Origin of Life

[Andrew]

It is impossible to explain the origin of life
by~purely naturalistic causes. This suggests
that it did not happen that way.

The other option is that it happened from
a causation that goes --> beyond a strictly
naturalistic one.

This points us to ID and Creationism as
the most logical, and therefore the most
probably_correct_model of our origins.

Since the EVIDENCE tells us that our
origin was the result of a..creative act,
this tells us that there is a Creator who
made us. That's what the evidence says.

There IS a God.

It is futile to argue against the truth.

[Ted]

A statement that hardly required the deeply flawed argument preceding
it.

I can't be an atheist. (God knows I've tried.) But it's trivially
easy to prove that your god doesn't exist.

> It is futile to argue against the truth.

One would hope so, though that hasn't stopped you from making it your
mission.

[Andrew]

"Attila" wrote in message news:j9ornht1ubaehtflf...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>It is impossible to explain the origin of life
>>by~purely naturalistic causes. This suggests
>>that it did not happen that way.
>

> Until the origin of life is understood it is impossible to
> eliminate any way it may have occurred.

If we know that life could not possibly have
originated by a purely naturalistic cause, then
therefore we could eliminate that as a cause.

Since that is what the evidence tells us, the only
reason some may object, is because they have a
philosophical bias that they have a higher value
for than the truth.

>>The other option is that it happened from
>>a causation that goes --> beyond a strictly
>>naturalistic one.
>

> Nope. You cannot restrict something that
> is not yet known.

But you can restrict something that is known.

>>This points us to ID and Creationism as
>>the most logical, and therefore the most
>>probably_correct_model of our origins.
>

> Based firmly in midair as far as any support
> is concerned.

Based on the fact that we have no other option.

>>Since the EVIDENCE tells us that our
>>origin was the result of a..creative act,
>>this tells us that there is a Creator who
>>made us. That's what the evidence says.
>

> What evidence?

The -evidence- is there in the very Creation
itself. But fools still refuse to acknowledge
it.

> All I ever see is unsupported speculation
> and opinion.

That's what we see from those who posit a
purely naturalistic origin of life. They will
fantasize "unscientific scenarios".

>>There IS a God.
>
> I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
> existence of any god.

If there was a Creation, then that logically implies
there was a Creator. Only a fool would deny that.

>>It is futile to argue against the truth.
>

> It may be your truth but that does mean anyone
> else agrees. Why should they?

The reason some object, is because they have a
philosophical bias that they have a higher value
for than the truth.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 06:45:17 -0500, Ted <tedsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 00:47:26 -0800, "Andrew"
><andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> It is impossible to explain the origin of life
>> by~purely naturalistic causes.

A deliberate lie by a deliberately lying liar who has been given
protocells formed perfectly naturally in the lab going back sixty
years.

>> This suggests
>> that it did not happen that way.

Another of the in-our-face, deliberately lying liar's deliberate lies
about objective reality that are nothing to do with atheism.

>> The other option is that it happened from
>> a causation that goes --> beyond a strictly
>> naturalistic one.

The deliberately lying liar's usual false dichotomy between his
deliberate lies and his deluded religious fantasies.

>> This points us to ID and Creationism as
>> the most logical, and therefore the most
>> probably_correct_model of our origins.

The deliberate, in-our-faces liar knows it is no such thing.

>> Since the EVIDENCE tells us that our
>> origin was the result of a..creative act,

Another of the deliberately lying liar's deliberate lies.

>> this tells us that there is a Creator who
>> made us. That's what the evidence says.

Two more of the deliberately lying liar's deliberate lies.

>> There IS a God.

How do the deliberately lying liar's deliberate lies and false
dichotomies between his lies and his deluded fantasies demonstrate
that?

>A statement that hardly required the deeply flawed argument preceding
>it.

It's standard dishonest apologetics, intended to reinforce the beliefs
of the unthinkingly believers and not intended for people outside the
flock - but he's so psychopathically stupid, he wipes his faeces in
our faces.

>I can't be an atheist. (God knows I've tried.) But it's trivially
>easy to prove that your god doesn't exist.

If you're not theist then you're atheist because all it takes is nor
being theist - common usage gets it wrong because the theist majority
who redefined the word, stupidly imagines its an actual belief even
though it isn't - and the rare occasions an atheist says there's no
god, it's a throwaway remark about something irrelevant theists keep
pestering us about, and in the same vein as "no ghosts", "no UFO
abductions, etc.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:tll4dg$1b81$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

>
> If there was a Creation, then that logically implies
> there was a Creator.

Who created this Creator?

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in news:tlkmmd$1apr$1
@gioia.aioe.org:

> It is impossible to explain the origin of life
> by~purely naturalistic causes. This suggests
> that it did not happen that way.
>
> The other option is that it happened from
> a causation that goes --> beyond a strictly
> naturalistic one.
>
> This points us to ID and Creationism as
> the most logical, and therefore the most
> probably_correct_model of our origins.
>
> Since the EVIDENCE tells us that our
> origin was the result of a..creative act,
> this tells us that there is a Creator who
> made us.

How long ago was this Creation, in years?

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF58513997F72...@69.80.102.51...
> "Andrew" wrote in news:tll4dg$1b81$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

>
>> If there was a Creation, then that logically implies
>> there was a Creator.
>
> Who created this Creator?

Not something you can know
or understand.

But you can know that He is.

Only a fool would deny it.

You may prepare now to
meet Him in peace.

Because your time here
is about up.

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF585165A81AF...@69.80.102.51...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> It is impossible to explain the origin of life
>> by~purely naturalistic causes. This suggests
>> that it did not happen that way.
>>
>> The other option is that it happened from
>> a causation that goes --> beyond a strictly
>> naturalistic one.
>>
>> This points us to ID and Creationism as
>> the most logical, and therefore the most
>> probably_correct_model of our origins.
>>
>> Since the EVIDENCE tells us that our
>> origin was the result of a..creative act,
>> this tells us that there is a Creator who
>> made us.
>
> How long ago was this Creation, in years?

The "Creation" involves much more than our Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxObsdE9qQE

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:tlla64$2o3$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsAF58513997F72...@69.80.102.51...
>> "Andrew" wrote in news:tll4dg$1b81$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>>> If there was a Creation, then that logically implies
>>> there was a Creator.
>>
>> Who created this Creator?
>
> Not something you can know
> or understand.
>

Then ID is religion, not science.

> But you can know that He is.
>

More religion.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:tllauk$f0r$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

Just answer the question.

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF587F5267260...@69.80.102.53...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is impossible to explain the origin of life
>>>> by~purely naturalistic causes. This suggests
>>>> that it did not happen that way.
>>>>
>>>> The other option is that it happened from
>>>> a causation that goes --> beyond a strictly
>>>> naturalistic one.
>>>>
>>>> This points us to ID and Creationism as
>>>> the most logical, and therefore the most
>>>> probably_correct_model of our origins.
>>>>
>>>> Since the EVIDENCE tells us that our
>>>> origin was the result of a..creative act,
>>>> this tells us that there is a Creator who
>>>> made us.
>>>
>>> How long ago was this Creation, in years?
>>
>> The "Creation" involves much more than our Earth.
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxObsdE9qQE
>
> Just answer the question.

Why do you want to know?

and. . .

Why do you think I should
know?

The important thing here is
that it WAS created ~ by the
living God.

It would be wise to prepare

now to meet Him in peace.

Because your time here is

almost over.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:tlmc6k$144v$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsAF587F5267260...@69.80.102.53...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is impossible to explain the origin of life
>>>>> by~purely naturalistic causes. This suggests
>>>>> that it did not happen that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other option is that it happened from
>>>>> a causation that goes --> beyond a strictly
>>>>> naturalistic one.
>>>>>
>>>>> This points us to ID and Creationism as
>>>>> the most logical, and therefore the most
>>>>> probably_correct_model of our origins.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the EVIDENCE tells us that our
>>>>> origin was the result of a..creative act,
>>>>> this tells us that there is a Creator who
>>>>> made us.
>>>>
>>>> How long ago was this Creation, in years?
>>>
>>> The "Creation" involves much more than our Earth.
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxObsdE9qQE
>>
>> Just answer the question.
>
> Why do you want to know?
>

Just answer the question.

> and. . .
>
> Why do you think I should
> know?

This is your mythology,
can't you explain it?

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF58CE30253D9...@69.80.101.50...

This has been explained to you many times.
Only a fool keeps asking the 'same question'
that has > already been answered repeatedly.

[Frank Lee]

Kinda like fools who ask repeatedly the same question
about the source of biological information after it has
already been answered?

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:tlmqr5$1frd$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

Wrong.

Just answer the question.

[Andrew]

"Attila" wrote in message news:endsnh5mp8uf2bn33...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>>"Attila" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is impossible to explain the origin of life
>>>>by~purely naturalistic causes. This suggests
>>>>that it did not happen that way.
>>>
>>> Until the origin of life is understood it is impossible to
>>> eliminate any way it may have occurred.
>>
>>If we know that life could not possibly have
>>originated by a purely naturalistic cause, then
>>therefore we could eliminate that as a cause.
>

> If. If. Since we don't know how life originated it is
> impossible to eliminate anything as a factor.

To find an answer to a problem one must sometimes
eliminate different options to narrow down potential
possibilities.

On the topic "the origin of life" we can bring science
into the equation to help us find the truth. But this is
helpful only for those whose minds are not polluted
by preconceived biases.

Those who want the the truth will find that, life
could not possibly have originated by purely
naturalistic causes,

[Andrew]

"Frank Lee" wrote in message news:8iutnhdt6nrn7e4bg...@4ax.com...

It is the atheists enigma. It exposes their deception.

[Ted]

Well said.

> >I can't be an atheist. (God knows I've tried.) But it's trivially
> >easy to prove that your god doesn't exist.


> If you're not theist then you're atheist because all it takes is nor
> being theist - common usage gets it wrong because the theist
majority
> who redefined the word, stupidly imagines its an actual belief even
> though it isn't - and the rare occasions an atheist says there's no
> god, it's a throwaway remark about something irrelevant theists keep
> pestering us about, and in the same vein as "no ghosts", "no UFO
> abductions, etc.

Thank you, Christopher. In that case, I am an atheist.

[Andrew]

"JWS" wrote in message news:df5e31f6-2a94-4e3c...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:

> Ryo Mizuuchi, Taro Furubayashi & Norikazu Ichihashi
> have demonstrated the evolutionary transition from a
> single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network.

Not from abiotic chemicals.

> Another step closer to self-sustaining cellular life.

No.

[Andrew]

"Attila" wrote in message news:5s41ohp3g1pa4r5t7...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

> What deception?

If in fact there is no "naturalistic origin" of biological
information, then atheism per se is a ~ false paradigm.

> The refusal to accept your silly superstition as being
> valid since it has no supporting evidence?

If you cannot explain the origin of biological
information, then *you* are to one adhering
to a ~ silly suppression.

This applies to ALL of our atheist friends.

"The times of this ignorance God winked
at; but now He commands all men every
where to repent." ~ Paul

[Andrew]

"Attila" wrote in message news:gm41ohln68oo6vbl4...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Attila" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Attila" wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>It is impossible to explain the origin of life
>>>>>>by~purely naturalistic causes. This suggests
>>>>>>that it did not happen that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until the origin of life is understood it is impossible to
>>>>> eliminate any way it may have occurred.
>>>>
>>>>If we know that life could not possibly have
>>>>originated by a purely naturalistic cause, then
>>>>therefore we could eliminate that as a cause.
>>>
>>> If. If. Since we don't know how life originated it is
>>> impossible to eliminate anything as a factor.
>>
>>To find an answer to a problem one must sometimes
>>eliminate different options to narrow down potential
>>possibilities.
>

> Especially if you desire to reach a particular solution.

>
>>On the topic "the origin of life" we can bring science
>>into the equation to help us find the truth. But this is
>>helpful only for those whose minds are not polluted
>>by preconceived biases.
>

> Science should have no preconceived biases. Only the actual
> evidence should matter.

>
>>Those who want the the truth will find that, life
>>could not possibly have originated by purely
>>naturalistic causes,
>

> According to your preconceived position which
> rests entirely on your unsupported superstitions.

No, according to science and the established laws
of science. If you can cite otherwise, please do so.

[Bob Duncan]

If they're human, with half a brain, they know it's true.
Their problem is they don't want to believe it's true.

--
God exists, uncreated and transcendental to space and time.
.

[Frank Lee]

No it doesn't.

> > What deception?
>
> If in fact there is no "naturalistic origin" of biological
> information, then atheism per se is a ~ false paradigm.

If, in fact, there is no magic skydaddy, then creatIDism
per se is a ~false paradigm.

If, in fact, there is no Andrew-baby-daddy, then Andrew
per se is a ~false entity.

So?

> > The refusal to accept your silly superstition as being
> > valid since it has no supporting evidence?
>
> If you cannot explain the origin of biological
> information, then *you* are to one adhering
> to a ~ silly suppression.

Attila's ability or inability to explain the origin of
biological information, at a level you can understand,
has no bearing on the origin of abiogenesis.

So you are lying, and you are shameless about it.

As I noted before, Andrew, you are a pretty slick liar. A
lot of faith-oriented people won't unwind your logical
pretzels.

[Andrew]

"Attila" wrote in message news:abd2ohdek91d4m8s8...@4ax.com...

> Why do you think it is true?

He explained exactly *why*,

And you ~still~ ask *why*.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF587F1C6A49F...@69.80.102.53...

> "Andrew" wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>

>>>> If there was a Creation, then that logically implies
>>>> there was a Creator.
>>>
>>> Who created this Creator?
>>
>> Not something you can know
>> or understand.
>
> Then ID is religion, not science.

It is because of *science* that we may know
that our origin was because of an intelligent
causation.

Hence, the reason some reject ID is because
they place their philosophical biases on a
higher level than --> the truth.

Which is something that only a fool would
do.

[Bob Duncan]

I thought the part about being human, with at least half a brain, would
have been enough explanation for anyone who is human with half a brain.
But, I guess some people still haven't figured out how to use their half
of a brain yet, and they need someone to walk them through it, from
start to finish.

[Andrew]

"Attila" wrote in message news:ceu2ohdm63ctjqol5...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

> Because he explained nothing.

He did so succinctly, and
your response confirms it.

[Andrew]

"Attila" wrote in message news:q5n3ohdanoq12ooil...@4ax.com...

> I see no facts involved anywhere

Therefore you have a problem.

> but I do see a lot of assumptions.

You are obviously suffering from
philosophical bias preventing you
from escaping the deception that
you are in.

[Andrew]

"Attila" in message news:dtr4oh93h1nuj9p35...@4ax.com...

> Not at all. After all, I am the one you are trying to
> convince and they are my questions that need answering.

The context here is.."the Origin of Life". Facts have been
presented to help narrow down the options. You ignore
these facts yet cannot cite a single alternative. Which is
evidence that you are not a "free-thinker", but rather that
your mind is controlled by ~preconceive biases~, and not
unless you are able to free yourself from such will you
be freed from the deceptions you are in now.

> I see a lot of beating around the bush and a lot of
> interpretation of terms and procedures but I never see
> anything like a clear fact supported by unambiguous,
> unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence. No matter how
> many times you say otherwise.

>
>>> but I do see a lot of assumptions.
>>
>>You are obviously suffering from
>>philosophical bias preventing you
>>from escaping the deception that
>>you are in.
>

> Philosophy has little to do with verifiable and reproducible
> fact.

Yes, but has everything to do with whether one will
accept a fact that exposes a long held belief that may
be contrary to the fact.

["Ron Dean ...@gmail.com]

I just decided to respond: there is a characteristic that I've noted
regarding both
the origin of life and evolution. Both are characterized by two factors,
1)
what is observed and 2) what is _not_observed. Life is seen it is abundant
it is observed, it is known; life is fact. However, the origin of life
is unobserved,
unseen and unknown, therefore naturalist have no choice, but to turn to
hypothesis,
theories, and educated guesses in their effort to explain the origin of
life. Since
the origin of life is unseen unobserved the "explanations" cannot be
considered
factual.

And again the same two factors; what is observed Vs what is unobserved
characterizes
evolution. Example: the Cambrian "explosion" during the Cambrian complex
phyla as many as 30+ appeared abruptly over a comparatively short time
the Cambrian's 50 million year or so duration. These phyla, many with
decedents
living today are observed in the rocks so they were real, factual and
described.
But the hopped for transitional or intermediate fossils are not observed
and
are unknown. Here again naturalist are challenged to devise explanations or
excuses as to why intermediates are not found. No linkage back to the
common
ancestor is strictly hypothical and unobserved in the fossil record. So,
alternative
explanations has to be found to explain why transitional fossils back to
a common
ancestor is unobserved, unseen and unknown.
There are numerous examples of this characteristic in seen in evolution.
.

[Andrew]

"Ron Dean wrote in message news:VoDgL.65243$Ib03....@fx38.iad...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Attila" in message:

"I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one
might make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements
about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record.

"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to
another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by
natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there
is no way to put them to the test." ~ Senior Paleontologist

[Andrew]

"Attila" wrote in message news:6u16oh5m0b88veu0b...@4ax.com...

> What facts? All I see are speculations, guesses, and
> superstition based conclusions. Pleas be specific about
> what facts you are talking about.

>
>>You ignore
>>these facts yet cannot cite a single alternative. Which is
>>evidence that you are not a "free-thinker", but rather that
>>your mind is controlled by ~preconceive biases~, and not
>>unless you are able to free yourself from such will you
>>be freed from the deceptions you are in now.
>

> Nonsense. You are talking about a subject about which few
> facts are actually known. It is a complex problem and
> requires a lot of research from many different directions to
> reach any conclusions. While some preliminary work has been
> done there is a lot left to do.

>
>>> I see a lot of beating around the bush and a lot of
>>> interpretation of terms and procedures but I never see
>>> anything like a clear fact supported by unambiguous,
>>> unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence. No matter how
>>> many times you say otherwise.
>>>
>>>>> but I do see a lot of assumptions.
>>>>
>>>>You are obviously suffering from
>>>>philosophical bias preventing you
>>>>from escaping the deception that
>>>>you are in.
>>>
>>> Philosophy has little to do with verifiable and
>>> reproducible fact.
>>
>>Yes, but has everything to do with whether one will
>>accept a fact that exposes a long held belief that may
>>be contrary to the fact.
>

> A true fact has supporting evidence and can exist
> whether or not anyone accepts it or not.

Although a *fact* may actually exist, it may be rejected
by one who adheres to an a priori philosophical position
that is opposed to it. Such is your position.

"We are forced by our a priori adherence to material
causes to..produce material explanations, no matter
how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to
the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute,
for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
~ Richard Lewontin, evolutionist

If one wants truth, they cannot be confined to any
a priori philosophical position.

[Ron Dean]

> natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for therever

>   is no way to put them to the test."   ~ Senior Paleontologist
>

Science is supposed to be neutral, indifferent going to wherever the
evidence leads.
It seems to me that when there is an established objective to begin with
and the search is on to find proof. This is not science, but it describes
evolutionary science.
To your point when the search is on to find transitional forms between
fossils A and fossil k, how can anyone know that what is found is nothing
more than just the "best in the field"?
on to find supporting evidence for the goal,

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/27/2022 8:14 AM, Attila wrote:

> Until facts establish something other than the material
> world exists that material world should be considered to be
> all there is.


Unless one has been shown that the material world is not the
only thing that exists.

<https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/self-attestation-scripture-internal-witness-holy-spirit/>

Note: Only those who have been chosen by God receive that revelation.

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/27/2022 12:26 PM, Attila wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 11:31:46 -0500, Bob Duncan
> <bob7d...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <tm03di$1ute$1...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/2022 8:14 AM, Attila wrote:
>>
>>> Until facts establish something other than the material
>>> world exists that material world should be considered to be
>>> all there is.
>>
>>
>> Unless one has been shown that the material world is not the
>> only thing that exists.
>

> I have not seen an such thing and it appears everyone who
> says they have expects others to simply take their word for
> it.

"Taking their word for it" and expecting them to share the same belief
system are two totally different ideas. Try keeping up.

Only those who have been chosen by God receive that revelation.

>> <https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/self-attestation-scripture-internal-witness-holy-spirit/>


> I am not superstitious.

Neither am I.

Off topic. Out of context.

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/27/2022 2:18 PM, Attila wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 13:10:06 -0500, Bob Duncan

> <bob7d...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <tm095u$iar$1...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/2022 12:26 PM, Attila wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 11:31:46 -0500, Bob Duncan
>>> <bob7d...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <tm03di$1ute$1...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/27/2022 8:14 AM, Attila wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Until facts establish something other than the material
>>>>> world exists that material world should be considered to be
>>>>> all there is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unless one has been shown that the material world is not the
>>>> only thing that exists.
>>>
>>> I have not seen an such thing and it appears everyone who
>>> says they have expects others to simply take their word for
>>> it.
>>
>> "Taking their word for it" and expecting them to share the same belief
>> system are two totally different ideas. Try keeping up.
>

> Belief, and belief systems, are irrelevant.

That's your unsupported opinion.


> It is quite
> possible to believe in invisible pink flying dragons who
> only eat unicorns and that is just ads valid as a belief in
> some god or other.

Unless one has been shown that their belief in God is a valid one,
as is what takes place with every chosen elect when regenerated
by the Holy Spirit.

>> Only those who have been chosen by God receive that revelation.
>

> That is your belief. Why should anyone else pay any attention?

For several different reasons. Why did you pay attention?

>
>>
>>>> <https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/self-attestation-scripture-internal-witness-holy-spirit/>
>>
>>
>>> I am not superstitious.
>>
>> Neither am I.
>>
>> Off topic. Out of context.
>

> Not really. One man's god is another man's silly
> superstition.

Your definition of "superstition" does not agree with the dictionary's
definition. Off topic. Out of context.

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/27/2022 3:39 PM, Attila wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 14:29:58 -0500, Bob Duncan

> <bob7d...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <tm0drl$k3e$1...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/2022 2:18 PM, Attila wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 13:10:06 -0500, Bob Duncan
>>> <bob7d...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <tm095u$iar$1...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/27/2022 12:26 PM, Attila wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 11:31:46 -0500, Bob Duncan
>>>>> <bob7d...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>> <tm03di$1ute$1...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/27/2022 8:14 AM, Attila wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until facts establish something other than the material
>>>>>>> world exists that material world should be considered to be
>>>>>>> all there is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless one has been shown that the material world is not the
>>>>>> only thing that exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not seen an such thing and it appears everyone who
>>>>> says they have expects others to simply take their word for
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> "Taking their word for it" and expecting them to share the same belief
>>>> system are two totally different ideas. Try keeping up.
>>>
>>> Belief, and belief systems, are irrelevant.
>>
>> That's your unsupported opinion.
>

> To some extent, but belief will only go so =far before it
> runs into reality. You may believe you can fly by waving
> your arms around but I doubt you will ever leave the ground.

You have a problem keeping up.

Off topic. Out of context.

You seem to always want to change the subject when you find
yourself in a corner, with no way out.

>>> It is quite
>>> possible to believe in invisible pink flying dragons who
>>> only eat unicorns and that is just ads valid as a belief in
>>> some god or other.
>>
>> Unless one has been shown that their belief in God is a valid one,
>> as is what takes place with every chosen elect when regenerated
>> by the Holy Spirit.
>

> No one is actually shown any such thing. They only believe
> they have.

Do you believe you can prove what you just said?

If not, then it's just your unsupported opinion.

That's the gentleman's way of calling you a liar.

>>>> Only those who have been chosen by God receive that revelation.
>>>
>>> That is your belief. Why should anyone else pay any attention?
>>
>> For several different reasons. Why did you pay attention?
>

> I don't. Your statements are forgotten when I push the post
> button.

If that were true, then you have far greater a problem than I think
you have.

>>>>>> <https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/self-attestation-scripture-internal-witness-holy-spirit/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am not superstitious.
>>>>
>>>> Neither am I.
>>>>
>>>> Off topic. Out of context.
>>>
>>> Not really. One man's god is another man's silly
>>> superstition.
>>
>> Your definition of "superstition" does not agree with the dictionary's
>> definition. Off topic. Out of context.
>

> su·per·sti·tion
>
> "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for
> supernatural beings."

Now you have to prove that it applies to me, and not just
because you think it does. Where's your proof?

> How can anything be more supernatural than some god?

I'm looking at "excessively credulous". You need to prove that first.


> "a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural
> causation leading to certain consequences of an action or
> event, or a practice based on such a belief.
> plural noun: superstitions"

Same here. Where's your proof?

> : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation

And here. You need to show proof that you're not lying.


> : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from *SUPERSTITION*

A definition of "superstition" that uses and relies upon the
definition of "superstition".

That's very irrational.

I doubt you would have made it through Logic 101.


> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ *SUPERSTITION*

So far, you haven't shown any proof that those definitions apply to me.

You're real quick at accusing me of something, but you never can prove
it's true.

Do you have any idea what you're doing?
Or are you just pretending to know?

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/27/2022 5:16 PM, Attila wrote:

> I know exactly what I am doing.


But you haven't proven anything you've said.

Let me know when you can prove something.

Until then, you're like an LP record that keeps skiping,
never saying anything new.

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/27/2022 5:16 PM, Attila wrote:

> You brought up the subject of belief systems and I am
> pointing out belief will only take you so far before it runs
> into the rocks of reality.

That's an assertion that requires proof. Prove it.

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/27/2022 5:16 PM, Attila wrote:

>> Do you believe you can prove what you just said?
>

> The question is can you prove what you said?

I have not tried convincing you of anything.
Religious beliefs require no proof.

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/27/2022 5:16 PM, Attila wrote:

>> If not, then it's just your unsupported opinion.

> You have a lot of those.

Only if I were trying to convince you they were true.

Religious beliefs require no proof.

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/27/2022 5:16 PM, Attila wrote:

>> That's the gentleman's way of calling you a liar.

> Of course your must do that since I am pointing out how
> everything you believe actually only occurs in your mind.

No you're not. You have not pointed out any such thing.

That is a lie.

You are a liar.

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/27/2022 5:16 PM, Attila wrote:

>> If that were true, then you have far greater a problem than I think
>> you have.

> I am sure you think I have a problem since your silly
> superstition <snip>

An repeated unsupported opinion is the same thing as a lie.

You are a liar, who repeats his lies.

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/28/2022 1:28 AM, Attila wrote:

> Suppose you indicate what part of my posts require proof?

Everything.

> Also include supporting evidence for your assertions and
> claims.

I make no assertions or claims that require proof.

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/28/2022 1:34 AM, Attila wrote:

> I have doe so many tines.

What?

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/28/2022 1:35 AM, Attila wrote:

> Beliefs, no. Are your statements based upon your beliefs or
> based upon reality?

Do you lie all of the time, or just most of the time?

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/28/2022 1:39 AM, Attila wrote:

> True. Do you post beliefs or reality?

Do you lie all of the time, or just most all of the time?

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/28/2022 1:40 AM, Attila wrote:

> Where else have they occurred?

Do you have to have somebody with you each time you go pottie?

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/28/2022 1:42 AM, Attila wrote:

> Are your repeated "religious beliefs" lies?

Where's your proof?

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/28/2022 5:18 AM, Attila wrote:

> Everything you clipped?


You have trouble understanding English.

So there's your problem.

Learn how to communicate in English first,
before anything else.

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/28/2022 5:21 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 04:50:47 -0500, Bob Duncan

> <bob7d...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <tm209m$15a$3...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2022 1:35 AM, Attila wrote:
>>
>>> Beliefs, no. Are your statements based upon your beliefs or
>>> based upon reality?
>>
>> Do you lie all of the time, or just most of the time?
>

> Do you always answer a question with another question?

Does everything people say to you go over your hear,
or just most things?

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/28/2022 5:22 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 04:51:55 -0500, Bob Duncan

> <bob7d...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <tm20bq$15a$4...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2022 1:39 AM, Attila wrote:
>>
>>> True. Do you post beliefs or reality?
>>
>> Do you lie all of the time, or just most all of the time?
>

> Why do you answer a question with a question and try to
> change the subject?

Do you not understand rhetorical questions, that are the same
sort of question that you ask?

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/28/2022 5:24 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 04:53:23 -0500, Bob Duncan

> <bob7d...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <tm20ei$15a$5...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2022 1:40 AM, Attila wrote:
>>
>>> Where else have they occurred?
>>
>> Do you have to have somebody with you each time you go pottie?
>

> Again you answer a question with a question and try to
> change the subject.


So I'll take that as you "still lie all of the time".

Just what I thought.

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/28/2022 5:25 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 04:54:13 -0500, Bob Duncan

> <bob7d...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <tm20g4$15a$6...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2022 1:42 AM, Attila wrote:
>>
>>> Are your repeated "religious beliefs" lies?
>>
>> Where's your proof?
>

> Of what?


Do you always act stupid when someone has you backed into a corner?

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/28/2022 6:02 AM, "Ron.Dean" <"h,ron.dean"@gmail.com wrote:

> On 11/28/22 5:30 AM, Bob Duncan wrote:
>> On 11/28/2022 5:25 AM, Attila wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 04:54:13 -0500, Bob Duncan
>>> <bob7d...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <tm20g4$15a$6...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/28/2022 1:42 AM, Attila wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Are your repeated "religious beliefs" lies?
>>>>
>>>> Where's your proof?
>>>
>>> Of what?
>>
>>
>> Do you always act stupid when someone has you backed into a corner?
>>

> There is no way to prove evolution, religion or god(s)


I know. You can only believe each one. I've been saying that for years.
But no one wants to hear it.

They would rather believe that they are the main focus of me being here,
and therefore they are the center of attention.

I'd say well over half of the "regulars" here are extreme narcissists,
looking for as much attention as they can get. (But don't tell them that.)

[Andrew]

"Attila" wrote in message news:19d2oht2r29nq5u72...@4ax.com...

> What science and what established laws? Please be
> specific.

Law of Biogenesis. This law states that life comes
only from pre-existing life, and that of its own kind.

[Andrew]

Yes but scientists like all of us, are human.

> It seems to me that when there is an established objective to begin with
> and the search is on to find proof. This is not science, but it describes
> evolutionary science.

Yes.

> To your point when the search is on to find transitional forms between
> fossils A and fossil k, how can anyone know that what is found is nothing
> more than just the "best in the field"?
> on to find supporting evidence for the goal,

Exactly.

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent
a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not
scientific

"From our vantage point in the present, we arrange
fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of
what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth;
we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices."

"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting
story. We call these new discoveries "missing links", as
if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object
for our contemplation, and not what it really is: . .a
completely human invention created after the fact, shaped
to accord with human prejudices.... Each fossil represents
an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any
other given fossil, and all float around in an
overwhelming sea of gaps."
~ Henry Gee, Senior Editor, “Nature”

Although the Emperor has no clothes, few have
the *courage* to announce it. Because there are
consequences for one to identify with - the truth.

[Andrew]

"JWS" wrote in message news:12eee66d-3454-464c...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "JWS" wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> "Frank Lee" wrote:
>> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>> >> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>> >> >> >>> "Andrew" wrote:

>> >> >> >>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> It is impossible to explain the origin of life
>> >> >> >>>>>> by~purely naturalistic causes. This suggests
>> >> >> >>>>>> that it did not happen that way.
>> >> >> >>>>>>

>> >> >> >>>>>> The other option is that it happened from
>> >> >> >>>>>> a causation that goes --> beyond a strictly
>> >> >> >>>>>> naturalistic one.
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> This points us to ID and Creationism as
>> >> >> >>>>>> the most logical, and therefore the most
>> >> >> >>>>>> probably_correct_model of our origins.
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> Since the EVIDENCE tells us that our
>> >> >> >>>>>> origin was the result of a..creative act,
>> >> >> >>>>>> this tells us that there is a Creator who
>> >> >> >>>>>> made us.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> How long ago was this Creation, in years?
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> The "Creation" involves much more than our Earth.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxObsdE9qQE
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Just answer the question.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why do you want to know?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Just answer the question.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> and. . .
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why do you think I should
>> >> >> >> know?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This is your mythology,
>> >> >> > can't you explain it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This has been explained to you many times.
>> >> >> Only a fool keeps asking the 'same question'
>> >> >> that has > already been answered repeatedly.
>> >> >
>> >> > Kinda like fools who ask repeatedly the same question
>> >> > about the source of biological information after it has
>> >> > already been answered?
>> >
>> >> It is the atheists enigma. It exposes their deception.
>> >
>> > Ryo Mizuuchi, Taro Furubayashi & Norikazu Ichihashi
>> > have demonstrated the evolutionary transition from a
>> > single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network.
>
>> Not from abiotic chemicals.
>
> Sure, something is either living or non living. It's also
> not living until the point when it starts living. The
> evolution of RNA enzymes and nucleotide structures
> has been demonstrated to be self sustaining for
> limited periods of time.

Not from abiotic chemicals.

> It's just going to be a short
> while before we understand all about the necessary
> environments for a completely self sustaining
> replicator network.

And if we finally succeed in doing this
and creating life, then we have proved..

---> Creation <---

Thank you.

[Bob Duncan]

Do you really think what you are doing is not obvious?


Do you think I care what you think?

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:tlrtjk$1bk6$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsAF587F1C6A49F...@69.80.102.53...

>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> If there was a Creation, then that logically implies
>>>>> there was a Creator.
>>>>
>>>> Who created this Creator?
>>>
>>> Not something you can know
>>> or understand.
>>
>> Then ID is religion, not science.
>
> It is because of *science* that we may know
> that our origin was because of an intelligent
> causation.
>


"Creation Science" is an oxymoron




> Hence, the reason some reject ID is because
> they place their philosophical biases on a
> higher level than --> the truth.
>
> Which is something that only a fool would
> do.
>
>
>
>

[Frank Lee]

That would be called the Law of Andrew, except it's not a
law and it's not science. It's just something you made
up, trying to fool the rubes.

Kind of like your "law" about code only coming from
intelligent sources.

[Bob Duncan]

That's just more of your off-topic unsupported opinion that for some
reason you think is "special". There's nothing special about you.

[Frank Lee]

Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 19:54:08 -0500, Bob Duncan

> <bob7d...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <tm3l7h$osm$1...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >That's just more of your off-topic unsupported opinion that for some
> >reason you think is "special". There's nothing special about you.
>

> I wonder who this is intended for. It can't be me because
> you indicated some time ago you are ignoring me and you
> clipped the entire previous message so I suppose it will
> remain a mystery.
>
> Like so much of your drivel - quickly forgotten.

It's meant for Bob, trying desperately to convince
himself that he is right for once.

He's not very bright and not at all articulate.
Funny how the LORD doesn't give His elect much to work
with.

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/29/2022 2:12 AM, Attila wrote:

> I wonder who this is intended for.

There you go again, meandering off-topic.

I let everybody out of my killfile occasionally, to give them a chance
to redeem themselves. But, once again, all you have is your off-topic
unsupported opinion with no proof for anything. Nothing meaningful or
substantive. All you're doing is pretending to be somebody "special".

When really you're just a fake.

[Bob Duncan]

On 11/29/2022 2:26 AM, Frank Lee wrote:

> It's meant for Bob, trying desperately to convince
> himself that he is right for once.

Do you talk to yourself in the mirror a lot, using a different name,
Mike?

[Ted]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 05:55:59 -0500, Bob Duncan <bob7d...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 11/29/2022 2:26 AM, Frank Lee wrote:


> > It's meant for Bob, trying desperately to convince
> > himself that he is right for once.




> Do you talk to yourself in the mirror a lot, using a different name,
> Mike?

OMG are you stupid, Duncan. When your god elected you, he should have
given you a few extra brain cells so you wouldn't embarrass him this
badly.

[Frank Lee]

LOL!

[Frank Lee]

Bob Duncan <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/29/2022 2:26 AM, Frank Lee wrote:
>
> > It's meant for Bob, trying desperately to convince
> > himself that he is right for once.
>
>
> Do you talk to yourself in the mirror a lot, using a different name,
> Mike?

Why, yes. Yes, I do. Sometimes I call myself Michael
Christ, sometimes Bob Duncan.

Sometimes I'm Mike Yost, and other times I'm Robbie
Golaczewski.

Christ, you're dumb.

[Ted]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 08:05:52 -0800, Frank Lee <n...@real.lee.invalid>
wrote:

> Bob Duncan <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > On 11/29/2022 2:26 AM, Frank Lee wrote:
> >
> > > It's meant for Bob, trying desperately to convince
> > > himself that he is right for once.
> >
> >
> > Do you talk to yourself in the mirror a lot, using a different
name,
> > Mike?


> Why, yes. Yes, I do. Sometimes I call myself Michael
> Christ, sometimes Bob Duncan.

LMAO!

> Sometimes I'm Mike Yost, and other times I'm Robbie
> Golaczewski.


> Christ, you're dumb.

LOL!

[Ron Dean]

On Nov 23, 2022 at 3:47:26 AM EST, ""Andrew"" <andrew.3...@usa.net>

wrote:

> It is impossible to explain the origin of life
> by~purely naturalistic causes. This suggests
> that it did not happen that way.
>

> The other option is that it happened from
> a causation that goes --> beyond a strictly
> naturalistic one.
>
> This points us to ID and Creationism as
> the most logical, and therefore the most
> probably_correct_model of our origins.
>
> Since the EVIDENCE tells us that our
> origin was the result of a..creative act,
> this tells us that there is a Creator who

> made us. That's what the evidence says.
>
> There IS a God.
>
> It is futile to argue against the truth.

Life comes from life! There is _no_ exceptions to this rule.
Indeed since there abundant life is observed, and no
definate empirical evidence as to how nature originated life.
however, the fact is that life exist. That _leaves_ only a
designer (God). This puts the burden of proof of the no God
claim of disbelievers. Since atheism is just a faith, they cannot!

[Ron Dean]

On Nov 23, 2022 at 4:04:54 AM EST, "Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 00:47:26 -0800, "Andrew"
> <andrew.3...@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <tlkmmd$1apr$1...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>
>> It is impossible to explain the origin of life
>> by~purely naturalistic causes. This suggests
>> that it did not happen that way.
>

> Until the origin of life is understood it is impossible to
> eliminate any way it may have occurred.
>
>>

>> The other option is that it happened from
>> a causation that goes --> beyond a strictly
>> naturalistic one.
>

> Nope. You cannot restrict something that is not yet known.

>
>>
>> This points us to ID and Creationism as
>> the most logical, and therefore the most
>> probably_correct_model of our origins.
>

> Based firmly in midair as far as any support is concerned.
>
The fact that life is observed and is fact, the very reality
of life _is_ definitive evidence of a creator of life.

>>
>> Since the EVIDENCE tells us that our
>> origin was the result of a..creative act,
>> this tells us that there is a Creator who
>> made us. That's what the evidence says.
>

> What evidence? All I ever see is unsupported speculation
> and opinion.
>
This is nothing more than your belief that there is no god.
you cannot possibly _know_ this, so _faith_ is all you can have!
>
>>
>> There IS a God.
>
> I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
> existence of any god.
>
Again the reality of life is evidence of a creator. And there
is absolutely _no_ exceptions to the rule that life comes
_only_ from life. In 4.5 billion years no exception to this fact
can be verified. This supports the existence of a creator.

>>
>> It is futile to argue against the truth.
>

> It may be your truth but that does mean anyone else agrees.
> Why should they?

Since, life is a reality and there is no other solid empirical evidence as to
how life originated, this leaves only a creator (God). This places
the burden of proof that no God exist, squarely on the shoulders
of the unbeliever. But they cannot _know_ , therefore, atheism is
nothing more than an anti-God faith.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 01:20:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
and

>The fact that life is observed and is fact, the very reality
>of life _is_ definitive evidence of a creator of life.

Prove it, liar - and when you can't, retract this apologise for lying.

[...]

>Since, life is a reality and there is no other solid empirical evidence as to
>how life originated, this leaves only a creator (God). This places

False dichotomy between scientific results you ignore, and deluded
fantasy.

But at least you're no longer pretending that the unevidenced designer
you bullshat about, doesn't have to be the equally unevidenced god you
insisted was responsible when you were a creationist.

>the burden of proof that no God exist, squarely on the shoulders
>of the unbeliever.

No, deliberate liar, because it's your baseless claim for something
from bronze age mythology which you were conditioned to believe
through immersion before learned to think - by parents who were
equally conditioned in a cycle going back thousands of years.

> But they cannot _know_ , therefore, atheism is
>nothing more than an anti-God faith.

Why can't you stop lying, serial liar? You know perfectly well it just
means we're not theist.

[Andrew]

"Attila" wrote in message news:v0d8ph1hq01neu866...@4ax.com...
> Ron Dean wrote:

>> ""Andrew"" wrote:
>>
>>> It is impossible to explain the origin of life
>>> by~purely naturalistic causes. This suggests
>>> that it did not happen that way.
>>>
>>> The other option is that it happened from
>>> a causation that goes --> beyond a strictly
>>> naturalistic one.
>>>
>>> This points us to ID and Creationism as
>>> the most logical, and therefore the most
>>> probably_correct_model of our origins.
>>>
>>> Since the EVIDENCE tells us that our
>>> origin was the result of a..creative act,
>>> this tells us that there is a Creator who
>>> made us. That's what the evidence says.
>>>
>>> There IS a God.
>>>
>>> It is futile to argue against the truth.
>>
>>Life comes from life! There is _no_ exceptions to this rule.
>

> Which has nothing to do with any origin of life.

It does because it narrows down what the
options could possibly be for our origins.

The thinking that life ~spontaneously arose ~
all by itself, with no outside help is..contrary
to science.

>>Indeed since there abundant life is observed, and no
>>definate empirical evidence as to how nature originated life.
>>however, the fact is that life exist.
>

> The existence of life is the only actual fact involved.
> Anything beyond that is pure speculation because we do not
> yet know how this occurred.

If you can know for sure how it did not
occur, then what other options do you
have?

>> That _leaves_ only a designer (God).
>

> There could be a totally unknown
> mechanism or procedure involved.

Could a technical library having detailed,
specific instructions on how to construct
parts that will fit into complex machinery
originate apart from as intelligent agency
that had a plan and purpose for creating it?

Such detailed, specific instructions exist
in the DNA molecule of all living things.

If that is true, then what does that tell us?

To answer that will be difficult for those
who have personal philosophical biases
that they hold to be greater than the truth.

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 10, 2022 at 2:23:23 AM EST, "Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 01:20:26 GMT, Ron Dean

> <rdhall...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <u9RkL.188088$GNG9....@fx18.iad> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 23, 2022 at 4:04:54 AM EST, "Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 00:47:26 -0800, "Andrew"
>>> <andrew.3...@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <tlkmmd$1apr$1...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is impossible to explain the origin of life
>>>> by~purely naturalistic causes. This suggests
>>>> that it did not happen that way.
>>>
>>> Until the origin of life is understood it is impossible to
>>> eliminate any way it may have occurred.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The other option is that it happened from
>>>> a causation that goes --> beyond a strictly
>>>> naturalistic one.
>>>
>>> Nope. You cannot restrict something that is not yet known.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This points us to ID and Creationism as
>>>> the most logical, and therefore the most
>>>> probably_correct_model of our origins.
>>>
>>> Based firmly in midair as far as any support is concerned.
>>>
>> The fact that life is observed and is fact, the very reality
>> of life _is_ definitive evidence of a creator of life.
>

> That only establishes life exists but is not evidence of
> anything beyond that, Just as a statement in the bible only
> establishes the existence of the statement but has nothing
> to do with it's accuracy or validity.
>
I do not turn to the Bible for information pursuant to scientific matters, the
Bible is _not_ a scientific manual.

>
>>>>
>>>> Since the EVIDENCE tells us that our
>>>> origin was the result of a..creative act,
>>>> this tells us that there is a Creator who
>>>> made us. That's what the evidence says.
>>>
>>> What evidence? All I ever see is unsupported speculation
>>> and opinion.
>>>
>> This is nothing more than your belief that there is no god.
>

> It is more my lack of belief in anything that has no
> supporting evidence.
>
There is no proof! But there is what has been called "appearant design" and
the "illusion of design", by Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins Quotes About Design | A-Z Quotes

>
>> you cannot possibly _know_ this, so _faith_ is all you can have!
>

> Are you talking about theists? Because that is a
> description of all of them. They find faith is necessary
> because they have no actual evidence.
>
Theist cannot _know_ for a certainity, but for theist faith is all they need.
Neither can you _know_, no matter how strongly you disbelief. So, where there
is a comp[lete absence pf proof, neither theist nor you have anything but
faith. Therefore, it's all equal. T

> There IS a God.
>>>
>>> I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
>>> existence of any god.
>>>
>> Again the reality of life is evidence of a creator.
>

> Nope. That only shows life exists. and nothing more.
>
But the very existence of life demands an explanation as to it's origin.
There is the option that life has always existed or it came from space,
but there is no exception to observation that life comes only from life.
But theist think God is a living God, and according to them, "God breathed the
breath of life" into the forms he created and they became alivel". Here is a
faith based explanation of the origin of life.

>> And there is absolutely _no_ exceptions to the rule that life comes
>> _only_ from life. In 4.5 billion years no exception to this fact
>> can be verified. This supports the existence of a creator.
>

> You are saying there is no other explanation when the actual
> mechanism of how life originated is unknown. That is like
> thunder must be gods fighting because no one knew how noise
> could come from the sky.
>
Of course the idea of gods is a pagan concept. Most theist say there is
no other god for God to fight with, since there is only one God. To be
clear I think of myself more in terms of Deitism since I do not know the
identity of the intelligent designer.

>
>
>>>>
>>>> It is futile to argue against the truth.
>>>
>>> It may be your truth but that does mean anyone else agrees.
>>> Why should they?
>>
>> Since, life is a reality and there is no other solid empirical evidence as to
>> how life originated, this leaves only a creator (God).
>

> Or not.

>
>> This places
>> the burden of proof that no God exist, squarely on the shoulders
>> of the unbeliever.
>

> Only if such a claim is made. If I do not believe there are
> vampires, zombies, elves, or dragons is it necessary for me
> to prove they do not exist if I do not assert this.
>
Ok but to whom do you think you have to show there or no such things as you
mentioned? Virtually no theist or noone else believes inthese things either.

>
>
>> But they cannot _know_ , therefore, atheism is
>> nothing more than an anti-God faith.
>

> Atheism is a lack of faith just as not collecting stamps is
> not a hobby.
>
It''s more than that for some, since they try to spread their faith and they
defend their faith with the same passion and determination as the most
fundamentalist religion and they desire to spread their faith as does any
other. For example: the atheist video groups on the internet, the books they
publish. This is a missionary work and nothing less than "crusade".

Even thought you and I are at a little disagrement, I sincerely appreciate and
respect your integrity, honesty and forthrightness. You are a pleasure. -
Thank You!

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 10, 2022 at 5:31:37 AM EST, ""Andrew"" <andrew.3...@usa.net>
wrote:

This is a paradigm: and a paradigm takes priority and precedence over theory,
evidence, data and fact. Indeed one's paradigm _overrides_ everything. And in
my view atheist have a much stronger paradigm than theist, simply because many
theist frequently summit and fall for atheist propaganda. And you rarely hear
of an atheist becoming a theist,

[Frank Lee]

Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2022 at 4:04:54 AM EST, "Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote:

> > On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 00:47:26 -0800, "Andrew" wrote:
>
> Again the reality of life is evidence of a creator. And there
> is absolutely _no_ exceptions to the rule that life comes
> _only_ from life. In 4.5 billion years no exception to this fact
> can be verified. This supports the existence of a creator.

Absolutely false. This is only the "rule" of Ron and
Andrew.

You are really trying to say "No one has ever seen
natural abiogenesis, and I can't understand how it could
happen, therefore it's impossible." The old argument
from incredulity.

No one has ever seen abiogenesis performed by a Creator
either (or even proposed a mechanism for it). There is
no evidence that it ever happened. So, by your own
logic, ID/creationism is impossible.

Then you are left with only 1 alternative: Life is
eternal. This is not a satisfying choice, especially in
an apparently finitely-lived universe.

So you need to rethink your whole POV.

> >> It is futile to argue against the truth.
> >
> > It may be your truth but that does mean anyone else agrees.
> > Why should they?
>
> Since, life is a reality and there is no other solid empirical evidence as to
> how life originated, this leaves only a creator (God). This places
> the burden of proof that no God exist, squarely on the shoulders
> of the unbeliever. But they cannot _know_ , therefore, atheism is
> nothing more than an anti-God faith.

More defective fallacy.

First there is a large body of evidence that life can
plausibly arrise naturally, if you could understand it.

Second, if you want to convince someone of something, you
have the burden of evidence. Until you do, the default
position is that you are wrong.

So far you have presented zero reason to believe anything
you say, and lots of reason to think you're just another
religious bullshitter, and not even a good one.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 12:57:10 -0800, Frank Lee <n...@real.lee.invalid>
wrote:

>Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 2022 at 4:04:54 AM EST, "Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 00:47:26 -0800, "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> Again the reality of life is evidence of a creator. And there
>> is absolutely _no_ exceptions to the rule that life comes
>> _only_ from life. In 4.5 billion years no exception to this fact
>> can be verified. This supports the existence of a creator.
>
>Absolutely false. This is only the "rule" of Ron and
>Andrew.
>
>You are really trying to say "No one has ever seen
>natural abiogenesis, and I can't understand how it could
>happen, therefore it's impossible." The old argument
>from incredulity.

They've both been given this work over and over again, just like the
other fundies who crash the group - but they take no notice.

Simple protocells which reproduce, take in nutrition from the original
mix, self-organise and respond to environmental stimuli were first
formed in a lab more than sixty years ago...

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

An abstract for a paper authored by Fox and his team concerning
their subsequent research into these proto-cells, which described how
they evolved into more modern forms over subsequent generations...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00700418

[Michael McLean]

On 11/12/2022 10:14 am, Attila wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 20:23:03 GMT, Ron Dean

> <rdhall...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

Attila, don't be an ignorant dick please.

Attila wrote:
> It is much simpler than that. Personally I reject the
> concept of faith as a basis for anything and rely only on
> those things that I either know are supported by evidence or
> am confident such evidence exists.

Oops, too late!

That takes faith, Goofy; faith in yourself.

Sheesh, atheists!



Mike



>
> Propaganda:
>
> "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature,
> used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or
> point of view."
>
> It appears to be that definition fits almost everything
> theists post but I seldom see any opposing posts that would
> fit it. Especially the "biased or misleading" section.
>

--
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."

"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. Therefore,
sin is not what you do, it is what you are."

"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."

"Atheists are ultimately trying to be pointlessness, meaninglessness,
and purposelessness in their point, meaning, and purpose."

"The last day of creation will be the last day of time. God is always
full of hope."

"The veil of the temple was rent in twain, not to have a book pass
through it so that you could play God."

"A phylactery does not a heart for God make. Not back then, and not today."

"The Bible cannot baptize. No one was ever saved by reading the Bible.
Mechanical or methodical salvation is just more Pharisee bureaucracy.
Men are saved after their conviction, death sentence, and resurrection
in baptism--the baptism of the Holy Spirit." - Nightbulb

"No one in heaven is better (or higher) than what makes it heaven."

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 10, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM EST, "Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 20:23:03 GMT, Ron Dean
> <rdhall...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <HU5lL.4568$5jd8...@fx05.iad> wrote:

[snip]

>> This is a paradigm: and a paradigm takes priority and precedence over theory,
>> evidence, data and fact. Indeed one's paradigm _overrides_ everything. And in
>> my view atheist have a much stronger paradigm than theist, simply because many
>> theist frequently summit and fall for atheist propaganda. And you rarely hear
>> of an atheist becoming a theist,
>

> It is much simpler than that. Personally I reject the
> concept of faith as a basis for anything and rely only on
> those things that I either know are supported by evidence or
> am confident such evidence exists.
>

I question that one can get completely away from faith. When solid empirical
evidence is uncovered: it's a rareity. And at that time the evidence is
completely objective: it has to be intrepreted. And this is where one's
paradigm comes into play. Both evolution and Intelligent design (ID) are
paradigms and both evolution and intelligent design look at the exact same
data, fact or evidence, recognize it, but each intrepret this evidence within
their own paradigm which overrides. And I'm not sure that even stronger
paradigms ultimately are the final ruler and takes presidence over everything
- IE theism and atheism. -

>
> Propaganda:
>
> "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature,
> used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or
> point of view."
>
> It appears to be that definition fits almost everything
> theists post but I seldom see any opposing posts that would
> fit it. Especially the "biased or misleading" section.
>

Okay, but propaganda has a purpose, it's usually associated with an outreach
or a desire for acceptance and to be embraced by the intended mark.

I have no always held the position I presently do. During my years at the
local university I became a skeptic, cynical and abusive to
theist. And I was that way for years after I graduated. But, I've always been
a reader and one day during a used book store visit,
a table with laden books, caught my attention. I bought a book entitled
"Evolution a Theory in Crisis" by an Australian Doctor for entertainment.
I thought it would be fun to find his errors, mistakes, deceptions and his
ignorance of the subject of evolution. After reading a few pages I found It
was _not_ what I expected, this frustrated and angered me and I through the
book aside. But it haunted me for days; I had to go back reading. I had
accepted evolution without question since scientist believed and supported it.
Besides the evidence and the facts support it. But then I began questioning
and researching the
subject. And over time I saw intelligent design as reasonable and
supported by scientific evidence, but not Bibical creationism.

[Michael McLean]

It is nice to see you have faith in your own words, Attila.

Atheists, dumber than a dumb.

Dumberer.



Mike


On 11/12/2022 6:59 pm, Attila wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 10:44:40 +1100, Michael McLean
> <michaelm...@outlook.com> in alt.atheism with

> That is funny considering the things you say and where you
> say them. The only reason you are here is to be a troll and
> feed your tiny little ego.

>
>>
>> Attila wrote:
>>> It is much simpler than that. Personally I reject the
>>> concept of faith as a basis for anything and rely only on
>>> those things that I either know are supported by evidence or
>>> am confident such evidence exists.
>>
>> Oops, too late!
>>
>> That takes faith, Goofy; faith in yourself.
>>
>> Sheesh, atheists!
>

> We are all aware you live in your own little world,
> population one. There is no need to prove it repeatedly.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 07:03:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 10, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM EST, "Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 20:23:03 GMT, Ron Dean
>> <rdhall...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>> <HU5lL.4568$5jd8...@fx05.iad> wrote:
>[snip]
>>> This is a paradigm: and a paradigm takes priority and precedence over theory,
>>> evidence, data and fact. Indeed one's paradigm _overrides_ everything. And in

Unless one lives in the real world.

>>> my view atheist have a much stronger paradigm than theist,

Because they live in a world of objective reality.

>simply because many
>>> theist frequently summit and fall for atheist propaganda.

Yet another example of Dean lying about a motivation that isn't there.

And what "propaganda" was the liar lying about?

>>> And you rarely hear
>>> of an atheist becoming a theist,

Because there's too much to un-learn.

>>
>> It is much simpler than that. Personally I reject the
>> concept of faith as a basis for anything and rely only on
>> those things that I either know are supported by evidence or
>> am confident such evidence exists.

Faith is subjective, not objective. It's an excuse to believe
something in the absence of actual evidence - "the evidence of things
unseen".

>I question that one can get completely away from faith. When solid empirical

>evidence is uncovered: it's a rareity. rAnd at that time the evidence is

>completely objective: it has to be intrepreted. And this is where one's
>paradigm comes into play. Both evolution and Intelligent design (ID) are
>paradigms and both evolution and intelligent design look at the exact same
>data, fact or evidence,

An outright lie - evolution has always been an objective observation
since Leonardo da Vinci observed fossil marine creatures and realised
what they were.

> recognize it, but each intrepret this evidence within

Another outright lie - IDists don't "interpret the evidence" at all,
they just say they do. They can't because the model, ie the knowledge
base, makes educated predictions for what are expected to be found and
in which strata. When these are, it confirms both the model and the
newly discovered specimen.

But for some reason, he imagines these are found out of the blue and
pretends that IDists research them to conclude design. But he never
says how they do this.

Once again, he ignores the fact that DNA in modern species and what
they can extract from fossils, provides the best evidence these days.

>their own paradigm which overrides. And I'm not sure that even stronger
>paradigms ultimately are the final ruler and takes presidence over everything
>- IE theism and atheism. -

Perhaps for theists, but the liar knows perfectly well that atheism is
practically a non-event and is it most incidental to whatever paradigm
any atheist might have. We've explained this often enough.

Also that the origins sciences are nothing to do with atheism.

>> Propaganda:
>>
>> "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature,
>> used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or
>> point of view."
>>
>> It appears to be that definition fits almost everything
>> theists post but I seldom see any opposing posts that would
>> fit it. Especially the "biased or misleading" section.
>>
>Okay, but propaganda has a purpose, it's usually associated with an outreach
>or a desire for acceptance and to be embraced by the intended mark.

How is objective science which has had more than a century and a half
of confirmation, whose understanding has provided technologies which
have revolutionised medicine, food production and even forensic
identification, "propaganda"

He's never addressed this.

>I have no always held the position I presently do. During my years at the
>local university I became a skeptic, cynical and abusive to
>theist. And I was that way for years after I graduated. But, I've always been
>a reader and one day during a used book store visit,
>a table with laden books, caught my attention. I bought a book entitled
>"Evolution a Theory in Crisis" by an Australian Doctor for entertainment.
>I thought it would be fun to find his errors, mistakes, deceptions and his
>ignorance of the subject of evolution. After reading a few pages I found It
>was _not_ what I expected, this frustrated and angered me and I through the
>book aside. But it haunted me for days; I had to go back reading. I had
>accepted evolution without question since scientist believed and supported it.

The liar knows perfectly well science isn't about belief.

>Besides the evidence and the facts support it. But then I began questioning
>and researching the
>subject. And over time I saw intelligent design as reasonable and
>supported by scientific evidence, but not Bibical creationism.

Denton's book, written by a pontificating creationist for the gullible
and ignorant.

Quite frankly, I don't believe you. If you believed that nonsense you
had a lousy high school science education or were home skooled by
anti-science fundies.

Face it, even somebody with high school general science, let alone
chemistry, knows that hydrogen and helium are matter. which told us
all about your science "education".

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 11, 2022 at 12:24:02 PM EST, "Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 10:31:36 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
> <c....@fairpoint.net> in alt.atheism with message-id

> I wonder if he ever heard of the Periodic Table.
>
Please don't follow C. Lee's slander, personal assaults and character
assignation that Lee is guilty of. Lee has the notion that shooting the
messenger is more effective that dealing with the real issues raised.

[Ron Dean]

> messenger is more effective than dealing with the real issues raised.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 18:05:16 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

What "C. Lee's slander, personal assaults and character
assignation that Lee is guilty of", proven serial liar? When have you
ever, honestly addressed responses to your nonsense?

Once again, he invents a motive that isn't there to use as an ad
hominem instead of addressing points made in response to your "issues
raised"?.

Please don't follow

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 10, 2022 at 6:44:40 PM EST, "Michael McLean"

One curious, but leading characteristic of abiogenesis and evolution is what
is observable Vs what is not observable. Example: life is observable real,
data and is fact. How life origionated is unobserved and unseen, and unknown,
so explanations are required. These explanations are hypothesis, theories and
educated guesses: ranging from some warm little pond; to clay: to ocean vents;
from space.

Another example: the Cambrian explosion: most modern phyla some 30+ phyla are
observed some of which became extinct. These phyla appeared abundantly and
profusely over a period of about 20 million years during the 50 million year
tenure of the Cambrian, and only one or two phyla appeared afterwards. What is
unobserved is the ancestory of these phyla to say nothing of the transitions
to the common ancestor of all life. So, explanation are called for: theories,
hypothesis and opinions are forth coming: from the strata containing
transitional fossils was destroyed; ancestries were soft bodied which does not
fossilize readily, All have seen the dotted lines depicting ancestory back to
some common ancestors.
These are the gaps in the fossil record and in these gaps are occupied by
evolution. I could argue that the designer is to be observed during the
appearence of phyla during the Cambrian explosion and evolution occupies the
time period prior to the Cambrian explosion, attempting
to explain this huge gap in the fossil record.

This is is to say nothing of the eye. It was generally believed that there
were some 39-40 independent and unrelated examples of eyes evolving over
millions of years beginning with a light sensitive spot and.gradually evolving
over time by more and more complex eyes However, complex, well functioning
eyes were observed during the Cambrian with absolute no observable past
history in the fossils. This fact belies the standard evolution of the eye
scenario. Therefore, the textbook drawings of the development of the eye is
total fiction.

Later DNA and information and numerous other examples of evolution's
trait of the observed Vs the unobservable. And observation is a crucial part
of science.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 20:15:34 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>One curious, but leading characteristic of abiogenesis and evolution is what
>is observable Vs what is not observable. Example: life is observable real,
>data and is fact. How life origionated is unobserved and unseen, and unknown,
>so explanations are required. These explanations are hypothesis, theories and
>educated guesses: ranging from some warm little pond; to clay: to ocean vents;
>from space.

More lies and distortions.

I suppose protocells formed in the lab by duplicating natural
processes, which metabolised, reproduced, self-organised, responded to
environmental stimuli and evolved into modern forms, weren't observed
by researchers?

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 11, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM EST, "Christopher A. Lee" <c....@fairpoint.net>
wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 20:15:34 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> One curious, but leading characteristic of abiogenesis and evolution is what
>> is observable Vs what is not observable. Example: life is observable real,
>> data and is fact. How life origionated is unobserved and unseen, and unknown,
>> so explanations are required. These explanations are hypothesis, theories and
>> educated guesses: ranging from some warm little pond; to clay: to ocean vents;
>> from space.
>
> More lies and distortions.
>

Can't deal with the real issues, so again shoot the messenger.

>
> I suppose protocells formed in the lab by duplicating natural
> processes, which metabolised, reproduced, self-organised, responded to
> environmental stimuli and evolved into modern forms, weren't observed
> by researchers?
>

No references as usual.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:34:05 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Dec 11, 2022 at 3:25:20 PM EST, "Christopher A. Lee" <c....@fairpoint.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 20:15:34 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One curious, but leading characteristic of abiogenesis and evolution is what
>>> is observable Vs what is not observable. Example: life is observable real,
>>> data and is fact. How life origionated is unobserved and unseen, and unknown,
>>> so explanations are required. These explanations are hypothesis, theories and
>>> educated guesses: ranging from some warm little pond; to clay: to ocean vents;
>>> from space.
>>
>> More lies and distortions.
>>
>Can't deal with the real issues, so again shoot the messenger.

You still post the same PRATTs, ignore responses and resort to
personal lies.

>> I suppose protocells formed in the lab by duplicating natural
>> processes, which metabolised, reproduced, self-organised, responded to
>> environmental stimuli and evolved into modern forms, weren't observed
>> by researchers?
>>
>No references as usual.

You've been given them over and over again. Liar as usual.

For the umpteenth time, and don't ignore it this time....

This was posted up-thread...

http://web.archive.org/web/19980709062634/http://entropy.me.usouthal.edu/harbinger/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

https://tinyurl.com/2d2nc7an

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 17:31:40 -0600, Christopher A. Lee

Correction - it was in the other 2015 thread you resurrected. But,
either way, you've been given this over and over again - as have
pretty well all the ID trolls who deny abiogenesis.

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 11, 2022 at 6:31:40 PM EST, "Christopher A. Lee" <c....@fairpoint.net>

I've never seen this before, but why the Catholic Church or the Pope?

Even if scientist create life someday, it takes intelligence and how life came
about 3.8 billion years ago remains unobserved and unknown.

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 11, 2022 at 11:31:36 AM EST, "Christopher A. Lee" <c....@fairpoint.net>
wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 07:03:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 10, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM EST, "Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 20:23:03 GMT, Ron Dean
>>> <rdhall...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <HU5lL.4568$5jd8...@fx05.iad> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> This is a paradigm: and a paradigm takes priority and precedence over theory,
>>>> evidence, data and fact. Indeed one's paradigm _overrides_ everything. And in
>
> Unless one lives in the real world.
>
>>>> my view atheist have a much stronger paradigm than theist,
>
> Because they live in a world of objective reality.
>

Obviously, you do not realize that a paradigm is virtually identical with an
overriding bias.

>
>> simply because many
>>>> theist frequently summit and fall for atheist propaganda.
>
> Yet another example of Dean lying about a motivation that isn't there.
>
> And what "propaganda" was the liar lying about?
>

The false propaganda that all scientist are evolutionist and the equally false
propaganda that Creationism and intelligent design are the same and that ID is
about faith not evidence. Just a few examples of evolutionist false
propaganda.

>
>>>> And you rarely hear
>>>> of an atheist becoming a theist,
>
> Because there's too much to un-learn.
>

Most get their "information" from other atheist, not from origional sources.
Indeed they accept the "wisdom" of other atheist which
in effect is allowing other atheist to do their thinking for them!
This certainly applies to you. You never had an origional thought of your own.
You have no life, this newsgroup has been your home
from the time I first came aboard many years ago. Just la little bit of
friendly advice: you need a change, so you can find a life! You need to do
this Christopher.

>
>>>
>>> It is much simpler than that. Personally I reject the
>>> concept of faith as a basis for anything and rely only on
>>> those things that I either know are supported by evidence or
>>> am confident such evidence exists.
>
> Faith is subjective, not objective. It's an excuse to believe
> something in the absence of actual evidence - "the evidence of things unseen".
>

Yes, intermediate ancestors for Cambrian Phyla, as well as the Gould and
Eldredge rediscovery of abrupt appearance, of most stasis and disappearance of
species from the record. It's obvious that Punk eek
is D and E's attempt to consolidate evolution with the real fossil record.
When researchers search so long for transitional fossils, that leaves one to
question whether or not the "transitional fossils" discovered, to be anyhing
more than the "best in the field". There is no way to see and no observable
way to know.

>
>> I question that one can get completely away from faith. When solid empirical

>> evidence is uncovered: it's a rareity. And at that time the evidence is not

>> completely objective: it has to be intrepreted. And this is where one's
>> paradigm comes into play. Both evolution and Intelligent design (ID) are
>> paradigms and both evolution and intelligent design look at the exact same
>> data, fact or evidence,
>
> An outright lie - evolution has always been an objective observation
> since Leonardo da Vinci observed fossil marine creatures and realised what
> they were.
>

Another false charge. Darwin was concerned with the fact the absence of
the copious and innumerious finely graded intermediates, which his thery
predicted were absent. He considered this a legitimate rebuttal to his theory
But he had _faith_ and trusted that future searching would fill these gaps and
resque his theory.

>
>> recognize it, but each intrepret this
>> evidence within
>
> Another outright lie - IDists don't "interpret the evidence" at all,
> they just say they do.
>

Of course, they do. Evidence is rarely if ever objective, consequently
intrepretation is required. Any evidence is always interpreted within ones
paradigm - either the ID paradigm or the evolution paradigm.

> They can't because the model, ie the knowledge
> base, makes educated predictions for what are expected to be found and
> in which strata. When these are, it confirms both the model and the
> newly discovered specimen.
>

Ok, this is a very good point! Thank you!~

>
> But for some reason, he imagines these are found out of the blue and
> pretends that IDists research them to conclude design. But he never
> says how they do this.
>

Virtually the same as evolution it looks at data, and determines if or how it
fits into their picture.

>
> Once again, he ignores the fact that DNA in modern species and what
> they can extract from fossils, provides the best evidence these days.
>

The fact is fossils are observed, they are real, they are fact and they are
the
real record of life throughout the history of life on Planet Earth. _If_ the
fossil record don't prove the claims and theories of evolution then evolution
is falsified.

>
>> their own paradigm which overrides. And I'm not sure that even stronger
>> paradigms ultimately are the final ruler and takes presidence over everything
>> - IE theism and atheism. -
>
> Perhaps for theists, but the liar knows perfectly well that atheism is
> practically a non-event and is it most incidental to whatever paradigm
> any atheist might have. We've explained this often enough.
>

Really, it's so easy to confuse people.

>
> Also that the origins sciences are nothing to do with atheism.
>

Atheist refuse to see origin of life as a possible intelligent design event.
There atheist paradigm(no god) does _not_ even allow for the possibility!
It cannot regardless of the absent of observation of nature having ever
created life.

Ok, but evolution is to an extent a matter of faith. Darwin had faith the
future paleontologist would fill in the gaps prior to the Cambrian explosion.
And this is where evolution exist - IN THE GAPS between ancesors and
decedents.
The fact is, this is a possible case where ther Designer comes into the
picture _after_ the gaps and during the Cambrian explosion. So, a curious
example of evolutionist propaganda "God of the Gaps". Not evolution in the
gaps. It seems that evolution research and searches are like workmen inside a
hole trying to fill the hole with whatever serves the purpose.

>> Besides the evidence and the facts support it. But then I began questioning
>> and researching the
>> subject. And over time I saw intelligent design as reasonable and
>> supported by scientific evidence, but not Bibical creationism.
>
> Denton's book, written by a pontificating creationist for the gullible
> and ignorant.
>

You've never read the book so here again you are allowing others to do your
thinking for you - rather than reading the book for yourself!!!

>
> Quite frankly, I don't believe you. If you believed that nonsense you
> had a lousy high school science education or were home skooled by
> anti-science fundies.
>

Anti-science - nonsense there are no anti science people, but rather
people who are skeptics of evolution!.
Evolution is questionably science, since the primary objective of
paleontologist and researchers labors are to search for _supporting_ evidence
in order to validate a pre existing _paradigm_ evolution. This kind of
practice is _NOT_ searching for truth!
>
I went to regular schooland a state run university.

>
> Face it, even somebody with high school general science, let alone
> chemistry, knows that hydrogen and helium are matter. which told us
> all about your science "education".

I've said absolutely nothing about hydrogen or Helium! I know they are
earliest elements after the big bang from which all other elements are derived
IE within stars made up mainly of H.

BTY I am a university grad, with a master degree MsEE. I graduated 5/th in my
class. And I've worked for NASA contractor. In fact I was present when the
challenger exploded killing 7 people. Indeed, I was part of the team that
designed the 2/nd back-up-fail-safe-system for the challenger.

After the tragic loss of life I could not sleep for days fearing a control
system malfunction. But it was an O ring and low temperature that was at
fault. I remember this well: for me was a great relief, even though I still
have nightmares from time to time, reliving that horrible experience and
terrible loss of life. I left this job and went to work for Northrup-Grumman

Thank,
Christopher.

PS. I've been called. I have to go to the middle east early in '23. I designed
a section of the control system for a petro refinery in 2016. It needs needs
upgrading. I'm always a little anxious when I go there. After this I'm
planning to retire.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 05:47:12 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Dec 11, 2022 at 11:31:36 AM EST, "Christopher A. Lee" <c....@fairpoint.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 07:03:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 10, 2022 at 6:14:29 PM EST, "Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 20:23:03 GMT, Ron Dean
>>>> <rdhall...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>> <HU5lL.4568$5jd8...@fx05.iad> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>> This is a paradigm: and a paradigm takes priority and precedence over theory,
>>>>> evidence, data and fact. Indeed one's paradigm _overrides_ everything. And in
>>
>> Unless one lives in the real world.
>>
>>>>> my view atheist have a much stronger paradigm than theist,
>>
>> Because they live in a world of objective reality.
>>
>Obviously, you do not realize that a paradigm is virtually identical with an
>overriding bias.

Obviously you imagine reality is an overwhelming bias. Why do you
pretend that accepting reality for what it is, is "overwhelming bias"?

One again, you keep introducing false accusations as red herrings
instead of addressing what people have taken the trouble to explain.

[rest of this nonsense, PRATTs and outright lies deleted]

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 12, 2022 at 5:53:47 PM EST, "Christopher A. Lee" <c....@fairpoint.net>

Nothing you deleted was a lie, it was my life. I don't know what yor problem
is, but you hatred absolutely defines you!

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 12, 2022 at 5:53:47 PM EST, "Christopher A. Lee" <c....@fairpoint.net>

What I wrote is true. If interested I telll_you_ where to see document
data about most of what I wrote.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 00:31:17 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

Grow up.

Your invention of motives people don't have, to use as ad hominems
instead of addressing points are a perfect example - and you've been
doing this for donkey's years.s,

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 12, 2022 at 10:55:23 PM EST, "Christopher A. Lee" <c....@fairpoint.net>

You need a change. Toooooo much hatred - These NGs are you life
and your home. You need a life! So go get a life.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 05:23:07 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

Like I've said before - stop lying.

The negative reaction to persist ant pests, in-our-face idiots ,
liars who invent motives that aren't there, etc is hardly the hatred
you lie about.

Incidentally, your post is a perfect example of the invented lie I
described, used as ad hominem to avoid answering the question.
Which is also a red herring that diverts attention from what was being
discussed.

Add frustration with people who post the same repeated nonsense ,
ignoring responses and doing it over and over again to the above list.

Likewise arguments from authority which never say how the authorities
reach their conclusion, which are taken from the original context,
often doctored, and placed in your own context. Which are more
PRATT's.

Discussion is a two-way thing, and when you do all these instead of
actually discussing, you shouldn't turn into a whining hypocrite when
you reap what you sow.

For example, you have never once explained why the reasons you have
been repeatedly given why there is no way to determine design, are
wrong.

Instead you simply say you "looked at the evidence and concluded it
was the best explanation" instead of explaining how you reached it.

And those are just one example.

And that's even without pushing religious nonsense at atheists, even
if you pretend that ID isn't religious in nature - at (not to) as part
of the neverending stream of religious harassment we get.

You're not the only fanatic doing it.

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 13, 2022 at 5:40:50 AM EST, "Christopher A. Lee" <c....@fairpoint.net>

No lie! Atheism is abnormal!

>
> Add frustration with people who post the same repeated nonsense ,
> ignoring responses and doing it over and over again to the above list.
>

It's obvious that most people who engage in discussions with atheist do so
from a defensive position. Atheism is aggressive, with programs on U-tube,
creating laws that are design to
limit any and all rights to any religion, and they feel persecuted.

>
> Likewise arguments from authority which never say how the authorities
> reach their conclusion, which are taken from the original context,
> often doctored, and placed in your own context. Which are more
> PRATT's.
>

False accusation!

>
> Discussion is a two-way thing, and when you do all these instead of
> actually discussing, you shouldn't turn into a whining hypocrite when
> you reap what you sow.
>
> For example, you have never once explained why the reasons you have
> been repeatedly given why there is no way to determine design, are
> wrong.
>

I certainly have, it's one's own paradigm that takes priority and precedence
over, exoerience, data evidence and facts. If a discovery of contrary evidence
does not fit the profile then one's paradigm rules over the evidence and
ignores it attempts to integrade it into the theory (stasis an example) the
There is absolutely no way to determine whether or not there is a God,
Therefore is nothing more than just a belief. So, how is one belief more valid
or of greater worth than the other?

>
> Instead you simply say you "looked at the evidence and concluded it
> was the best explanation" instead of explaining how you reached it.
>

I have. I pointed out that homeoboxes are better explained as deliberate.
purposeful design rather than random mutations and natural selection.
1) They universal, in all animals _controlling_ the formation of body forms of
all animals.
2) They are ancient, dated back at least to the Cambrian expansion of the
copious numbers of complex body forms observed.
3) They are "highly conserved" ( little or no change) for over a half (1/2)
billion years.
4) They are engineered for high level purpose & function, far in advance of
need.

Given these highy develop elegant traits and characteristics, it it's more
believable to the
unbiased mind, that homeobox genes are more likely deliberate and purposefully
designed by some highly intelligentce(s) agent, than by random, happazardous
and dirrectionless mutations and natural selection given the efficient,
elegance and sufficiency of these ancient virtually unchanged genes. This
comes closer to deliberate, design than to purposeless,
unplanned accidental appearance so early and a "perfect" in its function.

> And those are just one example.
>
> And that's even without pushing religious nonsense at atheists, even
> if you pretend that ID isn't religious in nature - at (not to) as part
> of the neverending stream of religious harassment we get.
>

This is part of the propaganda as I have noted, the missrepresentation of ID
as
religious in nature, when ID applies only scientific discoveries as evidence.
And
never turns to the Bible or any other religious material as evidence.
There is evidence for design (called "apparent desig" or "illusion of design
by Dawkins"). The _only_reason this is no design Dawkins is his atheist
paradigm, which is overridding
observation and facts.

>
> You're not the only fanatic doing it.
>

Fanatic? Look into a mirror, an anti-religious fanatic is even more dangerous.

BYW I'm finding this thread on alt.talk creationism! Why alt. Atheism????.
This NG is an minor part of my life. I come and go for months at the time, You
on OTOH never leave.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 16:25:34 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

The usual bigot lie with an old PRATT that has been refuted
practically every week because all it means to be atheist, is not
being any kind of theist?

What's wrong with that, troll who's just trying to pick a fight?

>> Add frustration with people who post the same repeated nonsense ,
>> ignoring responses and doing it over and over again to the above list.
>>
>It's obvious that most people who engage in discussions with atheist do so
>from a defensive position. Atheism is aggressive, with programs on U-tube,
>creating laws that are design to
>limit any and all rights to any religion, and they feel persecuted.

More deliberate lies from a troll who knows he and other theists would
never hear from us if they could only live and let live.

>> Likewise arguments from authority which never say how the authorities
>> reach their conclusion, which are taken from the original context,
>> often doctored, and placed in your own context. Which are more
>> PRATT's.
>>
>False accusation!

Another lie. You have never explained how these "authorities" reach
the conclusions you say they do.

>> Discussion is a two-way thing, and when you do all these instead of
>> actually discussing, you shouldn't turn into a whining hypocrite when
>> you reap what you sow.
>>
>> For example, you have never once explained why the reasons you have
>> been repeatedly given why there is no way to determine design, are
>> wrong.
>>
>I certainly have, it's one's own paradigm that takes priority and precedence
>over, exoerience, data evidence and facts. If a discovery of contrary evidence
>does not fit the profile then one's paradigm rules over the evidence and
>ignores it attempts to integrade it into the theory (stasis an example) the
>There is absolutely no way to determine whether or not there is a God,
>Therefore is nothing more than just a belief. So, how is one belief more valid
>or of greater worth than the other?

Complete and utter bollocks. Neither atheism nor objective reality are
what you pretend,

>> Instead you simply say you "looked at the evidence and concluded it
>> was the best explanation" instead of explaining how you reached it.
>>
>I have. I pointed out that homeoboxes are better explained as deliberate.
>purposeful design rather than random mutations and natural selection.
>1) They universal, in all animals _controlling_ the formation of body forms of
>all animals.
>2) They are ancient, dated back at least to the Cambrian expansion of the
>copious numbers of complex body forms observed.
>3) They are "highly conserved" ( little or no change) for over a half (1/2)
>billion years.
>4) They are engineered for high level purpose & function, far in advance of
>need.

Prove (4) or stop lying.

>Given these highy develop elegant traits and characteristics, it it's more
>believable to the
>unbiased mind,

Why can't you stop lying. The only "biased mind" is yours, for
originally creationism and then ID.

> that homeobox genes are more likely deliberate and purposefully
>designed by some highly intelligentce(s) agent, than by random, happazardous
>and dirrectionless mutations and natural selection given the

Deliberate distortion. You know the only random part is the low level
mutations,

But these are filtered by natural selection, which is why these genes
are highly conserved - they tell the structural genes where to build
features. Eyes on the soles of your feet would not cause you to
survive to adulthood and pass them on.

> efficient,
>elegance and sufficiency of these ancient virtually unchanged genes. This
>comes closer to deliberate, design than to purposeless,

Because some deliberate ignoramus sez so.

>unplanned accidental appearance so early and a "perfect" in its function.

"Perfect" is meaningless, subjective bullshit.

>> And those are just one example.
>>
>> And that's even without pushing religious nonsense at atheists, even
>> if you pretend that ID isn't religious in nature - at (not to) as part
>> of the neverending stream of religious harassment we get.
>>
>This is part of the propaganda as I have noted, the missrepresentation of ID
>as
>religious in nature, when ID applies only scientific discoveries as evidence.
>And
>never turns to the Bible or any other religious material as evidence.

Stop lying. ID is unscientific bullshit made up by former
creationists. You've been given statements by its founders saying it
is would make students more receptive to god as a creator.

The reason it doesn't mention the Bible or religious material, is that
it would be clearly illegal in public schools.

So ID was invented, with the pretence that the unjustified and
unevidenced designer doesn't have to be the god they previously
insisted, did it.

>There is evidence for design (called "apparent desig" or "illusion of design
>by Dawkins"). The _only_reason this is no design Dawkins is his atheist
>paradigm, which is overridding

You're repeating your same old lie yet again. They only say this in
books for the interested layman to set the context for explain why
there is no way to determine design.

Which reasons you have been given repeatedly for donkeys years but
never bothered to address. Accusing him of only saying that because he
is atheist, is another example of you inventing reasons that aren't
there as ad hominems, because he says it because he is intelligent, a
researcher into evolution, etc.

>observation and facts.

You make up your own "facts".

>> You're not the only fanatic doing it.
>>
>Fanatic? Look into a mirror, an anti-religious fanatic is even more dangerous.

More deliberate lies. I am anti-stupidity, anti-dishonesty, etc. And
that includes creationists, IDiots and fundies pushing their nonsense
in alt.atheism.

I wouldn't give a thought if the religious kept their myths and
legends where they belong and didn't try to take over government,
weren't irrationally bigoted against minorities they hate, try to pick
fights, etc.

In fact, as I have explained many times, The Lady
Who Is The Most Important Person In My Life is a devout Catholic, but
not the kind who can't live and let live.

>BYW I'm finding this thread on alt.talk creationism! Why alt. Atheism????.
>This NG is an minor part of my life. I come and go for months at the time, You
>on OTOH never leave.

And you know perfectly well, I'm housebound - first after a serious
lung condition left me permanently short of breath, and then a broken
leg in early 2018.

You also know that I don't go near the religious groups unless some
loonie cross posts from one.

[Ron Dean]

On Dec 13, 2022 at 12:52:14 PM EST, "Christopher A. Lee" <c....@fairpoint.net>

I sorry Chris for the problems you have. I too have serious problems:
heart problemsand kidney problems which caused me a hospital visit
for a week - just got back home one week ago thursday a week ago.

I do _not_ want or need to cause you any additional stress. So, we can
stop this or be more civil and appreciative of the other's opinions and
feelings.

Thank you,
Chris