they're too dumb to see it is the biggest
>> joke of all!
>>
>> Budikka
>
>Why are our atheist friends too dumb to see the evidence?!
>
>Here's the evidence they requested.
>
>Here it is:
> ~ DNA ~
As you have been repeatedly reminded, DNA is not evidence for creation.
Stop lying to us. Stop worshipping your own foolishness.
>"DNA provides the set of CODED INSTRUCTIONS required by
> every organism for specifying its traits."http://micurl.com/segsii
>
>Coded information and instructions (as we find in DNA) ALWAYS
>comes from, an INTELLIGENT SOURCE. Therefore since DNA
>is found in the cells of every living thing, this is positive evidence
>that the creation of life had an intelligent causation.
>
>So there's your irrefutable evidence. There IS a divine, super
>intelligent Creator, GOD.
Totally refutable. Only a dishonest fool like you would claim otherwise.
archie dux
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:c5d314b1-d7c9-4a26...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> > Exactly! And the fact that they're too dumb to see it is the biggest
> > joke of all!
>
> > Budikka
>
> Why are our atheist friends too dumb to see the evidence?!
>
> Here's the evidence they requested.
>
> Here it is:
> ~ DNA ~
>
> "DNA provides the set of CODED INSTRUCTIONS required by
> every organism for specifying its traits."http://micurl.com/segsii
>
> Coded information and instructions (as we find in DNA) ALWAYS
> comes from, an INTELLIGENT SOURCE.
And I have asked you, have I not, what is the INTELLIGENT
SOURCE which provides the DNA which encodes the
genes for such delights as Tay-Sachs disease, cystic
fibrosis, cleft palate, and muscular dystrophy?
Pardon me if you've already answered these;
in that case you may instead tell me what is the
INTELLIGENT SOURCE for the ninety-plus
percent of our DNA which does nothing at all?
archie
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > Exactly! And the fact that they're too dumb to see it is the biggest
>> > joke of all!
>> >
>> > Budikka
>>
>> Why are our atheist friends too dumb to see the evidence?!
>>
>> Here's the evidence they requested.
>>
>> Here it is:
>> ~ DNA ~
>>
>> "DNA provides the set of CODED INSTRUCTIONS required by
>> every organism for specifying its traits."http://micurl.com/segsii
>>
>> Coded information and instructions (as we find in DNA) ALWAYS
>> comes from, an INTELLIGENT SOURCE.
>
> Often claimed but never proven.
>
> And never even argued effectively.
>
> It presumes, among many other things, that what we do not know how to do
> today we will not ever learn how to do. And the history of science shows
> how foolish such a presumption is.
If you learn how to do it, it proves that an intelligent
source is required......assuming you ARE intelligent.
Coded information and instructions as are in DNA
ALWAYS comes from an INTELLIGENT SOURCE.
Always!
Therefore, there -is- indeed an
INTELLIGENT SOURCE..GOD.
Andrew
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:c5d314b1-d7c9-4a26...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
Your LIE is refuted here:
http://tinyurl.com/2wehcxy
August 5th, 2010
here:
http://tinyurl.com/37r5vy4
(9/1/2010)
and here:
http://tinyurl.com/36dbcv2
(9/10/2010)
by me alone, so you can keep chanting your patent, flimsy transparent
refuted LIE all you want. No one is going to belieive it.
Budikka
DanielSan
Not always.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
--------------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
--------------------------------------------------
"The most henious and the must cruel crimes of
which history has record have been committed under
the cover of religion or equally noble motives."
--Mohandas K. Ghandi, July 7, 1950
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > Exactly! And the fact that they're too dumb to see it is the biggest
>> > joke of all!
>>
>> > Budikka
>>
>> Why are our atheist friends too dumb to see the evidence?!
>>
>> Here's the evidence they requested.
>>
>> Here it is:
>> ~ DNA ~
>>
>> "DNA provides the set of CODED INSTRUCTIONS required by
>> every organism for specifying its traits."http://micurl.com/segsii
>>
>> Coded information and instructions (as we find in DNA) ALWAYS
>> comes from, an INTELLIGENT SOURCE.
>
> And I have asked you, have I not, what is the INTELLIGENT
> SOURCE which provides the DNA which encodes the
> genes for such delights as Tay-Sachs disease, cystic
> fibrosis, cleft palate, and muscular dystrophy?
Such are the results of genetic damage; errors in the coded instruction
manual, which did not exist at the time of creation, before the Fall.
> Pardon me if you've already answered these;
> in that case you may instead tell me what is the
> INTELLIGENT SOURCE for the ninety-plus
> percent of our DNA which does nothing at all?
"The non-coding DNA, contrary to statements by evolutionists, is not useless,
but is, in fact, required for genomic functionality, therefore actually providing
evidence of intelligent design." http://micurl.com/tuiBuzc
DanielSan
Not really,no.
Andrew
>Andrew wrote:
Yep! Always, and there's your proof.
DanielSan
Nope. Not always. Watch this video for evidence of this. And, please,
watch the entire video before responding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
Don Kresch
>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:c5d314b1-d7c9-4a26...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Exactly! And the fact that they're too dumb to see it is the biggest
>> joke of all!
>>
>> Budikka
>
>Why are our atheist friends too dumb to see the evidence?!
Because there is no evidence.
>
>Here's the evidence they requested.
>
>Here it is:
> ~ DNA ~
That's evidence for evolution. That's not evidence of any
creation.
Now then, define god in a coherent manner without the use of
logical fallacies, inconsistencies, contradictions, and by using
specific, concrete, objective terms. Then demonstrate that it exists.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in slacklessness trying not to.
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
Yes, really!
Don Kresch
wrote:
>Coded information and instructions as are in DNA
>ALWAYS comes from an INTELLIGENT SOURCE.
>
>
>Always!
>
>
>Therefore, there -is- indeed an
>INTELLIGENT SOURCE..GOD.
Let's assume that you're correct. Why then does this
intelligent source not have a source? Why the hypocrisy?
Budikka666
instead of finding the Christian honesty to admit the truth - that you
have none - you keep RUNNING from that and hiding behind trashy You
Tube videos that offer *exactly* the same *unsupported* and *ignorant*
***OPNION*** that is all you have to offer yourself?
How does an ignorant opinion expressed on You Tube - and utterly
unsupported by any scientific research whatsoever - contstitute a more
authoritive source than your own stupidity does, jack off?
There's no science here, only endless excuses for why creation is a
dead end losing proposition! LoL! Go right ahead dimwit, because
every avoidance tactic you employ helps me to disprove creation.
You're doing my job for me. Keep it up, moron!
Budikka
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
This is why I like your posts! Because they
illustrate the futility of trying to fight against
the truth!
Andrew
Budikka666
tale claims have no support. Your desperate demands that we watch yet
another vacuous video which contains no science whatsoever are nothing
but an open admission that your creation claims are dying a sorry,
slow, sad death. Thanks for the de facto concession of your hopeless
position.
Budikka
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
I see that Budikka has already answered this for me.
DanielSan
Explain.
archie dux
> "archie dux" wrote in messagenews:cd352ade-49b3-4704...@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > Exactly! And the fact that they're too dumb to see it is the biggest
> >> > joke of all!
>
> >> > Budikka
>
> >> Why are our atheist friends too dumb to see the evidence?!
>
> >> Here's the evidence they requested.
>
> >> Here it is:
> >> ~ DNA ~
>
> >> "DNA provides the set of CODED INSTRUCTIONS required by
> >> every organism for specifying its traits."http://micurl.com/segsii
>
> >> Coded information and instructions (as we find in DNA) ALWAYS
> >> comes from, an INTELLIGENT SOURCE.
> > And I have asked you, have I not, what is the INTELLIGENT
> > SOURCE which provides the DNA which encodes the
> > genes for such delights as Tay-Sachs disease, cystic
> > fibrosis, cleft palate, and muscular dystrophy?
> Such are the results of genetic damage; errors in the coded instruction
> manual, which did not exist at the time of creation, before the Fall.
Excuse me? You're claiming that because Eve ate the fruit,
my cat, 6000 years later and half a world away, can
get endogenous retroviral feline leukemia?
If so, then you're telling me that the system was "INTELLIGENTLY"
designed so that a single failure in any one part would
cause the entire rest of the system to begin falling apart.
If an aerospace engineer had designed a plane such that if
any pilot anywhere in the world -- and anywhere
in time -- any pilot at all ever made a single mistake in judgment,
every airplane that was and ever would be would
then fall out of the sky?
And that's INTELLIGENT? I am paying
for the act of some woman I never met, and
whose actions I could not possibly have
effected in any fashion?
Explain yourself: it what manner can so
flimsy, fragile, and utterly unjust design
be described as "INTELLIGENT"?
> > Pardon me if you've already answered these;
> > in that case you may instead tell me what is the
> > INTELLIGENT SOURCE for the ninety-plus
> > percent of our DNA which does nothing at all?
>
> "The non-coding DNA, contrary to statements by evolutionists, is not useless,
> but is, in fact, required for genomic functionality, therefore actually providing
> evidence of intelligent design." http://micurl.com/tuiBuzc
Geez, finally some substance. Apparent substance, anyhow.
I will try to give it some time.
>
> > archie
>
> >> Therefore since DNA
> >> is found in the cells of every living thing, this is positive evidence
> >> that the creation of life had an intelligent causation.
>
> >> So there's your irrefutable evidence. There IS a divine, super
> >> intelligent Creator, GOD.
All rightie; next question: what makes you think
that this alleged Creator is the same one
to be found in the myths of the Hebrew tribe?
archie
>
> >> Amen!
John Locke
wrote:
So you're gonna become an atheist.
---------------------------------------------------------------
""All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to
terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-- Thomas Paine
Andrew
She said:
How does an ignorant opinion expressed on You Tube - and utterly
unsupported by any scientific research whatsoever - contstitute a
more authoritive source than your own stupidity does, jack off?
There's no science here......... LoL!.. Keep it up, moron!
Budikka
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
She strongly feels it is "unsupported by science."
DanielSan
Except that the source is supported by scientific research.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Virgil" wrote in message
> news:Virgil-257084....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > Exactly! And the fact that they're too dumb to see it is the biggest
> >> > joke of all!
> >> >
> >> > Budikka
> >>
> >> Why are our atheist friends too dumb to see the evidence?!
> >>
> >> Here's the evidence they requested.
> >>
> >> Here it is:
> >> ~ DNA ~
> >>
> >> "DNA provides the set of CODED INSTRUCTIONS required by
> >> every organism for specifying its traits."http://micurl.com/segsii
> >>
> >> Coded information and instructions (as we find in DNA) ALWAYS
> >> comes from, an INTELLIGENT SOURCE.
> >
> > Often claimed but never proven.
> >
> > And never even argued effectively.
> >
> > It presumes, among many other things, that what we do not know how to do
> > today we will not ever learn how to do. And the history of science shows
> > how foolish such a presumption is.
>
> If you learn how to do it, it proves that an intelligent
> source is required......assuming you ARE intelligent.
This again shows that you have no grasp on logic.
If an intelligent person learns how to do something, it does not at all
prove intelligence is necessary but does prove it sufficient.
There is a critical difference between something being necessary and its
being sufficient.
>
> Coded information and instructions as are in DNA
> ALWAYS comes from an INTELLIGENT SOURCE.
Claimed, but never proven, and what may seem like "information and
instructions" to you is your INTERPRETATION of what may be no such thing.
One day we may find out that DNA occurs perfectly naturally and that
there are perfectly natural processes producing what to Merry andrew
appears like intelligence and information.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "archie dux" wrote in message
> news:cd352ade-49b3-4704...@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > Exactly! And the fact that they're too dumb to see it is the biggest
> >> > joke of all!
> >>
> >> > Budikka
> >>
> >> Why are our atheist friends too dumb to see the evidence?!
> >>
> >> Here's the evidence they requested.
> >>
> >> Here it is:
> >> ~ DNA ~
> >>
> >> "DNA provides the set of CODED INSTRUCTIONS required by
> >> every organism for specifying its traits."http://micurl.com/segsii
> >>
> >> Coded information and instructions (as we find in DNA) ALWAYS
> >> comes from, an INTELLIGENT SOURCE.
> >
> > And I have asked you, have I not, what is the INTELLIGENT
> > SOURCE which provides the DNA which encodes the
> > genes for such delights as Tay-Sachs disease, cystic
> > fibrosis, cleft palate, and muscular dystrophy?
>
> Such are the results of genetic damage; errors in the coded instruction
> manual, which did not exist at the time of creation, before the Fall.
Unless Andrew was there "before the fall" he can have no notion of what
it was like.
But as Andrew is obviously one of the very fallen, he could not have
been there.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
You have no proof of anything until you provide unequivocal proof of
your "always" claim.
Ken
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:bf95550c-7b40-4d63...@v23g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
The turth he saz!
Andrew wouldn't know truth even if it is was soaked in petrol, lit
afire and shoved up his butt!
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
Not really, no. That SOME of it may contain SOME functionality does not
guarantee that ALL of it must contain ANY AT ALL.
And even if it did, that is not evidence of your cretinist IDiocy, but
merely lack of evidence of no design.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
Evolution is a blind watchmaker which makes better watches that your
alleged creator.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
The blind clockmaker experiment shown at that URL looks to me eminently
more sensible and scientific than anything that Andrew is capable of.
Yap
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:bf95550c-7b40-4d63...@v23g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
The truth that many preachers, such as the current news about the
Belgium sexual abuses long in existence in the churches, have been
molesters and abusers because of religious or Christian teaching?
Or that your Jesus had been cruxified and was dead as an ordinary
human?
Or that the Noah flood was such an bullshit that it even escaped your
sense?
Or that Moses parted water channel but had no power to do any other
miracles, except to flee in foot with others?
Or that you can find a talking serpent now on earth?
>
> Andrew
SkyEyes
> "Stephen B" <webtvmas...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1a38cf43-9243-4cf0...@u13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> You make some good points! Biblical inerrancy is exactly the dogma
> >> they're held prisoner by, and they're willing to tell any lie, ignore
> >> any evidence, disregard any proof, and debase themselves to any
> >> shameless degree in order to defend that doomed and ignorant
> >> position. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with it! This is why
> >> they're so pathetic.
>
> > Well, they want to have their cake and eat it. They are scared of
> > having "only" faith to go by, so they prefer to think that there is
> > all sorts of "evidence" for God and their "Biblical worldview" - this
> > makes them feel more secure. So they pretend (to themselves, as much
> > as to anyone else) that there is "scientific" proof of the things they
> > believe.
>
> You claim to be a Christian, but say that you have "no evidence".
> You claim to have "faith". Yet you have no faith to believe what
> Jesus actually said, and hold a worldview opposed to His teaching.
>
> > Which there isn't (what on EARTH would a proof of God's
> > existence look like, anyway?!?), but they still want all the
> > reassurances of "science".
>
> You believe in God, but say there is "no evidence" that He is.
>
> > Then when faced with scientific responses to their supposed
> > "scientific" evidences, they backpedal
>
> Like where?
>
> > and either want creationism to be "not a theory",
>
> It is an origins model. Evidence supports such model
> greater than the atheistic model which you embrace.
>
> > or ignore all evidence and arguments that show up
> > their pretence to be totally unfounded in anything like
> > real science.
>
> Like where?
Thank you for proving Stephen B's point so perfectly, Andrew.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
SkyEyes
> "Virgil" wrote in messagenews:Virgil-257084....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > Exactly! And the fact that they're too dumb to see it is the biggest
> >> > joke of all!
>
> >> > Budikka
>
> >> Why are our atheist friends too dumb to see the evidence?!
>
> >> Here's the evidence they requested.
>
> >> Here it is:
> >> ~ DNA ~
>
> >> "DNA provides the set of CODED INSTRUCTIONS required by
> >> every organism for specifying its traits."http://micurl.com/segsii
>
> >> Coded information and instructions (as we find in DNA) ALWAYS
> >> comes from, an INTELLIGENT SOURCE.
>
>
> > And never even argued effectively.
>
> > It presumes, among many other things, that what we do not know how to do
> > today we will not ever learn how to do. And the history of science shows
> > how foolish such a presumption is.
>
> If you learn how to do it, it proves that an intelligent
> source is required
No, it merely proves than an intelligent source can do it. It doesn't
prove that an intelligent source *is required*. Please try not to
make these enormous leaps, okay?
> ......assuming you ARE intelligent.
Pot, kettle, etc.
>
> Coded information and instructions as are in DNA
> ALWAYS comes from an INTELLIGENT SOURCE.
Actually, they do *not*. I believe that Haiku Jones, who is a
computer programmer, has given you examples of computer code that
disproves your assertion. Remember that? Because I do.
> Always!
Nope. And stamping your feet and holding your breath until you turn
blue won't make it any more true, Andrew.
>
> Therefore, there -is- indeed an INTELLIGENT SOURCE..GOD.
You need to read Hawking's new book. Not that you will; you're one of
those insecure types who only reads things that confirm your own
viewpoint.
archie dux
Hell, I'd be willing to provisionally stipulate a Creator,
if Andrew would in turn try to convince my why the
curmudgeonly and short-sighted tribal god of the
Hebrew myths is actually that Creator.
Me, I suspect in the strongest way that if there
is a Creator of life, the universe, and everything,
then IT is so utterly beyond anything we could
possibly imagine in our wildest and most inspired
flights of mystical fervor that not only could we
never comprehend IT, we probably could not
even recognize IT as an entity, as a being, even
if IT were pointed out to us.
And most assuredly IT would be nothing like
Andrew's all-too-human old-man god who
created humans, and then was blindsided
by the way they turned out, and then stomped
all over his flawed inventions, and after THAT,
decided that destroying them all had been a bad idea after
all -- because he realized that he had created them so poorly
that they simply could not help themselves -- and thus
he vowed never to do THAT again. Definitely
a god who's learning the job as he goes along.
No, Andrew's god is every much a human-like
creation of humans as was, say, Zeus, who was
constantly playing tricks to get in on with
human chicks.
archie
Devils Advocaat
> On Sep 10, 1:10 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:c5d314b1-d7c9-4a26...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> > > Exactly! And the fact that they're too dumb to see it is the biggest
> > > joke of all!
>
> > > Budikka
>
> > Why are our atheist friends too dumb to see the evidence?!
>
> > Here's the evidence they requested.
>
> > Here it is:
> > ~ DNA ~
>
> > "DNA provides the set of CODED INSTRUCTIONS required by
> > every organism for specifying its traits."http://micurl.com/segsii
>
> > Coded information and instructions (as we find in DNA) ALWAYS
> > comes from, an INTELLIGENT SOURCE.
>
> SOURCE which provides the DNA which encodes the
> genes for such delights as Tay-Sachs disease, cystic
> fibrosis, cleft palate, and muscular dystrophy?
And that other delight called Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney
Disease?
>
> Pardon me if you've already answered these;
> in that case you may instead tell me what is the
> INTELLIGENT SOURCE for the ninety-plus
> percent of our DNA which does nothing at all?
>
> archie
The Magpie
> ~ DNA ~
>
> "DNA provides the set of CODED INSTRUCTIONS required by
> every organism for specifying its traits."http://micurl.com/segsii
>
> Coded information and instructions (as we find in DNA) ALWAYS
> is found in the cells of every living thing, this is positive evidence
> that the creation of life had an intelligent causation.
>
> So there's your irrefutable evidence. There IS a divine, super
> intelligent Creator, GOD.
>
into detail, let's just be happy that Andrew is too dumb to recognise
the difference between "deliberately encoded" and chemistry.
Christopher A. Lee
Let alone recognise non-sequiturs and straw men.
Andrew
To say that DNA is only chemistry, is like saying a highly technical
instruction manual is only paper and ink..no intelligence or purpose
required in its origin.
Andrew
Don Kresch
wrote:
Then please explain the reason that the highly intelligent
designer was not designed.
Cory Albrecht
> "Stephen B"<webtv...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1a38cf43-9243-4cf0...@u13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> You make some good points! Biblical inerrancy is exactly the dogma
>>> they're held prisoner by, and they're willing to tell any lie, ignore
>>> any evidence, disregard any proof, and debase themselves to any
>>> shameless degree in order to defend that doomed and ignorant
>>> position. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with it! This is why
>>> they're so pathetic.
>>
>> Well, they want to have their cake and eat it. They are scared of
>> having "only" faith to go by, so they prefer to think that there is
>> all sorts of "evidence" for God and their "Biblical worldview" - this
>> makes them feel more secure. So they pretend (to themselves, as much
>> as to anyone else) that there is "scientific" proof of the things they
>> believe.
>
> You claim to be a Christian, but say that you have "no evidence".
> You claim to have "faith". Yet you have no faith to believe what
> Jesus actually said, and hold a worldview opposed to His teaching.
Nice to see that somethings don't change, Andrew, like your incorrigible
misunderstanding of what faith is actually all about.
>
>> Which there isn't (what on EARTH would a proof of God's
>> existence look like, anyway?!?), but they still want all the
>> reassurances of "science".
>
> You believe in God, but say there is "no evidence" that He is.
Which would be why it is called "faith", Andrew.
>
>> Then when faced with scientific responses to their supposed
>> "scientific" evidences, they backpedal
>
> Like where?
All of science.
>
>> and either want creationism to be "not a theory",
>
> It is an origins model. Evidence supports such model
> greater than the atheistic model which you embrace.
And yet some how you never provide any of that evidence to support
biblical creation.
Why is that?
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
Your theory that intelligence and purpose are required is incapable of
being verified, or falsified, thus is irrelevant.
Budikka666
> "DanielSan" wrote in messagenews:CfednecCVOvrVRfR...@speakeasy.net...
Creation is indeed unsupported by science as creationists have proven
in this series as they've failed repeatedly to provide even a shred of
positive scientific evidence for creation.
Once again creation is disproven.
Budikka
The Magpie
>
> To say that DNA is only chemistry, is like saying a highly technical
> instruction manual is only paper and ink..no intelligence or purpose
> required in its origin.
>
Well done - superb demonstration of the absolutely obvious fact that
you clearly *expect* and *want* there to be an intelligent something
at the back of it all. You do know the name for that sort of
"reasoning", don't you?
Christopher A. Lee
He's insane.
And nobody would have known it if he didn't repeatedly wipe his
insanity in our faces.
Devils Advocaat
> "The Magpie" wrote in messagenews:MBMio.101147$Q_3....@newsfe27.ams2...
Poor Andrew, DNA is an organic polymer composed of four different
monomers, there is nothing supernatural, magical or mystical about it.
AllSeeing-I
> > You make some good points! Biblical inerrancy is exactly the dogma
> > they're held prisoner by, and they're willing to tell any lie, ignore
> > any evidence, disregard any proof, and debase themselves to any
> > shameless degree in order to defend that doomed and ignorant
> > position. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with it! This is why
> > they're so pathetic.
>
> Well, they want to have their cake and eat it. They are scared of
> having "only" faith to go by, so they prefer to think that there is
> all sorts of "evidence" for God and their "Biblical worldview" - this
> makes them feel more secure. So they pretend (to themselves, as much
> as to anyone else) that there is "scientific" proof of the things they
> existence look like, anyway?!?), but they still want all the
> reassurances of "science".
>
> be "not a theory", or ignore all evidence and arguments that show up
> their pretence to be totally unfounded in anything like real science.
The bible says a man was raised from the dead. The man's name was
Lazarus. Jesus rose from the dead, He said he would raise his
followers on the last day.
Science says, A human rising from the dead is impossible.
Which do you believe Christian? Do you believe your Christian faith or
do you believe science?
If you do not believe a man can raise from the dead, and that you will
be raised from the dead on the last day too, then you are not a
Christian. Because that belief, is one of the core precepts of your
faith.
Perhaps you are "luke warm" to your faith? Do you pick and chose which
parts to believe because you feel you are intelligent and armed with
science?
Here is what Jesus said about those that are 'luke warm' to their
faith:
Revelation 3:15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot.
I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--
neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
So, do you believe science, or your religion?
Virgil
<79562334-4259-4647...@w4g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> Which do you believe Christian? Do you believe your Christian faith or
> do you believe science?
Why should anyone prefer an ugly faith like Xianity, particularly the
irrational splinter of it known as Creationism, when that are beautiful
religions like Buddhism exant?
And I understand that Buddhism is growing quite rapidly inthe USA.
>
> If you do not believe a man can raise from the dead, and that you will
> be raised from the dead on the last day too, then you are not a
> Christian.
Actually Buddhism deplores being "raised from the dead" which they call
reincarnation, and the whole point of it is not to be.
> So, do you believe science, or your religion?
Science, of course. I have no religion of my own, though among those
that are out there I have greater respect for Buddhism than any other
and less respect for creationism that any other.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sep 9, 6:02 am, Stephen B <webtvmas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > You make some good points! Biblical inerrancy is exactly the dogma
>> > they're held prisoner by, and they're willing to tell any lie, ignore
>> > any evidence, disregard any proof, and debase themselves to any
>> > shameless degree in order to defend that doomed and ignorant
>> > position. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with it! This is why
>> > they're so pathetic.
>>
>> Well, they want to have their cake and eat it. They are scared of
>> having "only" faith to go by, so they prefer to think that there is
>> all sorts of "evidence" for God and their "Biblical worldview" - this
>> makes them feel more secure. So they pretend (to themselves, as much
>> as to anyone else) that there is "scientific" proof of the things they
>> believe. Which there isn't (what on EARTH would a proof of God's
>> existence look like, anyway?!?), but they still want all the
>> reassurances of "science".
>>
>> Then when faced with scientific responses to their supposed
>> "scientific" evidences, they backpedal and either want creationism to
>> be "not a theory", or ignore all evidence and arguments that show up
>> their pretence to be totally unfounded in anything like real science.
>
>The bible says a man was raised from the dead. The man's name was
>Lazarus. Jesus rose from the dead, He said he would raise his
>followers on the last day.
Why should I believe what the Bible says? It claims that Joshua made the
walls of Jericho fall over, but the physical evidence tells us that this
did not happen as claimed, nor did the sun stop in its tracks, nor was
there an earthquake on the day Jesus was supposedly executed. The Bible
is absurdly unreliable.
>Science says, A human rising from the dead is impossible.
Pretty much.
>Which do you believe Christian? Do you believe your Christian faith or
>do you believe science?
I don't believe the empty claims you are selling.
>If you do not believe a man can raise from the dead, and that you will
>be raised from the dead on the last day too, then you are not a
>Christian. Because that belief, is one of the core precepts of your
>faith.
>
>Perhaps you are "luke warm" to your faith? Do you pick and chose which
>parts to believe because you feel you are intelligent and armed with
>science?
>
>Here is what Jesus said about those that are 'luke warm' to their
>faith:
>
>Revelation 3:15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot.
>I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--
>neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
>
>So, do you believe science, or your religion?
It is clear that the religion you preach is false.
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>>
>> To say that DNA is only chemistry, is like saying a highly technical
>> instruction manual is only paper and ink..no intelligence or purpose
>> required in its origin.
>>
> Andrew,
>
> Well done - superb demonstration of the absolutely obvious fact that
> you clearly *expect* and *want* there to be an intelligent something
> at the back of it all.
Well there -is- an intelligent something behind the origin
of computers, and also the genomes of all living things.
Genomes do suffer the effects of mutations and entropy,
but the evidence is that their origin was only through an
intelligent causation.
Think about it. Study it out, and follow where the TRUTH
leads.
Andrew
Andrew
"Andrew" wrote:
> "The Magpie" wrote:
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> ~ DNA ~
>
> >> "DNA provides the set of CODED INSTRUCTIONS required by
> >> every organism for specifying its traits."http://micurl.com/segsii
>
> >> Coded information and instructions (as we find in DNA) ALWAYS
> >> comes from, an INTELLIGENT SOURCE. Therefore since DNA
> >> is found in the cells of every living thing, this is positive evidence
> >> that the creation of life had an intelligent causation.
>
> >> So there's your irrefutable evidence. There IS a divine, super
> >> intelligent Creator, GOD.
>
> > Pardon my hysterical laughter at such idiocy. Rather than bother going
> > into detail, let's just be happy that Andrew is too dumb to recognise
> > the difference between "deliberately encoded" and chemistry.
>
> To say that DNA is only chemistry, is like saying a highly technical
> instruction manual is only paper and ink..no intelligence or purpose
> required in its origin.
>
> Andrew
- Poor Andrew, DNA is an organic polymer composed of four different
- monomers, there is nothing supernatural, magical or mystical about it.
Your computer is simply a rectangular metallic box. No intelligent input
planning or purpose required.
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat" wrote in messagenews:33c79b33-6ffa-47fe...@w4g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
Which shows your understanding of computers and rectangular metallic
boxes is as poor as your understanding of DNA.
By the way Andrew, would you care to explain how you reckon "DNA is
able to correct errors in the process of protein synthesis"?
That is a claim you made recently when I asked you to identify the
"error correction program" you think DNA has.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:rD6jo.143508$ki7....@newsfe24.ams2...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >>
> >> To say that DNA is only chemistry, is like saying a highly technical
> >> instruction manual is only paper and ink..no intelligence or purpose
> >> required in its origin.
> >>
> > Andrew,
> >
> > Well done - superb demonstration of the absolutely obvious fact that
> > you clearly *expect* and *want* there to be an intelligent something
> > at the back of it all.
>
> Well there -is- an intelligent something behind the origin
> of computers, and also the genomes of all living things.
Since the only reliable evidence of intelligence in the universe, at
least evidence available to humans, is of human intelligence, or that of
other animals on earth, the only creativity in genomes, at least up
i=until recently, was natural selection, the wisdom of nature.
>
> Genomes do suffer the effects of mutations and entropy,
> but the evidence is that their origin was only through an
> intelligent causation.
Only to those who have no respect either for their own god nor for
science.
>
> Think about it. Study it out, and follow where the TRUTH
> leads.
I did, and it didn't lead in your direction.
>
>
> Andrew
Virgil
Sapient Fridge
<andrew....@usa.net> writes
What evidence? You haven't produced any.
>Think about it. Study it out, and follow where the TRUTH
>leads.
Present the evidence so we can study it then.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Budikka666
> Think about it. Study it out, and follow where the TRUTH
> leads.
The truth leads to the unarguable *fact* that the polar opposite of
"designed" is "natural". That's how we distinguish something as
designed - it's *not* natural: it isn't found in nature!
For a dumb-ass creationist to then turn around in light of this fact
and try to argue, with a straight face, that something which is the
diametric opposite of designed is actually designed is the high of
stupidity.
But that's all you can get from a creationist - the height of
stupidity.
Budikka
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Think about it. Study it out, and follow where the TRUTH leads.
>
> The truth leads to the unarguable *fact* that the polar opposite of
> "designed" is "natural". That's how we distinguish something as
> designed - it's *not* natural: it isn't found in nature!
NATURE, n. [L. from nature, born, produced,]
1. In a general sense, whatever is made or produced; a
word that comprehends all the works of God; the universe.
2. By a metonymy of the effect for the cause, nature is used
for the agent, creator, author, producer of things, or for the
powers that produce them. By the expression, trees and fossils
are produced by nature, we mean, they are formed or produced
by certain inherent powers in matter, or we mean that they are
produced by God, the Creator, the Author of whatever is made
or produced. The opinion that things are produced by inherent
powers of matter, independent of a supreme intelligent author,
is atheism. But generally men mean by nature, thus used, the
Author of created things, or the operation of his power.
NATURAL, a. [to be born or produced]
1. Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by
the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies
or beings by divine power. Thus we speak of the natural growth
of animals or plants; the natural motion of a gravitating body;
natural strength or disposition; the natural heat of the body;
natural color; natural beauty. In this sense, natural is opposed
to artificial or acquired.
> Budikka
Andrew
Don Kresch
wrote:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:c263dc75-4e6d-41b5...@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>> Think about it. Study it out, and follow where the TRUTH leads.
>>
>> The truth leads to the unarguable *fact* that the polar opposite of
>> "designed" is "natural". That's how we distinguish something as
>> designed - it's *not* natural: it isn't found in nature!
>
>NATURE, n. [L. from nature, born, produced,]
>1. In a general sense, whatever is made or produced; a
>word that comprehends all the works of God; the universe.
Blatant question begging.
John Locke
wrote:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:c263dc75-4e6d-41b5...@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
...uh, these god infused definitions are from the 1828 edition of
Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language.
Religious nonsense was really quite pervasive back then. Care to try
again with a modern dictionary.
---------------------------------------------------------------
""All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to
terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-- Thomas Paine
Budikka666
"designed" is "natural". That's how we distinguish something as
designed - it's *not* natural: it isn't found in nature!
For a dumb-ass creationist to then turn around in light of this fact
Andrew
> The truth leads to the unarguable *fact* that the polar opposite of
> "designed" is "natural". That's how we distinguish something as
> designed - it's *not* natural: it isn't found in nature!
>
> For a dumb-ass creationist to then turn around in light of this fact
> and try to argue, with a straight face, that something which is the
> diametric opposite of designed is actually designed..
Yap
> On Sep 9, 6:02 am, Stephen B <webtvmas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > You make some good points! Biblical inerrancy is exactly the dogma
> > > they're held prisoner by, and they're willing to tell any lie, ignore
> > > any evidence, disregard any proof, and debase themselves to any
> > > shameless degree in order to defend that doomed and ignorant
> > > position. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with it! This is why
> > > they're so pathetic.
>
> > Well, they want to have their cake and eat it. They are scared of
> > having "only" faith to go by, so they prefer to think that there is
> > all sorts of "evidence" for God and their "Biblical worldview" - this
> > makes them feel more secure. So they pretend (to themselves, as much
> > as to anyone else) that there is "scientific" proof of the things they
> > believe. Which there isn't (what on EARTH would a proof of God's
> > existence look like, anyway?!?), but they still want all the
> > reassurances of "science".
>
> > Then when faced with scientific responses to their supposed
> > "scientific" evidences, they backpedal and either want creationism to
> > be "not a theory", or ignore all evidence and arguments that show up
> > their pretence to be totally unfounded in anything like real science.
>
> The bible says a man was raised from the dead. The man's name was
> Lazarus. Jesus rose from the dead, He said he would raise his
> followers on the last day.
How do you think why you need a heaven for when you can be raised?
>
> Science says, A human rising from the dead is impossible.
now?
>
> Which do you believe Christian? Do you believe your Christian faith or
> do you believe science?
>
> If you do not believe a man can raise from the dead, and that you will
> be raised from the dead on the last day too, then you are not a
> Christian. Because that belief, is one of the core precepts of your
> faith.
grandparents raised?
Who are you trying to con?
>
> Perhaps you are "luke warm" to your faith? Do you pick and chose which
> parts to believe because you feel you are intelligent and armed with
> science?
>
> Here is what Jesus said about those that are 'luke warm' to their
> faith:
>
> Revelation 3:15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot.
> I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--
> neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
Shit things....monster spitting you out from its mouth?
>
> So, do you believe science, or your religion?
You are unbelievably stupid.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
Garbage as usual.
Yap
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d6606059-210b-4eb7...@t7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
So, you do not have a natural parents?
Just wonder why should they sacrifice themselves those years to raise
you.
And why should you treat them as parents since you are created by your
god?
Devils Advocaat
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:bf95550c-7b40-4d63...@v23g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > Exactly! And the fact that they're too dumb to see it is the biggest
> >> > joke of all!
>
> >> > Budikka
>
> >> Why are our atheist friends too dumb to see the evidence?!
>
> >> Here's the evidence they requested.
>
> >> Here it is:
>
> >> "DNA provides the set of CODED INSTRUCTIONS required by
> >> every organism for specifying its traits."http://micurl.com/segsii
>
> >> Coded information and instructions (as we find in DNA) ALWAYS
> >> comes from, an INTELLIGENT SOURCE. Therefore since DNA
> >> is found in the cells of every living thing, this is positive evidence
> >> that the creation of life had an intelligent causation.
>
> >> So there's your irrefutable evidence. There IS a divine, super
> >> intelligent Creator, GOD.
>
>
> >> Andrew
>
> > Your LIE is refuted here:
> >http://tinyurl.com/2wehcxy
> > August 5th, 2010
> > here:
> >http://tinyurl.com/37r5vy4
> > (9/1/2010)
> > and here:
> >http://tinyurl.com/36dbcv2
> > (9/10/2010)
> > by me alone, so you can keep chanting your patent, flimsy transparent
> > refuted LIE all you want. No one is going to belieive it.
>
> > Budikka
>
> This is why I like your posts! Because they
> illustrate the futility of trying to fight against
> the truth!
>
> Andrew
What truth would that be Andrew?
Virgil
Virgil
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:d6606059-210b-4eb7...@t7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The truth leads to the unarguable *fact* that the polar opposite of
> > "designed" is "natural". That's how we distinguish something as
> > designed - it's *not* natural: it isn't found in nature!
> >
> > For a dumb-ass creationist to then turn around in light of this fact
> > and try to argue, with a straight face, that something which is the
> > diametric opposite of designed is actually designed..
Science presumes that the universe has patterns that are detectable by
humans over time, and that those patterns, when detected, can be of use
to humanity. There is no room in that view for a god which can and does
abrogate those patterns at whim.
Thus, as far as science can ever be concerned, any such gods are an
irrelevance.
And as neither science or nonscience can establish that any particular
such god is any more real that any other, gods are an irrelevance
outside of science too.
Andrew
"Andrew" wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote:
> > Budikka
> This is why I like your posts. Because they
> illustrate the futility of trying to fight against
> the truth!
>
> Andrew
-
- What truth would that be Andrew?
Creation
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
And why does Andrew keep futilely fighting it?
Stephen B
> The bible says a man was raised from the dead. The man's name was
> Lazarus. Jesus rose from the dead, He said he would raise his
> followers on the last day.
>
> Science says, A human rising from the dead is impossible.
No, actually that is nonsense.
Science can have nothing to say about the matter whatsoever, because
science needs REPEATABLE experiments. If someone went around claiming
they could always raise people from the dead, every time, we'd have
something to test. But a once-off event (the Resurrection falls into
this category, too, by the way) is something that simply cannot be
examined by science anyway. (I don't deny that one might have
religious, historical or philosophical scepticism about whether it
happened, but that is a different matter.)
>
> Which do you believe Christian? Do you believe your Christian faith or
> do you believe science?
Why do you insist on making it an either/or choice? That is the whole
problem with this fundamentalist, "Creationism" nonsense. By setting
up a (A) Bliblically Literal interpretation of Genesis as being a
scientific hypothesis, you expose (B) the entire Christian faith to
being scientifically "falsified". If A is not true (it is isn't!) then
it would follow that B isn't true either. So much for apologetics. You
are destroying the faith, not promoting it.
> If you do not believe a man can raise from the dead, and that you will
> be raised from the dead on the last day too, then you are not a
> Christian. Because that belief, is one of the core precepts of your
> faith.
I do believe that. But I don't believe it's provable scientifically.
It's called FAITH, you idiot.
> Perhaps you are "luke warm" to your faith? Do you pick and chose which
> parts to believe because you feel you are intelligent and armed with
> science?
Is "Luke warm" the opposite to "Matthew warm", or the corollary to
"John warm"?
But to the point...
No I don't "pick and choose". Why do fundamentalists always think that
this is what non-fundamentalist Christians do? I have faith, and I am
humble enough to admit that to my limited human understanding of God,
and that the Bible is also a limited human collection of writings,
which certainly was inspired by God but is demonstrably not
"infallible". I believe based on what I am able to understand - could
a loving God demand anything more?
And yet you fundamentalists are so arrogant that you think you have
God in a little box. You think you've got him between a few odd-
hundred pages in a book called the New King James Bible. You are so
assured of your interpretation of Scripture that you are prepared to
condemn even your fellow Christian brothers and sisters just to
reassure yourself that you've "got" the "right" kind of faith.
I place my trust in GOD - what am I able to understand of Him - not in
my little religious sect's interpretations. HE is surely able to judge
me justly, and save me if that is His will. I am not afraid of death.
If I come to the end of my life having believed the "wrong"
interpretation, or even finding that God doesn't exist at all, at
least I can say I remained humble to the end, never lying to myself or
to others, submitting to truth wherever I could grasp it, going where
the evidence leads, not merely clutching at straws. You, on the other
hand, may be very surprised at what you find at the end of your life.
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat" wrote in messagenews:9befaf17-8388-4b36...@q26g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
> > "Budikka666" wrote:
> > > Budikka
> > This is why I like your posts. Because they
> > illustrate the futility of trying to fight against
> > the truth!
>
> > Andrew
>
> -
> - What truth would that be Andrew?
>
> Creation
Which fails utterly to explain anything about reality.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:c263dc75-4e6d-41b5...@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>> Think about it. Study it out, and follow where the TRUTH leads.
>>
>> The truth leads to the unarguable *fact* that the polar opposite of
>> "designed" is "natural". That's how we distinguish something as
>> designed - it's *not* natural: it isn't found in nature!
>
>NATURE, n. [L. from nature, born, produced,]
>1. In a general sense, whatever is made or produced; a
>word that comprehends all the works of God; the universe.
The serial liar makes it up as he goes along.
Answer_42
> > You make some good points! Biblical inerrancy is exactly the dogma
> > they're held prisoner by, and they're willing to tell any lie, ignore
> > any evidence, disregard any proof, and debase themselves to any
> > shameless degree in order to defend that doomed and ignorant
> > position. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with it! This is why
> > they're so pathetic.
>
> Well, they want to have their cake and eat it. They are scared of
> having "only" faith to go by, so they prefer to think that there is
> all sorts of "evidence" for God and their "Biblical worldview" - this
> makes them feel more secure. So they pretend (to themselves, as much
> as to anyone else) that there is "scientific" proof of the things they
> believe. Which there isn't (what on EARTH would a proof of God's
> existence look like, anyway?!?), but they still want all the
> reassurances of "science".
>
> Then when faced with scientific responses to their supposed
> "scientific" evidences, they backpedal and either want creationism to
> be "not a theory", or ignore all evidence and arguments that show up
> their pretence to be totally unfounded in anything like real science.
So you are a Christian who thinks the bible is just a book written by
men.
Super.
So, on what other evidence do you base your beliefs?
Was Jesus divine? Did he really exist? Do you believe that the
miracles attributed to him actually took place? I mean, the only place
he is mentioned is in that book you acknowledge as being just a human
creation (I know a handful other early writers referred to Jesus, but
only in the context of what early Christian believed... They were not
pretending to write about Jesus as a historical person as they did
when they wrote about other historical characters. Also, a brief
mention lost in thousands of words is not what I call a historical
reference...).
I am struggling to understand how a Christian can be a Christian while
rejecting the "god inspired the bible" doctrine...
I mean, without the bible, and the childhood indoctrination that flows
from it, what actual evidence anyone has that his god is real and that
he is related to the bible in some way? If your god is not related to
the bible, then why call yourself a Christian?
???
_____________________________________________
A good butt-whipping and then a prayer is a wonderful remedy.
-- Fob James, describing his solution to the juvenile crime problem
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:i6jvn2$olu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:rD6jo.143508$ki7....@newsfe24.ams2...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>> To say that DNA is only chemistry, is like saying a highly technical
>>> instruction manual is only paper and ink..no intelligence or purpose
>>> required in its origin.
>>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Well done - superb demonstration of the absolutely obvious fact that
>> you clearly *expect* and *want* there to be an intelligent something
>> at the back of it all.
>
> Well there -is- an intelligent something behind the origin
> of computers, and also the genomes of all living things.
Once again, you show the inability to distinguish between an analogy, and
the real world .... AND the difference between "man-made", and "occurs in
nature".
>
> Genomes do suffer the effects of mutations and entropy,
> but the evidence is that their origin was only through an
> intelligent causation.
Again, claiming "evidence", which you have never provided.
Then using the deranged distortions you provide - as though it actually was
evidence.
Neat attampt at a balancing act - to support a pile of hot, steamy bull
shit - on the top of nothing more than hot air.
>
> Think about it. Study it out, and follow where the TRUTH
> leads.
The truth "Always" leads to the fact that you're arguments, asserions, and
conclusions are based on nothing more than your iown mental delusions.
Hundreds of thousands of scientists have thought about it (and have ACTUAL,
valid, and repeatable evidence to back it up).
Just in this news group, hundreds of people have read, followed, understood,
and agreed with those scientific findings.
The reality ........... aka "the truth" is that you are among the insane
groups who haven't "thought" (about this or anything else).
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "The Magpie" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To say that DNA is only chemistry, is like saying a highly technical
>>>> instruction manual is only paper and ink..no intelligence or purpose
>>>> required in its origin.
>>>>
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>> Well done - superb demonstration of the absolutely obvious fact that
>>> you clearly *expect* and *want* there to be an intelligent something
>>> at the back of it all.
>>
>> Well there -is- an intelligent something behind the origin
>> of computers, and also the genomes of all living things.
>
> Once again, you show the inability to distinguish between an analogy,
> and the real world .... AND the difference between "man-made", and
> "occurs in nature".
NATURE, n. [L. from nature, born, produced,]
1. In a general sense, whatever is made or produced; a
word that comprehends all the works of God; the universe.
2. By a metonymy of the effect for the cause, nature is used
Budikka666
> "PepsiFr...@teranews.com" wrote in messagenews:cLXjo.68995$IH1....@newsfe18.iad...
Still no positive scientific evidence for creation I see.
Still unable to refute 150 years of solid science supporting evolution
and abiogenesis, I see.
Still unable to refute even *one* of the 25 threads disproving
creation, I see.
Still posting the same refuted quotations for which he's to big of a
coward to even offer a source, I see.
Still RUNNING like the stinking diarrhea he's insisted upon proving
himself to be, I see.
Nothing new here.
Budikka
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature
I gave a reference 'net address ............... where's yours? (or, as you
often do, make this up yourself?)
+ Dictionaries are not "scientific evidence" of anything. They just show the
meanings of words based on rational evidence for the common useage of that
word.
nature
na·ture
ne t ?r/ Show Spelled[ney-cher]
-noun
1.
the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently
of human activities.
2.
the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3.
the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.
4.
natural scenery.
5.
the universe, with all its phenomena.
6.
the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
7.
reality, as distinguished from any effect of art: a portrait true to nature.
8.
the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal,
thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent
character: human nature.
9.
the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good
nature.
10.
character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature.
11.
characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil
nature.
12.
the original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind.
13.
the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements.
14.
a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state.
15.
a simple, uncluttered mode of life without the conveniences or distractions
of civilization: a return to nature.
16.
( initial capital letter, italics ) a prose work (1836), by Ralph Waldo
Emerson, expounding transcendentalism.
17.
Theology . the moral state as unaffected by grace.
-Idioms
18.
by nature, as a result of inborn or inherent qualities; innately: She is by
nature a kindhearted person.
19.
in a state of nature,
a.
in an uncivilized or uncultured condition.
b.
without clothes; nude; naked.
20.
of / inthe nature of, having the character or qualities of: in the nature of
an apology.
Answer_42
<snip>
> No I don't "pick and choose".
Yes you do.
"
The flood.. well obviously this is a myth...
The resurrection, yes I'll buy that.
"
On what grounds?
They are both mythical impossible stories.
You think that by choosing to believe one and not the other based on
faith makes the whole thing justifiable?
How?
The fundies are also using faith, they just go a little further than
you do.
> Why do fundamentalists always think that
> this is what non-fundamentalist Christians do?
Because, sadly, in the final analysis, they are right , it is what you
do.
> I have faith, and I am
> humble enough to admit that to my limited human understanding of God,
> and that the Bible is also a limited human collection of writings,
> which certainly was inspired by God but is demonstrably not
> "infallible".
So, god makes mistakes?
> I believe based on what I am able to understand - could
> a loving God demand anything more?
>
> And yet you fundamentalists are so arrogant that you think you have
> God in a little box. You think you've got him between a few odd-
> hundred pages in a book called the New King James Bible.
And where else do YOU get information regarding what/who/how god is?
> You are so
> assured of your interpretation of Scripture that you are prepared to
> condemn even your fellow Christian brothers and sisters just to
> reassure yourself that you've "got" the "right" kind of faith.
>
> I place my trust in GOD - what am I able to understand of Him - not in
> my little religious sect's interpretations. HE is surely able to judge
> me justly,
How do yo know?
> and save me if that is His will.
How do you know?
> I am not afraid of death.
Fine, but basically, this means you made up god how you want him to
be, then you have faith that your own made up creature is likely to be
what you think it is...
Fundamentally, how is this any different from someone who truly
believes that if they step outside their house some giant condor is
going to swing by and grab them in order to feed them to his giant
chicks?
You both have faith in what you believe based on stuff you both made
up.
But, luckily for you, your type of self-made belief is socially
acceptable (heck, it is even encouraged and children are being
indoctrinated in that type of behaviour the world over... sad,
really), however the other believer needs medication.
Truly, the only difference is a difference of degree, one of the
belief is moe debilitating than the other.
> If I come to the end of my life having believed the "wrong"
> interpretation, or even finding that God doesn't exist at all, at
> least I can say I remained humble to the end, never lying to myself or
> to others, submitting to truth wherever I could grasp it, going where
Very commendable, but the sad thing is you do not seem to realize that
you do not need god at all to live your life as you are living it.
> the evidence leads,
Since there does not exist any evidence whatsoever for the existence
of any god, I guess that you make an exception for your god belief,
right?
> not merely clutching at straws. You, on the other
> hand, may be very surprised at what you find at the end of your life.
Careful now... you are dangerously close to exhibiting the behaviour
for which you were condemning him in your post...
Don Kresch
wrote:
>"Pepsi...@teranews.com" wrote in message news:cLXjo.68995$IH1....@newsfe18.iad...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "The Magpie" wrote:
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> To say that DNA is only chemistry, is like saying a highly technical
>>>>> instruction manual is only paper and ink..no intelligence or purpose
>>>>> required in its origin.
>>>>>
>>>> Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> Well done - superb demonstration of the absolutely obvious fact that
>>>> you clearly *expect* and *want* there to be an intelligent something
>>>> at the back of it all.
>>>
>>> Well there -is- an intelligent something behind the origin
>>> of computers, and also the genomes of all living things.
>>
>> Once again, you show the inability to distinguish between an analogy,
>> and the real world .... AND the difference between "man-made", and
>> "occurs in nature".
>
>NATURE, n. [L. from nature, born, produced,]
>1. In a general sense, whatever is made or produced; a
>word that comprehends all the works of God; the universe.
Blatant question-begging.
Stephen B
> So you are a Christian who thinks the bible is just a book written by
> men.
>
> Super.
>
> So, on what other evidence do you base your beliefs?
>
> Was Jesus divine? Did he really exist? Do you believe that the
> miracles attributed to him actually took place? I mean, the only place
> he is mentioned is in that book you acknowledge as being just a humancreation(I know a handful other early writers referred to Jesus, but
> only in the context of what early Christian believed... They were not
> pretending to write about Jesus as a historical person as they did
> when they wrote about other historical characters. Also, a brief
> mention lost in thousands of words is not what I call a historical
> reference...).
>
> I am struggling to understand how a Christian can be a Christian while
> rejecting the "god inspired the bible" doctrine...
I never said I reject the idea that God inspired the Bible. I was
merely disputing the mode of inspiration, which has significant
implications for how one is able to interpret Scripture. I never said
the Bible was "just" a book written by men.
I personally think the Bible is a very special book, containing a very
powerful message. However, I know enough about it to know it did not
get beamed down from Heaven one day. It was written by human beings,
thus reflecting their own limited imagination, understandings and
prejudices of their subjective experiences. The total picture, for me
at least, is clear enough.
> I mean, without the bible, and the childhood indoctrination that flows
> from it, what actual evidence anyone has that his god is real and that
> he is related to the bible in some way? If your god is not related to
> the bible, then why call yourself a Christian?
Once again, I never meant to go "without the Bible". For me, the
message contained in the Bible, particularly in the words and actions
of Jesus, are convincing. This story speaks to my experience, the
picture it paints of God seems to me to make sense of myself and the
world I live in. I make no claims for scientific support of the
existence of God.
What I do dispute is that Biblical Literalism is necessary for being a
Christian. There are many gaps in what we can know for sure; why is
that necessarily a dreaded problem? I'm not advocating being in a
perpetual state of doubt, but I think that living with doubt and being
honest about it is far better than damning everyone who disagree with
your views and spreading propaganda about it.
>> not merely clutching at straws. You, on the other
>> hand, may be very surprised at what you find at the end of your life.
>Careful now... you are dangerously close to exhibiting the behaviour
>for which you were condemning him in your post...
My humble apologies; I do regret putting it quite like that. I didn't
mean "you will find yourself condemned". I meant that he might find
that the real God, if He exists, may be a whole lot more than what he
imagined.
Answer_42
But I am still struggling understanding how you can reconcile
"
It was written by human beings,
thus reflecting their own limited imagination, understandings and
prejudices of their subjective experiences.
"
with
"
I never said I reject the idea that God inspired the Bible.
"
???
How can a subjective text give access to an objective truth?
> > I mean, without the bible, and the childhood indoctrination that flows
> > from it, what actual evidence anyone has that his god is real and that
> > he is related to the bible in some way? If your god is not related to
> > the bible, then why call yourself a Christian?
>
> Once again, I never meant to go "without the Bible". For me, the
> message contained in the Bible, particularly in the words and actions
> of Jesus, are convincing.
How is it convincing to you that a man did all those so-called
miracles?
> This story speaks to my experience,
You have experienced multiplication of fish, walking on water, raising
dead people, sending demons into pigs, etc.?
> the
> picture it paints of God seems to me to make sense of myself and the
> world I live in.
Ain't this a little circular?
The only information you have of god is in the bible, but you claim
that this information is congruent with the world you live in, which
does not yield any infromation regarding god whatsoever, so all you
have is the bible...
Meanwhile, this bible paints two vastly different picture of god, so
you pick the one you like... and then claim that this god makes sense
with your world... What about the other one that does not make sense?
Maybe he is the right one, how do you know he is not?
> I make no claims for scientific support of the
> existence of God.
Fair enough, but a little objective evidence would be nice, no?
> What I do dispute is that Biblical Literalism is necessary for being a
> Christian. There are many gaps in what we can know for sure; why is
> that necessarily a dreaded problem? I'm not advocating being in a
> perpetual state of doubt, but I think that living with doubt and being
> honest about it is far better than damning everyone who disagree with
> your views and spreading propaganda about it.
Indeed.
> >> not merely clutching at straws. You, on the other
> >> hand, may be very surprised at what you find at the end of your life.
> >Careful now... you are dangerously close to exhibiting the behaviour
> >for which you were condemning him in your post...
>
> My humble apologies; I do regret putting it quite like that. I didn't
> mean "you will find yourself condemned". I meant that he might find
> that the real God, if He exists, may be a whole lot more than what he
> imagined.
Don't worry, I did not mean to chastise... I forgot to add a
smiley... :-)
_________________________________________
It is much safer to obey than to rule.
-- Thomas à Kempis
fasgnadh
> A solid test of the validity of a scientific theory is whether it
> makes predictions and when tested, those predictions prove true.
The atheist states of the 20th century predicted a new Utopia would be
ushered in when they finally implemented Diderot's Dream, the Atheist's
Final Solution, and "the last king is strangled with the entrails of the
last priest."?
And instead of a paradise, they actually created hellish TYRANNIES! 8^o
Yet they still seek MORE mass murder and genocide:
# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: A.A. BAAWA - FAQ
# Message-ID: <p8mrb5lvaf0cj5bp1...@4ax.com>
# Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:46:34 -0700
#
# We kill theists and shit down their throats and
# not in a girly way.
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA
Brutal Atheist Animals Without Agape
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
Not satisfied with murder, Steve favours GENOCIDE
# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.islam
# Subject: Re: Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
# Message-ID: <8t6ve5hs41qn3a2rv...@4ax.com>
# Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:58:18 -0800
#
# On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:22:32 +0200, "Katrina"
# <blondes_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#
# >Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
#
# It is the most foul, disgusting filth on Earth.
# The sooner we nuke you fuckers, the better.
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA
While religious civilisation has evolved and produced all of the
free, open, prosperous, progressive, rights-based secular democracies
which even the atheists prefer to live in, EVERY atheist state
has been a totalitarian tyranny and resulted in catastrophic failure!
Atheist states have DEVOLVED!
> Unlike the Theory of Evolution
atheism ignores the EVIDENCE of history
> it begins with blind
...
and doctrinaire
> dogma and then is forced to perform acrobatics to get itself
> into alignment with the evidence.
Watch Bukakke snip and run to avoid the dark and despairing history
of atheist tyranny.
> Unlike Evolution, which is evidence-
> based and evidence-directed science,
..
atheism is held by those who BLINDLY believe all kinds of nonsense:
> no matter
> how decidedly the evidence disproves it.
# It's Official, Atheists claim to be a persecuted RELIGION: B^D
#
#
# "THE Atheist Foundation of Australia has lodged complaints
# of religious discrimination in Melbourne and Hobart
#
# "atheism counts as a religion, Dr Perkins said."
# The Age 29/1/2009
# "it makes utterly no difference which goddesses or gods
# you believe in, as long as you have some...
# Me, I'd suggest Bastet." - Cary Kittrell
#
# (has he misspelled 'Kitten'? ;-)
Profit Dawkins declares Atheist Gods exist:
# "It’s very important to understand that these Gods
# came into being
# - Richard Dawkins
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=all
When did that happen? where? How many 'came into being'?
Do they have names?
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?!??
..Atheist activist Bukakke has built an Atheist altar to worship them;
# From: Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,
alt.religion,alt.religion.christian
# Subject: Disapproving Creation:
# Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:23:40 -0800 (PST)
# Message-ID:
<b5430732-e52e-45b5...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
#
#
#> come worshiping at the altar of atheism,
> Budikka
--
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
Vurgil
> # "It�s very important to understand that these Gods
> # came into being
> # - Richard Dawkins
�It�s very important to understand that these Gods came into being by an
explicable scientific progression of incremental evolution.�
Read it all at
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=all
Which was quote-mined with intent to deceive from the complete sentence:
�It�s very important to understand that these Gods came into being by an
explicable scientific progression of incremental evolution.�
Read it all at
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=all