Bad arguments,sheer Atheist's ignorance
Frankie Lee
have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
anything rational in their arguments.
They are so confused as to what constitute as a piece of evidence,or
even the idea of "proof"eludes their definition.
No intelligent reader,or master of English Language expert,dare to
refute or rebut against the fact to say the Bible is not an evidence
of the Lord God,the creator.One can only say they refuse to accept
that as proof of God,and they have doubts of the evidence
presented.Then they can tell you why,and show reasons why;so do those
who presented the evidence,using the Bible as evidence,also need to
explain why,or how.
Is there any evidence of God as the creator of the universe,or He
exists?The traces of things on earth,and designs of organism,and the
Universe is evidence of God the Creator.Again,does the evidence,a
proof of the Creator God?
If you found a bone and say that is 4 million years old.That bone is
an evidence.Whether that is a proof,it is another issue.
Scientists discovery of extraordinary things must first give
information,and thesis as evidence.
Experimentation of things is an iron-clad form of evidence to show
invincible proofs.
Eg.If you want evidence to show that Jesus is risen from the dead,an
empty tomb of Christ is accepted as an evidence.If you want proof,a
definite fact,a reality of what I can offer,the best and the most
rational manner would be,one need to experience Him.
The best and most reliable proof,undisputed by all Intelligent being
who have reasons and logic,would be to call on Him.
Again,if one dispute the experimentation with a Living Jesus,just by
calling Him and fellow- shipping with Him,the Nay-sayer displays
ignorance and is one who discard reasons and logic and common sense.
The pillar,which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ,being alive here
and now,is the foundation of Christianity.The Bible says,quote Paul's
words,"If Christ is not risen from the dead,we(the Christians)of all
men we are the most pitied,and is most miserable".
I received praise in my email for writing great things,but I also had
many here ridiculing my messages.Was that sidelines an issue for me?
Nope.
The colors of deceits and the colors of a corrupted mindset, and
vulgarities words,as compared to the decency and righteousness of
words,they can be seen.It is proof.
IAAH
> After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
> have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
> anything rational in their arguments.
>
> They are so confused as to what constitute as a piece of evidence,or
> even the idea of "proof"eludes their definition.
>
> No intelligent reader,or master of English Language expert,dare to
> refute or rebut against the fact to say the Bible is not an evidence
> of the Lord God,the creator.One can only say they refuse to accept
> that as proof of God,and they have doubts of the evidence
> presented.Then they can tell you why,and show reasons why;so do those
> who presented the evidence,using the Bible as evidence,also need to
> explain why,or how.
There is not one person who has shown that the
Xtian Bible is divinely inspired, since nobody has
ever shown the existence of the divine.
>
> Is there any evidence of God as the creator of the universe,or He
> exists?The traces of things on earth,and designs of organism,and the
> Universe is evidence of God the Creator.Again,does the evidence,a
> proof of the Creator God?
No, there is not.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
Bertrand Russell
Mitchell Holman
ea13fc...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> The pillar,which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ,being alive here
> and now,is the foundation of Christianity.The Bible says,quote Paul's
> words,"If Christ is not risen from the dead,we(the Christians)of all
> men we are the most pitied,and is most miserable".
OK, let's look at this resurrection.
Who were the women at the tomb?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and
other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived
(19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
Did the women tell what happened?
Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all
these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9,22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had
been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve?
Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away)
(28:16-17)
Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at
meat" (16:12,14)
Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to
the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31,36)
John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13)
Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at the appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin
air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses
them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that
this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
FRANKIE LEE
> On 11/8/09 10:34 PM, * Frankie Lee wrote:
>
> > After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
> > have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
> > anything rational in their arguments.
>
> > They are so confused as to what constitute as a piece of evidence,or
> > even the idea of "proof"eludes their definition.
>
> > No intelligent reader,or master of English Language expert,dare to
> > refute or rebut against the fact to say the Bible is not an evidence
> > of the Lord God,the creator.One can only say they refuse to accept
> > that as proof of God,and they have doubts of the evidence
> > presented.Then they can tell you why,and show reasons why;so do those
> > who presented the evidence,using the Bible as evidence,also need to
> > explain why,or how.
> There is not one person who has shown that the
> Xtian Bible is divinely inspired, since nobody has
> ever shown the existence of the divine.
Me: Since you chose to be rational,that is a good step.
Contrary to your knowledge regarding none had shown you the Bible as
divinely inspired,let diffuse your bias-knowledge.
Moses revealed that he received the ten commandments from God,the
Divine.It was written in the Bible.That is proof.
Moses had shown the existence of the divine,he encountered God.
So your statements are not valid.Your true objections must be in the
realms where you are disbelieving his accounts.eg..His credibility.Or
the records are untrue,etc...reliability....
------------------------------------
>
> > Is there any evidence of God as the creator of the universe,or He
> > exists?The traces of things on earth,and designs of organism,and the
> > Universe is evidence of God the Creator.Again,does the evidence,a
> > proof of the Creator God?
>
> No, there is not.
***Me: According to you,the evidence is not a proof of God.That is
reasonable.
But to me,it is.Here is why.
1,Using secular logics...
In Mathematics,an unknown factor,we use the symbol X.The
word"God"meaning a supernatural Being,outside time,space and matter.A
Creator.In other words,you cannot say or argue that Creations or
designs of the Universe does not have a factor X.
It is just like,to say,all students must not use the X factor,because
there is no X factor.What we can say is,the X factor is unknown.
In Ephesians,there was an altar which carries these words."The Unknown
God".
> --
> "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
> is no God. I equally cannot
> prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
> may exist; so may the gods of
> Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
> no one of these hypotheses is
> more probable than any other: they lie outside the
> region of even probable
> knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
> consider any of them."
> Bertrand Russell
...therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
Frankie: Why he is so terribly wrong.If a person doesn't know what
happens after death,would he not consider the best and alternative
explanations?
IF THE GOD OF THE BIBLE ***MAY MAY MAY be true,its dire warnings are
abundance for sinners,and of punishment and of everlasting life***can
it not be reasons to consider them, rather than not consider them?
I thought Bertrand Russell lost its essence long ago,how come his
follies is now even quoted?
IAAH
> On Nov 9, 11:35 am, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote:
>> On 11/8/09 10:34 PM, * Frankie Lee wrote:
>>
>>> After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
>>> have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
>>> anything rational in their arguments.
>>> They are so confused as to what constitute as a piece of evidence,or
>>> even the idea of "proof"eludes their definition.
>>> No intelligent reader,or master of English Language expert,dare to
>>> refute or rebut against the fact to say the Bible is not an evidence
>>> of the Lord God,the creator.One can only say they refuse to accept
>>> that as proof of God,and they have doubts of the evidence
>>> presented.Then they can tell you why,and show reasons why;so do those
>>> who presented the evidence,using the Bible as evidence,also need to
>>> explain why,or how.
> -----------------------------------------
>> There is not one person who has shown that the
>> Xtian Bible is divinely inspired, since nobody has
>> ever shown the existence of the divine.
>
> Me: Since you chose to be rational,that is a good step.
> Contrary to your knowledge regarding none had shown you the Bible as
> divinely inspired,let diffuse your bias-knowledge.
>
> Moses revealed that he received the ten commandments from God,the
> Divine.It was written in the Bible.That is proof.
No, it isn't. There is no provenance for that claim.
A thing written in the bible is no more or less
trustworthy than the evidence given. No evidence
means not trustworthy (especially since the
provenance of the entire bible is up for debate).
>
> Moses had shown the existence of the divine,he encountered God.
No provenance, so not evidence.
>
> So your statements are not valid.Your true objections must be in the
> realms where you are disbelieving his accounts.eg..His credibility.Or
> the records are untrue,etc...reliability....
>
> ------------------------------------
>>> Is there any evidence of God as the creator of the universe,or He
>>> exists?The traces of things on earth,and designs of organism,and the
>>> Universe is evidence of God the Creator.Again,does the evidence,a
>>> proof of the Creator God?
>> No, there is not.
>
> ***Me: According to you,the evidence is not a proof of God.That is
> reasonable.
> But to me,it is.Here is why.
>
> 1,Using secular logics...
> In Mathematics,an unknown factor,we use the symbol X.The
> word"God"meaning a supernatural Being,outside time,space and matter.A
> Creator.In other words,you cannot say or argue that Creations or
> designs of the Universe does not have a factor X.
But since extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof, the extraordinary proof of
the divine is yours to provide.
>
> It is just like,to say,all students must not use the X factor,because
> there is no X factor.What we can say is,the X factor is unknown.
>
> In Ephesians,there was an altar which carries these words."The Unknown
> God".
The evidence is unknown too, correct?
>
>
>> --
>> "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
>> is no God. I equally cannot
>> prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
>> may exist; so may the gods of
>> Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
>> no one of these hypotheses is
>> more probable than any other: they lie outside the
>> region of even probable
>> knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
>> consider any of them."
>> Bertrand Russell
>
> ...therefore there is no reason to
> consider any of them."
>
> Frankie: Why he is so terribly wrong.If a person doesn't know what
> happens after death,would he not consider the best and alternative
> explanations?
How is positing the existence of an omniscient,
omnipotent, omnipresent being, without any
evidence to support such a thing, the best
explanation?
>
> IF THE GOD OF THE BIBLE ***MAY MAY MAY be true,its dire warnings are
> abundance for sinners,and of punishment and of everlasting life***can
> it not be reasons to consider them, rather than not consider them?
Sorry, Pascal's wager was debunked quite some time
ago.
>
> I thought Bertrand Russell lost its essence long ago,how come his
> follies is now even quoted?
That Bertrand Russel quote is a precise
encapsulation of non-dogmatic atheism.
Olrik
> After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
> have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
> anything rational in their arguments.
You chose to ignore anything we replied when you first came here in a.a.
Now you've become a pain in the butt and you only deserve mockery.
> They are so confused as to what constitute as a piece of evidence,or
> even the idea of "proof"eludes their definition.
>
> No intelligent reader,or master of English Language expert,dare to
> refute or rebut against the fact to say the Bible is not an evidence
> of the Lord God,the creator.
Well, no, it's not. An old book is not proof of anything. What you need
is *corroboration*. Can you spell "corroboration"? I knew you could not.
> One can only say they refuse to accept
> that as proof of God,and they have doubts of the evidence
> presented.
That's called critical thinking. Look into it.
> Then they can tell you why,and show reasons why;so do those
> who presented the evidence,using the Bible as evidence,also need to
> explain why,or how.
>
> Is there any evidence of God as the creator of the universe,or He
> exists?The traces of things on earth,and designs of organism,and the
> Universe is evidence of God the Creator.Again,does the evidence,a
> proof of the Creator God?
No.
> If you found a bone and say that is 4 million years old.That bone is
> an evidence.Whether that is a proof,it is another issue.
Oh, and there's the problem of your "writing". It sucks. Try to keep
your posts & sentences **short**. (Or, preferably, FOAD)
> Scientists discovery of extraordinary things must first give
> information,and thesis as evidence.
> Experimentation of things is an iron-clad form of evidence to show
> invincible proofs.
>
> Eg.If you want evidence to show that Jesus is risen from the dead,an
> empty tomb of Christ is accepted as an evidence.
No. It's simply evidence of AN EMPTY TOMB. Boy you're stupid.
> If you want proof,a
> definite fact,a reality of what I can offer,the best and the most
> rational manner would be,one need to experience Him.
LOL
> The best and most reliable proof,undisputed by all Intelligent being
> who have reasons and logic,would be to call on Him.
Of course not.
> Again,if one dispute the experimentation with a Living Jesus
WTF does that mean? You're just bleating religious dogma.
> ,just by
> calling Him and fellow- shipping with Him,the Nay-sayer displays
> ignorance and is one who discard reasons and logic and common sense.
> The pillar,which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ,being alive here
> and now,is the foundation of Christianity.
Then your "foundation" is shaky, built on the quicksand of mythology.
> The Bible says,quote Paul's
> words,"If Christ is not risen from the dead,we(the Christians)of all
> men we are the most pitied,and is most miserable".
So be it!
> I received praise in my email for writing great things,but I also had
> many here ridiculing my messages.Was that sidelines an issue for me?
> Nope.
>
> The colors of deceits and the colors of a corrupted mindset, and
> vulgarities words,as compared to the decency and righteousness of
> words,they can be seen.It is proof.
Whatever. You're a deluded moron. I don't know who did damage you, but
they sure did a great job. Were you physically assaulted as well?
Olrik
Frankie Lee
> Frankie Lee <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:e5821c5d-d574-4d6c-b7ac-
> ea13fc4e4...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > The pillar,which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ,being alive here
> > and now,is the foundation of Christianity.The Bible says,quote Paul's
> > words,"If Christ is not risen from the dead,we(the Christians)of all
> > men we are the most pitied,and is most miserable".
>
> OK, let's look at this resurrection.
Me: ***Fair doubts.If the scriptures contradicts themselves,it is
evidence of meticulous inaccuracies.Reasonably,it doesn't negates the
main and uppermost,main,overall,most important,greatest point--of
Jesus resurrection.The devils are in its details.
--------------------------------------
> Who were the women at the tomb?
>
> Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
> Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
> Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and
> other women (24:10)
> John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
Me: What was your objections of this account?You pose no objections as
far as I can see it.From the 4 accounts,we saw two Mary,having the
same initial name.Mark gave more descriptions linking to mother of
James and Salome.In total,how many women went there,to the tomb of
Jesus?No one knows.The reporters told us 3,but can it be 4 or 5 by
speculations?Of course one can.Can it be less than 3?Definitely not.It
would be fallacies.
(Invalid objections)
Just by such accounts,the meticulous accuracy is most shocking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What was their purpose?
>
> Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
> Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
> Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
> John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived
> (19:39,40)
Me: Where was your objections?
The two Marys beheld or saw where Jesus was laid.They went back,and
came the next day,or some other time,brought along spices to anoint
Jesus'body.Do these two Marys know Jesus was already anointed with
spices?Do they know at NIGHT Nicodemus,anoint Jesus with spices?Marys
didn't know.So they came with spices to anoint Jesus,at a later
time,went to the tomb,and saw the Stone rolled away.
The "Night"where Nicodemus anointed Jesus with spices shows how
accurate the Biblical accounts was.
The guy who tried to distort the bible is found to have been,an
ignorant"scholar".No basic understanding of Literature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Was the tomb open when they arrived?
>
> Matthew: No (28:2)
> Mark: Yes (16:4)
> Luke: Yes (24:2)
> John: Yes (20:1)
***Me: I don't see any objections but conjectures as to why it was
open and close matter.For the 4 accounts,piece together the
evidence,it gave such precise accounts which is most shocking.If I
were you I would say,they must have a conspiracy to make it look so
smooth and perfect,rather than contradictions.Conspiracy theory is
more reasonable for the public consumption,if I am the slanderer.
These women came,saw the Tomb closed,then saw the Stone rolled
away,saw Angels,having grave doubts,run to Peter,etc....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wakalukong
> After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
> have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
> anything rational in their arguments.
----------
This is not surprising as your skull is empty.
Wakalukong
Frankie Lee
> Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
>
> Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
> Mark: One young man (16:5)
> Luke: Two men (24:4)
> John: Two angels (20:12)
Reply: All of the above.Got it?
If a woman saw him like a man,but base on the description from the eye-
witnesses,the writer would say he was an angel.The bright shining
raiment are all clear indication.John said they are Angels,it is
precise.Luke described two men in shining garments.
A young man with bright shining garment=Angel.
Two men with shining garment=Angels.
Are they men or angels?
If I wanted to distort the bible,I will never use such lame
examples,lest I am seen to be a real dishonest guy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Where were these messengers situated?
>
> Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
> Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
> Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
> John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
Me: One cannot read a description of events,like as though one is
LOOKING at photographs,where everything is static.There are
movements.I thought we have invented Video cameras which supersede
static photographs,that gave us better visual and knowledge of
events.How can our minds go backward,suppose the events as
described,to be seen as static?
---------------------------------------------------------------
> Did the women tell what happened?
>
> Matthew: Yes (28:8)
> Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
> Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all
> these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9,22-24)
> John: Yes (20:18)
Me: Hello!On their way..along their way....they didn't say anything to
any man..TILL THEY TOLD TO THE ELEVEN.....
After having the hindsight of the events,how can one act blur?If I
write it,I would have said the same things like Mark.They didn't say
any thing to any man.They were afraid.In verse 7,8,9......verse 7 they
were told to tell it to the disciples...verse 8..they obeyed
because ...neither they said to any man...
------------------------------------------------------------
> When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had
> been resurrected?
>
> Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
> Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
> Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
> John: No (20:2)
>
***Me:Did Mary knew Jesus was risen?All she knew,with doubts was,the
body was not there.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> When did Mary first see Jesus?
>
> Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)...the angel told her..not Jesus.
> Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)..this later time Jesus appeared to her,after the angel told her something.
> John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)...there was this running back and forth,and several encounters.
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
>
> Matthew: Yes (28:9)
> John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
Me: When Jesus was risen,He cannot be touched,(His being cannot be
tainted with earthly sinful matters)but when He completed His priestly
duties done in Heaven,He returned to earth,and He can be touched,even
now one can actually touch Jesus.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
>
> Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
> Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
> Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
> John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
> Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve?
> Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Reply: All of the above.
----------------------------------------------
>
On Nov 9, 12:09 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Frankie Lee <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:e5821c5d-d574-4d6c-b7ac-
> ea13fc4e4...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
Frankie Lee
Reply: Matt 28:16 17…Jesus appointed them to meet in a mountain. So
your queries of…where did Jesus ***first*** appear….Your premises were
all confused.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did the disciples believe the two men?
>
> Mark: No (16:13)
> Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
Me: You answered your own queries. Not all of His disciples believe
then.Note the word,’the residue doesn’t believe”.KJV
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What happened at the appearance?
>
> Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
> Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
> Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin
> air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
> John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses
> them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Reply: All of the above.
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
>
> Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that
> this was all done on Sunday
> Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
> John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
> Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Reply: Did Jesus stay for a while? Yes.
Just because in-between the “verses” say 50 and 51 of Luke, didn’t
describe to a million pages …so the answer meant No, so He didn’t stay
for a while?
Mark 16:19….Should Mark write like this?...AFTER JESUS HAD
SPOKEN..AFTER STAYING ON EARTH FOR A LONG TIME…ETC…THEN we are to say
He stayed for a while?Otherwise,Mark said No.
The approached to reading any articles with expectations of our own
theory and assumptions, project for others as to what it should be, it
is a sign to say we can write better than the author.
Comprehension skills are the problem for such doubters.
------------------------------------------------
> Where did the ascension take place?
>
> Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
> Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
> Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
> John: No ascension
> Paul: No ascension
> Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
The above remarks show a deep miss-comprehension of scriptures, or
miss comprehension of any literatures or articles.
How can the book end on Galilee mean there wasn’t any ascension?
Can we say then, if it ends with ascension, and then there is
ascension? I suppose it must be incoherent from the part of the
doubters who objected the scriptures.
This is the simplest evidence to show how uneducated folks approached
any literature of books, with no logics and miss-comprehension when
tackling the subjects.
I remember while I was in a class, doing literature, and all sort of
answers from a simple passage, came from all sorts of student.
Frankie Lee
> On Nov 9, 11:34 am, Frankie Lee <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote:> After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
> > have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
> > anything rational in their arguments.
>
> (snip)
> ----------
> This is not surprising as your skull is empty.
>
> Wakalukong
***Did you not know you are rebuking yourself as having empty skull?If
I am empty,you would have refute my words.Simply because you can't
REFUTE MY WORDS,so you hurl silly notions for your own
consumptions,KNOWING I WILL NOT CONSUME YOUR NONSENSE.
Frankie Lee
> Frankie Lee wrote:
> > After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
> > have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
> > anything rational in their arguments.
>
> You chose to ignore anything we replied when you first came here in a.a.
> Now you've become a pain in the butt and you only deserve mockery.
***I never ignore anything that is rational and reasonable.You can
check.I have become a pain for you guys?Are you admitting that I have
converted your guys and win over your guys to my side so it is now a
pain for you guys?
I deserved mockery because you guys are helpless to rebut my words?Or
is it the other way round?
----------------------------------------------------
>
> > They are so confused as to what constitute as a piece of evidence,or
> > even the idea of "proof"eludes their definition.
>
> > No intelligent reader,or master of English Language expert,dare to
> > refute or rebut against the fact to say the Bible is not an evidence
> > of the Lord God,the creator.
>
> Well, no, it's not. An old book is not proof of anything. What you need
> is *corroboration*. Can you spell "corroboration"? I knew you could not.
Reply: Does the Biblical history has any corroboration?It is so easy
to provide corroboration to the Bible,thanks..it would be so
easy,beyond the wildest dreams.
What you assumed was, there wasn't any corroboration to the accounts
of the Bible.Was there no corroboration?
--------------------------------------------
>
> > One can only say they refuse to accept
> > that as proof of God,and they have doubts of the evidence
> > presented.
>
> That's called critical thinking. Look into it.
>
> > Then they can tell you why,and show reasons why;so do those
> > who presented the evidence,using the Bible as evidence,also need to
> > explain why,or how.
>
> > Is there any evidence of God as the creator of the universe,or He
> > exists?The traces of things on earth,and designs of organism,and the
> > Universe is evidence of God the Creator.Again,does the evidence,a
> > proof of the Creator God?
>
> No.
**I have provided replies,so not repeating here.
-----------------------------------
>
> > If you found a bone and say that is 4 million years old.That bone is
> > an evidence.Whether that is a proof,it is another issue.
>
> Oh, and there's the problem of your "writing". It sucks. Try to keep
> your posts & sentences **short**. (Or, preferably, FOAD)
***That is why I did the above.Short.Make it clear for people like
you.But you just still cannot understand.
------------------------------------------------
> > Scientists discovery of extraordinary things must first give
> > information,and thesis as evidence.
> > Experimentation of things is an iron-clad form of evidence to show
> > invincible proofs.
>
> > Eg.If you want evidence to show that Jesus is risen from the dead,an
> > empty tomb of Christ is accepted as an evidence.
>
> No. It's simply evidence of AN EMPTY TOMB. Boy you're stupid.
Me: A tomb is suppose to bury toys and chairs and tables.
The degree of intelligence detected from you is too low.You have not
shown any intelligence.The worst and most obnoxious idiot would argue
that an empty tomb,a burial place of Jesus,is evidence of an Empty
Tomb.This is being irrational.Illogical.Unreasonable.
Now,who is stupid?Do I need to explain further to you,or should I
ignore a nut?
----------------------------------
Frankie Lee
===============
> No provenance, so not evidence.
===============
Reply: Since Moses had provenance,so it is evidence.It was stated that
he received revelations from Mt Sinai.Now,there is a place,a name
mentioned.Investigators of crimes always need a name,a place,a tool,or
something,and they called it evidence.
Archeologist found Mt Sinai.It is not a fictitious place.It is a
historical fact.So your assumption of nil provenance is flawed.
Again,you can dispute whether his personal experience,or recorders of
History were accurate,up to the part of revelations,not up to the part
of provenance.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Me: My assertions or yours,just mere reasons.The rationale is the
issue here.
---------------------------------------------------
>
> > I thought Bertrand Russell lost its essence long ago,how come his
> > follies is now even quoted?
>
> That Bertrand Russel quote is a precise
> encapsulation of non-dogmatic atheism.
***Reply: Let's say you meant Bertrand Russel quote is encapsulation
of atheism.Let us leave out 'Non-dogmatic atheism" first".Otherwise,it
is circular reasoning and self contradictions.
He espoused a doctrine of ignorance to the bible and the things about
God on the basis,to a probability that God may be true,and the Bible
may be true.In other words,Atheists were told to be agnostic,and not
atheistic.As he himself could not prove whether there is a God or
not,he disqualifies himself in the arena,as an expert of the things of
God or the bible.
In every true sense of his quotes,one can decipher that he is urging
sensible and logical agnostics to get answers from Theologians and
Christians on those answers where they can provide.
The clue to his words are these,"Non-dogma".
>
> --
> "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
> is no God. I equally cannot
> prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
> may exist; so may the gods of
> Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
> no one of these hypotheses is
> more probable than any other: they lie outside the
> region of even probable
> knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
> consider any of them."
> Bertrand Russell
***Me: Consider this.
So what happen if we want to find the Symbol,the factor X?There is
calculation.We follows the method of calculations,so that the unknown
Factor X,can be proven.
Firs of all,then, there must have enough information so that we can
work out the sums.I hope you see the logic,and then we proceed
further.
---------------------------------------
Wakalukong
I was refuting you. You actually believe the world will consume your
indigestible nonsense.
Wakalukong
panam...@hotmail.com
> After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
> have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
> anything rational in their arguments.
That's because you're ignoring anything that disagrees with your pre-
concieved nonsense, and too stupid to listen to what other people say.
snip
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Frankie Lee
***If they aren't challenged,why so many questions hurl at me?If it is
indigestible nonsense,why would you sniff at my back times and again?
Frankie Lee
That's because you're ignoring anything that disagrees with your pre-
> concieved nonsense, and too stupid to listen to what other people say.
Me: I made replies which were too abundanceAnd no one accept
nonsense,would you?Am I to listen to howlers?
I am the sender of messages,set the tone,and obviously they can refute
or challenge,but who would listen to nuts?
Why should I listen to Idiots?
Have I not proven that they are Idiots?Go and check for yourself.
AusShane
have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
anything rational in their arguments. "
That is because you would not understand a rational argument, even if
it stuck its hand down your throat and slapped your liver.........
Mitchell Holman
> On Nov 9, 12:09�pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Frankie Lee <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:e5821c5d-d574-4d6c-b7ac-
>> ea13fc4e4...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > The pillar,which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ,being alive
>> > here and now,is the foundation of Christianity.The Bible says,quote
>> > Paul's words,"If Christ is not risen from the dead,we(the
>> > Christians)of all men we are the most pitied,and is most
>> > miserable".
>>
>> � � OK, let's look at this resurrection.
> ***
> Me: ***Fair doubts.If the scriptures contradicts themselves,it is
> evidence of meticulous inaccuracies.Reasonably,it doesn't negates the
> main and uppermost,main,overall,most important,greatest point--of
> Jesus resurrection.The devils are in its details.
Either the Bible is inerrant or it is wrong.
FRANKIE LEE
Reply: I have reply simply on all your objections,regarding those so
called errors and inaccuracies.No one would deny simple technical or
copyist errors.For the general public domain,we strive to be accurate
on major points,because the finer points belong to the domain of
scholars and theologians,simply because they are deep aspects,long and
Spiritual.It is unfit for mere discussions.The bible cannot be
"inerrant",reasons are obvious.
1,Language Grasp.
2,Meaning of words change.
3,Minor copyists errors.
4,Human handling it.
If the Bible is written in Perfect Heavenly Language,no one would be
able to read or even understand it.
Can you find one public speaker,who would speak English without
grammar mistakes,pronunciation mixed up?Can you find one author of
book in our world,where its rough copies just goes to print?There is
edition.
Most historians are most happy if they can get their accounts with 70
% accuracy.
The Bible has the highest accuracy than all;and all the main points
and main stories cannot be faulty,or else it would be junk.
Mitchell Holman
> ==============> No provenance, so not evidence.
> ==============
> Reply: Since Moses had provenance,so it is evidence.It was stated that
> he received revelations from Mt Sinai.Now,there is a place,a name
> mentioned.Investigators of crimes always need a name,a place,a tool,or
> something,and they called it evidence.
>
> Archeologist found Mt Sinai.It is not a fictitious place.It is a
> historical fact.
Since you agree with the science of archeology,
then tell us: How could Moses and the Israelites live
in the Sinai desert for forty years and not leave a
trace behind? No wells, no walls, no pottery shards,
nothing. There is not a shred of proof - and as you
know the desert preserves things almost forever - that
said event happened.
Jimbo
> have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments
And yet, you cannot provide us with one shred of empirical,
substantive evidence that your god thing exists. That isn't an
argument, that is plain fact.
Jimbo
No, that is an ancient goatherder, possibly after eating bad grain,
written ex-post facto by a people who had a vested interest in
rewriting their abysmal history of being conquered, enslaved, and
banished.
FRANKIE LEE
**I could not understand a rational argument?
Let me give you an example:
1)Is it scientific to do Experiment?
2)How do you look at Cambrian Explosion,where animal phyla all
appeared at once?
Olrik
IAAH
You're attempting to use the Bible to prove
itself, and the fact that the Bible mentions a
mountain. None of that proves anything.
You have NO evidence to show that the revelation
happened.
No, not "mere reasons". You can either give some
logic and facts to go with your claims or you cannot.
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>>> I thought Bertrand Russell lost its essence long ago,how come his
>>> follies is now even quoted?
>> That Bertrand Russel quote is a precise
>> encapsulation of non-dogmatic atheism.
>
> ***Reply: Let's say you meant Bertrand Russel quote is encapsulation
> of atheism.Let us leave out 'Non-dogmatic atheism" first".Otherwise,it
> is circular reasoning and self contradictions.
>
> He espoused a doctrine of ignorance to the bible and the things about
> God on the basis,to a probability that God may be true,and the Bible
> may be true.In other words,Atheists were told to be agnostic,and not
> atheistic.As he himself could not prove whether there is a God or
> not,he disqualifies himself in the arena,as an expert of the things of
> God or the bible.
That's a specious conclusion. You are claiming
that an expert on the Bible must believe in God now?
Ridiculous.
>
> In every true sense of his quotes,one can decipher that he is urging
> sensible and logical agnostics to get answers from Theologians and
> Christians on those answers where they can provide.
>
> The clue to his words are these,"Non-dogma".
Those are my words, not his, and therefore cannot
be considered "key" to what HE said.
Your "proofs" are circular, and you continually
ignore the need for corroboration.
Mark Evans
> After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
> have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
> anything rational in their arguments.
>
> They are so confused as to what constitute as a piece of evidence,or
> even the idea of "proof"eludes their definition.
>
> No intelligent reader,or master of English Language expert,dare to
> refute or rebut against the fact to say the Bible is not an evidence
> of the Lord God,the creator.One can only say they refuse to accept
> that as proof of God,and they have doubts of the evidence
> presented.Then they can tell you why,and show reasons why;so do those
> who presented the evidence,using the Bible as evidence,also need to
> explain why,or how.
>
> exists?The traces of things on earth,and designs of organism,and the
> Universe is evidence of God the Creator.Again,does the evidence,a
> proof of the Creator God?
>
> an evidence.Whether that is a proof,it is another issue.
>
> information,and thesis as evidence.
> Experimentation of things is an iron-clad form of evidence to show
> invincible proofs.
>
> Eg.If you want evidence to show that Jesus is risen from the dead,an
> definite fact,a reality of what I can offer,the best and the most
> rational manner would be,one need to experience Him.
>
> who have reasons and logic,would be to call on Him.
>
> calling Him and fellow- shipping with Him,the Nay-sayer displays
> ignorance and is one who discard reasons and logic and common sense.
>
> and now,is the foundation of Christianity.The Bible says,quote Paul's
> words,"If Christ is not risen from the dead,we(the Christians)of all
> men we are the most pitied,and is most miserable".
>
> many here ridiculing my messages.Was that sidelines an issue for me?
> Nope.
>
> The colors of deceits and the colors of a corrupted mindset, and
> vulgarities words,as compared to the decency and righteousness of
> words,they can be seen.It is proof.
Frankie, you need help. Help in logic, help in English, and some
medical help with your delusions. It is difficult to refute just
about anything you say because your ramblings are so random and
illogical. To be blunt, you don't make sense and you are clearly
using a language you are not adept in. One may as well try to argue
with the babbling of a brook or the rush of the wind.
Mark Evans
Kilmir
You do understand that the cambrian "explosion" took place over many
millions of years right? It's only fast on a geological scale working
with billions of years.
As for why all the phyla then has many answers but a good case can be
made for the fact that alternative phyla didn't have a chance to form
because the current ones were adapted enough. Just because other forms
are possible doesn't mean they have a chance to form.
Kilmir
> After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
> have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
> anything rational in their arguments.
Then you haven't been reading very well.
> They are so confused as to what constitute as a piece of evidence,or
> even the idea of "proof"eludes their definition.
Oh, let's see how you fare then.
> No intelligent reader,or master of English Language expert,dare to
> refute or rebut against the fact to say the Bible is not an evidence
> of the Lord God,the creator.
Sure it is. Just as much as the Harry Potter novels are evidence of
Dumbledore or the existence of magic.
Or if you're begin thickheaded, the Vedas are just as much evidence of
Vishnu and the Eddas are just as much evidence of Odin.
> One can only say they refuse to accept
> that as proof of God,and they have doubts of the evidence
> presented.Then they can tell you why,and show reasons why;so do those
> who presented the evidence,using the Bible as evidence,also need to
> explain why,or how.
True.
> Is there any evidence of God as the creator of the universe,or He
> exists?The traces of things on earth,and designs of organism,and the
> Universe is evidence of God the Creator.Again,does the evidence,a
> proof of the Creator God?
Argument from design was nice till we figured out how things really
worked.
Several attempts have been made to validate ID theories and all have
fallen flat. There is no design so there is no evidence of a creator
behind it.
> If you found a bone and say that is 4 million years old.That bone is
> an evidence.Whether that is a proof,it is another issue.
>
> Scientists discovery of extraordinary things must first give
> information,and thesis as evidence.
> Experimentation of things is an iron-clad form of evidence to show
> invincible proofs.
I hope you do understand that aside from mathematics there is
basically no such thing as proof in science?
> Eg.If you want evidence to show that Jesus is risen from the dead,an
> empty tomb of Christ is accepted as an evidence.
Depends. If all the conditions were known surrounding it, perhaps. For
instance an empty tomb is only evidence that there is no corpse in it.
Possible scenarios can be that there never was a corpse, the corpse
was moved by someone, the corpse wasn't actually dead and got up and
left. All those scenarios are much more likely then that there
actually was a corpse and it rose from the dead. Those need to be
ruled out first.
Then there is the whole issue of if it's actually that person's tomb.
It can be a fake, a wrongly assigned tomb etc.
> If you want proof,a
> definite fact,a reality of what I can offer,the best and the most
> rational manner would be,one need to experience Him.
Sure. Call him down and let me ask some questions.
> The best and most reliable proof,undisputed by all Intelligent being
> who have reasons and logic,would be to call on Him.
Did, no answer.
> Again,if one dispute the experimentation with a Living Jesus,just by
> calling Him and fellow- shipping with Him,the Nay-sayer displays
> ignorance and is one who discard reasons and logic and common sense.
I called and called and no answer. Are you sure you're not deluding
yourself with "his presence"? It sounds you are the one discarding
reason, logic and common sense here.
> The pillar,which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ,being alive here
> and now,is the foundation of Christianity.The Bible says,quote Paul's
> words,"If Christ is not risen from the dead,we(the Christians)of all
> men we are the most pitied,and is most miserable".
Actually, the original foundation is the fall of Adam and Eve causing
the sin that Jesus had to absolve. Seeing how all the evidence points
away from an Adam and Eve ever existing the whole religion falls flat
anyhow. Not to mention the lack of evidence of Jesus and his miracles.
> I received praise in my email for writing great things,but I also had
> many here ridiculing my messages.Was that sidelines an issue for me?
> Nope.
Ridicule comes when you clearly disregard valid arguments. Coming up
with stuff like Pascal's Wager is a good reason to be ridiculed when
everyone knows it was proven to be nonsense for centuries.
> The colors of deceits and the colors of a corrupted mindset, and
> vulgarities words,as compared to the decency and righteousness of
> words,they can be seen.It is proof.
Word salad. Get a better translator service and try again.
panam...@hotmail.com
snip crap
That's a laugh, seeing your dumb ass call other people "howlers". Go
take a long walk off a short pier, idiot.
-PF, Atl.
2015/KoBAAWA!
Syd M.
> After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
> have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
> anything rational in their arguments.
>
...Says the arrogant ignorant asshole who gate-crashed our group
flinging nothing but insults around and now has made a career out of
his 'moral outrage' of the response he generated.
Not buying it, Frankie.
PDW
Syd M.
Why do you keep refusing to answer them?
If it is
> indigestible nonsense,why would you sniff at my back times and again?
How about you try answering them with actual facts instead of outright
lies, Frankie?
PDW
Steve Knight
<leea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip lies
>After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
>have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
>anything rational in their arguments.
Epilog - A Martian father and son gaze into the night and see a
glowing red cloud where Earth once was. The young child asks his
father, 'What happened to Earth, Daddy?'.... 'All their Irony-O-Meters
exploded at the same time, Son. Very sad.'
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Yap
What has the fraudulent bible got to do with a Singaporean Chinaman
like you?
Is it that you wish for a second life or your desire to cling onto a
god?
Either way, you will find that the Christian god (if ever it existed)
had stated claim that Israelites were the chosen people.....he did not
include you stupid yellow fellow.
Get it if you are with the bible ?
Yap
He is just a loony Singaporean Chinese who is not supposed to be
associated with a god for the Israelites.
Do you think even the imaginary sky pixie will accept an outcast human?
Smiler
It is also stated that Harry Potter can fly on a broomstick. Does that make
it true?
> Now,there is a place,a name
> mentioned.Investigators of crimes always need a name,a place,a tool,or
> something,and they called it evidence.
>
Harry Potter left from Platform 9&3/4 at Kings Cross station in London when
he went to Hogwarts School.
Kings Cross Station exists. You can see it on Google Earth. Does that make
the story true?
> Archeologist found Mt Sinai.It is not a fictitious place.It is a
> historical fact.So your assumption of nil provenance is flawed.
Therefore, as the Empire State Building exists (it's not a fictitious
place), the King Kong story must also be true?
> Again,you can dispute whether his personal experience,or recorders of
> History were accurate,up to the part of revelations,not up to the part
> of provenance.
Please explain how the supposed Moses was able to write five books of the
bible when he died part way through the last book?
Dead men don't tend to write much.
>>
>>> So your statements are not valid.Your true objections must be in the
>>> realms where you are disbelieving his accounts.eg..His
>>> credibility.Or the records are untrue,etc...reliability....
It's no more fact than Harry Potter or King Kong.
>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>> Is there any evidence of God as the creator of the universe,or He
>>>>> exists?The traces of things on earth,and designs of organism,and
>>>>> the Universe is evidence of God the Creator.Again,does the
>>>>> evidence,a proof of the Creator God?
>>>> No, there is not.
>>
>>> ***Me: According to you,the evidence is not a proof of God.That is
>>> reasonable.
>>> But to me,it is.Here is why.
>>
>>> 1,Using secular logics...
>>> In Mathematics,an unknown factor,we use the symbol X.The
>>> word"God"meaning a supernatural Being,outside time,space and
>>> matter.A Creator.In other words,you cannot say or argue that
>>> Creations or designs of the Universe does not have a factor X.
>>
But you divide by zero.
How?
>
> He espoused a doctrine of ignorance to the bible and the things about
> God on the basis,to a probability that God may be true,and the Bible
> may be true.In other words,Atheists were told to be agnostic,and not
> atheistic.As he himself could not prove whether there is a God or
> not,he disqualifies himself in the arena,as an expert of the things of
> God or the bible.
And neither can you prove there is a god.
>
> In every true sense of his quotes,one can decipher that he is urging
> sensible and logical agnostics to get answers from Theologians and
> Christians on those answers where they can provide.
>
> The clue to his words are these,"Non-dogma".
>
Nope. His words, "There is no reason to consider any of them" amount to
"Non-belief" = atheism.
>>
>> --
>> "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
>> is no God. I equally cannot
>> prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
>> may exist; so may the gods of
>> Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
>> no one of these hypotheses is
>> more probable than any other: they lie outside the
>> region of even probable
>> knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
>> consider any of them."
>> Bertrand Russell
>
> ***Me: Consider this.
> So what happen if we want to find the Symbol,the factor X?There is
> calculation.We follows the method of calculations,so that the unknown
> Factor X,can be proven.
You're assuming your conclusion. You have failed Logic 101.
>
> Firs of all,then, there must have enough information so that we can
> work out the sums.
Then bring on this 'information' that is called objective evidence.
We're waiting.....
I hope you see the logic,and then we proceed
> further.
I see no logic in any of your posts, just unfounded, impossible, unevidenced
beliefs.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Smiler
>> Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
>>
>> Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away)
>> (28:16-17)
>> Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at
>> meat" (16:12,14)
>> Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to
>> the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31,36)
>> John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
>>
>> Did the disciples believe the two men?
>>
>> Mark: No (16:13)
>> Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
>>
>> What happened at the appearance?
>>
>> Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach."
>> (28:17-20) Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach"
>> (16:14-19) Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out
>> of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
>> John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses
>> them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
>>
>> Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
>>
>> Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that
>> this was all done on Sunday
>> Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
>> John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
>> Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
>>
>> Where did the ascension take place?
>>
>> Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
>> Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
>> Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
>> John: No ascension
>> Paul: No ascension
>> Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
>
>> Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
>>
>> Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away)
>> (28:16-17)
>> Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at
>> meat" (16:12,14)
>> Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to
>> the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31,36)
>> John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
>>
> Reply: Matt 28:16 17�Jesus appointed them to meet in a mountain.
How far underground?
Do Mark, Luke and John lie?
> So
> your queries of�where did Jesus ***first*** appear�.Your premises were
> all confused.
Nope. The gospels are all confused.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>> Did the disciples believe the two men?
>>
>> Mark: No (16:13)
>> Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
>
> Me: You answered your own queries. Not all of His disciples believe
> then.Note the word,�the residue doesn�t believe�.KJV
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>
>> What happened at the appearance?
>>
>> Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach."
>> (28:17-20) Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach"
>> (16:14-19) Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out
>> of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
>> John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses
>> them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
>
> Reply: All of the above.
Reprimand or not? You can't have it both ways.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>>
>> Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
>>
>> Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that
>> this was all done on Sunday
>> Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
>> John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
>> Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
>
> Reply: Did Jesus stay for a while? Yes.
How long is 'a while'?
>
> Just because in-between the �verses� say 50 and 51 of Luke, didn�t
> describe to a million pages �so the answer meant No, so He didn�t stay
> for a while?
And this is the inerrant word of your god? Bwahahaha!
>
> Mark 16:19�.Should Mark write like this?...AFTER JESUS HAD
> SPOKEN..AFTER STAYING ON EARTH FOR A LONG TIME�ETC�THEN we are to say
> He stayed for a while?Otherwise,Mark said No.
>
> The approached to reading any articles with expectations of our own
> theory and assumptions, project for others as to what it should be, it
> is a sign to say we can write better than the author.
At least I try never to contradict myself.
>
> Comprehension skills are the problem for such doubters.
Reading skills are the problem for the believers. You see what you want to
believe, even if it's not what is written.
>
>
>> Where did the ascension take place?
>>
>> Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
>> Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
>> Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
>> John: No ascension
>> Paul: No ascension
>> Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
>
> The above remarks show a deep miss-comprehension of scriptures, or
> miss comprehension of any literatures or articles.
>
> How can the book end on Galilee mean there wasn�t any ascension?
There was no description of it, something that Christians believe is very
important, in Matthew.
That's like a murder mystery without the last page, telling you who did it
and how.
> Can we say then, if it ends with ascension, and then there is
> ascension?
Not according to both John and Paul. Are you saying that they lied?
> I suppose it must be incoherent from the part of the
> doubters who objected the scriptures.
It must be coherent to you, as you are able see what isn't there in the
writing.
>
> This is the simplest evidence to show how uneducated folks approached
> any literature of books, with no logics and miss-comprehension when
> tackling the subjects.
This is the simplest evidence to show how the stupidly religious don't READ
THE WORDS in their 'holy' books but just see what they wish to see.
Smiler
Rush of the wind is an apt description of his fart^H^H^H^H posts.
Smiler
LOL!
But Freaky won't get it.
Smiler
All the stories are faulty, contradictory or just downright lies.
Therefore, it is junk.
QED.
Wakalukong
>
> - Show quoted text -
-------
Even your questions are disconnected; you don't even know what you're
asking.
Wakalukong
FRANKIE LEE
***Don't despise yourself.Do you want an English professor to confirm
to you on what I wrote is understandable?
FRANKIE LEE
>
> You're attempting to use the Bible to prove
> itself, and the fact that the Bible mentions a
> mountain. None of that proves anything.
>
> You have NO evidence to show that the revelation
> happened.
Me: I have yet to show you evidence why Moses' revelation is true and
real.I have just shown you about your "provenance",which according to
scriptures took place.
You see,your answer from the beginning was logical.You want a
name.Provenance.A clue.Something to start with.Now you jump the queue.
So,in other words,I assume that when you asked for provenance,which
meant if I could give you that ,that will satisfy you,were actually
trivial matters?
Did I not say,The Revelation part,you have to wait?And as I have
expected,it is the revelation part which you actually want evidence
and proves,right?
Pls wait.
>
FRANKIE LEE
***Have you heard of the Chariots and Wheels under the Red Sea?Your
doubts as to the traces had been asked by previous generation of
archaeologists,and they went and they unearthed and they saw
traces,...and why must such things be repeated again and again?
It seems that there was no evidence or traces then.I have even discard
those pictures away,those archaeologist finds long ago!
What I am saying is,it is just simply such information were shielded
away from your eyes so that you will be kept in the dark,and the
Atheists really did a great deceptive works,don't they?
FRANKIE LEE
***Compare to what I explain in my posts,against yours.(broken
english)
FRANKIE LEE
**You buy your own explanations?
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 9, 7:05 pm, AusShane <quar...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > "After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
> > have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
> > anything rational in their arguments. "
>
> > That is because you would not understand a rational argument, even if
> > it stuck its hand down your throat and slapped your liver.........
>
> **I could not understand a rational argument?
You've certainly not understood any of the ones people once provided
for you here in alt.atheism.
> Let me give you an example:
>
> 1)Is it scientific to do Experiment?
What are we experimenting on? Your ablility to breathe unleaded
premium petrol/gasoline? I'd pay money to watch that one.
> 2)How do you look at Cambrian Explosion,where animal phyla all
> appeared at once?
I prefer the Jimi Hendrix Experience.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Mitchell Holman
news:b50d7cb9-fa9c-4cfd...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 9, 8:33�pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Frankie Lee <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:ed915e59-9ebb-4f49-a2d3-df
> 43e56...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 9, 12:09�pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> Frankie Lee <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >> news:e5821c5d-d574-4d6c-b7ac-
>> >> ea13fc4e4...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > The pillar,which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ,being alive
>> >> > here and now,is the foundation of Christianity.The Bible
>> >> > says,quote Paul's words,"If Christ is not risen from the
>> >> > dead,we(the Christians)of all men we are the most pitied,and is
>> >> > most miserable".
>>
>> >> � � OK, let's look at this resurrection.
>> > ***
>> > Me: ***Fair doubts.If the scriptures contradicts themselves,it is
>> > evidence of meticulous inaccuracies.Reasonably,it doesn't negates
>> > the main and uppermost,main,overall,most important,greatest
>> > point--of Jesus resurrection.The devils are in its details.
>>
>> � �Either the Bible is inerrant or it is wrong.
>>
>> > --------------------------------------
>>
>> >> Who were the women at the tomb?
>>
>> >> �Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
>> >> �Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
>> >> �Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and
>> >> �other women (24:10)
>> >> �John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
>>
>> > Me: What was your objections of this account?You pose no objections
>> > as far as I can see it.From the 4 accounts,we saw two Mary,having
>> > the same initial name.Mark gave more descriptions linking to mother
>> > of James and Salome.In total,how many women went there,to the tomb
>> > of Jesus?No one knows.The reporters told us 3,but can it be 4 or 5
>> > by speculations?Of course one can.Can it be less than 3?Definitely
>> > not.It would be fallacies.
>>
>> > (Invalid objections)
>>
>> > Just by such accounts,the meticulous accuracy is most shocking.
>>
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > --- ----------------------------------------
>> > --- -----------------
>
> Either the Bible is inerrant or it is wrong.
>
> Reply: I have reply simply on all your objections,regarding those so
> called errors and inaccuracies.No one would deny simple technical or
> copyist errors.For the general public domain,we strive to be accurate
> on major points,because the finer points belong to the domain of
> scholars and theologians,simply because they are deep aspects,long and
> Spiritual.It is unfit for mere discussions.The bible cannot be
> "inerrant",reasons are obvious.
> 1,Language Grasp.
> 2,Meaning of words change.
> 3,Minor copyists errors.
> 4,Human handling it.
So which parts are errors? Virgin birth, talking
bushes, rescurrection, the flood, dragons and unicorns?
If some of it is flawed then how can cherrypick
which parts of it to believe?
>
> If the Bible is written in Perfect Heavenly Language,no one would be
> able to read or even understand it.
>
> Can you find one public speaker,who would speak English without
> grammar mistakes,pronunciation mixed up?Can you find one author of
> book in our world,where its rough copies just goes to print?There is
> edition.
>
> Most historians are most happy if they can get their accounts with 70
> % accuracy.
>
> The Bible has the highest accuracy than all;
Prove it.
> and all the main points
> and main stories cannot be faulty,or else it would be junk.
Bingo. It IS junk.
Mitchell Holman
> On Nov 9, 9:11�pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Frankie Lee <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:081e08fc-5ba7-4866-8764-14
> 3215a...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>> > Reply: Since Moses had provenance,so it is evidence.It was stated
>> > that he received revelations from Mt Sinai.Now,there is a place,a
>> > name mentioned.Investigators of crimes always need a name,a place,a
>> > tool,or something,and they called it evidence.
>>
>> > Archeologist found Mt Sinai.It is not a fictitious place.It is a
>> > historical fact.
>>
>> � � Since you agree with the science of archeology,
>> then tell us: How could Moses and the Israelites live
>> in the Sinai desert for forty years and not leave a
>> trace behind? No wells, no walls, no pottery shards,
>> nothing. There is not a shred of proof - and as you
>> know the desert preserves things almost forever - that
>> said event happened.
>
> ***Have you heard of the Chariots and Wheels under the Red Sea?
Nope. Why don't you enlighten us.
And then explain why there is no mention
in any Egyption text to an entire army being
wiped out chasing Moses. Don't you find that
odd?
> Your
> doubts as to the traces had been asked by previous generation of
> archaeologists,and they went and they unearthed and they saw
> traces,...and why must such things be repeated again and again?
There are no "traces". No proof that the Israelites
were in Sinai for forty days, much less forty years.
Smiler
Tell me, Frankie, which museum are these supposed chariots and wheels in?
Which archeologist or scientist has investigated them and said that they are
chariot wheels?
Finding chariots and wheels doesn't prove there was an exodus, as they may
be from the wreckage of a sunken ship. Egypt was a trading nation and may
well have exported chariots to other nations in the area. The arms trade
isn't a modern invention and ships sinking wasn't a rare occurrence.
>
> It seems that there was no evidence or traces then.I have even discard
> those pictures away,those archaeologist finds long ago!
Pictures of what? Things that look like wheels but which may turn out to be
coral growths?
>
> What I am saying is,it is just simply such information were shielded
> away from your eyes so that you will be kept in the dark,and the
> Atheists really did a great deceptive works,don't they?
I've seen those pictures and they 'look like' wheels, but until one is
brought onto land and investigated by scientists and archeologists, nobody
can be sure what they are. Again, even if they are proven to be chariot
wheels, that isn't confirmation of the exodus story as there are other, more
reasonable and reasoned, explanations for their being there.
Smiler
Freakie has a purple haze in front of his eyes, maybe from reading all along
the Watchtower :-)
Smiler
Putting aside the broken English, all I see is broken logic, because you
have based it on your beliefs and not evidence.
Steve Knight
<leea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
>***Have you heard of the Chariots and Wheels under the Red Sea?Your
>doubts as to the traces had been asked by previous generation of
>archaeologists,and they went and they unearthed and they saw
>traces,...and why must such things be repeated again and again?
>
>It seems that there was no evidence or traces then.I have even discard
>those pictures away,those archaeologist finds long ago!
>
>What I am saying is,it is just simply such information were shielded
>away from your eyes so that you will be kept in the dark,and the
>Atheists really did a great deceptive works,don't they?
Let me translate - You are saying there were pictures of chariots
and wheels under the Red sea and the atheists destroyed the evidence.
Okay. You got us there. I admit it. We destroyed the evidence to
further our evil, immoral ways. We're all Communists too.
We are under the control of the EAC, (Evil Atheist Conspiracy) It's
much like the Illuminati. The EAC is a very secret organization that
operates behind the seen. We have been hiding religious evidence for
centuries. You know the dinosaurs, we planted them in the ground to
make the world seem old. Yep. Remember the Exodus, it took us weeks to
clean up the desert so it looked like no one was ever there. Man, was
it hot!
Evolution, some our best work. The Monkey trials was a god
send...errr... I mean really lucky.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
panam...@hotmail.com
Because you continue to repeat them without any supporting evidence,
moron. Name the archaeologists. Provide links to the papers they
published, and the books they've written.
> It seems that there was no evidence or traces then.I have even discard
> those pictures away,those archaeologist finds long ago!
Yeah, sure. Buy a clue, idiot. Any archaeologist would be truly
thrilled to discover such evidence and present it to the world. That
is, unless the "evidence" was fabricated...
> What I am saying is,it is just simply such information were shielded
> away from your eyes so that you will be kept in the dark,
ROFL! Christian Idiocy blended with Conspiracy Theory! I'd like to
hear the details about Frankie's life. A "mad scientist" with an
Atomic Gene Splicer couldn't do whatever his environmental situation
has done.
I've noticed one constant in Frankie's posting history is his constant
inclusion of soc.culture.singapore when he sends his pathetic spam.
I've read credible reports that Christianity claims many victims every
year in Asia. This, combined with the evidence that Frankie isn't
really well aquainted with the English language, leads me to suspect
that he *is* one of those victims.
Fortunately, he seems to be the only one who's discovered alt.atheism
at the moment...<g>
> and the
> Atheists really did a great deceptive works,don't they?
You ain't seen nothin' yet, boy-o..just wait until "Christmas".
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Sanity's Little Helper
> After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
> have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
> anything rational in their arguments.
Frankie, let me tell you what the problem is: To notice intelligence, you
have to be intelligent, so if you don't notice it when it's rammed down
your throat, the overwhelming odds are that you're as thick as all the
short planks Noah supposedly used to build his Ark with.
Sorry, somebody had to tell you.
Take care, love and cuddles,
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"Christian" (n). A person who views insulting non-Christians as a sacred
duity, and any response as persecution
Not authentic without this signature.
Christopher A. Lee
<elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
>It is an ancient Frankie Lee <leea...@yahoo.com>, and he posteth:
>
>> After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
>> have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
>> anything rational in their arguments.
>
>Frankie, let me tell you what the problem is: To notice intelligence, you
>have to be intelligent, so if you don't notice it when it's rammed down
>your throat, the overwhelming odds are that you're as thick as all the
>short planks Noah supposedly used to build his Ark with.
There seem to be a disproportionate amount like him among believers.
>Sorry, somebody had to tell you.
Don't be.
Cory Albrecht
> 2)How do you look at Cambrian Explosion,where animal phyla all
> appeared at once?
They did not appear "all at once" - I have pointed this out to you
before, so why do you continue to lie about it?
<http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html>:
"Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all
plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant
form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).
"3. Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian.
Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the
Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are
Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the
Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil
record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during
the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994),
eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one
appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil
record.
"And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that
people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects,
and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the
Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today."
You are a dishonest hypocrite, Frankie.
Christopher A. Lee
<coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>FRANKIE LEE wrote, on 09-11-09 08:13 AM:
>> 2)How do you look at Cambrian Explosion,where animal phyla all
>> appeared at once?
>
>They did not appear "all at once" - I have pointed this out to you
>before, so why do you continue to lie about it?
Because he doesn't believe anything we say.
And he's repeating what some incompetent he trusts says, because he
can't think for himself.
It's meant to be a silver bullet which can't be answered so we have
nothing to say on the subject anyway.
><http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html>:
>
>"Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all
>plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant
>form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).
>
>"3. Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian.
>Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the
>Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are
>Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the
>Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil
>record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during
>the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994),
>eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one
>appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil
>record.
Too many long words for him.
>"And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that
>people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects,
>and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the
>Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today."
>
>You are a dishonest hypocrite, Frankie.
A stupid one with an over-inflated sense of himself, living in his own
little fantasy world where everybody outside it is stupid.
Kilmir
Why not?
There probably have been several studies into the material so I
suggest you look those up if you're really wondering. Any objections
to current thoughts you can post in talk.origins where a lot of
knowledgeable people can evaluate the merit of your objections and
point out flaws if they are there.
But the point I wanted to make was that even a layman like me can
imagine scenarios as to the cause of the lack of new kingdoms or phyla
after the Cambrian without superimposing further unexplained deities.
Frankie Lee
***You see,Cambrian explosion shows and explained that Evolutions is
not possible.I see it as one good evidence to clean off Evolution
theory.
What then are the beliefs of those who believe in ET?They saw it as a
challenge to their theory.It cause them doubt.
What about objective views?They shows ET are false.Whose independent
judgment was that?Mine.Many scientists.Creationists.
Now you can dispute till the cows come home,and there won't have any
solutions for you.There is a point in time where one has to part
ways.Just like this.Chose your beliefs.
Frankie Lee
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:15:26 -0800 (PST), FRANKIE LEE
>
Let me translate - You are saying there were pictures of chariots
and wheels under the Red sea and the atheists destroyed the evidence.
Okay. You got us there. I admit it. We destroyed the evidence to
further our evil, immoral ways. We're all Communists too.
***U mis-interpret what I meant.
From your posts,I gather you have not heard of the Archaeologists
finds of the Wheels found in the Red Sea.
Do you know what Wheels I am referring?
Parting of the Red Sea?
Puck Greenman
Yes, we are familiar with Ron Wyatt's so called archeology.
Odd thing about him. All of his finds have either been discounted a frauds, and wishful
thinking, or cannot be found.
>Your
>doubts as to the traces had been asked by previous generation of
>archaeologists,and they went and they unearthed and they saw
>traces,...and why must such things be repeated again and again?
Names, cites?
Puck Greenman
Ah, well, you see, there was a bit of a problem with that.
You see, ol' Ron Wyatt, found them, but some how, he didn't quite manage to recover any
of them, and for some obscure reason, no one else has been able to find them.
Budikka666
> After all the howling,insults and ridicules from the Atheist camps I
> have yet to notice an ounce of intelligence from their arguments,nor
> anything rational in their arguments.
>
> They are so confused as to what constitute as a piece of evidence,or
> even the idea of "proof"eludes their definition.
>
> No intelligent reader,or master of English Language expert,dare to
> refute or rebut against the fact to say the Bible is not an evidence
> of the Lord God,the creator.One can only say they refuse to accept
> that as proof of God,and they have doubts of the evidence
> presented.Then they can tell you why,and show reasons why;so do those
> who presented the evidence,using the Bible as evidence,also need to
> explain why,or how.
>
> exists?The traces of things on earth,and designs of organism,and the
> Universe is evidence of God the Creator.Again,does the evidence,a
> proof of the Creator God?
>
> If you found a bone and say that is 4 million years old.That bone is
> an evidence.Whether that is a proof,it is another issue.
>
> Scientists discovery of extraordinary things must first give
> information,and thesis as evidence.
> Experimentation of things is an iron-clad form of evidence to show
> invincible proofs.
>
> Eg.If you want evidence to show that Jesus is risen from the dead,an
> empty tomb of Christ is accepted as an evidence.If you want proof,a
> definite fact,a reality of what I can offer,the best and the most
> rational manner would be,one need to experience Him.
>
> The best and most reliable proof,undisputed by all Intelligent being
> who have reasons and logic,would be to call on Him.
>
> Again,if one dispute the experimentation with a Living Jesus,just by
> calling Him and fellow- shipping with Him,the Nay-sayer displays
> ignorance and is one who discard reasons and logic and common sense.
>
> and now,is the foundation of Christianity.The Bible says,quote Paul's
> words,"If Christ is not risen from the dead,we(the Christians)of all
> men we are the most pitied,and is most miserable".
>
> many here ridiculing my messages.Was that sidelines an issue for me?
> Nope.
>
> The colors of deceits and the colors of a corrupted mindset, and
> vulgarities words,as compared to the decency and righteousness of
> words,they can be seen.It is proof.
Bring your objective/scientific evidence for this god of yours, or
this creation you apparently believe in, and I'll go toe-to-toe with
you right here.
I agree with you that the Bible is "evidence" in the same way that the
guilty criminal who says "not guilty" is offering "evidence" that he
didn't do it. Do you agree we should let such a criminal go free just
because he said he didn't do it? Or should we put him on trial and
have the evidence brought out and see which side has the best case?
We both agree that there's a universe with an Earth which contains
life, etc, but you go one step further than that which we both agree
upon. You categorically assert that in addition to all of this,
there's a god who created it. I don't say that. I don't even say
categorically that there's no god. *I* say there's no objective or
scientific evidence for this god of yours.
Note that what I'm asking for the same standard of evidence used in
any court room. I'm asking for *objective* or *scientific*
evidence. That is, evidence from outside of the Bible which
corroborates the supernatural tales which the Bible tells.
Bring that on, and let's get to it, you and me, right here.
Budikka
Smiler
There always is, when they're asked to verify what they claim to be
evidence.
> You see, ol' Ron Wyatt, found them, but some how, he didn't quite
> manage to recover any of them, and for some obscure reason, no one
> else has been able to find them.
Why am I not surprised?
When will these moron Christians stop lying about their bible's myths?
Frankie Lee
Me***What have I presented to you,"You will Burn in Hell"is there
anything that is not objective,scientific?
>
> I agree with you that the Bible is "evidence" in the same way that the
> guilty criminal who says "not guilty" is offering "evidence" that he
> didn't do it. Do you agree we should let such a criminal go free just
> because he said he didn't do it?
Me***You are confused.In essence,I put the question to you: Do you
agree we should let such a criminal go free just because he said he
didn't do it!!!!!!!!!!Read my posts again.
---------------------------
Or should we put him on trial and
> have the evidence brought out and see which side has the best case?
Me: Put on trial?You have read "You will burn in Hell??
>
> We both agree that there's a universe with an Earth which contains
> life, etc, but you go one step further than that which we both agree
> upon. You categorically assert that in addition to all of this,
> there's a god who created it. I don't say that. I don't even say
> categorically that there's no god. *I* say there's no objective or
> scientific evidence for this god of yours.
>
> Note that what I'm asking for the same standard of evidence used in
> any court room. I'm asking for *objective* or *scientific*
> evidence. That is, evidence from outside of the Bible which
> corroborates the supernatural tales which the Bible tells.
>
> Bring that on, and let's get to it, you and me, right here.
Me: I brought it on.Done.
>
> Budikka
Smiler
You're referring to the corals that look a bit like wheels. There is no
evidence that the pictures were taken in the Red Sea. They could have been,
and probably were, taken elsewhere.
> Parting of the Red Sea?
A fairy story. It never happened.
Which museum are these 'chariot wheels' in?
Which archaeologist investigated them and declared them to be chariot wheels
from the correct period?
Where did he do this investigation? What are his qualifications as an
archaeologist? What evidence confirmed that these are, in fact, Eyptian
chariot wheels of the correct period?
How did they get there: there are plenty of legitimate explanations for them
being there, other than your biblical myth?
Until you answer these questions, I don't believe you.
Smiler
Watch Frankie Flee.
SkyEyes
It's his own damn fault. I warned him when he first showed up here
that if he didn't run away, he'd have Budikka all over his ass. And
that's precisely what's happened.
Gee...Maybe *I'm* a prophet! <G>
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Frankie Lee
***Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian.
Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the
Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal....
Frankie: Have you ever tried to speak to an illiterate in English?Have
ever tried to teach a deaf kid?
This is the last time I am going to enlighten you on this once.
""Not all types appear in the Cambrian"".Fair enough.
So?What does it prove?There is no Evolution,and I am right.
How?What do I mean?
Well,It shows there wasn't any evolution at that stage,and it was
millions of years...what 500 millions years ago?
NOW WHICH PART YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?
Do you know why Creationists won over this one?You never understood
what you wrote and what you understand,just copied here and there and
everywhere.
Cory Albrecht
And what, Frankie, does that have to do with how you are wrong about the
Cambrian explosion? Or is it supposed to be "invincible proof" that you
simply do not understand what you are reading?
>
> This is the last time I am going to enlighten you on this once.
>
> ""Not all types appear in the Cambrian"".Fair enough.
How is that "fair enough"? You're now contradicting yourself since you
said (as can be seen above in the quotes): "How do you look at Cambrian
Explosion,where animal phyla all appeared at once?"
>
> So?What does it prove?There is no Evolution,and I am right.
No, you are wrong - unsupported assertions completely without evidence
do not make you right.
> How?What do I mean?
>
> Well,It shows there wasn't any evolution at that stage,and it was
Actually, it does too show that there was evolution happening back then,
because, had you gone to that web page and read for comprehension
instead of being your normal ignorant self, you would have read about
the transitional lobopods.
> millions of years...what 500 millions years ago?
Roughly speaking, yes, though 530-540 Mya would be more accurate.
Remember - you've never actually shown any dating method to be wrong.
You've only made unsupported assertions that they are hoaxes with no
evidence to back you up.
>
> NOW WHICH PART YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?
The part where you're such an ignorant person incapable of reading for
comprehension is the part I don't understand.
>
> Do you know why Creationists won over this one?
Bzzzt! Wrong! Merely claiming so does not make it so. Why do you so
completely lack understanding of the concept of "burden of proof"?
> You never understood
> what you wrote and what you understand,just copied here and there and
> everywhere.
I understood it a whole lot better than you did, given that you think
the Cambrian explosion shows there was no evolution even though there
were obviouslt transitional animals like lobopods and that trilobites
were already of global distribution by the time of the Cambrian
(non-)explosion.
Uncle Vic
> On Nov 13, 8:18�am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Bring your objective/scientific evidence for this god of yours, or
>> this creation you apparently believe in, and I'll go toe-to-toe with
>> you right here.
>
> Me***What have I presented to you,"You will Burn in Hell"is there
> anything that is not objective,scientific?
None of it is. You present You Tube testimonial, which cannot be
cross-examined, and is therefore inadmissable as evidence. You
presented an often heard "recording" of people screaming in hell, yet
when presented with questions about the ability of the "soul" to
actually scream (without the hardware that makes a scream possible), you
dodge and present crybaby issues about how nobody here will believe you.
You're everything we've ever seen in a certifiably insane fundy many
times before on this NG. Yet you somehow think you're special. You're
a complete blowhard. You're an idiot if you think you're going to
convert non-believers with this kind of speil.
>
>>
>> I agree with you that the Bible is "evidence" in the same way that
>> the guilty criminal who says "not guilty" is offering "evidence" that
>> he didn't do it. �Do you agree we should let such a criminal go free
>> just because he said he didn't do it?
>
> Me***You are confused.
Shaddup moron.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Frankie Lee
From Wikipedia, the free encycloped
The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the seemingly rapid
appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million
years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record.[1][2] This was
accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including
animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.[3] Before about 580 million
years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells
occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80
million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of
magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate
of species[4]) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s.[5]
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The
seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was
noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it
as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of
evolution by natural selection.[7]
The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian
fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key
points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex
organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early
Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would
imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is
difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an
incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian
rocks.
***Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be
made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.
Frankie: I saw it too.
But Cory said he couldn't see it.
Frankie Lee
cross-examined, and is therefore inadmissable as evidence. You
presented an often heard "recording" of people screaming in hell, yet
when presented with questions about the ability of the "soul" to
actually scream (without the hardware that makes a scream possible),
you
dodge and present crybaby issues about how nobody here will believe
you.
Me: You can cross-examined all you want.Why cannot?Well,that chap may
not be physically present,but you can be nasty like the rest,issue
slanders,and say...that chap is not true...and can cook up some
stories to discredit it?
There wasn't any hardware because the body is dead,and that is true in
the natural.But I am referring to the soul.The soul has all the
hardware,vocal chords and senses too.
You didn't care to hear-the sound doesn't seem to come by human vocal
chords.
Uncle Vic
> Me: You can cross-examined all you want.
How? How does one ask questions of a video on You Tube?
Kilmir
The Cambrian explosion showed lots of species evolving to accomodate
to environments "quickly". If it happened overnight it would disprove
evolution, the fact it took millions of years means it's well within
the predicted bounds of the Theory of Evolution.
> What then are the beliefs of those who believe in ET?They saw it as a
> challenge to their theory.It cause them doubt.
Extraterrestial origins? I assume you mean panspermia. That has
nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution but with abiogenesis. It is
taken seriously because the conditions in outer space are much
different then here on earth with the protective layers. If earth-
based chemical abiogenesis turns out to be impossible or too difficult
the next step would be to look into panspermia I guess.
So far there is no reason to assume chemical abiogenesis is impossible
though.
> What about objective views?They shows ET are false.Whose independent
> judgment was that?Mine.Many scientists.Creationists.
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
> Now you can dispute till the cows come home,and there won't have any
> solutions for you.There is a point in time where one has to part
> ways.Just like this.Chose your beliefs.
My beliefs change if evidence demands it. So far my "beliefs" in the
ToE and expectations of abiogenesis research have been validated time
and again. When was the last time a scientific experiment was done and
it's results published which validated your convictions? Mine are on a
roughly weekly basis.
Nomen Publicus
It may be even simpler to explain the "explosion", the evolution of
exoskeletons which allowed much more common fossilisation. A single
characteristic evolved and created a "bookmark" between rare fossilisation
and common fossilisation.
>
>> What then are the beliefs of those who believe in ET?They saw it as a
>> challenge to their theory.It cause them doubt.
>
> Extraterrestial origins? I assume you mean panspermia. That has
> nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution but with abiogenesis. It is
> taken seriously because the conditions in outer space are much
> different then here on earth with the protective layers. If earth-
> based chemical abiogenesis turns out to be impossible or too difficult
> the next step would be to look into panspermia I guess.
> So far there is no reason to assume chemical abiogenesis is impossible
> though.
>
>> What about objective views?They shows ET are false.Whose independent
>> judgment was that?Mine.Many scientists.Creationists.
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying here.
>
>> Now you can dispute till the cows come home,and there won't have any
>> solutions for you.There is a point in time where one has to part
>> ways.Just like this.Chose your beliefs.
>
> My beliefs change if evidence demands it. So far my "beliefs" in the
> ToE and expectations of abiogenesis research have been validated time
> and again. When was the last time a scientific experiment was done and
> it's results published which validated your convictions? Mine are on a
> roughly weekly basis.
--
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
-- Victor Stenger.
Budikka666
So I see you've become yet another limp Peter at the passion. You
have no objective or scientific evidence as you've just conclusively
provben. You RUN AWAY whenever anyone asks you to bring it on.
You're an ignorant, pathetic, cowardly and vacuous windbag. And now
everyone on Usenet knows it.
Budikka
Budikka666
The evidence for scientific discoveries isn't on Youtube, you ignorant
moron; it's published in peer-reviewed science journals the world over
by people of all nationalities and all faiths, including those who
share your own faith
Once again you've proven that you're an ignorant windbag who can't
offer a shred of evidence for his claims.
How predictable. How pathetic. I'm done with you. You can go now.
Next fundie moron right this way. I'm here all week....
Budikka
Smiler
Will your next prophesy be that the sun will rise in the east, tomorrow? :-)