Re: The Bible And Evolution..compatible?

[Joseki]

On Nov 16, 6:26 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 12:49 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 9:17 am, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 15, 6:01 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 15, 2:46 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 15, 2:29 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 14, 5:18 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 12, 1:28 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 12:32 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > > >news:6168d10b-7f5a-490e...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 9:53 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > > > >news:d8233e63-280b-4e77...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 11, 9:41 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > > > > >news:687363cc-4208-4729...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 10, 11:40 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >news:3fb88e47-1f22-42ca...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been
> > > > > > > > > > > > duplicated in a Lab."
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all over
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > place quibbling.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of today
> > > > > > > > > > > no more real than God is.
> > > > > > > > > > > Would you agree?"
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars
> > > > > > > > > > > religious
> > > > > > > > > > > "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith with common
> > > > > > > > > > > confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
>
> > > > > > > > > > "You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist
> > > > > > > > > > believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was
> > > > > > > > > > the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can
> > > > > > > > > > be proved."
>
> > > > > > > > > > Future, past, it does not matter for my point.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Here, can you accept that the probability of one event or another
> > > > > > > > > > happening
> > > > > > > > > > or happened can be different, or since "proof" is rather nebulous, must
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > probabilities be equal? You are perusing the old "you atheists are just as
> > > > > > > > > > superstitious as we theists" line of reasoning and it is shot full of
> > > > > > > > > > holes.
>
> > > > > > > > > "No.. and you don't understand the mathematical concept of Probability.
> > > > > > > > > "proof" is also a math concept.
>
> > > > > > > > > The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have
> > > > > > > > > "proof" of."
>
> > > > > > > > > LOL!  OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
>
> > > > > > > > sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > And?   Are you saying that because we don't yet understand how
> > > > > > > something happened, then we must ascribe it to a god?
>
> > > > > > Did I say that? Don't think so.
>
> > > > > > > You have no proof that abiogenesis can't happen, just proof that in
> > > > > > > our miniscule section of this vast universe, we can't reproduce it....
> > > > > > > yet...
>
> > > > > > I can use the same argument, like a theist would... you have no proof
> > > > > > of a god neither.
>
> > > > > Never said I did.
>
> > > > > > Doesn't mean there isn't one. I hope you understand
> > > > > > problem here.
>
> > > > > I see no problem.  Your argument didn't refute what I stated.
>
> > > > > > > Historically, there have been no shortage of second rate lunkheads
> > > > > > > that have said that something "can't" happen.
>
> > > > > > > Then they were proven wrong.
>
> > > > > > Neither have I ever said it can't happen. In fact you find in this
> > > > > > thread of me writing anything of a sort.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > Then what is your problem?
>
> > > > I don't have any?  Do You?
>
> > > > I made this statement:
>
> > > > *Abiogenesis can not be demonstrated. It does not pass the scientific
> > > > method*
>
> > > ...yet...
>
> > > > . I  explain the reason why. I aso explain how the laws of
> > > > probabilities work.
>
> > > > The same reasoning can be applied to "god". No human as see him create
> > > > anything. You can not use the scientific method to neither prove or
> > > > deny his existence.
>
> > > Not my burden of proof.  In point of fact, if there weren't wandering
> > > hordes of this god's glassy-eyed sycophants wandering around demanding
> > > that I believe in it, I would not be demanding that anyone prove or
> > > disprove this god thing's existence.   However, since these hordes do
> > > exist, and they are making that demand, then they must prove it exists
> > > before I will buy into it.  The burden of proof is squarely on their
> > > shoulders.
>
> > As the burden of proof of abiogenesis is on yours ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Unless I organize a band of glassy-eyed abiogenesis sycophants to come
> and tell you that you must believe or you'll go to the primordial ooze
> from whence you came, all I am obliged to do, or rather science is
> obliged to do, is to test the theory, recognize that such science can
> take time assuming that the premise was correct to begin with, and
> allow people to decide where the evidence leads them.

-----> You haven't seen the American Education system, have you?

  That's why
> such things are call theories.   It's a lot better, I don't have to
> organize abiogenesis inquisitors, spend a buttload of money on
> abiogenesis churches, etc... ect...   That is how all scientific
> endeavor is different than religion, who demands that they have the
> absolute truth, 100% of the time, and demand, without proof, that
> others must believe.

->uh huh.

[Jimbo]

I have, and they teach it as theory.

>
> > such things are call theories.   It's a lot better, I don't have to
> > organize abiogenesis inquisitors, spend a buttload of money on
> > abiogenesis churches, etc... ect...   That is how all scientific
> > endeavor is different than religion, who demands that they have the
> > absolute truth, 100% of the time, and demand, without proof, that
> > others must believe.
>

> ->uh huh.- Hide quoted text -
>

No answer here I see.