The TEist God
Ray Martinez
TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
Where there is a need there is a way.
Click here and see the TEist God:
http://www.firstuniversal.clara.net/godzilla_files/godzilla.jpg
Ray
Robert J. Kolker
> The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>
> TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
Canard. Lie. Falsehood.
Bob Kolker
Augray
wrote:
And here I thought the "TEist" God was Mothra.
>Ray
Frank Sullivan
Easy, Ray. The first proto-cell evolved, chemically, from lifeless
materials. Eventually, that proto-cell evolved into a prokaryote, then
a eukaryote, then an animal, then a chordate, then a tetrapod, then a
mammal, then a primate, then a human.
Elmer
> The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>
> TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
>
> How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
God selected the right form of dust?
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>
>TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
>
>How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
dunno. ask god. you seem to think he's kinda stupid, so couldn't do
it.
the creationist god is very small indeed.
>
nbenami
radioactive than your god. Oh, and my god has kitsch value, to boot!
rupert....@gmail.com
Josh M.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138845046.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Why is it that creationists find evolution so hard to believe, but have no
problem at all believing something as ridiculous as humans being created out
of dust?
Greg G.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
Then why is there still dust?
>
> TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
>
> How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
1. The first life forms were formed using the dust of the ground. Those
forms eventually evolved into mammals and apes, then humans.
2. We are what we eat. We eat plants or animals that eat plants. The
plants absorb the minerals that are in the dust of the ground.
3. When a body dies, it decays into dust even though it was conceived
and developed biologically.
>
> Where there is a need there is a way.
>
> Click here and see the TEist God:
>
> http://www.firstuniversal.clara.net/godzilla_files/godzilla.jpg
>
> Ray
--
Greg G.
No, you can't call 911 while I'm downloading talk.origins.
Bobby D. Bryant
> The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>
> TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
>
> How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
The Bible says a lot of stuff that can't be reconciled with reality.
That leaves you with the choice of rejecting some (or all) of the
Bible or else rejecting some (or all) of the Bible, or at least a
literal interpretation of it.
It's clear that you have chosen to reject reality, but the "TEists"
that you seem to fear so much have made a different decision.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
eggnogg
the ground..the evolve from apes comes after the cells. is you read
your won words you can see the CREATED means in the beggining, and
EVOLVED means somewhere along the way, no?
Ross Langerak
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138845046.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
We are apes. We evolved from a common ancestor with the other apes. The
fossil evidence - along with other evidence - tells us that we evolved from
a common ancestor with the other apes. It has nothing to do with God or
religion or the Bible.
> How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
I never said it does.
eddyp88
will only make scientific conclusions if the evidence agrees with
Darwin and his principles. Real science not only tries to explain the
unknown, but also challenges the theories which are already
established, however dogmatic those theories have become. Science that
does not challenge itself is not really science at all; in fact it is
pseudoscience, and the scientists that practice this method are not
truly scientists. They kiss Charles Darwin's feet by proclaiming his
theory to be impenetrable fact, and they are therefore "Darwin
kiss-ups".
Check out this site I found about Darwin and current events
http://www.thinkertees.com/darwin_kissup.html
Michael Siemon
"Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
What Ray is incapable of handling is that _his_ moronic desire
to interpret Scripture to suit his own prejudices eviscerates
the entire force of Scripture for any honest believer. Scripture
says what it says -- believers who have to go into contortions
when they try to bring that to bear on reality are _evading_
the duty to read it responsibly. Reality _always_ trumps whatever
you think you learned in Sunday School (or seminary, if that is
Southern Baptist or equally out of contact with God's creation.)
guscubed
And your 'Real Science' alternative theory that explains the evidence
found in geology, zoology, paelology, genetics, biology and
biochemistry is?...
wf...@comcast.net
>Many scientists have become blind to the real truths of science.
and i'll bet this religious fanatic is about to tell us why american
creationists are the only true scientists around
They
>will only make scientific conclusions if the evidence agrees with
>Darwin and his principles.
well, uh, yeah. i'm a chemist. i only make scientific conclusions if
the results agree with the laws of chemistry.
duh!!
Real science not only tries to explain the
>unknown, but also challenges the theories which are already
>established, however dogmatic those theories have become. Science that
>does not challenge itself is not really science at all; in fact it is
>pseudoscience, and the scientists that practice this method are not
>truly scientists. They kiss Charles Darwin's feet by proclaiming his
>theory to be impenetrable fact, and they are therefore "Darwin
>kiss-ups".
really?
uh, tell me...how many scientists do you know who've challenged the
existence of atoms lately?
Frank Sullivan
Eddy, anyone can merely /accuse/ scientists of being dogmatic. Actually
substantiating it takes a bit more effort than you've cared to exhert
here.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
They have a hard time believing in things that don't require miracles.
Bobby D. Bryant
Ray wouldn't know -- he's an aTEist.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
Quit spamming the nesgroup to try to seel T-Shirts.
eggnogg
that refutes his theory, has there? did god come to earth lately?
did u see the discovery channel show about the dragons? if that is true
dont u call that challege?
wf...@comcast.net
now THAT'S a great observation!
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
You got it. It doesn't translate. Thus the braindead dogma of the jebus cult
is wrong.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
> The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
Yes, the Bible says that.
>
> TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
I don't know of any "TEist" who says that. Can you provide any
evidence of any "TEist" who says that?
>
> How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
If anything, it might be because the "apes" must have come from a
previous form, which came from a previous form, etc, etc, etc, till we
have the first living thing, which came from chemical processes.
>
> Where there is a need there is a way.
Where there is smoke there is fire...... Oh, are we not just trading
cliches?
>
> Click here and see the TEist God:
>
> http://www.firstuniversal.clara.net/godzilla_files/godzilla.jpg
Ray, what makes you think that anyone thinks that Godzilla is God?
DJT
Robert J. Kolker
> Many scientists have become blind to the real truths of science. They
> will only make scientific conclusions if the evidence agrees with
> Darwin and his principles.
Lie. Outcomes of Evolution Theory are tested in the laboratory and in
the field (observations) the same way as any othe
prediction/retrodiction of the theory. You have it backwards. The theory
is accepted because the conclusions of the theory are true. Lamarckian
Evolution theory "explains" the same set of facts as does the Darwinian
theory. Why isn't it accepted. Because repeated experiment has shown
acquired phenotypical characterstics do no change the genotype. Cut the
tails off rates for however many generations and you will not see
tail-less rats being born to tail-less mother rats impregnated by
tail-less father rats.
Bob Kolker
> Real science not only tries to explain the
> unknown, but also challenges the theories which are already
> established, however dogmatic those theories have become.
Real science makes quantitative testable predictions or retrodictions
(which are independent of the founding facts of theory). Since some of
biology is a reconstruction of the past, the issue of prediction is not
quite as clear as with physics which is closer to a pure predictive
science.
> Science that does not challenge itself is not really science at all; in fact it is
> pseudoscience, and the scientists that practice this method are not
> truly scientists. They kiss Charles Darwin's feet by proclaiming his
> theory to be impenetrable fact, and they are therefore "Darwin
> kiss-ups".
Every observation and experiment is a challenge to the theory if it is
possible for the outcome of the observation or experiment to refute the
prediction, therefore refute the theory. Popper 101. Falsification rules.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> really?
>
> uh, tell me...how many scientists do you know who've challenged the
> existence of atoms lately?
That would be tough. Although no one has ever seen an atom (nor could
they, as atoms are too small to be seen in the frequency range of human
vision) no other hypothesis has been formulated that can explain and
unite so many facts and phenomena.
Logically speaking (strictly) it has not been deductively demonstrated
that no alternative hypothesis is possible, but in a practical sense, no
one can think of a better explanation than atomic theory. If the theory
is deepened it will be to explain atoms in terms of yet more fundemental
objects, but the atoms won't go away.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>>How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
>
>
> You got it. It doesn't translate. Thus the braindead dogma of the jebus cult
> is wrong.
Here is another interpretation. Man is made of the same basic stuff as
all other things are mad (atoms and molecules). If you don't interpret
Scripture literally but try to get at what it is saying in a broader
context, it makes some kind of sense. Man is just as material as rocks
and trees. From the dust we are composed and to the dust we shall
decompose. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, compound to compound, molecules
to molecules. World without end.
Bob Kolker
>
thissteve
Greg G. wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>
> Then why is there still dust?
Does anyone who knows how to do "Chez Watt"s agree that this is
hilarious?
Ye Old One
We are star dust. We are golden. But there is no garden to get back
to.
--
Bob.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
> Greg G. wrote:
>
>>Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
This portion please.
>>>The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>>
>>Then why is there still dust?
>
Perhaps in the "Asthmatic Evolutionist" dept.
>
> Does anyone who knows how to do "Chez Watt"s agree that this is
> hilarious?
>
Like this. Change the subject title, snip all but that which you wish
to nominate, and hit "send."
Robert J. Kolker
>>
>
> We are star dust. We are golden. But there is no garden to get back
> to.
As the late Carl Sagan said: We are all made of stuhrdust from the
explosions of billyuns and billyuns of stuhrs.
Bob Kolker
>
Pithecanthropus Erectus
> darwins principles are accepted. there has been no late discoveries
> that refutes his theory, has there?
Yes, there have been some discoveries that disprove Darwin Evolution:
1. Age of the moon is young because there isn't enough cosmic dust.
Wait, that one has been refuted...
2. Po halos prove that the earth is very young.
Wait, that one has been refuted...
3. Darwin was a Nazi racist atheist.
Wait, that one has been refuted...
4. Darwin said that the evolution of the eye was impossible.
Wait, that one has been refuted...
5. There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation.
Wait, that one has been refuted...
I give up. You are right.
did god come to earth lately?
>
> did u see the discovery channel show about the dragons? if that is true
Pretty well done CGI, but I would hardly venture to guess that the
producers wanted their viewers to come away from that show thinking that
dragons exist.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
Considering the Dominionists that have GWB's ear, it could be the real
reason that the U.S. is in Iraq.
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>
No, TEists understand science. They understand that the Bible is a
work of spirituality, not science, and they don't confuse the two.
VoiceOfReason
eddyp88 wrote:
> Many scientists have become blind to the real truths of science. They
> will only make scientific conclusions if the evidence agrees with
> Darwin and his principles.
So in other words, you know diddly about science.
CreateThis
Balls of string(s).
CT
CreateThis
> The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
Who cares what you think your fairytale says?
> TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
>
> How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
>
> Where there is a need there is a way.
>
> Click here and see the TEist God:
>
> http://www.firstuniversal.clara.net/godzilla_files/godzilla.jpg
>
> Ray
This is an improvement, Ray. Stick with pictures.
CT
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Balls of string(s).
No empirical evidence exists (yet) which supports string theory or M-theory.
Bob Kolker
jcon
Ray Martinez wrote:
> The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>
>
> How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
>
> Where there is a need there is a way.
>
> Click here and see the TEist God:
>
Now we're talking!
Crucify THIS
> http://www.firstuniversal.clara.net/godzilla_files/godzilla.jpg
>
motherf#$&ers!
-jc
AC
> The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>
> TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
>
> How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
>
> Where there is a need there is a way.
Look, we evolved. That's the end of the story. How you choose to implement
that fact in your theology is your business, but TEists at least recognize
that denying reality in favor of a literal interpretation of an ancient holy
book is well-nigh insane.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Inez
Ray Martinez wrote:
> The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>
> TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
>
> How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
>
> Where there is a need there is a way.
>
>
>
> Ray
What's the ancient Hebrew word for Molecule? RNA? Bacteria? Genetic
diversity? Without knowing ancient Hebrew (or even Shebrew) myself, I
must guess that they did not have such terms. One might suppose that
they would have to gloss over the finer points of such things with
generalities, such as "man came from the raw materials of the earth" or
"Man came from dust."
CreateThis
I support it - it comfirms the Noodly One's omninoodliness.
CT
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> What's the ancient Hebrew word for Molecule? RNA? Bacteria? Genetic
> diversity?
None. There are no such words in ancient Hebrew. In those days the
smallest things people knew about and spoke about they could see with
the naked eye.
Dust would be a good example of very small stuff.
Bob Kolker
Ray Martinez
These views make you insane in the eyes of your Jewish brothers and
sisters.
Where does the word "Jew" come from ?
The United Monarchy divided after the days of Solomon and the persons
comprising the Southern Kingdom of Judah were called Jews.
Judah/Jewdah/Jews/Jew
The word FIRST appears in 2Kings 16:6 and 2Chronicles 32:18.
Of course Judah was one of the 12 Patriarchs, son of Jacob, son of
Isaac, son of Abraham.
Eventually Abraham descends from Adam and Luke 3 says he was the son of
God.
All these Patriarchs and their lives are recorded in the Bible in the
context of the Supernatural worldview, yet all of this history is
hand-waved.
The very existence of the Jewish race and their origin falsifies human
evolution, unless of course you special plead the evidence to not mean
what it means, or brand the evidence to not be evidence.
You yourself Aaron, of Jewish ancestry, prove human evolution is a
fraud based upon atheist needs.
Ray
Ray Martinez
If the Bible is exclusively spiritual then it must say this abundantly.
Could you show me where ?
Or is this a pet theory based upon a few verses taken out of context ?
Where do you divide the line ?
Genesis 2 mentions 2 rivers that are still physical places today
(Tigris/Euphrates).
The history of the N.T. and the O.T. are massively shown to be literal
history that took place.
What do you do with all the literal geopgraphic locations ?
What do you do with atheist scholars who deny none of this - only the
miracle parts ?
Ray
Ray Martinez
Josh M. wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1138845046.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
> >
> >
> > Where there is a need there is a way.
> >
> >
> > http://www.firstuniversal.clara.net/godzilla_files/godzilla.jpg
> >
> > Ray
>
> problem at all believing something as ridiculous as humans being created out
> of dust?
Because evolving from apes is insane - impossible, but if you are an
atheist not having a relationship with God then the insanity is a must
to believe since there is no other option.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Ross Langerak wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1138845046.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
> >
> > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
>
> fossil evidence - along with other evidence - tells us that we evolved from
> a common ancestor with the other apes. It has nothing to do with God or
> religion or the Bible.
>
Do you have any evidence to support the needs of your atheist
philosophy ?
Ray
Ray Martinez
eddyp88 wrote:
> Many scientists have become blind to the real truths of science. They
> will only make scientific conclusions if the evidence agrees with
> unknown, but also challenges the theories which are already
> does not challenge itself is not really science at all; in fact it is
> pseudoscience, and the scientists that practice this method are not
> truly scientists. They kiss Charles Darwin's feet by proclaiming his
> theory to be impenetrable fact, and they are therefore "Darwin
> kiss-ups".
> http://www.thinkertees.com/darwin_kissup.html
Well said Eddy.
Darwin is the Deity of Scientism/Darwinism.
Atheists must laugh their asses off at the TEist Baal worshippers who
bow to this idol/apostate.
Science long ago refuted the atheist/apostate creation myth and the
only reason it ***appears*** triumphant is because the Bible says it is
the reality that corresponds with His wrath for denying Him Creator
credit.
Ray
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>Josh M. wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138845046.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>> >
>> > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
>> >
>> > How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
>> >
>> > Where there is a need there is a way.
>> >
>> > Click here and see the TEist God:
>> >
>> > http://www.firstuniversal.clara.net/godzilla_files/godzilla.jpg
>> >
>> > Ray
>>
>> Why is it that creationists find evolution so hard to believe, but have no
>> problem at all believing something as ridiculous as humans being created out
>> of dust?
>
>Because evolving from apes is insane - impossible,
Nononononono!!! Ray, you have it all wrong.
We have not evolved FROM apes, we ARE apes. We, meaning humans, have
evolved alonside the other great apes, from a common ancester. Humans
are as much apes as the Chimp, in fact we wre less than 2% different
from apes and most of those differences are not very important.
> but if you are an
>atheist not having a relationship with God then the insanity is a must
>to believe since there is no other option.
>
>Ray
You are an ape, all your friends are apes - all humans are apes.
All apes, all mammals, all life evolved. The fossile record proves
that. Genetics prove it. Geology and a lot of other sciences provide
masses of evidence for it.
--
Bob.
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
> > >
> > > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
> >
> > No, TEists understand science. They understand that the Bible is a
> > work of spirituality, not science, and they don't confuse the two.
>
> If the Bible is exclusively spiritual then it must say this abundantly.
>
> Could you show me where ?
The part between the front cover and the back cover.
> Or is this a pet theory based upon a few verses taken out of context ?
It seems to be the pet theory of most Christian denominations.
> Where do you divide the line ?
>
> Genesis 2 mentions 2 rivers that are still physical places today
> (Tigris/Euphrates).
It also mentions a lot of other places. Your point?
> The history of the N.T. and the O.T. are massively shown to be literal
> history that took place.
If the flood described in the Bible is based on real events, then it
was a local flood, not global. By getting wrapped around an axle about
one detail, you miss the whole point of the story.
That you call people atheists when they disagree with you is a strong
indication that you're missing the whole point of the entire Bible.
> What do you do with all the literal geopgraphic locations ?
What about them?
> What do you do with atheist scholars who deny none of this - only the
> miracle parts ?
See above re: atheists.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
As is all other mythology from the same period.
>
>The very existence of the Jewish race and their origin falsifies human
>evolution, unless of course you special plead the evidence to not mean
>what it means, or brand the evidence to not be evidence.
Those labeled jews are men, like you and me. In what way does their
existance falsify human evolution?
>
>You yourself Aaron, of Jewish ancestry, prove human evolution is a
>fraud based upon atheist needs.
What "alteist needs"?
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Frank Sullivan
Ray Martinez wrote:
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
> > >
> > > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
> >
> > No, TEists understand science. They understand that the Bible is a
> > work of spirituality, not science, and they don't confuse the two.
>
> If the Bible is exclusively spiritual then it must say this abundantly.
>
> Could you show me where ?
>
> Or is this a pet theory based upon a few verses taken out of context ?
>
> Where do you divide the line ?
>
> Genesis 2 mentions 2 rivers that are still physical places today
> (Tigris/Euphrates).
Are you saying that you literally believe that the garden of eden was
in Iraq? It seems a lot more likely that these rivers were just named
after the Bible, don't you think?
Elmer
>
> Science long ago refuted the atheist/apostate creation myth and the
> only reason it ***appears*** triumphant is because the Bible says it is
> the reality that corresponds with His wrath for denying Him Creator
> credit.
2 Cor 5:7
CreateThis
> Darwin is the Deity of Scientism/Darwinism.
Cult worship is your only frame of reference.
CT
er...@swva.net
> The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>
> TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
No we don't. I've never heard a TEist say that what the Bible means is
that we evolved from apes, and you haven't either. Hanging around with
the Father of Lies again, I see.
>
> How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
It doesn't, and you are too chicken to answer the question, "so what?"
We know about evolution from real-world evidence. The Bible has
nothing to do with it, and pro-science Christians don't pretend it
does. So you are either crazy, a liar, or a lackey of Satan. Which is
it?
>
> Where there is a need there is a way.
>
> Click here and see the TEist God:
>
> http://www.firstuniversal.clara.net/godzilla_files/godzilla.jpg
>
> Ray
So, you compare God to Godzilla? How trashy.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Josh M. wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138845046.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
> > >
> > > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
> > >
> > > How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
> > >
> > > Where there is a need there is a way.
> > >
> > > Click here and see the TEist God:
> > >
> > > http://www.firstuniversal.clara.net/godzilla_files/godzilla.jpg
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Why is it that creationists find evolution so hard to believe, but have no
> > problem at all believing something as ridiculous as humans being created out
> > of dust
>
Ho-hum.
> but if you are an
> atheist not having a relationship with God then the insanity is a must
> to believe since there is no other option.
>
So, what about the other million options?
> Ray
er...@swva.net
Philosophies have needs?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
In what way is the statement Ross made even remotely atheist?
--
Bob.
Shane
Welcome to the world of Ray. Atheism in that peculiar world is not a
matter of a lack of belief in a god (or any similar standard
definition), rather it is anything that Ray disagrees with. If you
like Pepsi and Ray likes Coke, even if you agree on all other aspects
of life, the universe and everything, you are an atheist.
HTH
--
Shane
Shane
> eddyp88 wrote:
>> Many scientists have become blind to the real truths of science. They
>> will only make scientific conclusions if the evidence agrees with
>> Darwin and his principles. Real science not only tries to explain the
>> unknown, but also challenges the theories which are already
>> established, however dogmatic those theories have become. Science that
>> does not challenge itself is not really science at all; in fact it is
>> pseudoscience, and the scientists that practice this method are not
>> truly scientists. They kiss Charles Darwin's feet by proclaiming his
>> theory to be impenetrable fact, and they are therefore "Darwin
>> kiss-ups".
>> Check out this site I found about Darwin and current events
>> http://www.thinkertees.com/darwin_kissup.html
>
> Well said Eddy.
I agree, it is well said except for the "many scientists" bit. The
only issue I have with it is who does it apply to? Can Eddy, Ray, or
anyone else, name one scientist who kisses Darwins feet by
"proclaiming his theory to be impenetrable fact"? Come on - one name
should not be too hard to find.
A number of aspects of the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin
have been discarded, and as his version of the theory did not include
genetics, it is fairly safe to say that Darwins theory has been
challenged, and found wanting in some areas.
>
> Darwin is the Deity of Scientism/Darwinism.
Nah, he is just regarded and a clear thinker who was unafraid to
confront the evidence, unfortunatly people like that are not as
numerous as they should be.
> Atheists must laugh their asses off at the TEist Baal worshippers who
> bow to this idol/apostate.
Why is this a "must", is there no choice involved?
> Science long ago refuted the atheist/apostate creation myth
Yep, but the fundies still argue that Genesis, which makes a mockery
of god and denies his power, is literally correct, go figure.
> and the
> only reason it ***appears*** triumphant is because the Bible says it is
> the reality that corresponds with His wrath for denying Him Creator
> credit.
Nope, the bible does not say that evolution is the reality. Nor does
it say that evolution is gods wrath. It becomes clear that Ray has not
one iota of the moral courage of Darwin, and refuses face up to
evidence.
--
Shane
The truth shall set you free.
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
snipping
> > Why is it that creationists find evolution so hard to believe, but have no
> > problem at all believing something as ridiculous as humans being created out
> > of dust?
>
> Because evolving from apes is insane - impossible,
Ray, how is it either "insane" or "impossible" for humans to have
evolved from other apes? Humans are still apes. What you are saying
is the same as saying a chicken could not have evolved from a bird.
> but if you are an
> atheist not having a relationship with God then the insanity is a must
> to believe since there is no other option.
I'm not an atheist, and many other people who accept the scientific
evidence of human evolution are not atheists. We do have a
'relationship with God'. Therefore your 'no other option' claim is
proven false.
DJT
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
> AC wrote:
> > On 1 Feb 2006 17:50:46 -0800,
> > Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
> > >
> > > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
> > >
> > > How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
> > >
> > > Where there is a need there is a way.
> >
> > Look, we evolved. That's the end of the story. How you choose to implement
> > that fact in your theology is your business, but TEists at least recognize
> > that denying reality in favor of a literal interpretation of an ancient holy
> > book is well-nigh insane.
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Clausen
> > mightym...@hotmail.com
>
> These views make you insane in the eyes of your Jewish brothers and
> sisters.
Then it's up to the "jewish brothers and sisters" to make that
determination, not Ray.
>
> Where does the word "Jew" come from ?
Uh oh, another one of Gene Scott's folk etymologies coming up.......
>
> The United Monarchy divided after the days of Solomon and the persons
> comprising the Southern Kingdom of Judah were called Jews.
>
> Judah/Jewdah/Jews/Jew
According to Wikipedia, the word comes, most likely from "The Land of
Judea".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_the_word_Jew
>
> The word FIRST appears in 2Kings 16:6 and 2Chronicles 32:18.
You mean the English translation as the term isn't found in the anceint
Hebrew.
>
> Of course Judah was one of the 12 Patriarchs, son of Jacob, son of
> Isaac, son of Abraham.
>
> Eventually Abraham descends from Adam and Luke 3 says he was the son of
> God.
>
> All these Patriarchs and their lives are recorded in the Bible in the
> context of the Supernatural worldview, yet all of this history is
> hand-waved.
No, all that "history" is not considered factual, unless there is some
outside corraboration.
>
> The very existence of the Jewish race and their origin falsifies human
> evolution,
How? Also, the Jews aren't a "race" in the usual meaning of the term.
> unless of course you special plead the evidence to not mean
> what it means,
Actually, the 'evidence' doesn't mean what Ray thinks it does, an
entirely different claim.
> or brand the evidence to not be evidence.
Texual evidence is not physical evidence, that's not "special pleading"
it's just a recognition of the usefullness of the writing.
>
> You yourself Aaron, of Jewish ancestry, prove human evolution is a
> fraud based upon atheist needs.
How does Aaron "prove" this? Evolution is a scientific theory, which
is not a "fraud" and it's not based on the needs of any atheist.
Ray simply is wrong yet again.
Really, Ray if this is the kind of thing that you think will "Destroy"
evoluitonary theory, you are better off playing with your Godzilla
dolls.
DJT
>
> Ray
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
> > >
> > > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
> >
> > No, TEists understand science. They understand that the Bible is a
> > work of spirituality, not science, and they don't confuse the two.
>
> If the Bible is exclusively spiritual then it must say this abundantly.
Who says it's "excusively spiritual"?
>
> Could you show me where ?
Can you show some physical evidence to support your many claims?
>
> Or is this a pet theory based upon a few verses taken out of context ?
You mean like you take the Bible out of context?
>
> Where do you divide the line ?
By understanding that the Bible isn't a science text.
>
> Genesis 2 mentions 2 rivers that are still physical places today
> (Tigris/Euphrates).
Yes, but the other two rivers have not been matched to any real rivers.
>
> The history of the N.T. and the O.T. are massively shown to be literal
> history that took place.
"massively"? In what sense? Some of the events in the old
testament, and some of the events in the new testament have been
corraborated, but many others have not, and some have been outright
refuted by contemporary documents.
>
> What do you do with all the literal geopgraphic locations ?
Why should we do anything with them?
>
> What do you do with atheist scholars who deny none of this - only the
> miracle parts ?
What 'scholars' are you talking about.
DJT
DJT
Evolution is not an 'atheist philosophy'. As for the evidence, let's
take another look at KNM WT 15000. You keep avoiding this fossil,
and refuse to discuss it. What are you afraid of?
DJT
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>
>Because evolving from apes is insane - impossible, but if you are an
>atheist not having a relationship with God then the insanity is a must
>to believe since there is no other option.
>
>Ray
when i read this stuff, it makes me appreciate the cargo cultists.
they were only ignorant, not blatantly stuipd.
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>
>Darwin is the Deity of Scientism/Darwinism.
>
>Atheists must laugh their asses off at the TEist Baal worshippers who
>bow to this idol/apostate.
>
>Science long ago refuted the atheist/apostate creation myth and the
>only reason it ***appears*** triumphant is because the Bible says it is
>the reality that corresponds with His wrath for denying Him Creator
>credit.
>
now let's see. our choices are:
1. all scientists in the world...korean, chinese, japanese, indian,
south african, german, british, canadian, etc.
they're all liars and engaged in a conspiracy against xtianity since
every sinlge one of them accepts evolution...
OR
creationism is a cult belief of american religious fanatics who need
to lie about the world's scientists in order to preserve their own
view of the bible...
now let me think...real toughee here...
>Ray
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>
>VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>> >
>> > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
>>
>> No, TEists understand science. They understand that the Bible is a
>> work of spirituality, not science, and they don't confuse the two.
>
>If the Bible is exclusively spiritual then it must say this abundantly.
'for god is spirit, and those who worship him worship him in spirit
and in truth'
even we atheists have read the bible...
Josh M.
>
> Josh M. wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138845046.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>> >
>> > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
>> >
>> > How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
>> >
>> > Where there is a need there is a way.
>> >
>> > Click here and see the TEist God:
>> >
>> > http://www.firstuniversal.clara.net/godzilla_files/godzilla.jpg
>> >
>> > Ray
>>
>> Why is it that creationists find evolution so hard to believe, but have
>> no
>> problem at all believing something as ridiculous as humans being created
>> out
>> of dust?
>
> Because evolving from apes is insane
Interpreting Genesis literally and actually believing that people were
created out of dust is insane.
> - impossible,
We are apes.
> but if you are an atheist not having a relationship with God then the
> insanity is a must
> to believe since there is no other option.
One does not have to be an atheist to reject a literal interpretation of the
Bible.
> Ray
>
Ray Martinez
Dana, how come you never make an argument about the specimen ?
Are we supposed to read your mind, or are you relying on the
preexisting story (humans had to of evolved) ?
Why don't you tell us a short history and what it means and why any
person unnconnected to the Creo/Evo debate should believe your claims ?
Please don't use the "It is science" card or at least shuffle the deck
and use a card not employed as much.
Waiting....
Ray
Ray Martinez
Frank Sullivan wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
> > > >
> > > > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
> > >
> > > No, TEists understand science. They understand that the Bible is a
> > > work of spirituality, not science, and they don't confuse the two.
> >
> > If the Bible is exclusively spiritual then it must say this abundantly.
> >
> > Could you show me where ?
> >
> > Or is this a pet theory based upon a few verses taken out of context ?
> >
> > Where do you divide the line ?
> >
> > Genesis 2 mentions 2 rivers that are still physical places today
> > (Tigris/Euphrates).
>
> Are you saying that you literally believe that the garden of eden was
> in Iraq? It seems a lot more likely that these rivers were just named
> after the Bible, don't you think?
>
Where did I even mention the Garden ?
We know the Garden was on Atlantis.
Good evidence of Atlantis is eels swimming to what they think should be
there and migratory birds doing the same but then dropping in the
water.
Ray
AC
>> > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>> >
>> > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
>> >
>> >
>> > Where there is a need there is a way.
>>
>> that fact in your theology is your business, but TEists at least recognize
>> that denying reality in favor of a literal interpretation of an ancient holy
>> book is well-nigh insane.
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Clausen
>> mightym...@hotmail.com
>
> These views make you insane in the eyes of your Jewish brothers and
> sisters.
I'm afraid not, Ray. Judaism, by and large, hasn't insisted upon literalism
for more than two thosuand years.
>
> Where does the word "Jew" come from ?
>
> The United Monarchy divided after the days of Solomon and the persons
> comprising the Southern Kingdom of Judah were called Jews.
>
> Judah/Jewdah/Jews/Jew
>
> The word FIRST appears in 2Kings 16:6 and 2Chronicles 32:18.
>
> Of course Judah was one of the 12 Patriarchs, son of Jacob, son of
> Isaac, son of Abraham.
>
> Eventually Abraham descends from Adam and Luke 3 says he was the son of
> God.
>
> All these Patriarchs and their lives are recorded in the Bible in the
> context of the Supernatural worldview, yet all of this history is
> hand-waved.
>
> The very existence of the Jewish race and their origin falsifies human
> evolution, unless of course you special plead the evidence to not mean
> what it means, or brand the evidence to not be evidence.
>
> You yourself Aaron, of Jewish ancestry, prove human evolution is a
> fraud based upon atheist needs.
I could give a rat's ass about your miscomprehensions of Judaism, Ray. You
are a moron.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
> DJT wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Ross Langerak wrote:
> > > > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1138845046.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
> > > > >
> > > > > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
> > > >
> > > > We are apes. We evolved from a common ancestor with the other apes. The
> > > > fossil evidence - along with other evidence - tells us that we evolved from
> > > > a common ancestor with the other apes. It has nothing to do with God or
> > > > religion or the Bible.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you have any evidence to support the needs of your atheist
> > > philosophy ?
> >
> > Evolution is not an 'atheist philosophy'. As for the evidence, let's
> > take another look at KNM WT 15000. You keep avoiding this fossil,
> > and refuse to discuss it. What are you afraid of?
> >
> >
> > DJT
>
> Dana, how come you never make an argument about the specimen ?
My position is, as it has been, that it's a transitional form between
modern humans and other apes. Have you forgotten that?
>
> Are we supposed to read your mind, or are you relying on the
> preexisting story (humans had to of evolved) ?
Humans didn't "have to of evolved", but they did evolve, and KNM WT
15000 is one of the pieces of evidence of this evolution.
>
> Why don't you tell us a short history and what it means and why any
> person unnconnected to the Creo/Evo debate should believe your claims ?
KNM WT 15000 is an example of a being who is between modern humans and
other apes. It has many human and "ape" characteristics. It's
classifed as Homo erectus (or H.ergaster), a species which is known
from several different locations. It's a over 90% complete skeleton,
so you can't claim it's "obscure fossil scraps". In short it's an
intermediate fossil, and exactly what one would expect to find if
humans were descended from other apes.
>
> Please don't use the "It is science" card or at least shuffle the deck
> and use a card not employed as much.
I don't know what you mean by the "It is science card". I know that
you don't understand science, and hold science in contempt, but it's
not all that hard a concept to figure out.
>
> Waiting....
The question here is are you going to continue to ignore the fossil
evidence, and claim it doesn't exist, or are you going to deal with the
evidence in a rational manner.
DJT
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Frank Sullivan wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
> > > > >
> > > > > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
> > > >
> > > > No, TEists understand science. They understand that the Bible is a
> > > > work of spirituality, not science, and they don't confuse the two.
> > >
> > > If the Bible is exclusively spiritual then it must say this abundantly.
> > >
> > > Could you show me where ?
> > >
> > > Or is this a pet theory based upon a few verses taken out of context ?
> > >
> > > Where do you divide the line ?
> > >
> > > Genesis 2 mentions 2 rivers that are still physical places today
> > > (Tigris/Euphrates).
> >
> > Are you saying that you literally believe that the garden of eden was
> > in Iraq? It seems a lot more likely that these rivers were just named
> > after the Bible, don't you think?
> >
>
> Where did I even mention the Garden ?
>
> We know the Garden was on Atlantis.
"We"? How do we "know" this, as the Bible says nothing about
"Atlantis" and there is no evidence Atlantis actually existed.
>
> Good evidence of Atlantis is eels swimming to what they think should be
> there
Are you now saying you know how eels think???
>and migratory birds doing the same but then dropping in the
> water.
What "migratory birds" drop into the water? Migratory birds "dropping
in the water" would quickly go extinct.
Are you simply making things up again, or is this a bedtime story told
by old Gene?
DJT
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Frank Sullivan wrote:
<...>
> > Are you saying that you literally believe that the garden of eden was
> > in Iraq? It seems a lot more likely that these rivers were just named
> > after the Bible, don't you think?
> >
>
> Where did I even mention the Garden ?
>
> We know the Garden was on Atlantis.
*coughsputterwheeze* ATLANTIS?!? You've GOT to be kidding! What the
heck is next? The Holy Spirit is Bigfoot? Moses was an alien? Sodom
and Gomorrah are located in the Bermuda Triangle next to Elvis's secret
hideaway? Ray, I seriously think your little red caboose has gone
around the bend.
Radix2
Ray Martinez wrote:
> We know the Garden was on Atlantis.
>
> Good evidence of Atlantis is eels swimming to what they think should be
> there and migratory birds doing the same but then dropping in the
> water.
>
> Ray
*blinks and backs slowly away from computer*
You, Ray, are fucking CRAZY.
Ross Langerak
>
> Ross Langerak wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138845046.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
> >
The
> > fossil evidence - along with other evidence - tells us that we evolved
from
> > a common ancestor with the other apes. It has nothing to do with God or
> > religion or the Bible.
> >
>
> Do you have any evidence to support the needs of your atheist
> philosophy ?
The last surveys that I have seen - and they seem to remain fairly
consistent - indicate that 89% of the US population is Christian, 40% of the
US population accepts evolution without any divine intervention, and about
1% of the US population is atheist.
Given these numbers, it would be impossible for evolution to be an atheist
philosophy because most evolutionists are Christian. Evolutionists accept
evolution because it is the best explanation for the evidence. It has
nothing to do with God or religion.
There are also religious organizations that have publicly stated that they
support evolution, including the Catholic Church. See
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/voices/
Fossil evidence indicates that humans have evolved. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
The existence of shared pseudogenes indicate that humans share a common
ancestor with other apes. See
Ross Langerak
"eddyp88" <edd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138849145.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Many scientists have become blind to the real truths of science. They
> will only make scientific conclusions if the evidence agrees with
> Darwin and his principles. Real science not only tries to explain the
> unknown, but also challenges the theories which are already
> established, however dogmatic those theories have become. Science that
> does not challenge itself is not really science at all; in fact it is
> pseudoscience, and the scientists that practice this method are not
> truly scientists. They kiss Charles Darwin's feet by proclaiming his
> theory to be impenetrable fact, and they are therefore "Darwin
> kiss-ups".
You're trying to explain why evolutionists get it wrong without first
demonstrating that evolutionists are wrong. It doesn't work that way. What
evidence do you think evolutionists are ignoring?
Scientists are rewarded most for changing theories, not maintaining a dogma.
The scientists who make the most significant changes get the most
recognition.
In science, a theory is an explanation for a set of data. Thus, science
attempts to explain the known, not the unknown. How do you propose that we
explain data that we are not aware of?
Evolutionary theory has been changing almost constantly for the last 150
years. It has had to change to incorporate new discoveries like genetics,
DNA, and new fossils. The result is a better theory. One of the complaints
that I sometimes hear from creationists is that evolution is always
changing. How can you say that evolution is dogmatic when it is constantly
changing?
Ross Langerak
"CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote in message
news:NfpEf.210$rL5...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
> > wf...@comcast.net wrote:>
> >
> >>really?
> >>
> >>uh, tell me...how many scientists do you know who've challenged the
> >>existence of atoms lately?
> >
> >
> > That would be tough. Although no one has ever seen an atom (nor could
> > they, as atoms are too small to be seen in the frequency range of human
> > vision) no other hypothesis has been formulated that can explain and
> > unite so many facts and phenomena.
> >
> > Logically speaking (strictly) it has not been deductively demonstrated
> > that no alternative hypothesis is possible, but in a practical sense, no
> > one can think of a better explanation than atomic theory. If the theory
> > is deepened it will be to explain atoms in terms of yet more fundemental
> > objects
>
> Balls of string(s).
I support steel theory.
Ross Langerak
>
> Josh M. wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1138845046.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
> > >
> > > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
> > >
> > >
> > > Where there is a need there is a way.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.firstuniversal.clara.net/godzilla_files/godzilla.jpg
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Why is it that creationists find evolution so hard to believe, but have
no
> > problem at all believing something as ridiculous as humans being created
out
> > of dust?
>
> atheist not having a relationship with God then the insanity is a must
> to believe since there is no other option.
Most evolutionists in the US are Christian. They accept evolution because
it is the best explanation for the evidence. Evolution has nothing to do
with God or religion.
Rolf
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138845046.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>
> TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
>
> How does "dust of ground" translate into "evolved from apes" ?
>
> Where there is a need there is a way.
>
> Click here and see the TEist God:
>
> http://www.firstuniversal.clara.net/godzilla_files/godzilla.jpg
>
> Ray
>
Ray is right, dust-man, was created from dust. Predictably (to us, but
probably not to god) he failed, as dust-man was little more than an
inanimate doll.
Natuer took over, and created real man, using mostly water, about 80% I
believe, with some carbon, hydrogen as well as various minerals and element
to make a real working body. Science has for a long time known that water is
essential for life, and one really may wonder about a god who doesn't know
even first things about life?
Rolf
Ye Old One
So, change all "athiest" to "arayist" in his posts? Gotit :)
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>We know the Garden was on Atlantis.
>
>Good evidence of Atlantis is eels swimming to what they think should be
>there and migratory birds doing the same but then dropping in the
>water.
>
>Ray
You WHAT!!!!!!!
--
Bob.
Augray
>
>Frank Sullivan wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > > The Bible says God created mankind from the dust of the ground.
>> > > >
>> > > > TEists say this means we evolved from apes.
>> > >
>> > > No, TEists understand science. They understand that the Bible is a
>> > > work of spirituality, not science, and they don't confuse the two.
>> >
>> > If the Bible is exclusively spiritual then it must say this abundantly.
>> >
>> > Could you show me where ?
>> >
>> > Or is this a pet theory based upon a few verses taken out of context ?
>> >
>> > Where do you divide the line ?
>> >
>> > Genesis 2 mentions 2 rivers that are still physical places today
>> > (Tigris/Euphrates).
>>
>> Are you saying that you literally believe that the garden of eden was
>> in Iraq? It seems a lot more likely that these rivers were just named
>> after the Bible, don't you think?
>>
>
>Where did I even mention the Garden ?
>
>We know the Garden was on Atlantis.
Gee, I didn't know that the Tigris/Euphrates river was in Atlantis.
Does this mean that Iraq is in Atlantis as well?
Elmer
Wonder what happened to the flaming swords when the water closed around
them.
Inez
What would eels get out of swimming to an island, should they be so
lucky as to find it there when they arrive? Do they get pats on the
head from mermaids?
Atlantis must have had a lot of suburbs, because I see migratory birds
sitting in the water in any number of places.
Ray Martinez
eddyp88 wrote:
> Many scientists have become blind to the real truths of science. They
> will only make scientific conclusions if the evidence agrees with
> Darwin and his principles.
I would bet Eddy didn't know the Bible says exactly what he observes
about Darwinian science: "BLIND to the real truths of science."
Romans 1 says God "darkens"/blinds the minds of those who use their
intellect to re-explain the obviousness of design.
This self-evident observation by Eddy becomes very good objective
evidence of the blinding penalty.
The blinding penalty becomes the only explanation as to how anyone
cannot see the evidence of God that naked reality shows abundantly.
When atheists say "where is the evidence of God" = evidence of the
penalty since everyone else plainly sees it in nature and cosmology.
Ray
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>When atheists say "where is the evidence of God" = evidence of the
>penalty since everyone else plainly sees it in nature and cosmology.
I have studied cosmology for nearly 40 years. I've lectured on the
subject, written and editied magazine articles on the subject, edited
books on the subject and attended dozens of symposiums on the subject.
I've never seen any evidence for your mythical god - and nor has
anyone else I know.
--
Bob.
Ross Langerak
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:dib6u1pb5nh1c2787...@4ax.com...
Bad, bad Old One!
Ross Langerak
I'm sorry, I must have missed that post where you showed us the evidence for
God. Could you please post it again?
Ross Langerak
You know, I think that actually qualifies as a 'good' joke.
Ye Old One
Oh I know, but it is much more fun being bad :)
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
The Bible says if you cannot deduce the invisible God from physical
reality it is because He has reacted to your refusal to do so and
blinded you as a permanent punishment. The blinding makes you forget
that you use to see it.
Evidence for God = nature, cosmology, etc.etc. it is self-evident. What
doesn't prove God is a better question ?
Ray
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>
>The Bible says if you cannot deduce the invisible God from physical
>reality it is because He has reacted to your refusal to do so and
>blinded you as a permanent punishment. The blinding makes you forget
>that you use to see it.
>
>Evidence for God = nature, cosmology, etc.etc. it is self-evident. What
>doesn't prove God is a better question ?
>
>Ray
except that right wing fundies say all of science is wrong. so how can
they have it both ways?
Ye Old One
So evidence for god exists, but only if you believe in him?
Bloody rubbish.
Neither the cosmos nor nature require god or are evidence for god.
Carry on believing in fairy tales is you want = but you look stupid as
a result.
--
Bob.
VoiceOfReason
Is that in the same chapter that discusses the Garden of Eden in
Atlantis? :-D
Bob Pease
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:1139096034....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Occasionally I tune in to the Ray and EDDY show for humor.
This brings us to an interesting paradox...
If a liar says that another liar is telling the truth when agreeing, whazzup
with THAT ???
RJ P
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>> > When atheists say "where is the evidence of God" = evidence of the
>> > penalty since everyone else plainly sees it in nature and cosmology.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I must have missed that post where you showed us the evidence
>> for
>> God. Could you please post it again?
>
> The Bible says if you cannot deduce the invisible God from physical
> reality it is because He has reacted to your refusal to do so and
> blinded you as a permanent punishment.
Actually, the Bible does not say that. Ray is simply repeating a flawed
interpetation, which makes no sense, and is contrary to the nature of God.
> The blinding makes you forget
> that you use to see it.
There is no such "blinding", it's a excuse for why you can't provide any
convincing evidence.
>
> Evidence for God = nature, cosmology, etc.etc. it is self-evident.
Then there should be some evidence. Where is it?
> What
> doesn't prove God is a better question ?
The questions is why do you think you need physical evidence of God? What
ever happened to faith?
DJT
Bob Pease
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:o_dFf.10750$rH5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I thought "The Blinding" was only given as a special power to
Lamont Cramston. (The Shadow)
RJ P
Ross Langerak
Are you telling me that it is God's fault that I don't believe? Why, then,
do I get punished for it?
> Evidence for God = nature, cosmology, etc.etc. it is self-evident. What
> doesn't prove God is a better question ?
Sorry, I don't see it. Nature and cosmology tell me that there are natural
causes for everything. I have yet to find a convincing supernatural cause.
However, if God really does exist, why doesn't he stop by tomorrow and let
me know? I've never met him, never met anyone like him, never seen him on
television making a speech. Seriously, if I told you that Odin exists and
that you just refuse to recognize him, would that convince you that Odin
exists?