Darwin relegated to myth?

[Dale]

one day Darwin might be regulated to myth if science doesn't consider
older psychological, psychiatrical, and sociological traditions of old
mainly carried on in religion

the majority of people on earth are religious, religion provides them
psychological, psychiatrical, and sociological solutions, while science
talks about going to mars

until the establishment scientific institutional gives psychology,
psychiatry and sociology the credence as the more important sciences,
they will fail to compete with religion, and they will fail in the
maturity of the important sciences too

as a psychiatric patient I see this first hand, psychiatric conditions
are diagnosed psychologically then treated biologically, psychiatric
patients deal with labels and stigmas, if I was diagnosed as having high
dopamine, as they say I have, with medical imaging it would be a less
troubling label, my medicine leaves me with the side effects of tardive
dyskensia and neuroleptic malignant syndrome out of low dopamine like
Parkinson's, the medicines are expensive because you are forced by the
legal system in a roundabout way to take them,, psychiatry is a power
grab now instead of the elegant science it could be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroleptic_malignant_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardive_dyskinesia

religious psychiatry like "medicine men", shamans, witch doctors, etc.
leave patients normal with respect to society, how am I supposed to
return to work with 20 years of psychiatry treatment on my resume even
if I was capable?

--
Dale

[Dale]

On 02/16/2014 11:51 PM, Olrik wrote:

> Le 2014-02-16 23:29, Dale a écrit :
>> one day Darwin might be regulated to myth if science doesn't consider
>> older psychological, psychiatrical, and sociological traditions of old
>> mainly carried on in religion
>

> Science does not have to consider any of these.
>
> Evolution has nothing to do with «psychological, psychiatrical, and
sociological traditions».
>
>
> <snippage>
>
>

wouldn't you say that natural selection is sociological?


--
Dale

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:29:32 -0500, Dale

<dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:

>one day Darwin might be regulated to myth if science doesn't consider
>older psychological, psychiatrical, and sociological traditions of old
>mainly carried on in religion

I think you have that backwards. You may not see it but religon and
tghe belief in god is fading and one day will be a myth. The fantasy
that is jesus christ will be a muth much faster. Just as hercules,
thor, and horus are all muth now they were once demi gods just as this
jesus character

<snip horse raddish>

>as a psychiatric patient I see this first hand, psychiatric conditions
>are diagnosed psychologically then treated biologically, psychiatric

oh no wonder.. nuff said

>
>religious psychiatry like "medicine men", shamans, witch doctors, etc.
>leave patients normal with respect to society, how am I supposed to
>return to work with 20 years of psychiatry treatment on my resume even
>if I was capable?

you are not. it is that simple. You are not capable and would never be
so

[Dale]

There should be studies of WHY people adhere to religion.

There should be studies of what psychological, psychiatrical, and
sociological suggestions are in religion.

Science is always complaining about religion not recognizing its
advancements, but science must consider very old traditions have
something to offer too, or else they wouldn't be adhered to for so long

Science didn't start with Galileo, Descartes, Newton, etc.

People have been asking questions and seeking answers and developing
solutions based on such since the dawn of man.

Science should compare its delivery system of knowledge to the public,
as opposed to the religious delivery system. Lots of science does not
make it past the insider peer review process thinking that the average
man is not capable of understanding it. Religion has a good system of
explaining things to the public, even if it is in parables or metaphors.
Maybe schools should incorporate the parable/metaphor model for early
development. Can you really say our public schools deliver a
satisfactory education of psychology, psychiatry, or sociology?


--
Dale

[Dale]

On 02/17/2014 12:57 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:29:32 -0500, Dale
> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> one day Darwin might be regulated to myth if science doesn't consider
>> older psychological, psychiatrical, and sociological traditions of old
>> mainly carried on in religion
>
> I think you have that backwards. You may not see it but religon and
> tghe belief in god is fading and one day will be a myth. The fantasy
> that is jesus christ will be a muth much faster. Just as hercules,
> thor, and horus are all muth now they were once demi gods just as this
> jesus character

what is the value of the parable or metaphor at least? Why do you get
the idea that every religious person is talking about Jesus? Lots of
good stuff with Jesus if only parable/metaphor, can you say the same of
yourself, will people have such an audience for your opinions as long
and wide as Jesus? This is the mistake of science, they are missing
lessons of history, if they want to criticize religion they should do a
study and publish it, until then they should have some modesty in the
face that they are turning their nose to history and may repeat its lessons

>
> <snip horse raddish>
>
>> as a psychiatric patient I see this first hand, psychiatric conditions
>> are diagnosed psychologically then treated biologically, psychiatric
>
> oh no wonder.. nuff said
>
>
>>
>> religious psychiatry like "medicine men", shamans, witch doctors, etc.
>> leave patients normal with respect to society, how am I supposed to
>> return to work with 20 years of psychiatry treatment on my resume even
>> if I was capable?
>
>
> you are not. it is that simple. You are not capable and would never be
> so
>

don't you think you have been just a little ad hominem?

--
Dale

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <4u83g9tppuc9p7tbu...@4ax.com>, bil...@m.nu
wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:29:32 -0500, Dale
> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> >one day Darwin might be regulated to myth if science doesn't consider
> >older psychological, psychiatrical, and sociological traditions of old
> >mainly carried on in religion
>
> I think you have that backwards. You may not see it but religon and
> tghe belief in god is fading and one day will be a myth.

It IS a myth today. What it will be is seen to be merely a myth by
ever-increasing numbers of people.

--

JD

"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)

[bil...@m.nu]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:36:29 -0500, Dale

<dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:

>There should be studies of WHY people adhere to religion.

it has been done and it is mostlky out of fear although today alot of
religon is done because of tradition

>Science is always complaining about religion not recognizing its
>advancements, but science must consider very old traditions have
>something to offer too, or else they wouldn't be adhered to for so long
>
>Science didn't start with Galileo, Descartes, Newton, etc.

no it did not it started wway before that but it was not labled
science and people thought the sun went around the earth...

>
>People have been asking questions and seeking answers and developing
>solutions based on such since the dawn of man.

are you serious???? hmm I guess you learn something every day...
although in your opinion the dawn of man was what 6000 years ago?

>
>Science should compare its delivery system of knowledge to the public,

the internet ? school?

>as opposed to the religious delivery system. Lots of science does not

what? either believe what they beelieve or you will burn in hell?

>make it past the insider peer review process thinking that the average
>man is not capable of understanding it. Religion has a good system of
>explaining things to the public, even if it is in parables or metaphors

. what? either believe what they beelieve or you will burn in hell?

>Maybe schools should incorporate the parable/metaphor model for early
>development. Can you really say our public schools deliver a

what? either believe what they beelieve or you will burn in hell?

>satisfactory education of psychology, psychiatry, or sociology?

dude you need to talk about what you know not what you think you know
or what you wish was the truth

[Jope]

The French atheist and philosopher Voltaire also said:"In twenty years Christianity will be no more. ..." Some years later, Voltaire's house was used by the Geneva Bible Society .

[Olrik]

No.

Or maybe I'm not just familiar enough with the social mores of bacteria.


--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[Dale]

you are confusing morality with sociology

--
Dale

[Olrik]

<Sigh...>

Mores: mo·res
ˈmôrˌāz/
noun
plural noun: mores

1.
the essential or characteristic customs and conventions of a community.
"an offense against social mores"
synonyms: customs, conventions, ways, way of life, traditions,
practices, habits;

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mores>

So, what about those bacteria?

[Ed Debevic]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:29:32 -0500, Dale
<dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:

Darwin was full of ape shit. The world began with Adam and Eve, not
Jane and Cheetah.

[Ron Dean]

According to science, from nothing - nothing comes.
So, the most fundamental question is: why is there something rather than
nothing?

[Ron Dean]

[Ron Dean]

[Ron Dean]

[aaa]

Because there is God who can create something out of nothing.

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!

[Bobbie Sellers]

On 9/4/22 11:16, Ron Dean wrote:

> Ed Debevic wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:29:32 -0500, Dale
>> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>

Only religions people who deny the age of the world and
of the Universe think that disproving Darwin is an important idea.
None of this is necessarily nonreligious. You have to realize that
that this universe was created with parameters that support life.
And that Time is a tool to help things change.

[Ron Dean]

Yes, well said, your statement is near _proof_ of God!

[Ron Dean]

I have no doubt that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and the
earth is 4.6 billion.

[Frank Lee]

That is only your assumption. As it turns out, it's a
false one. It's well known that matter can appear "ex
nihilo". See, for example,

<https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark-vuletic-vacuum/>

In this case, "nothing" means a vacuum in space.

If there were truly nothing -- not even spacetime -- then
laws of physics as we know it become meaningless. In that
case, how do you know what can or can't happen?

> So, the most fundamental question is: why is there something rather than
> nothing?

Good question. Nobody knows, maybe nobody will ever know.

[Bobbie Sellers]

Why is not our business. If religious or otherwise all should rejoice
that we are given a SpaceTime continuum in which to be...

Even if we won't be here too long or be able to consider this
world as an analogue of Hell. WE should all Meditate on the true
nature of life which is summed up in the Song of "Captain Spaulding
the African explorer", who "only came to say he must be going", as
rendered by Holy Groucho of vaudeville and movie fame.
If you say the secret word the Duck will come down.

bliss - surrealism to the bitter end... All hail Bugs Bunny!

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

[Ron Dean]

Frank Lee wrote:
> Ron Dean <ron.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ed Debevic wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:29:32 -0500, Dale
>>> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> one day Darwin might be regulated to myth if science doesn't consider
>>>> older psychological, psychiatrical, and sociological traditions of old
>>>> mainly carried on in religion
>>>>

<snip>

Another unasked/unanswered question: why is there life; who or what
instigated,
or set in motion or "called for" the emergence of life?

[Bobbie Sellers]

Why is not our business. If religious or otherwise all should
rejoice that we are given a SpaceTime continuum in which to be...

Life emerges given tghe proper conditions. Look to the
prebiotic Earth.
Intelligence which causes these questions to arise requires
a chaotic world but not too chaotic, to deal with the changes time
will bring to that world where Life emerges.

Even if we won't be here too long or be able to consider this
world as an analogue of Hell. WE should all Meditate on the true
nature of life which is summed up in the Song of "Captain Spaulding
the African explorer", who "only came to say he must be going", as
rendered by Holy Groucho of vaudeville and movie fame.
If you say the secret word the Duck will come down.

bliss - surrealism to the bitter end... All hail Bugs Bunny!

Evoe Eris ruler of the Human World.
Eat No Hot Dog Buns on Friday!
Let her have the Goplden Apple...

[Frank Lee]

That one is easier. Life exists because it can. It
doesn't need any more reason than that.

[Ron Dean]

Why then does life no exist on other planets? IE mercury, the moon, etc.

[Frank Lee]

You are assuming life doesn't exist on any other planets.
I would bet it does, somewhere, probably not in this
solar system at this time.

Second, if life can't exist, it won't, and it can't exist
on most bodies for obvious reasons.

Are you trying to convince us that life can't arise
naturally?

[aaa]

That is right. From the view of physics, life is just like a small sun
giving out energy to its environment day and night. Considering the
energy of life comes from the big sun, life is able to turn the energy
from the sun into a new sun in itself. Such process is literally
recycling energy. Since energy can never be recycled according to the
second law of thermodynamics, life should never be able to arise by itself.

[Andrew]

"Frank Lee" wrote in message news:i4ethhlvksnk1f3tn...@4ax.com...

> Are you trying to convince us that life can't arise naturally?

Since we know it cannot arise by any natural, materialistic
process, then we should know that there had to have been
the involvement of --->a most awesome, super, intelligent
agency.

[Andrew]

"Frank Lee" wrote in message news:ju5rhhdkfkddeegfr...@4ax.com...

> Life exists because it can. It doesn't need any more reason
> than that.

An intelligent honest person will naturally want to know
their origin. But a fool will dismiss the issue because he
soon sees there are philosophical issues involved that are
uncomfortable to him. This is why he is a 'fool', because
he doesn't want the truth, or anything to do with it.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:pNYTK.38228$geq2....@fx09.ams4:

> "Frank Lee" wrote in message
> news:ju5rhhdkfkddeegfr...@4ax.com...
>
>> Life exists because it can. It doesn't need any more reason
>> than that.
>
> An intelligent honest person will naturally want to know
> their origin.

...by using FACTS.

What part of your origin story
is backed up by FACTS?

[Frank Lee]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Frank Lee" wrote in message news:i4ethhlvksnk1f3tn...@4ax.com...
>

> > You are assuming life doesn't exist on any other planets.
> > I would bet it does, somewhere, probably not in this
> > solar system at this time.
> >
> > Second, if life can't exist, it won't, and it can't exist
> > on most bodies for obvious reasons.
> >

> > Are you trying to convince us that life can't arise
> > naturally?
>
> Since we know it cannot arise by any natural, materialistic
> process, then we should know that there had to have been
> the involvement of --->a most awesome, super, intelligent
> agency.

"We" know no such thing. It's only a fantasy you invented
because you want to think the bible is true.

[Frank Lee]

A fool will dismiss any curiousity with "Goddidit", and
that will be the end of his inquiry.

Do you agree with Ron's assumption that life does not
exist outside the earth?

[Joel]

Does every word in the Bible have to be "true", for it to have real
information about the supernatural, within it?

--
Joel Crump

[aaa]

Life shows the ability to move against the natural physical law. That's
like the sail boat showing the ability to sail upstream. Such ability
can't be formed by itself because nothing in the universe can move
against the natural physical law. Therefore, both life and the sail boat
must be the result of intelligent design.

[Joel]

aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote:

>Life shows the ability to move against the natural physical law. That's
>like the sail boat showing the ability to sail upstream. Such ability
>can't be formed by itself because nothing in the universe can move
>against the natural physical law. Therefore, both life and the sail boat
>must be the result of intelligent design.

You are black. ;)

--
Joel Crump

[aaa]

I'm simple and logical.

Yes.

:-)

[Andrew]

"Frank Lee" wrote in message news:5eh1ih1tpusj6vu07...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Frank Lee" wrote:
>>
>> > Life exists because it can. It doesn't need any more reason
>> > than that.
>>
>> An intelligent honest person will naturally want to know
>> their origin. But a fool will dismiss the issue because he
>> soon sees there are philosophical issues involved that are
>> uncomfortable to him. This is why he is a 'fool', because
>> he doesn't want the truth, or anything to do with it.
>
> A fool will dismiss any curiousity with "Goddidit", and
> that will be the end of his inquiry.

Yes, but that is a "straw-man" fallacy.

> Do you agree with Ron's assumption that life does not
> exist outside the earth?

Sorry, I did not read what you are referring to.

But I positively do believe that there
is life outside of our little planet.

"He created it not in vain, he
formed it to be inhabited"
~ Isaiah 45:18

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF1151D2CDAE9...@69.80.101.15...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Frank Lee" wrote:
>>

>>> Life exists because it can. It doesn't need any more reason
>>> than that.
>>
>> An intelligent honest person will naturally want to know
>> their origin.
>
> ...by using FACTS.

There are basically two different
origin models. And both of them
have the *same evidence*.

The difference between them is
how the evidence is interpreted.

There are philosophical issues
involved in the issue that some
are not comfortable with.

In fact, I note that it makes some
folk extremely uncomfortable.

Therefore if one deems truth to
be paramount, they must surrender
and forsake all bias and not exclude
any option to be an explanation for
some fact or phenomenon.

> What part of your origin story
> is backed up by FACTS?

The issue goes beyond FACTS.

See above.

> An intelligent honest person will naturally want to know

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:dn9UK.346881$m8vb....@fx01.ams4:

> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsAF1151D2CDAE9...@69.80.101.15...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Frank Lee" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Life exists because it can. It doesn't need any more reason
>>>> than that.
>>>
>>> An intelligent honest person will naturally want to know
>>> their origin.
>>
>> ...by using FACTS.
>
> There are basically two different
> origin models. And both of them
> have the *same evidence*.
>
> The difference between them is
> how the evidence is interpreted.
>
> There are philosophical issues
> involved in the issue that some
> are not comfortable with.
>

Reality doesn't care about
your "philosophical issues".

Evolution is real.

> In fact, I note that it makes some
> folk extremely uncomfortable.
>
> Therefore if one deems truth to
> be paramount, they must surrender
> and forsake all bias and not exclude
> any option to be an explanation for
> some fact or phenomenon.
>
>> What part of your origin story
>> is backed up by FACTS?
>
> The issue goes beyond FACTS.

Nothing goes beyone facts.

Esp legends from goat herders
4000 years ago.

[Frank Lee]

Good question. So far, no believer has been able to tell
us which parts of the bible are true, which are allegory,
which are literary fiction, and which are flat-out lies.

Can you?

[Joel]

Frank Lee <n...@real.lee.invalid> wrote:
>Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank Lee <n...@real.lee.invalid> wrote:
>> >"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>> >> "Frank Lee" wrote in message news:i4ethhlvksnk1f3tn...@4ax.com...
>> >>

>> >> > Are you trying to convince us that life can't arise
>> >> > naturally?
>> >>
>> >> Since we know it cannot arise by any natural, materialistic
>> >> process, then we should know that there had to have been
>> >> the involvement of --->a most awesome, super, intelligent
>> >> agency.
>> >
>> >"We" know no such thing. It's only a fantasy you invented
>> >because you want to think the bible is true.
>>
>> Does every word in the Bible have to be "true", for it to have real
>> information about the supernatural, within it?
>
>Good question. So far, no believer has been able to tell
>us which parts of the bible are true, which are allegory,
>which are literary fiction, and which are flat-out lies.
>
>Can you?

In the sense of elaborately spelling out every part that is and isn't
real, no - but I can point out individual, profound items within the
Bible that I have personal knowledge of, with relevance to the modern
world. Believe me, I am bored to tears by a lot of the Bible, but
there is some really incredible stuff, too.

--
Joel Crump

[Frank Lee]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:

> "Frank Lee" wrote in message news:5eh1ih1tpusj6vu07...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Frank Lee" wrote:
> >>
> >> > Life exists because it can. It doesn't need any more reason
> >> > than that.
> >>
> >> An intelligent honest person will naturally want to know
> >> their origin. But a fool will dismiss the issue because he
> >> soon sees there are philosophical issues involved that are
> >> uncomfortable to him. This is why he is a 'fool', because
> >> he doesn't want the truth, or anything to do with it.
> >
> > A fool will dismiss any curiousity with "Goddidit", and
> > that will be the end of his inquiry.
>
> Yes, but that is a "straw-man" fallacy.

Nope. That's exactly your approach. If I'm wrong, tell us
your theory of how Goddidit.

> > Do you agree with Ron's assumption that life does not
> > exist outside the earth?
>
> Sorry, I did not read what you are referring to.
>
> But I positively do believe that there
> is life outside of our little planet.
>
> "He created it not in vain, he
> formed it to be inhabited"
> ~ Isaiah 45:18

I knew you would only quote scripture out of context.
That verse is referring to the earth, not to exoplanets.

The full verse is
"For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God
himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath
established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it
to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else."

Why are you so relentlessly dishonest?

[Frank Lee]

So the allegory and metaphors give the bible meaning, but
it is still essentially fiction, and certainly not
science or history. I can go with that.

"Do unto others" is ahead-of-its-time wisdom. But the
creation, Flood, exodus, and resurrection never actually
happened.

[Joel]

Frank Lee <n...@real.lee.invalid> wrote:

>> >> Does every word in the Bible have to be "true", for it to have real
>> >> information about the supernatural, within it?
>> >
>> >Good question. So far, no believer has been able to tell
>> >us which parts of the bible are true, which are allegory,
>> >which are literary fiction, and which are flat-out lies.
>> >
>> >Can you?
>>
>> In the sense of elaborately spelling out every part that is and isn't
>> real, no - but I can point out individual, profound items within the
>> Bible that I have personal knowledge of, with relevance to the modern
>> world. Believe me, I am bored to tears by a lot of the Bible, but
>> there is some really incredible stuff, too.
>
>So the allegory and metaphors give the bible meaning, but
>it is still essentially fiction, and certainly not
>science or history. I can go with that.

It's not just that - it's really interesting, provably relevant items,
if one knows what one is reading. The Bible is more than just
ramblings by ancient people, although a lot of is that.

>"Do unto others" is ahead-of-its-time wisdom. But the
>creation, Flood, exodus, and resurrection never actually
>happened.

Well, the exodus did happen in some kind of way, I don't know that I'd
take the Bible's story of it completely at face value, to be sure, but
the Hebrew people are a very real presence in the world, even now. Not
everyone can perceive that, I guess, but it's there to be seen, if one
has the insight.

--
Joel Crump

[Bobbie Sellers]

Common problem among the God Botherers.

The Universe though is powerful evidence for the basic
intelligence of matter, the rules by which it is formed and the
properties inherent in matter that lead to to the formation of
stars. Eventually after a few chapters of stellar evolution,
sufficient matter to allow for the formation of planetary bodies
some with the proper conditions for life to emerge and evolve
from bacteria, to animals, plants and for each group to further
evolve finally after working through other modes to attempt to
survive through CNS to evolve to people like us. It seems that
it may be a dead end as primitive drives still rule us and blind
us to our own folly.

bliss -surrealism is its own reward

[Frank Lee]

You are wise to not debate the other examples. Still,
you'd expect archaeological evidence if the exodus were
true, and there is none.

You could certainly make an argument that the Jews have
found favor with God, again, over the last 75 years
anyway, if only God existed. They must have really pissed
him off before that.

[Joel]

Frank Lee <n...@real.lee.invalid> wrote:

>> >"Do unto others" is ahead-of-its-time wisdom. But the
>> >creation, Flood, exodus, and resurrection never actually
>> >happened.
>>
>> Well, the exodus did happen in some kind of way, I don't know that I'd
>> take the Bible's story of it completely at face value, to be sure, but
>> the Hebrew people are a very real presence in the world, even now. Not
>> everyone can perceive that, I guess, but it's there to be seen, if one
>> has the insight.
>
>You are wise to not debate the other examples.

I actually do believe in Jesus' resurrection, but it's not important
to this discussion.

> Still,
>you'd expect archaeological evidence if the exodus were
>true, and there is none.

Archaeological evidence can only do so much. The written history is
something to go on, albeit far from what we have in today's world,
with the ability to document emerging history, in a permanent way.

>You could certainly make an argument that the Jews have
>found favor with God, again, over the last 75 years
>anyway, if only God existed. They must have really pissed
>him off before that.

It's an interesting thing to observe the situation with modern Israel,
yeah. There is something to it, although not what Pat Robertson would
say, it's part of the potential for revolution in the entire
world - the haves versus the have-nots. Thankfully, God has an ace in
the hole, so to speak, which will alleviate this crisis.

--
Joel Crump

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF11D44CDFF33...@69.80.101.15...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Frank Lee" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Life exists because it can. It doesn't need any more reason
>>>>> than that.
>>>>
>>>> An intelligent honest person will naturally want to know
>>>> their origin.
>>>
>>> ...by using FACTS.
>>
>> There are basically two different
>> origin models. And both of them
>> have the *same evidence*.
>>
>> The difference between them is
>> how the evidence is interpreted.
>>
>> There are philosophical issues
>> involved in the issue that some
>> are not comfortable with.
>
> Reality doesn't care about
> your "philosophical issues".
>
> Evolution is real.

You are a "goo to you" believer. You
"believe" but you cannot scientifically
explain HOW it got started.

Neither can you scientifically explain
HOW 'goo' turns into 'you'.

You can do so ONLY if you resort
to the use of *unscientific fantasy*.

Which means that you are deceived.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:xWgUK.466804$14z3....@fx11.ams4:

> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsAF11D44CDFF33...@69.80.101.15...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> "Frank Lee" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Life exists because it can. It doesn't need any more reason
>>>>>> than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> An intelligent honest person will naturally want to know
>>>>> their origin.
>>>>
>>>> ...by using FACTS.
>>>
>>> There are basically two different
>>> origin models. And both of them
>>> have the *same evidence*.
>>>
>>> The difference between them is
>>> how the evidence is interpreted.
>>>
>>> There are philosophical issues
>>> involved in the issue that some
>>> are not comfortable with.
>>
>> Reality doesn't care about
>> your "philosophical issues".
>>
>> Evolution is real.
>
> You are a "goo to you" believer.

You are a science denier.

> You
> "believe" but you cannot scientifically
> explain HOW it got started.

That is why science is superior
to faith. Science doesn't pretend to
know things without proof.

>
> Neither can you scientifically explain
> HOW 'goo' turns into 'you'.
>

The proof has been posted here
many times, you reject it.

[Michael McLean]

Inhabited by Him and us as a family, you goofy religionist!

Why there is life is because there is life, is another atheist ignorant
shallow way of saying, it all did it itself...the impossible.

No thing can create itself.

And just in case I get the same idiot atheist bullshit, God is eternal,
so He is not created. And the proof of that is, no one would be here if
He was created (including God) as no thing can create itself.

It is...painfully...simple.




Michael McLean

--
Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is God, Jesus is the Lord.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it
is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory."

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are."

"What makes the bible the truth? The resonance of God."

"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul and mind. An abomination."

"Compromise will condemn you."

"There are no sinners in Christ Jesus."

"My sons are born of Me. In them is no darkness at all."

"You can't learn righteousness. Haven't you had enough time already to
know that?"

"The way of truth is the testimony of life."

"I merely speak the truth, what is revealed to me, and the cards fall
where God intends."

"Nothing that is produced is produced without first being faith."

"You can only find proof of God through faith because that is how we all
live, by faith."

"It is not what you do that matters, it is how you treat Me."

"Keep going forward. Forget about the past. Lift up your head, look
ahead."

"You cannot be free with guilt in your heart."

"Priority is everything."

"The truth doesn't need evidence, it is evidence."

"There is no greater possession a man has than his own will, to squander
it or to place it where it truly belongs."

"An atheist is a fool who thinks truth is found in living a lie."

"Saying "prove it" [as a foundation] is merely an ignorant straw man, to
an ignorant straw man."

"Wait, rest, be still, and know."

"No man can wash his own hands!!!"

"I find this in the Christianity religions: 'Nobody's perfect' they say,
and they use that as an excuse not to do what is perfect."

The Atheist: "They don't believe and put their faith in a Creator (the
obvious). So no evidence and proof is to be found!!"

"The world is the way it is because God can't compromise who He is."

"Man is not the centre of being."

"Man is incompatible with the natural world because of his sinful nature."

"And then the Lord said, "I see everything."

"Man has no greater idol than his own will."

"Where is God hiding? He isn't."

"If you don't keep all the scriptures, you can't keep any of them."

"You can't prove anything because everything depends on a person's
willingness to believe."

[Frank Lee]

Michael McLean <michaelm...@outlook.com> wrote:

> And just in case I get the same idiot atheist bullshit, God is eternal,
> so He is not created. And the proof of that is, no one would be here if
> He was created (including God) as no thing can create itself.

Then you deny that your god is omnipotent, since you
don't allow him to be able to create himself.

You should have created an omnipotent god instead of a
wimp who can't even time-travel.


>
> It is...painfully...simple.

Says Painfully Simple Steven.

[john adams]

There has never been an observation of a gene gaining information,
it is not science to assume something that has never been observed
and has nothing to even imply that it could happen.
Loss of genetic information is provable, observable and recorded.
Furthermore, it's effects are to a large degree predictable.

The issue is that evolution assumes 0 genetic information
in the beginning to the vast wealth of information today,
Creationism states that Adam and Eve had all the
genetic information from the beginning and a lot of things happened between
then and now but we now have less. A lot less.

Science belongs to Creationism.

[john adams]

Yeah, I can.
First, the Scriptures have been used by thousands of masters and Ph.D. students
as their basis for their thesis and dissertations and at the same time I know many
High School dropouts that read the Scriptures every day and they do that because they "get it".
The Scriptures are available to everyone, if you can read or have someone read to you, the wisdom
of 66 books written by 40 different authors is available to you.

Second, everything that we learn points to the inerrancy of the Scriptures, from the "James Webb"
telescope to the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and every archeological find reenforces the authenticity, reliability,
and Truth.

Third, the Scripture is about us and our relationship to the creator and it covers everything. Because scripture
covers everything and there are no mistakes. Scripture Interprets Itself, reading will take you down a
path that you cannot diverge from, if you find that your interpretation contradicts other Scripture
I can assure you that you are wrong, time to reevaluate.

[john adams]

Gee, I wonder what that was about? The answers are out there, if you want them...

[john adams]

On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 5:45:55 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> aaa wrote:
> > On 2022-09-04 14:16, Ron Dean wrote:
> >> Ed Debevic wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:29:32 -0500, Dale
> >>> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> one day Darwin might be regulated to myth if science doesn't consider
> >>>> older psychological, psychiatrical, and sociological traditions of old
> >>>> mainly carried on in religion
> >>>>
> >>>> the majority of people on earth are religious, religion provides them
> >>>> psychological, psychiatrical, and sociological solutions, while science
> >>>> talks about going to mars
> >>>>
> >>>> until the establishment scientific institutional gives psychology,
> >>>> psychiatry and sociology the credence as the more important sciences,
> >>>> they will fail to compete with religion, and they will fail in the
> >>>> maturity of the important sciences too
> >>>>
> >>>> as a psychiatric patient I see this first hand, psychiatric conditions
> >>>> are diagnosed psychologically then treated biologically, psychiatric
> >>>> patients deal with labels and stigmas, if I was diagnosed as having
> >>>> high
> >>>> dopamine, as they say I have, with medical imaging it would be a less
> >>>> troubling label, my medicine leaves me with the side effects of tardive
> >>>> dyskensia and neuroleptic malignant syndrome out of low dopamine like
> >>>> Parkinson's, the medicines are expensive because you are forced by the
> >>>> legal system in a roundabout way to take them,, psychiatry is a power
> >>>> grab now instead of the elegant science it could be
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroleptic_malignant_syndrome
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardive_dyskinesia
> >>>>
> >>>> religious psychiatry like "medicine men", shamans, witch doctors, etc.
> >>>> leave patients normal with respect to society, how am I supposed to
> >>>> return to work with 20 years of psychiatry treatment on my resume even
> >>>> if I was capable?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Darwin was full of ape shit. The world began with Adam and Eve, not
> >>> Jane and Cheetah.
> >>>
> >> According to science, from nothing - nothing comes.
> >> So, the most fundamental question is: why is there something rather
> >> than nothing?
> >
> > Because there is God who can create something out of nothing.
> >
> Yes, well said, your statement is near _proof_ of God!

The "proof" of God is
Isaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, ‘My plan will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure
Eschatology is the proof.

[Ron Dean]

On Sep 11, 2022 at 3:12:19 AM EDT, "Frank Lee" <n...@real.lee.invalid> wrote:

> Ron Dean <ron.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank Lee wrote:

>>> Ron Dean <ron.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed Debevic wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:29:32 -0500, Dale
>>>>> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> one day Darwin might be regulated to myth if science doesn't consider
>>>>>> older psychological, psychiatrical, and sociological traditions of old
>>>>>> mainly carried on in religion
>>>>>>

>> <snip>

>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as a psychiatric patient I see this first hand, psychiatric conditions
>>>>>> are diagnosed psychologically then treated biologically, psychiatric
>>>>>> patients deal with labels and stigmas, if I was diagnosed as having high
>>>>>> dopamine, as they say I have, with medical imaging it would be a less
>>>>>> troubling label, my medicine leaves me with the side effects of tardive
>>>>>> dyskensia and neuroleptic malignant syndrome out of low dopamine like
>>>>>> Parkinson's, the medicines are expensive because you are forced by the
>>>>>> legal system in a roundabout way to take them,, psychiatry is a power
>>>>>> grab now instead of the elegant science it could be
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroleptic_malignant_syndrome
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardive_dyskinesia
>>>>>>
>>>>>> religious psychiatry like "medicine men", shamans, witch doctors, etc.
>>>>>> leave patients normal with respect to society, how am I supposed to
>>>>>> return to work with 20 years of psychiatry treatment on my resume even
>>>>>> if I was capable?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Darwin was full of ape shit. The world began with Adam and Eve, not
>>>>> Jane and Cheetah.
>>>>>
>>>> According to science, from nothing - nothing comes.
>>>

>>> That is only your assumption. As it turns out, it's a
>>> false one. It's well known that matter can appear "ex
>>> nihilo". See, for example,
>>>
>>> <https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark-vuletic-vacuum/>
>>>
>>> In this case, "nothing" means a vacuum in space.
>>>
>>> If there were truly nothing -- not even spacetime -- then
>>> laws of physics as we know it become meaningless. In that
>>> case, how do you know what can or can't happen?

>>>
>>>> So, the most fundamental question is: why is there something rather than
>>>> nothing?
>>>

>>> Good question. Nobody knows, maybe nobody will ever know.
>>>
>> Another unasked/unanswered question: why is there life; who or what
>> instigated,
>> or set in motion or "called for" the emergence of life?
>
> That one is easier. Life exists because it can. It

> doesn't need any more reason than that.

Why then did life come about just one time and not countless times.

[Ron Dean]

On Sep 20, 2022 at 8:34:56 PM EDT, "john adams" <orthod...@gmail.com>
wrote:

There is no proof of God or atheism (no God): only belief, consequently,
debating
belief is futile and pointless The point si where does tempirical scientific
evidence lead?
I think the evidence ir taken at face value, clearly points to Intelligent
Design.

[Frank Lee]

How do you know it only happened once?