Discussion:
Why do Atheists hate Christian astronomers so much
(too old to reply)
Borked Pseudo Mailed
2006-12-24 19:20:25 UTC
Permalink
References: <***@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>

For the real story behind the Anti-Christian Liberal Union, see :

http://www.aclj.org
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dangerous+OR+liberal+OR+atheist+OR+socialist+OR+communist+OR+%22anti-christian%22+OR+%22anti-christ%22+%22aclu%22+-%22aclu.org%22+-%22mediamatters.org%22+-%22atheist.tamu%22+-%22liberalavenger%22+-%22atheism.about%22&adult_done=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch&adult_cancel=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fweb%2Fadvanced&_adv_prop=web&ei=UTF-8&vst=0&vf=all&vm=i&fl=0&n=100
spout
You are an Atheist sock puppet. The ACLU only defends your religion
in government :

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=&num=100&scoring=d&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=%22Turnip%22+%***@yahoo.com%3E&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=24&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=2006&safe=off
jls
2006-12-24 20:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Dear Anonyma Remailer:

Could you please identify an atheist who hates a Christian astronomer
(a contradiction in terms, btw)? I will go to him and try to convince
him of the error of his ways.
Azaliah
2006-12-25 17:24:17 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Dec 2006 12:21:56 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jls"
Post by jls
Could you please identify an atheist who hates a Christian astronomer
(a contradiction in terms, btw)? I will go to him and try to convince
him of the error of his ways.
Christians say that evolutionists try to rule out God.

Evolutionists say that evolution of whatever form
doesn't deal with the question of God.

Yet, here we have an evolutionist saying that in
order to be a scientist, you can't believe in God
and certainly can't be a Christian.


Are the Atheists Right?

The atheists...

They love to tell you how Christians prevent science.
Harvard, Yale, etc., were all set up by six day, Bible
believing Creationists for the advancement of science.

They love to tell you how the church was after those who
believed the Earth was round. In reality, it was
"scientists", who like them, could never admit they were
wrong.

They love to tell you how Christianity has taken
more lives than anything else. This is NOT TRUE!
Atheistic nations have caused more deaths than
any nation that was faithful to Christ!

1) It is not "Christian" to murder people because
they do not believe in Christ as Savior.

2) Stop looking at what fallible man does and then
turn around and blame Christianity. Man killing people
and doing it in the name of Christ, does not mean that
there is a problem with Christianity. It means that
there is a problem with man.

The atheists, who are and have to be evolutionists,
love to ask the following question...

"If there's a God, how come there is so many bad things
happening in the world?". If you want to know the
answer to that, why don't you look in the mirror? Man
loves to do evil and then blame God for the results!
Here is the whole issue, summed up, because you see,
the atheist actually likes to ask a question that has a
"no win" situation. Let me explain...

1) If God allows man to do what man decides to do,
that is called "free will" and the atheist complains.
Yet, if God stopped all evil from happening, then man
(if he could), would point his finger at God and say,
"If you loved me, you would let me make my own
decisions and learn from my own mistakes!".

2) If God allows man to make his own decisions
and his own mistakes, man points at God and says,
"If you really are God, how can you allow all of this
evil to exist?!".

You see what I mean? The atheist asks a rigged
question and tries to stack the deck. Thus, his/her
question is not honest to begin with.

As far as Creation and evolution, they love to say
the following...

"Creation is NOT science and no REAL scientist
believes in Creation! It does not offer any
testable theory!"

They also love to compare it to gravity, yet,
Sir Isaac Newton was a six day Creationist!

They also love to say that if you don't believe
in evolution as a scientific fact, how do you
explain using your computer, which is based
on evolutionary science?

Huh?! That isn't anywhere NEAR being true!
It is NOT based on "evolutionary science",
nor is evolution even science

In fact, the inventors of computer science
and electronics, were six day Creationists!

The next time someone tells you that "Creation
scientists are not real scientists", you provide
them with this message, which shows that not
only was the founder of the scientific method
a creationist, but many of the branches of
science, were invented by creationists, who
all believed in a literal six day creation. To deny
evolution is not to deny God, nor nature, nor
science. In fact, to deny evolution, is to uphold
science, the truth of God and the nature that
God created. And the greatest scientists in
the world knew that. In fact, at one time,
the greatest scientific philosopher of all time,
Dr. Karl Popper, said that evolution is not a law,
nor a theory and that it doesn't even rise to the
level of an hypothesis. He said it is nothing more
than a metaphysical research program.

Here is some information, for those who are
interested in THE TRUTH...

From: The Root of the Problem - Dr. James Kennedy

WHAT IS TRUE?

Let us take a little deeper look. First of all, who
invented science? It was Francis Bacon, who is
credited with having been the inventor of the
scientific method, that combination of induction
and deduction, of hypothesis and proof (empirical
proof). Bacon was a devout Christian. He believed
in God. He believed in Christ, he believed in the
Bible, and he believed in Creation. He said that
God had given us two books. He has given us
the book of nature to understand the world, and
the book of Scriptures-and we are to read both
of them, said the founder of science. Wasn't a
Christian? Hardly.

Who was the greatest scientist that ever lived?
A poll taken of scientists just a few years ago
concluded that the greatest scientist that ever
lived was Sir Isaac Newton. If you read a list of
the things that he discovered, it is awesome.
The mathematical laws of gravity are just one
piece of that huge puzzle from this gigantic intellect.
He was, also, among other things, the co-discoverer
of calculus. Sir Isaac Newton. Newton believed in
God, he believed in Christ, he believed in the Bible,
and he believed in creation. To the utter chagrin
of modern evolutionary scientists, he wrote more
books on theology than he did on science. He still
became the greatest scientist that has ever lived,
according to them.

CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS

If the scientific method was invented by a Christian
and the greatest scientist that ever lived was a
Christian, what about the people that gave us all
of the various branches of science? Who were they?
Let me tell you about them. They were all men that
believed in God, believed in Christ, believed in the
Bible, and believed in creation. Not an evolutionist
among them. Who were they:

The inventor of Antiseptic Surgery was Joseph Lister,
who was all of the above.

Bacteriology - Louis Pasteur - all of the above.

Calculus - Sir Isaac Newton, as I've said.

Celestial Mechanics - Johann Kepler, who said that
science was thinking God's thoughts after Him.

Chemistry - Robert Boyle, who left a large sum of
money in his will that a series of lectures should
be taught in his university in England defending
the Christian faith. An unbeliever? Hardly.

Comparative Anatomy - Georges Cuvier.

Computer Science - Charles Babbage.

Dimensional Analysis - Lord Rayleigh.

Dynamics - Isaac Newton.

Electrodynamics - James Clerk Maxwell.

Electromagnetics - Michael Faraday, who had
about twenty-two honorary doctorates. He was
being given a huge award by the king at a banquet
on a Wednesday night. After the banquet, the
people talked for a while, and then he was called
up to receive his award, and they found that he had
slipped out to go to prayer meeting. That is what
you would have done, isn't it? After all, what is an
award from the king compared to worshiping God.

Electronics - Ambrose Fleming.

Energetics - Lord Kelvin, a great Christian.

Entomology of Living Insects - Henri Fabre.

Field Theory - Michael Faraday.

Fluid Mechanics - George Stokes.

Galactic Astronomy - William Herschel.

Gas Dynamcs - Robert Boyle.

Genetics - Gregor Mendel.

Glacial Geology - Louis Agassiz of Harvard,
a great Christian man.

Gynecology - James Simpson

Hydraulics - Leonardo da Vinci

Hydrography - Matthew Maury

Hydrostatics - Blaise Pascal.

Ichthyology - Louis Agassiz.

Isotopic Chemistry - William Ramsay.

Model Analysis - Lord Rayleigh.

Natural History - John Ray.

Non-Euclidean Geometry - Bernhard Riemann.

Oceanography - Matthew Maury.

Optical Mineralogy - David Brewster.

Paleontology - John Woodward.

Pathology - Rudolph Virchow.

Physical Astronomy - Johann Kepler.

Reversible Thermodynamics - James Joule.

Statistical Thermodynamics - James Clerk Maxwell.

Stratigraphy - Nicholas Steno.

Systematic Biology - Carolus Linnaeus.

Thermodynamics - Lord Kelvin.

Thermokinetics - Humphrey Davy.

Vertebrate Paleontology - George Cuvier.

They were Christians, all believers in creation.
We actually had an evolutionist in a debate
here many years ago who made this astounding
statement: "Creation is not scientific, and therefore,
anyone who believes in creation is not a scientist."
How's that again? He had better go back and
read a little of his own history to find out if that
is true.

And I just love this quote from the TV show, "Friends"! :)

"Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in
the world believed that the world was flat? And
up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought
the atom was the smallest thing, until you split
it open and this like, whole mess of crap came out.
Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably
arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny
tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?"
- Phoebe from Friends, regarding evolution
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
Eugene Griessel
2006-12-25 14:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Azaliah <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>
Post by Azaliah
WHAT IS TRUE?
Let us take a little deeper look. First of all, who
invented science? It was Francis Bacon, who is
credited with having been the inventor of the
scientific method, that combination of induction
and deduction, of hypothesis and proof (empirical
proof). Bacon was a devout Christian. He believed
in God. He believed in Christ, he believed in the
Bible, and he believed in Creation. He said that
God had given us two books. He has given us
the book of nature to understand the world, and
the book of Scriptures-and we are to read both
of them, said the founder of science. Wasn't a
Christian? Hardly.
Who was the greatest scientist that ever lived?
A poll taken of scientists just a few years ago
concluded that the greatest scientist that ever
lived was Sir Isaac Newton. If you read a list of
the things that he discovered, it is awesome.
The mathematical laws of gravity are just one
piece of that huge puzzle from this gigantic intellect.
He was, also, among other things, the co-discoverer
of calculus. Sir Isaac Newton. Newton believed in
God, he believed in Christ, he believed in the Bible,
and he believed in creation. To the utter chagrin
of modern evolutionary scientists, he wrote more
books on theology than he did on science. He still
became the greatest scientist that has ever lived,
according to them.
CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS
If the scientific method was invented by a Christian
and the greatest scientist that ever lived was a
Christian, what about the people that gave us all
of the various branches of science? Who were they?
Let me tell you about them. They were all men that
believed in God, believed in Christ, believed in the
Bible, and believed in creation. Not an evolutionist
The inventor of Antiseptic Surgery was Joseph Lister,
who was all of the above.
Bacteriology - Louis Pasteur - all of the above.
Calculus - Sir Isaac Newton, as I've said.
Celestial Mechanics - Johann Kepler, who said that
science was thinking God's thoughts after Him.
Chemistry - Robert Boyle, who left a large sum of
money in his will that a series of lectures should
be taught in his university in England defending
the Christian faith. An unbeliever? Hardly.
Comparative Anatomy - Georges Cuvier.
Computer Science - Charles Babbage.
Dimensional Analysis - Lord Rayleigh.
Dynamics - Isaac Newton.
Electrodynamics - James Clerk Maxwell.
Electromagnetics - Michael Faraday, who had
about twenty-two honorary doctorates. He was
being given a huge award by the king at a banquet
on a Wednesday night. After the banquet, the
people talked for a while, and then he was called
up to receive his award, and they found that he had
slipped out to go to prayer meeting. That is what
you would have done, isn't it? After all, what is an
award from the king compared to worshiping God.
Electronics - Ambrose Fleming.
Energetics - Lord Kelvin, a great Christian.
Entomology of Living Insects - Henri Fabre.
Field Theory - Michael Faraday.
Fluid Mechanics - George Stokes.
Galactic Astronomy - William Herschel.
Gas Dynamcs - Robert Boyle.
Genetics - Gregor Mendel.
Glacial Geology - Louis Agassiz of Harvard,
a great Christian man.
Gynecology - James Simpson
Hydraulics - Leonardo da Vinci
Hydrography - Matthew Maury
Hydrostatics - Blaise Pascal.
Ichthyology - Louis Agassiz.
Isotopic Chemistry - William Ramsay.
Model Analysis - Lord Rayleigh.
Natural History - John Ray.
Non-Euclidean Geometry - Bernhard Riemann.
Oceanography - Matthew Maury.
Optical Mineralogy - David Brewster.
Paleontology - John Woodward.
Pathology - Rudolph Virchow.
Physical Astronomy - Johann Kepler.
Reversible Thermodynamics - James Joule.
Statistical Thermodynamics - James Clerk Maxwell.
Stratigraphy - Nicholas Steno.
Systematic Biology - Carolus Linnaeus.
Thermodynamics - Lord Kelvin.
Thermokinetics - Humphrey Davy.
Vertebrate Paleontology - George Cuvier.
They were Christians, all believers in creation.
Conditioning or brainwashing of the young is extremely difficult to
overcome in later years, especially in a society which would take
extreme actions against rebels. Where blind faith, without proof, had
held sway for so long there was an abscence of an alternative. If the
same list of people you mention had been raised
buddhists/islamist/mithrianists/jews/etc. the exact same conditions
would have applied. What would your response to that have been? Many
great scientists, Einstein for instance, were Jews. I notice you do
not mention those. Don't fit in with your flawed hypothesis?

Eugene L Griessel

Man masters nature not by force but by understanding. This is why science
has succeeded where magic failed: because it has looked for no spell to
cast over nature.
Jacob Bronowski
Greywolf
2006-12-25 17:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Griessel
<snip>
Post by Azaliah
WHAT IS TRUE?
Let us take a little deeper look. First of all, who
invented science? It was Francis Bacon, who is
credited with having been the inventor of the
scientific method, that combination of induction
and deduction, of hypothesis and proof (empirical
proof). Bacon was a devout Christian. He believed
in God. He believed in Christ, he believed in the
Bible, and he believed in Creation. He said that
God had given us two books. He has given us
the book of nature to understand the world, and
the book of Scriptures-and we are to read both
of them, said the founder of science. Wasn't a
Christian? Hardly.
Who was the greatest scientist that ever lived?
A poll taken of scientists just a few years ago
concluded that the greatest scientist that ever
lived was Sir Isaac Newton. If you read a list of
the things that he discovered, it is awesome.
The mathematical laws of gravity are just one
piece of that huge puzzle from this gigantic intellect.
He was, also, among other things, the co-discoverer
of calculus. Sir Isaac Newton. Newton believed in
God, he believed in Christ, he believed in the Bible,
and he believed in creation. To the utter chagrin
of modern evolutionary scientists, he wrote more
books on theology than he did on science. He still
became the greatest scientist that has ever lived,
according to them.
CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS
If the scientific method was invented by a Christian
and the greatest scientist that ever lived was a
Christian, what about the people that gave us all
of the various branches of science? Who were they?
Let me tell you about them. They were all men that
believed in God, believed in Christ, believed in the
Bible, and believed in creation. Not an evolutionist
The inventor of Antiseptic Surgery was Joseph Lister,
who was all of the above.
Bacteriology - Louis Pasteur - all of the above.
Calculus - Sir Isaac Newton, as I've said.
Celestial Mechanics - Johann Kepler, who said that
science was thinking God's thoughts after Him.
Chemistry - Robert Boyle, who left a large sum of
money in his will that a series of lectures should
be taught in his university in England defending
the Christian faith. An unbeliever? Hardly.
Comparative Anatomy - Georges Cuvier.
Computer Science - Charles Babbage.
Dimensional Analysis - Lord Rayleigh.
Dynamics - Isaac Newton.
Electrodynamics - James Clerk Maxwell.
Electromagnetics - Michael Faraday, who had
about twenty-two honorary doctorates. He was
being given a huge award by the king at a banquet
on a Wednesday night. After the banquet, the
people talked for a while, and then he was called
up to receive his award, and they found that he had
slipped out to go to prayer meeting. That is what
you would have done, isn't it? After all, what is an
award from the king compared to worshiping God.
Electronics - Ambrose Fleming.
Energetics - Lord Kelvin, a great Christian.
Entomology of Living Insects - Henri Fabre.
Field Theory - Michael Faraday.
Fluid Mechanics - George Stokes.
Galactic Astronomy - William Herschel.
Gas Dynamcs - Robert Boyle.
Genetics - Gregor Mendel.
Glacial Geology - Louis Agassiz of Harvard,
a great Christian man.
Gynecology - James Simpson
Hydraulics - Leonardo da Vinci
Hydrography - Matthew Maury
Hydrostatics - Blaise Pascal.
Ichthyology - Louis Agassiz.
Isotopic Chemistry - William Ramsay.
Model Analysis - Lord Rayleigh.
Natural History - John Ray.
Non-Euclidean Geometry - Bernhard Riemann.
Oceanography - Matthew Maury.
Optical Mineralogy - David Brewster.
Paleontology - John Woodward.
Pathology - Rudolph Virchow.
Physical Astronomy - Johann Kepler.
Reversible Thermodynamics - James Joule.
Statistical Thermodynamics - James Clerk Maxwell.
Stratigraphy - Nicholas Steno.
Systematic Biology - Carolus Linnaeus.
Thermodynamics - Lord Kelvin.
Thermokinetics - Humphrey Davy.
Vertebrate Paleontology - George Cuvier.
They were Christians, all believers in creation.
Conditioning or brainwashing of the young is extremely difficult to
overcome in later years, especially in a society which would take
extreme actions against rebels. Where blind faith, without proof, had
held sway for so long there was an abscence of an alternative. If the
same list of people you mention had been raised
buddhists/islamist/mithrianists/jews/etc. the exact same conditions
would have applied. What would your response to that have been? Many
great scientists, Einstein for instance, were Jews. I notice you do
not mention those. Don't fit in with your flawed hypothesis?
Eugene L Griessel
Man masters nature not by force but by understanding. This is why science
has succeeded where magic failed: because it has looked for no spell to
cast over nature.
Jacob Bronowski
And I would add that not one of the listed Christian scientists -- as
brilliant as many of them were -- somehow were *never* able to present
proof-positive that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do you
think that is?

I would also repeat a question I posed in another post: Why is it that this
'God' that Christians proclaim to be so intimate with is incapable of openly
revealing himself to all of mankind in a manner that virtually **no one** on
planet earth could deny is true deity? What's the problem? Why the need for
humans who are only *said* to have been divinely 'touched' by the divine
and/or some purported 'Holy Book' to 'prove' a deity is soooo concerned
about the lives and fate of his lovingly 'created' creation? Is it
*impossible* for such a deity to show his face to us? Is that it? It is
'physically' impossible for him to splash his supernatural 'puss' in 'HD'
across the entire sky? Really?

And if any theist *dares* to respond with a reply they can't back up with a
little 'proof', don't bother responding because at least *this* atheist will
contend you're making up that answer from whole cloth. In other words,
you'll be lying.

And if no theist can come up with a reasonable answer (accompanied with said
'proof'), one can reasonably conclude the reason why you all *can't* is
because 'God' doesn't exist -- other than in the recesses of the
'believer's' imagination..

Sorry for stomping all over your post. I'm ticked!

Greywolf
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
2006-12-25 17:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Dear Greywolf:

"Greywolf" <***@cybrzn.com> wrote in message news:***@corp.supernews.com...
...
Post by Greywolf
And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
you think that is?
Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
anything... only disprove.
Post by Greywolf
I would also repeat a question I posed in another
post: Why is it that this 'God' that Christians proclaim
to be so intimate with is incapable of openly revealing
himself to all of mankind in a manner that virtually
**no one** on planet earth could deny is true deity?
Because He/She/It may not be out to be worshipped. Creation is
an act of self-discovery. Watch a child at play, animating
various objects, carrying on dialog. We are those objects, in my
opinion.
Post by Greywolf
What's the problem?
Your expectations (and those you are responding to) may be too
small.
Post by Greywolf
Why the need for humans who are only *said* to
have been divinely 'touched' by the divine and/or
some purported 'Holy Book' to 'prove' a deity is
soooo concerned about the lives and fate of his
lovingly 'created' creation?
Because we may be animated by this God. God likes drama, from
the evidence.
Post by Greywolf
Is it *impossible* for such a deity to show his face
to us?
Of course not. But can you see all of a thing if you are
standing on the hem?
Post by Greywolf
Is that it? It is 'physically' impossible for him to
splash his supernatural 'puss' in 'HD' across the
entire sky? Really?
Now you are being cranky! ;>)
Post by Greywolf
And if any theist *dares* to respond with a reply
they can't back up with a little 'proof',
Science ... proof?
Post by Greywolf
don't bother responding because at least *this*
atheist will contend you're making up that
answer from whole cloth. In other words, you'll
be lying.
And if no theist can come up with a reasonable
answer (accompanied with said 'proof'), one can
reasonably conclude the reason why you all
*can't* is because 'God' doesn't exist -- other
than in the recesses of the 'believer's' imagination..
One can safely conclude anything one has to to maintain the
illusion of one's reality, Creator.

David A. Smith
Sorcerer
2006-12-25 17:45:22 UTC
Permalink
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:kLTjh.29498$***@newsfe13.phx...
| Dear Greywolf:
|
| "Greywolf" <***@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
| news:***@corp.supernews.com...
| ...
| > And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
| > scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
| > somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
| > that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
| > you think that is?
|
| Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
| anything... only disprove.

Ok, so you are evil and I'm good. Disprove it.

In case you didn't notice, science is about NATURE,
not supernatural miracles... fuckhead.
Matt Silberstein
2006-12-25 18:33:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 17:45:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Sorcerer"
Post by Sorcerer
|
| ...
| > And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
| > scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
| > somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
| > that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
| > you think that is?
|
| Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
| anything... only disprove.
Ok, so you are evil and I'm good. Disprove it.
He did not say it could disprove anything, only that it does not
prove. I would prefer to say that science can refute claims, but only
a certain class of clams.
Post by Sorcerer
In case you didn't notice, science is about NATURE,
not supernatural miracles... fuckhead.
He did not disagree with that in that post.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Sorcerer
2006-12-25 18:55:19 UTC
Permalink
"Matt Silberstein" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 17:45:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Sorcerer"
| <***@hogwarts.physics_h> in
| <S6Ujh.149738$***@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
|
| >
| >"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:kLTjh.29498$***@newsfe13.phx...
| >| Dear Greywolf:
| >|
| >| "Greywolf" <***@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
| >| news:***@corp.supernews.com...
| >| ...
| >| > And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
| >| > scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
| >| > somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
| >| > that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
| >| > you think that is?
| >|
| >| Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
| >| anything... only disprove.
| >
| >Ok, so you are evil and I'm good. Disprove it.
|
| He did not say it could disprove anything, only that it does not
| prove.

Yes he did, fuckhead. Learn to read.
Matt Silberstein
2006-12-26 02:58:36 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:55:19 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Sorcerer"
Post by Sorcerer
| On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 17:45:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Sorcerer"
|
| >
| >|
| >| ...
| >| > And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
| >| > scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
| >| > somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
| >| > that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
| >| > you think that is?
| >|
| >| Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
| >| anything... only disprove.
| >
| >Ok, so you are evil and I'm good. Disprove it.
|
| He did not say it could disprove anything, only that it does not
| prove.
Yes he did, fuckhead. Learn to read.
Insult, repetition, and unmarked snip. Wow, now that is a great
argument.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Sorcerer
2006-12-26 09:58:34 UTC
Permalink
"Matt Silberstein" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:55:19 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Sorcerer"
| <***@hogwarts.physics_h> in
| <r8Vjh.150110$***@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Matt Silberstein" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| >| On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 17:45:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Sorcerer"
| >| <***@hogwarts.physics_h> in
| >| <S6Ujh.149738$***@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| >"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:kLTjh.29498$***@newsfe13.phx...
| >| >| Dear Greywolf:
| >| >|
| >| >| "Greywolf" <***@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
| >| >| news:***@corp.supernews.com...
| >| >| ...
| >| >| > And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
| >| >| > scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
| >| >| > somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
| >| >| > that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
| >| >| > you think that is?
| >| >|
| >| >| Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
| >| >| anything... only disprove.
| >| >
| >| >Ok, so you are evil and I'm good. Disprove it.
| >|
| >| He did not say it could disprove anything, only that it does not
| >| prove.
| >
| >Yes he did, fuckhead. Learn to read.
| >
| Insult, repetition, and unmarked snip. Wow, now that is a great
| argument.

Here's a better one.
Goodbye, fuckhead.
*plonk*
|
|
| --
| Matt Silberstein
|
| Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
|
| http://www.beawitness.org
| http://www.darfurgenocide.org
| http://www.savedarfur.org
|
| "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
2006-12-29 15:03:11 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 09:58:34 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Sorcerer"
Post by Sorcerer
| On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:55:19 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Sorcerer"
|
| >
| >| On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 17:45:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Sorcerer"
| >|
| >| >
| >| >|
| >| >| ...
| >| >| > And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
| >| >| > scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
| >| >| > somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
| >| >| > that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
| >| >| > you think that is?
| >| >|
| >| >| Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
| >| >| anything... only disprove.
| >| >
| >| >Ok, so you are evil and I'm good. Disprove it.
| >|
| >| He did not say it could disprove anything, only that it does not
| >| prove.
| >
| >Yes he did, fuckhead. Learn to read.
| >
| Insult, repetition, and unmarked snip. Wow, now that is a great
| argument.
Here's a better one.
Goodbye, fuckhead.
*plonk*
Wow, an insult and a plonk, I must have really bothered you. And with
such a minor point.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
dlzc
2006-12-26 16:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sorcerer
|
| ...
| > And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
| > scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
| > somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
| > that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
| > you think that is?
|
| Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
| anything... only disprove.
Ok, so you are evil and I'm good. Disprove it.
What part of science is "good" and "evil" defined in? Sounds like a
*philosophical* value judgement to me.
Post by Sorcerer
In case you didn't notice, science is about NATURE,
not supernatural miracles... fuckhead.
And? Who is disagreeing with you here? Other than your attribution of
"good" and "evil" to science, of course.

David A. Smith
Sorcerer
2006-12-26 17:15:23 UTC
Permalink
"dlzc" <***@cox.net> wrote in message news:***@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:kLTjh.29498$***@newsfe13.phx...
| > | Dear Greywolf:
| > |
| > | "Greywolf" <***@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
| > | news:***@corp.supernews.com...
| > | ...
| > | > And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
| > | > scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
| > | > somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
| > | > that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
| > | > you think that is?
| > |
| > | Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
| > | anything... only disprove.
| >
| > Ok, so you are evil and I'm good. Disprove it.
|
| What part of science is "good" and "evil" defined in? Sounds like a
| *philosophical* value judgement to me.


You are the one that said you could disprove, I'm asking you to do it.
You are evil, I'm good. Disprove it. If you cannot, my statement is
a postulate.


"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant."
-- Drunken Roberts. news:P4Hqg.60105$***@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com



| > In case you didn't notice, science is about NATURE,
| > not supernatural miracles... fuckhead.
|
| And? Who is disagreeing with you here? Other than your attribution of
| "good" and "evil" to science, of course.

I didn't attribute evil to science, I attributed evil to YOU.
YOU, Smith, are evil. Disprove it.
Oh wait... you are not disagreeing. My postulate stands
unchallenged.
dlzc
2006-12-26 18:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sorcerer
|
| > |
| > | ...
| > | > And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
| > | > scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
| > | > somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
| > | > that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
| > | > you think that is?
| > |
| > | Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
| > | anything... only disprove.
| >
| > Ok, so you are evil and I'm good. Disprove it.
|
| What part of science is "good" and "evil" defined in?
| Sounds like a *philosophical* value judgement to me.
You are the one that said you could disprove,
Science is about disproof, not proof. If you are interested in what
was said.
Post by Sorcerer
I'm asking you to do it. You are evil, I'm good.
Disprove it. If you cannot, my statement is
a postulate.
Provide a means for quantification of "good" and "evil", so that
experiment can provide disproof.

Shall we take who *routinely* calls others by emotion-laden terms to
pick a fight (or even acknowledgement); who out-and-out lies to suit
his purpose; or who nym-shifts so that he can avoid killfiles, while
maintaining his own (or the pretense of same)? These seem like
quantifiable measures to me, of what is commonly called the works of
evil. Lies and deceipt, are evil, right?
Post by Sorcerer
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is
completely irrelevant."
A genius. Too bad you can't seem to get the point. Science is about
"successive approximation". We incrementally improve our model of how
Nature works. So we know our model is wrong, and continually work to
find out "where" and "by how much". How can you prove something on
that basis?
Post by Sorcerer
| > In case you didn't notice, science is about NATURE,
| > not supernatural miracles... fuckhead.
|
| And? Who is disagreeing with you here? Other than
| your attribution of "good" and "evil" to science, of course.
I didn't attribute evil to science, I attributed evil to YOU.
YOU, Smith, are evil. Disprove it.
You want me to make a scientific response on your claims of "good" and
"evil". OK, "nonsequitur", is my response.
Post by Sorcerer
Oh wait... you are not disagreeing. My postulate stands
unchallenged.
If you are going to stick to "good" and "evil", then we can be done. I
will argue neither philosophy nor religion with you. We already have
talked science, to neither of our satisfaction. But we'll see. You
have an out now to get in the last word.

David A. Smith
Sorcerer
2006-12-26 18:29:05 UTC
Permalink
"dlzc" <***@cox.net> wrote in message news:***@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "dlzc" <***@cox.net> wrote in message news:***@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:kLTjh.29498$***@newsfe13.phx...
| > | > | Dear Greywolf:
| > | > |
| > | > | "Greywolf" <***@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
| > | > | news:***@corp.supernews.com...
| > | > | ...
| > | > | > And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
| > | > | > scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
| > | > | > somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
| > | > | > that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
| > | > | > you think that is?
| > | > |
| > | > | Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
| > | > | anything... only disprove.
| > | >
| > | > Ok, so you are evil and I'm good. Disprove it.
| > |
| > | What part of science is "good" and "evil" defined in?
| > | Sounds like a *philosophical* value judgement to me.
| >
| >
| > You are the one that said you could disprove,
|
| Science is about disproof, not proof. If you are interested in what
| was said.
|
| > I'm asking you to do it. You are evil, I'm good.
| > Disprove it. If you cannot, my statement is
| > a postulate.
|
| Provide a means for quantification of "good" and "evil", so that
| experiment can provide disproof.

Ok. Lying is evil, by definition. You bore false witness against me,
in violation of your own faith, your bible.
Specifically, you libellously accused me thusly:
"Other than your attribution of "good" and "evil" to science, of course."

So you are evil, Smith. PROVEN.
Have a nice day, fuckhead.
Eugene Griessel
2006-12-26 19:01:05 UTC
Permalink
"Sorcerer" <***@hogwarts.physics_h> wrote:

<SNIP>
Post by Sorcerer
Ok. Lying is evil, by definition. You bore false witness against me,
in violation of your own faith, your bible.
"Other than your attribution of "good" and "evil" to science, of =
course."
No, no - lying is OK so long as it's used to prop up the faith or
sustain ID arguments or when arguing with others of different faiths
(or no faiths at all). Min does it all the time - in fact every time
he posts using a new alias to evade killfiles. Strange thing about
these religious types is their own unwillingness to live by their own
religious codes.


Eugene L Griessel

Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before.
Eugene Griessel
2006-12-25 17:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
...
Post by Greywolf
And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
you think that is?
Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
anything... only disprove.
Post by Greywolf
I would also repeat a question I posed in another
post: Why is it that this 'God' that Christians proclaim
to be so intimate with is incapable of openly revealing
himself to all of mankind in a manner that virtually
**no one** on planet earth could deny is true deity?
Because He/She/It may not be out to be worshipped. Creation is
an act of self-discovery. Watch a child at play, animating
various objects, carrying on dialog. We are those objects, in my
opinion.
Post by Greywolf
What's the problem?
Your expectations (and those you are responding to) may be too
small.
Post by Greywolf
Why the need for humans who are only *said* to
have been divinely 'touched' by the divine and/or
some purported 'Holy Book' to 'prove' a deity is
soooo concerned about the lives and fate of his
lovingly 'created' creation?
Because we may be animated by this God. God likes drama, from
the evidence.
Post by Greywolf
Is it *impossible* for such a deity to show his face
to us?
Of course not. But can you see all of a thing if you are
standing on the hem?
Post by Greywolf
Is that it? It is 'physically' impossible for him to
splash his supernatural 'puss' in 'HD' across the
entire sky? Really?
Now you are being cranky! ;>)
Post by Greywolf
And if any theist *dares* to respond with a reply
they can't back up with a little 'proof',
Science ... proof?
Post by Greywolf
don't bother responding because at least *this*
atheist will contend you're making up that
answer from whole cloth. In other words, you'll
be lying.
And if no theist can come up with a reasonable
answer (accompanied with said 'proof'), one can
reasonably conclude the reason why you all
*can't* is because 'God' doesn't exist -- other
than in the recesses of the 'believer's' imagination..
One can safely conclude anything one has to to maintain the
illusion of one's reality, Creator.
Oh dear. With logic like this one can but wonder. You make a number
of blunt unsupported statements, some semantic quibbling but no
substantial dialogue worth much.

Eugene L Griessel

Don't take life too seriously, it's not permanent.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
2006-12-25 17:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Dear Eugene Griessel:

"Eugene Griessel" <***@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message news:***@news.uunet.co.za...
...
Post by Eugene Griessel
Don't take life too seriously, it's not permanent.
Agreed.

David A. Smith
Starlord
2006-12-25 18:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Hay dipstick it's YOU and YOU alone that the rest of us could live without.
You are nothing more than a pain in the ass.
--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.


The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html


"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <***@aol.com> Barfted on everyones screen:
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
2006-12-26 00:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starlord
Hay dipstick it's YOU and YOU alone that the rest
of us could live without. You are nothing more than
a pain in the ass.
Clear skys.

David A. Smith
Azaliah
2006-12-25 22:18:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:20:32 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
...
Post by Greywolf
And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
you think that is?
Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
anything... only disprove.
Post by Greywolf
I would also repeat a question I posed in another
post: Why is it that this 'God' that Christians proclaim
to be so intimate with is incapable of openly revealing
himself to all of mankind in a manner that virtually
**no one** on planet earth could deny is true deity?
Because He/She/It may not be out to be worshipped. Creation is
an act of self-discovery. Watch a child at play, animating
various objects, carrying on dialog. We are those objects, in my
opinion.
Notice how to these so called "scientific thinkers"
who post here, the subject always turns away
from science and they attack the Christian religion.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
2006-12-26 00:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:20:32 -0700, while bungee jumping,
...
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Greywolf
I would also repeat a question I posed in another
post: Why is it that this 'God' that Christians proclaim
to be so intimate with is incapable of openly revealing
himself to all of mankind in a manner that virtually
**no one** on planet earth could deny is true deity?
Because He/She/It may not be out to be worshipped.
Creation is an act of self-discovery. Watch a child at
play, animating various objects, carrying on dialog.
We are those objects, in my opinion.
Notice how to these so called "scientific thinkers"
who post here, the subject always turns away
from science and they attack the Christian religion.
DJM brings out the worst in everyone. As is his intent.

David A. Smith
g***@hotmail.com
2006-12-26 01:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Greywolf
I would also repeat a question I posed in another
post: Why is it that this 'God' that Christians proclaim
to be so intimate with is incapable of openly revealing
himself to all of mankind in a manner that virtually
**no one** on planet earth could deny is true deity?
Because He/She/It may not be out to be worshipped. Creation is
an act of self-discovery. Watch a child at play, animating
various objects, carrying on dialog. We are those objects, in my
opinion.
Notice how to these so called "scientific thinkers"
who post here, the subject always turns away
from science and they attack the Christian religion.
Or maybe the subject is the ACLU. It is difficult to tell with you
whining "persecuted" Christian morons. You post unsubstantiated drivel.
Post by Azaliah
2) If God allows man to make his own decisions
and his own mistakes, man points at God and says,
"If you really are God, how can you allow all of this
evil to exist?!".
And you want to pretend that all evil is man-made? Drought? Disease?
Parasites? Floods? Famine? Tsunami? Pull your head out.
Azaliah
2006-12-27 16:10:43 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Dec 2006 17:15:48 -0800, while bungee jumping,
Post by g***@hotmail.com
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Greywolf
I would also repeat a question I posed in another
post: Why is it that this 'God' that Christians proclaim
to be so intimate with is incapable of openly revealing
himself to all of mankind in a manner that virtually
**no one** on planet earth could deny is true deity?
Because He/She/It may not be out to be worshipped. Creation is
an act of self-discovery. Watch a child at play, animating
various objects, carrying on dialog. We are those objects, in my
opinion.
Notice how to these so called "scientific thinkers"
who post here, the subject always turns away
from science and they attack the Christian religion.
Or maybe the subject is the ACLU. It is difficult to tell with you
whining "persecuted" Christian morons. You post unsubstantiated drivel.
Thank you for that great scientific reasoning.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
g***@hotmail.com
2006-12-27 16:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
Post by g***@hotmail.com
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Greywolf
I would also repeat a question I posed in another
post: Why is it that this 'God' that Christians proclaim
to be so intimate with is incapable of openly revealing
himself to all of mankind in a manner that virtually
**no one** on planet earth could deny is true deity?
Because He/She/It may not be out to be worshipped. Creation is
an act of self-discovery. Watch a child at play, animating
various objects, carrying on dialog. We are those objects, in my
opinion.
Notice how to these so called "scientific thinkers"
who post here, the subject always turns away
from science and they attack the Christian religion.
Or maybe the subject is the ACLU. It is difficult to tell with you
whining "persecuted" Christian morons. You post unsubstantiated drivel.
Thank you for that great scientific reasoning.
Science is all about observation and your Gawd isn't observable. He is
AWOL.
Heywood Jablomi
2006-12-27 19:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
Notice how to these so called "scientific thinkers"
who post here, the subject always turns away
from science and they attack the Christian religion.
As soon as you allege that there is a Creator you have tried to pretend that
your religion is science, which opens you up to the criticism of Christianity
then. If you don't want anybody attacking Christianity then don't pretend it
has any relevance to the discussion of scientific facts.
--
If I was in charge of the universe, St Jude's
Hospital for Children would not need to exist


Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.7.3129

[ Followup-To: alt.religion.christian ]
Azaliah
2006-12-28 07:01:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:49:51 -0600, while bungee jumping,
Post by Heywood Jablomi
Post by Azaliah
Notice how to these so called "scientific thinkers"
who post here, the subject always turns away
from science and they attack the Christian religion.
As soon as you allege that there is a Creator you have tried to pretend that
your religion is science, which opens you up to the criticism of Christianity
then.
Let's cut the crap! A statement was made which could be
verified scientifically and when countered, you idiots
decided to try to turn it into a religious issue, because
and only because, you knew you couldn't back up your
claims. So try this crap on someone who might fall for it.

Goodbye.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
g***@hotmail.com
2006-12-28 16:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
Post by Heywood Jablomi
Post by Azaliah
Notice how to these so called "scientific thinkers"
who post here, the subject always turns away
from science and they attack the Christian religion.
As soon as you allege that there is a Creator you have tried to pretend that
your religion is science, which opens you up to the criticism of Christianity
then.
Let's cut the crap! A statement was made which could be
verified scientifically and when countered, you idiots
decided to try to turn it into a religious issue...[...]
What statement? Be specific.
Azaliah
2006-12-25 22:32:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:20:32 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
...
Post by Greywolf
And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
you think that is?
Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
anything... only disprove.
Agreed. The evolutionists set a double standard.

And the real question is, "as brilliant as they were",
why would they believe in something that is so
"anti-science", according to the atheists/evolutionists?

The fact is, they knew that it made no sense at all
to think that it could all happen by itself, with what
is required to make the universe work and life and
to make life work.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
2006-12-26 01:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:20:32 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
...
Post by Greywolf
And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
you think that is?
Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
anything... only disprove.
Agreed. The evolutionists set a double standard.
Not really. They simply set out how to describe *how* it was
done. Religion tends to simply gloss over little things like
verifiable details.
Post by Azaliah
And the real question is, "as brilliant as they were",
why would they believe in something that is so
"anti-science", according to the atheists/evolutionists?
This "something" that you are obliquely referring to... is
"evolution"?
Post by Azaliah
The fact is, they knew that it made no sense at all
to think that it could all happen by itself, with what
is required to make the universe work and life and
to make life work.
Evolution appears to be how the works of God are made manifest.
We are made in his image. Yet we came up with "successive
approximation". We continually improve on past successes. Why
do you think that is?

David A. Smith
Azaliah
2006-12-27 16:14:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:02:09 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Evolution appears to be how the works of God are made manifest.
With no evidence? I don't think so.
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
We are made in his image.
Right. So God is a made over monkey?

And if evolution is true, then we cannot be God's image yet.
After all, evolution doesn't stop and you are arrogant for
thinking that this is the final stage of evolution for us.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
Sorcerer
2006-12-27 13:31:25 UTC
Permalink
"Azaliah" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:02:09 -0700, while bungee jumping,
| "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <***@aol.com> shouted thusly:
|
|
| >Evolution appears to be how the works of God are made manifest.
|
| With no evidence? I don't think so.

Never admit to not thinking.
|
| >We are made in his image.
|
| Right. So God is a made over monkey?

An imaginary made over monkey. Smith is a lunatic who'll
believe any crap he considers to be by an "authority".
The Lord is his shepherd, he is a sheep... baa... baa... he bleats
the same tune as the flock and cannot think.
RM
2006-12-27 13:43:28 UTC
Permalink
hi
i specially made a website about different aspects relating theists and
atheists as the theists thinks that atheists do not have any belief!!!!!
please subscribe in the site and help the others to come in this open
website. i am sure that we have to reveal our criteria for what we believe
and what is not proved to be beleived.

www.beliefs.ueuo.com welcomes you to this challenge
Post by Azaliah
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:02:09 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Evolution appears to be how the works of God are made manifest.
With no evidence? I don't think so.
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
We are made in his image.
Right. So God is a made over monkey?
And if evolution is true, then we cannot be God's image yet.
After all, evolution doesn't stop and you are arrogant for
thinking that this is the final stage of evolution for us.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
Robibnikoff
2006-12-27 16:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by RM
hi
i specially made a website about different aspects relating theists and
atheists as the theists thinks that atheists do not have any belief!!!!!
We certainly lack belief in god(s).
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like
Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet
Azaliah
2006-12-28 07:06:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 14:43:28 +0100, while bungee jumping, "RM"
Post by RM
hi
Hi. Don't top post. It;s considered rude and annoying
in usenet, just FYI.
Post by RM
i specially made a website about different aspects relating theists and
atheists as the theists thinks that atheists do not have any belief!!!!!
I didn't say they didn't. They have a much greater faith
than I do, truth be told. :)
Post by RM
please subscribe in the site
I do not subscribe to usenet, so that I can go to
we sites and post. But thank you anyway. :)
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
dlzc
2006-12-27 14:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:02:09 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Evolution appears to be how the works of God are made
manifest.
With no evidence? I don't think so.
We have evidence in the numbers of species that have gone extinct, and
new ones formed all around us, even in the last 100 years. Even in
Genesis, creation was described as a series of steps of creation from
less complex to more complex. This doesn't limit God, it only
describes how long a timeframe we have to have eyes for.
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
We are made in his image.
Right. So God is a made over monkey?
No. God is Motion, is Life, is Expression. God is no more a "made
over monkey" than you are just "belly button lint" (or one particular
skin cell).
Post by Azaliah
And if evolution is true, then we cannot be God's image yet.
After all, evolution doesn't stop and you are arrogant for
thinking that this is the final stage of evolution for us.
I don't think this form is the end. I doubt that our egos will let us
survive with each other for too much longer. We have little / no
tolerance for dissenting opinion. God seems to like diversity; but his
"belly button lint" only likes lint that is just like it, and acts just
like it. But that is part of the drama, and God does seem to like
drama...

The Play is the thing.

David A. Smith
Sorcerer
2006-12-27 14:42:05 UTC
Permalink
"dlzc" <***@cox.net> wrote in message news:***@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...

[snip river of shit]

Hey Smith, why don't your fucking superstitious crap out
sci.* newsgroups, tord?
dlzc
2006-12-27 15:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sorcerer
[snip river of shit]
Hey Smith, why don't your fucking superstitious crap out
sci.* newsgroups, tord?
Let's see, for one who uses nyms from fables (Androcles) and
superstitions (Sorcerer and "Hogwarts" a work of popular fiction), this
is wise advice. Why don't you take your own pill, doctor?

Anti-superstition is superstition still.

David A. Smith
Heywood Jablomi
2006-12-27 20:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlzc
Anti-superstition is superstition still.
No. That's like saying that anti-atheism is atheism still.
--
If I was in charge of the universe, St Jude's
Hospital for Children would not need to exist


Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.7.3129

[ Followup-To: alt.religion.christian ]
dlzc
2006-12-27 21:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heywood Jablomi
Post by dlzc
Anti-superstition is superstition still.
No. That's like saying that anti-atheism is atheism still.
Anti-atheism is theism.

Atheism is a belief system about "how we got here". It simply doesn't
require any sort of supernatural being to achieve it. It is still a
belief system regarding the path to Now. One stick, two ends. One end
theism, one end atheism. Still a whole stick.

"Anti-" relies on the thing it is negating for definition. So atheism
and "anti-atheism" is defined by theism.

Just like you cannot fight power with power (because you make your
opponent stronger), you cannot fight superstition with
"anti-superstition", nor theism with atheism. If you your tools are
forged with God and anti-God ends, they will not serve *your* ends
(unless you want to keep playing the God game).

Facts are not anti-superstition.

David A. Smith
Heywood Jablomi
2006-12-29 06:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlzc
"Anti-" relies on the thing it is negating for definition. So atheism
and "anti-atheism" is defined by theism.
Atheism is not anti-theism. It is a lack of theism. That is not the same thing.
--
If I was in charge of the universe, St Jude's
Hospital for Children would not need to exist


Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.7.3145
Robibnikoff
2006-12-27 16:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:02:09 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Evolution appears to be how the works of God are made
manifest.
With no evidence? I don't think so.
We have evidence in the numbers of species that have gone extinct, and
new ones formed all around us, even in the last 100 years. Even in
Genesis, creation was described as a series of steps of creation from
less complex to more complex.
LOL - Yeah, right.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like
Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet
dlzc
2006-12-27 18:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:02:09 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Evolution appears to be how the works of God are made
manifest.
With no evidence? I don't think so.
We have evidence in the numbers of species that have gone
extinct, and new ones formed all around us, even in the last
100 years. Even in Genesis, creation was described as a
series of steps of creation from less complex to more complex.
LOL - Yeah, right.
Review the list.

Additionally, gaining favor with God required a blood sacrifice prior
to Jesus's birth. Yet God gave his Son as a blood sacrifice so that
this practice could end. That is evolutionary, isn't it?

Look, the Bible is so much crap when you want details. It has so many
hands in its "construction" that you can "prove" nearly anything.
Including that it is OK to divorce your wife, or to burn witches (aka.
midwives). But if it has *some* observations / parallels into human
existence, is it not worth some study? The old testament is a fairly
good "public health guide". If you can't get much more that that out
of it... at least it is something.

Or not. ;>)

David A. Smith

PS: removing sci.* newsgroups on request.
Robibnikoff
2006-12-27 19:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlzc
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:02:09 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Evolution appears to be how the works of God are made
manifest.
With no evidence? I don't think so.
We have evidence in the numbers of species that have gone
extinct, and new ones formed all around us, even in the last
100 years. Even in Genesis, creation was described as a
series of steps of creation from less complex to more complex.
LOL - Yeah, right.
Review the list.
Additionally, gaining favor with God required a blood sacrifice prior
to Jesus's birth. Yet God gave his Son as a blood sacrifice so that
this practice could end. That is evolutionary, isn't it?
Not at all. IMHO, it's a load of crap.
Post by dlzc
Look, the Bible is so much crap when you want details. It has so many
hands in its "construction" that you can "prove" nearly anything.
Including that it is OK to divorce your wife, or to burn witches (aka.
midwives). But if it has *some* observations / parallels into human
existence, is it not worth some study?
Each to their own, I suppose. I have read the bible from cover to cover,
though I never felt it was worth wasting any time to "study" it.
Post by dlzc
The old testament is a fairly
good "public health guide". If you can't get much more that that out
of it... at least it is something.
In your opinion, anyway. I prefer more up-to-date information.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like
Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet
Mark K. Bilbo
2006-12-28 01:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlzc
Additionally, gaining favor with God required a blood sacrifice prior
to Jesus's birth.
Why?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
- Seneca the Younger
dlzc
2006-12-28 14:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlzc
Additionally, gaining favor with God required a blood
sacrifice prior to Jesus's birth.
Why?
You got me. There were descriptions of sacrifices being made to God,
where goats were sacrificed on the altar. At one point Abraham was
supposed to sacrifice his son Isaac, for Abraham's hubris, I guess.

David A. Smith
Mark K. Bilbo
2006-12-28 15:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlzc
Post by dlzc
Additionally, gaining favor with God required a blood
sacrifice prior to Jesus's birth.
Why?
You got me. There were descriptions of sacrifices being made to God,
where goats were sacrificed on the altar. At one point Abraham was
supposed to sacrifice his son Isaac, for Abraham's hubris, I guess.
Never have understood the why of blood sacrifice in the bible...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"Creationists criticize evolutionists for the demeaning idea
of 'coming from apes' and say that man is more noble than
that, and then have sermons where man is called a miserable
worm worthy to be burned eternally in hell."
-William Bagley
dlzc
2006-12-28 16:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Post by dlzc
Post by dlzc
Additionally, gaining favor with God required a blood
sacrifice prior to Jesus's birth.
Why?
You got me. There were descriptions of sacrifices being
made to God, where goats were sacrificed on the altar.
At one point Abraham was supposed to sacrifice his son
Isaac, for Abraham's hubris, I guess.
Never have understood the why of blood sacrifice in the bible...
The first sign of sacrifice in the bible is Genesis 4... just before
Cain slays Able. I guess "puppies" gain more favor with God than
"broccolli"... go figure. ;>)

I would guess the greening that results from blood spilled on ground is
at the heart of this ancient practice.

The "why" of all of creation isn't in there either. At least
explicitly...

David A. Smith
Heywood Jablomi
2006-12-27 20:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlzc
Even in
Genesis, creation was described as a series of steps of creation from
less complex to more complex.
No, it doesn't. It has mankind being created last, despite the fact that we are
not the most complex of life forms on this planet. It also misses the massive
difference between seam mammals like whales and dolphins and fish, having them
all created on the same day.

LOL. Genesis has plants coming before sunlight. Not exactly an intelligent
progression.

I never fail to be amazed at the utter silliness of the idea that Bible is
actually scientifically accurate. If you REALLY truly believe it is
scientifically accurate, then you know nothing about science and are nothing
more than an ignorant rube.
--
If I was in charge of the universe, St Jude's
Hospital for Children would not need to exist


Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.7.3129

[ Followup-To: alt.religion.christian ]
Randall Coleman
2006-12-27 20:32:42 UTC
Permalink
....It has mankind being created last, despite the fact that we are
not the most complex of life forms on this planet. It also misses the massive
difference between seam mammals like whales and dolphins and fish, having them
all created on the same day.
LOL. Genesis has plants coming before sunlight. Not exactly an intelligent
progression.
I never fail to be amazed at the utter silliness of the idea that Bible is
actually scientifically accurate. If you REALLY truly believe it is
scientifically accurate, then you know nothing about science and are nothing
more than an ignorant rube.
If humans aren't the most complex life form on earth -- with our brains and
language capabilities and such -- what is?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just curious.

Randall Coleman
Heywood Jablomi
2006-12-29 07:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randall Coleman
Post by Azaliah
nothing
more than an ignorant rube.
If humans aren't the most complex life form on earth -- with our brains and
language capabilities and such -- what is?
I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just curious.
That depends on your definition of complex. Our brains are smaller and/or less
complex than several other animal brains, such as whales, dolphins, elephants,
etc. Our DNA is actually not very complex compared to some of the non-human DNA
on this planet. Our senses are not very advanced. Etc.
--
If I was in charge of the universe, St Jude's
Hospital for Children would not need to exist


Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.7.3145
Azaliah
2006-12-28 07:05:58 UTC
Permalink
On 27 Dec 2006 06:11:32 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:02:09 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Evolution appears to be how the works of God are made
manifest.
With no evidence? I don't think so.
We have evidence in the numbers of species that have gone extinct, and
new ones formed all around us, even in the last 100 years.
That is not true. But even if it were, that does not prove
macroevolution, which is what you believe in.
Post by dlzc
Even in
Genesis, creation was described as a series of steps of creation from
less complex to more complex. This doesn't limit God, it only
describes how long a timeframe we have to have eyes for.
Genesis states the opposite of evolution. Learn to read.
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
We are made in his image.
Right. So God is a made over monkey?
No. God is Motion, is Life, is Expression.
That's not an answer.
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
And if evolution is true, then we cannot be God's image yet.
After all, evolution doesn't stop and you are arrogant for
thinking that this is the final stage of evolution for us.
I don't think this form is the end.
Then we cannot be "God's image". We are merely some
lower form of life that is not yet God's image.

You don't get to have it both ways.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
2006-12-28 05:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
On 27 Dec 2006 06:11:32 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:02:09 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Evolution appears to be how the works of God
are made manifest.
With no evidence? I don't think so.
We have evidence in the numbers of species that
have gone extinct, and new ones formed all around
us, even in the last 100 years.
That is not true. But even if it were, that does not prove
macroevolution, which is what you believe in.
Sickle cell anemia. Those that have this disease are immune to
malaria.
Cystic fibrosis. Those that are carriers for this disease are
immune to cholera.

Macroevolution even in the human genome. Granted, not expressed
in the last 100 years... more like 40,000 years.
Post by Azaliah
Post by dlzc
Even in
Genesis, creation was described as a series of steps
of creation from less complex to more complex. This
doesn't limit God, it only describes how long a
timeframe we have to have eyes for.
Genesis states the opposite of evolution. Learn to read.
Read it through. Why did God not make just Man, and make him
like the angels (apparently not requiring food, since the angels
were not part of creation and food had not been invented yet)?
Why start with small things on day 1, and work His way up on
later days? In fact, Woman was made from Man, so there is
evolution in action. Who did Adam's children marry? Because
entire communities are described about that time...
Post by Azaliah
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
We are made in his image.
Right. So God is a made over monkey?
No. God is Motion, is Life, is Expression.
That's not an answer.
It is all we can surmise of a Face that is hidden. As *we* are
judged by *our* works...
Post by Azaliah
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
And if evolution is true, then we cannot be God's
image yet. After all, evolution doesn't stop and
you are arrogant for thinking that this is the final
stage of evolution for us.
I don't think this form is the end.
Then we cannot be "God's image". We are merely some
lower form of life that is not yet God's image.
You don't get to have it both ways.
Sure you can. Hair is not the final form of you. When a human
is born, it has no teeth, hair (commonly) and are all wrinkly and
red. Is this the human's final state?

God's image is "successive approximation". It is not the meat we
wear, or which prophet we follow. It is raising a building one
stone at a time, not creating all in an instant out of whole
cloth. That is not interesting. That involves only one.
Nothing is learned, no blisters raised, no teamwork expressed.

sci.* newsgroups removed by request.

David A. Smith
Azaliah
2006-12-28 17:01:24 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:06:53 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Azaliah
On 27 Dec 2006 06:11:32 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:02:09 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Evolution appears to be how the works of God
are made manifest.
With no evidence? I don't think so.
We have evidence in the numbers of species that
have gone extinct, and new ones formed all around
us, even in the last 100 years.
That is not true. But even if it were, that does not prove
macroevolution, which is what you believe in.
Sickle cell anemia. Those that have this disease are immune
to malaria.
Cystic fibrosis. Those that are carriers for this disease are
immune to cholera.
What does that have to do with it?
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Macroevolution even in the human genome. Granted, not expressed
in the last 100 years... more like 40,000 years.
Macroevolution would be humans becoming non-humans.
Evolutionists, when they can't provide examples, try to
pretend that microevolution is macroevolution.
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Azaliah
Post by dlzc
Even in
Genesis, creation was described as a series of steps
of creation from less complex to more complex. This
doesn't limit God, it only describes how long a
timeframe we have to have eyes for.
Genesis states the opposite of evolution. Learn to read.
Read it through.
I did. It is out of order. Evolution would state that,
for example, the Sun formed and then the planets.
Genesis says the opposite.
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Why did God not make just Man, and make him
like the angels (apparently not requiring food, since the angels
were not part of creation and food had not been invented yet)?
God did not make man like the angels, because if He did,
it wouldn't be man. It would be more angels and God
already had angels. :)

Furthermore, you say that "God made man", as if we are
the end of it. But in reality, you can't say "God made man",
because you don't know, if evolution is true, what God
intended to make. We are still evolving and will eventually
become something not human at all. Not "man" at all.

So when you argue for evolution and that "God made man",
that's a contradiction and frankly, it's quite vain. (:

Also, if evolution is true, then as I said, we are not the end
of the trail of our evolution and this begs the question, why
would God give us the Bible, which speaks of us being at
the end of it all, if evolution is true, which would mean
that we are not, because we are evolving into something
else entirely? It doesn't make sense and that is one reason
why it is a contradiction to believe the Bible and evolution.
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Why start with small things on day 1, and work His way up on
later days? In fact, Woman was made from Man, so there is
evolution in action. Who did Adam's children marry? Because
entire communities are described about that time...
Now you're trying to throw a bunch of questions at me
and you'll pretend that you're posting all of this fascinating
information, when in reality, you're doing no work at all
and wish for me to spend hours typing, answering your
questions. And when I do, you won't acknowledge them.
You'll simply throw more questions at me and will do so
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Azaliah
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
We are made in his image.
Right. So God is a made over monkey?
No. God is Motion, is Life, is Expression.
That's not an answer.
It is all we can surmise of a Face that is hidden.
As *we* are judged by *our* works...
Which still does not provide an answer.
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Azaliah
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
And if evolution is true, then we cannot be God's
image yet. After all, evolution doesn't stop and
you are arrogant for thinking that this is the final
stage of evolution for us.
I don't think this form is the end.
Then we cannot be "God's image". We are merely some
lower form of life that is not yet God's image.
You don't get to have it both ways.
Sure you can. Hair is not the final form of you. When a human
is born, it has no teeth, hair (commonly) and are all wrinkly and
red. Is this the human's final state?
You're avoiding the point I made. Man wouldn't be the end.
That has nothing to do with "hair and teeth" and you are
trying to avoid the issue, because you don't like where it
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
God's image is "successive approximation". It is not the meat we
wear, or which prophet we follow. It is raising a building one
stone at a time, not creating all in an instant out of whole
cloth. That is not interesting. That involves only one.
Nothing is learned, no blisters raised, no teamwork expressed.
God's image is a "successive approximation"? Funny, that's
not what the Bible says. So why do you call the Bible into
play, when you're going to contradict it? The Bible says,
as you pointed out, that God made man in His image, period.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
dlzc
2006-12-28 15:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:06:53 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Azaliah
On 27 Dec 2006 06:11:32 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:02:09 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Evolution appears to be how the works of God
are made manifest.
With no evidence? I don't think so.
We have evidence in the numbers of species that
have gone extinct, and new ones formed all around
us, even in the last 100 years.
That is not true. But even if it were, that does not prove
macroevolution, which is what you believe in.
Sickle cell anemia. Those that have this disease are immune
to malaria.
Cystic fibrosis. Those that are carriers for this disease are
immune to cholera.
What does that have to do with it?
Man is a work in progress. Man's genome is responding to its
environment (which in turn, responds to his, ad infinitum).
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Macroevolution even in the human genome. Granted, not
expressed in the last 100 years... more like 40,000 years.
Macroevolution would be humans becoming non-humans.
Evolutionists, when they can't provide examples, try to
pretend that microevolution is macroevolution.
I have given examples, but you claim that isn't good enough. Rather
than obliquely attacking "evolutionists", why don't you talk to *me*?
So are you looking for the result of a mating between humans and
"non-humans" to be a "mule"? Would that be sufficient to your
requirement? Or is six digits on hand or foot, or the presence of a
tail sufficient? How about the mating of angel and Man? Do the
resulting giants count?
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Azaliah
Post by dlzc
Even in
Genesis, creation was described as a series of steps
of creation from less complex to more complex. This
doesn't limit God, it only describes how long a
timeframe we have to have eyes for.
Genesis states the opposite of evolution. Learn to read.
Read it through.
I did.
Sorry. The English language uses the same word in two ways:
"I read it through", and
"Did you read it through"
I meant "I read it through", since you required that I do so. I have
not questioned that you might have done so.
Post by Azaliah
It is out of order. Evolution would state that,
for example, the Sun formed and then the planets.
Genesis says the opposite.
Lets see, Genesis 1:1:
"First God made heaven and earth." Pretty much any sequence you want
to impress upon it. Doesn't say that the Sun was formed after the
earth. The chapter sounds like any good speech: tell them what you are
going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you told them. Lest ye
spend a lot of time arguing the point, the Word and "waters" preexisted
creation.
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Why did God not make just Man, and make him
like the angels (apparently not requiring food, since
the angels were not part of creation and food had
not been invented yet)?
God did not make man like the angels, because if He did,
it wouldn't be man. It would be more angels and God
already had angels. :)
Created when? With "heaven"?
Post by Azaliah
Furthermore, you say that "God made man", as if we are
the end of it. But in reality, you can't say "God made man",
because you don't know, if evolution is true, what God
intended to make. We are still evolving and will eventually
become something not human at all. Not "man" at all.
And? If God made All, then God made... and is still apparently
making... Man.
Post by Azaliah
So when you argue for evolution and that "God made man",
I am judged by my works. An 18 month old child has a chest of drawers
fall on her and kill her. There is evidence that she survived long
enough to try and get out from underneath. The vanity is in believing
that anything was lost. That meat is all we are, or any any way does
anything but limit us. Creation is a crib, where things are slowed to
a pace we can learn, with feedback and plenty of it.
Post by Azaliah
Also, if evolution is true, then as I said, we are not the end
of the trail of our evolution and this begs the question, why
would God give us the Bible, which speaks of us being at
the end of it all, if evolution is true, which would mean
that we are not, because we are evolving into something
else entirely? It doesn't make sense and that is one reason
why it is a contradiction to believe the Bible and evolution.
The Bible talks about all of today's Mankind descending from a night
between druken Noah and his daughters.
The Bible talks about a God that sends bears to kill and maim children
for making fun of a man's baldness.

However "righteous" the last may be (for us balding guys), everything
in the Bible is not as pure, IMO, as you seem to feel it to be. There
were entire cities with which Noah's descendents interacted after the
flood that wiped out the wicked world.
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Why start with small things on day 1, and work His
way up on later days? In fact, Woman was made from
Man, so there is evolution in action. Who did Adam's
children marry? Because entire communities are
described about that time...
Now you're trying to throw a bunch of questions at me
and you'll pretend that you're posting all of this fascinating
information, when in reality, you're doing no work at all
and wish for me to spend hours typing, answering your
questions.
You have answered them all. You don't wish to think about what you
read.
Post by Azaliah
And when I do, you won't acknowledge them.
You'll simply throw more questions at me and will do so
Thank you for looking into the future. Eve, *not Man*, was evolved
from Adam, Man. Evolution in action. Directly God's handiwork.
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Azaliah
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
We are made in his image.
Right. So God is a made over monkey?
No. God is Motion, is Life, is Expression.
That's not an answer.
It is all we can surmise of a Face that is hidden.
As *we* are judged by *our* works...
Which still does not provide an answer.
*I* do not look to a book for the answer. I look to books for places
to look for answers.
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Azaliah
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
And if evolution is true, then we cannot be God's
image yet. After all, evolution doesn't stop and
you are arrogant for thinking that this is the final
stage of evolution for us.
I don't think this form is the end.
Then we cannot be "God's image". We are merely some
lower form of life that is not yet God's image.
You don't get to have it both ways.
Sure you can. Hair is not the final form of you. When
a human is born, it has no teeth, hair (commonly) and
are all wrinkly and red. Is this the human's final state?
You're avoiding the point I made. Man wouldn't be the end.
That has nothing to do with "hair and teeth" and you are
trying to avoid the issue, because you don't like where it
Eve was evolved from Adam. You ignore anything you cannot accept, and
remember older days and other fights, and lay the blame on me. I was
attempting allegory, which helps some, but not those that are not "in
the present".

Your words can be the last. We will not convince one another
differently. It has been nice chatting with you. Over and out.

David A. Smith
Azaliah
2006-12-28 20:17:31 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Dec 2006 07:22:06 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:06:53 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Azaliah
On 27 Dec 2006 06:11:32 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:02:09 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Evolution appears to be how the works of God
are made manifest.
With no evidence? I don't think so.
We have evidence in the numbers of species that
have gone extinct, and new ones formed all around
us, even in the last 100 years.
That is not true. But even if it were, that does not prove
macroevolution, which is what you believe in.
Sickle cell anemia. Those that have this disease are immune
to malaria.
Cystic fibrosis. Those that are carriers for this disease are
immune to cholera.
What does that have to do with it?
Man is a work in progress. Man's genome is responding to its
environment (which in turn, responds to his, ad infinitum).
You either accept the Bible, which says that God created
man in His own image, or you accept evolution, which
means that God could not have created man in His own
image, because man will eventually become something
other than man; something other than human. Therefore,
this would be a contradiction to what the Bible says.
If God created man in His own image, then God created
man as man, because if man wasn't always man, that
means that man evolved into man and is still evolving
and won't be man later.
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Macroevolution even in the human genome. Granted, not
expressed in the last 100 years... more like 40,000 years.
Macroevolution would be humans becoming non-humans.
Evolutionists, when they can't provide examples, try to
pretend that microevolution is macroevolution.
I have given examples, but you claim that isn't good enough.
You gave examples of microevolution and tried to falsely
label them macroevolution. We both know what you
believe. You believe that all life evolved from lower
forms of life. So when you then claim that the examples
you gave prove what you believe, you are not being honest.
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Azaliah
Genesis states the opposite of evolution. Learn to read.
Read it through.
I did.
"I read it through", and
"Did you read it through"
I meant "I read it through", since you required that I do so. I have
not questioned that you might have done so.
I see. Okay, no problem. :)
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
It is out of order. Evolution would state that,
for example, the Sun formed and then the planets.
Genesis says the opposite.
"First God made heaven and earth." Pretty much any sequence you want
to impress upon it. Doesn't say that the Sun was formed after the
earth.
Yes, it does. It starts with the Earth and the Sun and stars
are created after it.

Day 1: "In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth. The earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the
Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters...
So the evening and the morning were the first day."

Day 4: "Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament
of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them
be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; And let
them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give
light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two
great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also...
So the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

Also note that it is speaking of literal days. It says;
"and the evening and the morning were the 'X' day".

You should also note that nowhere in the Bible, do we find
the word "yom" meaning anything other than a literal day,
when a numeric adjective is present.
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Why did God not make just Man, and make him
like the angels (apparently not requiring food, since
the angels were not part of creation and food had
not been invented yet)?
God did not make man like the angels, because if He did,
it wouldn't be man. It would be more angels and God
already had angels. :)
Created when? With "heaven"?
Who cares? It has nothing to do with God creating man
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Furthermore, you say that "God made man", as if we are
the end of it. But in reality, you can't say "God made man",
because you don't know, if evolution is true, what God
intended to make. We are still evolving and will eventually
become something not human at all. Not "man" at all.
And? If God made All, then God made... and is still apparently
making... Man.
Another attempt to dodge the issue. (: Man being born
from man, does not mean that evolution is true and this
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
So when you argue for evolution and that "God made man",
I am judged by my works. An 18 month old child has a chest of drawers
fall on her and kill her. There is evidence that she survived long
enough to try and get out from underneath. The vanity is in believing
that anything was lost. That meat is all we are, or any any way does
anything but limit us. Creation is a crib, where things are slowed to
a pace we can learn, with feedback and plenty of it.
This is nothing more than double talk. This has nothing
to do with whether or not God created man in His image
or not. The Bible says that He did and we both know
what that means.
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Also, if evolution is true, then as I said, we are not the end
of the trail of our evolution and this begs the question, why
would God give us the Bible, which speaks of us being at
the end of it all, if evolution is true, which would mean
that we are not, because we are evolving into something
else entirely? It doesn't make sense and that is one reason
why it is a contradiction to believe the Bible and evolution.
The Bible talks about all of today's Mankind descending from a night
between druken Noah and his daughters.
The Bible talks about a God that sends bears to kill and maim children
for making fun of a man's baldness.
None of this has anything to do with the subject.
Humans giving birth to humans, does not prove
that macroevolution is true.
Post by dlzc
However "righteous" the last may be (for us balding guys), everything
in the Bible is not as pure, IMO, as you seem to feel it to be. There
were entire cities with which Noah's descendents interacted after the
flood that wiped out the wicked world.
And there it is! When you can't prove your case,
just attack the Bible.

Look... you have to make a decision. Either you
believe the Bible, or you can throw it away. But
do not think that I am stupid enough to play your
game! When you are shown that the Bible does
not support evolution and in fact, contradicts it,
you want to start attacking the Bible. Well, if
that's the way you feel about the Bible, then we
have no need to have this discussion. The truth
is, your statement above is an entirely different
discussion, the subject being whether or not
we can trust the Bible. But it is sure that it is
not honest to pretend that the Bible and evolution
go together fine and then, when you can't dispute
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Why start with small things on day 1, and work His
way up on later days? In fact, Woman was made from
Man, so there is evolution in action. Who did Adam's
children marry? Because entire communities are
described about that time...
Now you're trying to throw a bunch of questions at me
and you'll pretend that you're posting all of this fascinating
information, when in reality, you're doing no work at all
and wish for me to spend hours typing, answering your
questions.
You have answered them all. You don't wish to think about what you
read.
You don't wish to be honest and stick to the subject.
Rather, you wish to try to change the subject and
dishonestly pretend that throwing a bunch of questions
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
And when I do, you won't acknowledge them.
You'll simply throw more questions at me and will do so
Thank you for looking into the future. Eve, *not Man*, was evolved
from Adam, Man. Evolution in action. Directly God's handiwork.
You are acting like an ass, period. Humans giving birth
to humans is not macroevolution AND YOU KNOW THAT!!!

The truth is, if that's all you have to support your case,
knowing what the Bible says about man being created
in God's image, then you have nothing, period and you
know it! It is truly, truly sad to watch you squirm and
try to pretend that your double talk is actually seen as
an intelligent response! And frankly, it is dishonest
and I don't waste my time with people who won't at
least be honest. (:
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
dlzc
2006-12-28 19:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
On 28 Dec 2006 07:22:06 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
...
Post by Azaliah
You either accept the Bible, which says that God created
man in His own image, or you accept evolution, which
means that God could not have created man in His own
image, because man will eventually become something
other than man; something other than human. Therefore,
this would be a contradiction to what the Bible says.
If God created man in His own image, then God created
man as man, because if man wasn't always man, that
means that man evolved into man and is still evolving
and won't be man later.
Small suggestion here. Because "not Man" might come from Man, does not
mean there will be no Man left. It is possible in an evolutionary
world, that the progenitor species survives and co-exists with its
offspring.

Teenagers notwithstanding... ;>)

David A. Smith
Free Lunch
2006-12-28 19:58:04 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Dec 2006 11:37:48 -0800, in alt.atheism
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
On 28 Dec 2006 07:22:06 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
...
Post by Azaliah
You either accept the Bible, which says that God created
man in His own image, or you accept evolution, which
means that God could not have created man in His own
image, because man will eventually become something
other than man; something other than human. Therefore,
this would be a contradiction to what the Bible says.
If God created man in His own image, then God created
man as man, because if man wasn't always man, that
means that man evolved into man and is still evolving
and won't be man later.
Small suggestion here. Because "not Man" might come from Man, does not
mean there will be no Man left. It is possible in an evolutionary
world, that the progenitor species survives and co-exists with its
offspring.
Species don't change from one generation to the next, but it is
certainly possible that a population could be isolated into two separate
populations that develop into separate species and then the isolating
effect disappears. If one of the populations is notably larger than the
other, the larger one is more likely to resemble the parent species than
the smaller one would.
Post by dlzc
Teenagers notwithstanding... ;>)
David A. Smith
Azaliah
2006-12-29 04:24:18 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Dec 2006 11:37:48 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
On 28 Dec 2006 07:22:06 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
...
Post by Azaliah
You either accept the Bible, which says that God created
man in His own image, or you accept evolution, which
means that God could not have created man in His own
image, because man will eventually become something
other than man; something other than human. Therefore,
this would be a contradiction to what the Bible says.
If God created man in His own image, then God created
man as man, because if man wasn't always man, that
means that man evolved into man and is still evolving
and won't be man later.
Small suggestion here. Because "not Man" might come from Man, does not
mean there will be no Man left.
I'm sorry, but your attempt to avoid the issue does not
impress me.

You believe that man came from a non-human life form
that no longer exists, which means that humans are still
evolving and eventually, there won't be any humans left.

Furthermore, your attempt at distraction does not deal
with the issue. And that issue is that if man is still
evolving, then that means that God could not have created
man in His image, because man is still evolving into non-man
and man cannot be the final stage. In fact, nothing will
be "the final stage". And therefore, for God to give us
the Bible would be a deception, since the Bible would have
us there until the end and yet, man wouldn't be the end,
nor could he be "the image of God", if evolution is true.

Let us note that you snipped the rest of my response,
which proves that you knew that you could not deal with
the issues I presented, which also proves that you now
know that the Bible is in direct contradiction with evolution.

You sir, are a liar and you know it and you know I know it.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
dlzc
2006-12-29 15:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
On 28 Dec 2006 11:37:48 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
...
Post by Azaliah
You sir, are a liar and you know it and you know I know it.
You have stated that you accept the Bible to be literally true. I will
now state that I do not believe that. I do not believe the Bible to be
literally true. Therefore, anything I say will be, to you, a lie.
Coming from disbelief, no truth can obtain.

Further discussion on this now very diverged thread is of no interest
to me. Should you think about it, you should realize that you are
casting pearls before swine, but I suspect that doesn't matter to you.

David A. Smith
Azaliah
2006-12-29 23:26:49 UTC
Permalink
On 29 Dec 2006 07:18:53 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
Post by dlzc
Further discussion on this now very diverged thread
is of no interest to me.
You mean that you lost and hate that and can't dispute what
I said and so, wish to pretend that you are leaving the
discussion because you lost interest. How stupid do you
think people are.
Post by dlzc
Should you think about it, you should realize that
you are casting pearls before swine, but I suspect
that doesn't matter to you.
Nice try at an subtle insult, but I caught it.
The fact is, I already knew I was casting pearls
before swine, but I give everyone a chance.
You made it pretty obvious though. There is
my "subtle insult".
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
Azaliah
2006-12-30 00:02:24 UTC
Permalink
On 29 Dec 2006 07:18:53 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
On 28 Dec 2006 11:37:48 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
...
Post by Azaliah
You sir, are a liar and you know it and you know I know it.
You have stated that you accept the Bible to be literally true.
Those are words that you put into my mouth.
I do however believe that the creation account
is accurately stated.

And I will note again, that you snipped 99%
of what I said, which shows that you know that
you cannot deal with the points I made.

Therefore, I have no interest in having a conversation
with you.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
Azaliah
2006-12-29 08:28:58 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Dec 2006 11:37:48 -0800, while bungee jumping, "dlzc"
Post by dlzc
Teenagers notwithstanding... ;>)
Btw, let's see what you snipped from my response...


**********************************************
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Macroevolution even in the human genome. Granted, not
expressed in the last 100 years... more like 40,000 years.
Macroevolution would be humans becoming non-humans.
Evolutionists, when they can't provide examples, try to
pretend that microevolution is macroevolution.
I have given examples, but you claim that isn't good enough.
You gave examples of microevolution and tried to falsely
label them macroevolution. We both know what you
believe. You believe that all life evolved from lower
forms of life. So when you then claim that the examples
you gave prove what you believe, you are not being honest.
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Post by Azaliah
Genesis states the opposite of evolution. Learn to read.
Read it through.
I did.
"I read it through", and
"Did you read it through"
I meant "I read it through", since you required that I do so. I have
not questioned that you might have done so.
I see. Okay, no problem. :)
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
It is out of order. Evolution would state that,
for example, the Sun formed and then the planets.
Genesis says the opposite.
"First God made heaven and earth." Pretty much any sequence you want
to impress upon it. Doesn't say that the Sun was formed after the
earth.
Yes, it does. It starts with the Earth and the Sun and stars
are created after it.

Day 1: "In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth. The earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the
Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters...
So the evening and the morning were the first day."

Day 4: "Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament
of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them
be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; And let
them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give
light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two
great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also...
So the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

Also note that it is speaking of literal days. It says;
"and the evening and the morning were the 'X' day".

You should also note that nowhere in the Bible, do we find
the word "yom" meaning anything other than a literal day,
when a numeric adjective is present.
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Why did God not make just Man, and make him
like the angels (apparently not requiring food, since
the angels were not part of creation and food had
not been invented yet)?
God did not make man like the angels, because if He did,
it wouldn't be man. It would be more angels and God
already had angels. :)
Created when? With "heaven"?
Who cares? It has nothing to do with God creating man
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Furthermore, you say that "God made man", as if we are
the end of it. But in reality, you can't say "God made man",
because you don't know, if evolution is true, what God
intended to make. We are still evolving and will eventually
become something not human at all. Not "man" at all.
And? If God made All, then God made... and is still apparently
making... Man.
Another attempt to dodge the issue. (: Man being born
from man, does not mean that evolution is true and this
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
So when you argue for evolution and that "God made man",
I am judged by my works. An 18 month old child has a chest of drawers
fall on her and kill her. There is evidence that she survived long
enough to try and get out from underneath. The vanity is in believing
that anything was lost. That meat is all we are, or any any way does
anything but limit us. Creation is a crib, where things are slowed to
a pace we can learn, with feedback and plenty of it.
This is nothing more than double talk. This has nothing
to do with whether or not God created man in His image
or not. The Bible says that He did and we both know
what that means.
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Also, if evolution is true, then as I said, we are not the end
of the trail of our evolution and this begs the question, why
would God give us the Bible, which speaks of us being at
the end of it all, if evolution is true, which would mean
that we are not, because we are evolving into something
else entirely? It doesn't make sense and that is one reason
why it is a contradiction to believe the Bible and evolution.
The Bible talks about all of today's Mankind descending from a night
between druken Noah and his daughters.
The Bible talks about a God that sends bears to kill and maim children
for making fun of a man's baldness.
None of this has anything to do with the subject.
Humans giving birth to humans, does not prove
that macroevolution is true.
Post by dlzc
However "righteous" the last may be (for us balding guys), everything
in the Bible is not as pure, IMO, as you seem to feel it to be. There
were entire cities with which Noah's descendents interacted after the
flood that wiped out the wicked world.
And there it is! When you can't prove your case,
just attack the Bible.

Look... you have to make a decision. Either you
believe the Bible, or you can throw it away. But
do not think that I am stupid enough to play your
game! When you are shown that the Bible does
not support evolution and in fact, contradicts it,
you want to start attacking the Bible. Well, if
that's the way you feel about the Bible, then we
have no need to have this discussion. The truth
is, your statement above is an entirely different
discussion, the subject being whether or not
we can trust the Bible. But it is sure that it is
not honest to pretend that the Bible and evolution
go together fine and then, when you can't dispute
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Why start with small things on day 1, and work His
way up on later days? In fact, Woman was made from
Man, so there is evolution in action. Who did Adam's
children marry? Because entire communities are
described about that time...
Now you're trying to throw a bunch of questions at me
and you'll pretend that you're posting all of this fascinating
information, when in reality, you're doing no work at all
and wish for me to spend hours typing, answering your
questions.
You have answered them all. You don't wish to think about what you
read.
You don't wish to be honest and stick to the subject.
Rather, you wish to try to change the subject and
dishonestly pretend that throwing a bunch of questions
Post by dlzc
Post by Azaliah
And when I do, you won't acknowledge them.
You'll simply throw more questions at me and will do so
Thank you for looking into the future. Eve, *not Man*, was evolved
from Adam, Man. Evolution in action. Directly God's handiwork.
You are acting like an ass, period. Humans giving birth
to humans is not macroevolution AND YOU KNOW THAT!!!

The truth is, if that's all you have to support your case,
knowing what the Bible says about man being created
in God's image, then you have nothing, period and you
know it! It is truly, truly sad to watch you squirm and
try to pretend that your double talk is actually seen as
an intelligent response! And frankly, it is dishonest
and I don't waste my time with people who won't at
least be honest. (:
*****************************************************
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
g***@hotmail.com
2006-12-28 23:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
...
Post by Greywolf
And I would add that not one of the listed Christian
scientists -- as brilliant as many of them were --
somehow were *never* able to present proof-positive
that a 'God' actually exists (or existed). Now why do
you think that is?
Because science, even christian science, cannot *prove*
anything... only disprove.
Agreed. The evolutionists set a double standard.
And the real question is, "as brilliant as they were",
why would they believe in something that is so
"anti-science", according to the atheists/evolutionists?
The fact is, they knew that it made no sense at all
to think that it could all happen by itself, with what
is required to make the universe work and life and
to make life work.
That was because nothing made any sense back then. We only discovered
how stars work in the past century. Same for genetics and many other
things.
Eugene Griessel
2006-12-25 16:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Azaliah <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>
Post by Azaliah
The atheists...
They love to tell you how Christians prevent science.
Harvard, Yale, etc., were all set up by six day, Bible
believing Creationists for the advancement of science.
Galileo? Copernicus?

<snip>
Post by Azaliah
They love to tell you how Christianity has taken
more lives than anything else. This is NOT TRUE!
Atheistic nations have caused more deaths than
any nation that was faithful to Christ!
Statistics to support your contention? Start with the crusades, pass
through the inquisition and end up with the world wars. Don't forget
the Christian colonisation of large areas of the world which killed
off millions of heathen.

Eugene L Griessel

Heroes are not made...they're cornered.
Tom P
2006-12-26 20:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Griessel
<snip>
Post by Azaliah
The atheists...
They love to tell you how Christians prevent science.
Harvard, Yale, etc., were all set up by six day, Bible
believing Creationists for the advancement of science.
Galileo? Copernicus?
What did atheists do when they took control of governments?
Post by Eugene Griessel
<snip>
Post by Azaliah
They love to tell you how Christianity has taken
more lives than anything else. This is NOT TRUE!
Atheistic nations have caused more deaths than
any nation that was faithful to Christ!
Statistics to support your contention?
Begin here: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM.

Then read all three volumes of Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago." When you
are done with those, let me know and I will provide many, many more sources
for you.
Post by Eugene Griessel
Start with the crusades, pass
through the inquisition
The atheist Lenin was responsible for more murders from 1917-1922 than all
of the murders in all of the Crusades and all of the inquisitions. And the
Roman Catholics the machinery of the inquisitions were just as evil and
culpable as the atheists who carried out the atheist Lenin's orders to
commit mass murder.
Post by Eugene Griessel
and end up with the world wars.
Why are those wars especially Christian? Or are you not aware of who the
combatants were? Do you consider the Japanese to be Christian?
Post by Eugene Griessel
Don't forget
the Christian colonisation of large areas of the world which killed
off millions of heathen.
But not nearly as many were murdered by the entire European colonization
everywhere in the world including the African slave trade from 1426 through
1999 as were murdered by the atheist Mao between 1927 and 1977. Even if all
the dead on all sides during the First and Second World Wars are counted as
due only to some aspect of Christianity, Mao still murdered more people than
died in all of the wars of the 20th century.

And the atheist Pol Pot managed to murder something over one-fourth of the
population of a modern nation state in less than four years. No Jew,
Christian, or Muslim ever managed to do that.

Why do you refer to the victims as "heathen"? What the hell is the matter
with you?
Post by Eugene Griessel
Eugene L Griessel
You, Mr. Griessel, obviously have no idea how many millions of people were
murdered by atheist regimes in the 20th century. And, I suspect, you have
little idea how many people died as a result of the Crusades, pogroms,
inquisitions, witch crazes, and even the mass murder by the Belgians in the
Congo. You should inform yourself of certain historical demographics and
then reply. And yes, most of the atheists who committed mass murder were
socialists or communists. But that explains their economic theories and
practices. They were all atheists. At least they themselves claimed they
were atheists.

The point here is not that Christians are innocent and atheists are evil.
Nor is the point that atheists are somehow more innocent than Christians.
Both atheists and Christians committed more than their share of mass murder.
The only difference is that atheists were apparently more determined and
more successful at mass murder. And don't start this atheist blather about
how atheist mass murderers during the 20th century used modern technology.
Most atheist victims died of starvation, epidemics caused by malnutrition,
filthy living conditions, and overwork. Relatively few were executed by
firearms.
Post by Eugene Griessel
Heroes are not made...they're cornered.
You are truly weird. How is someone who is perfectly safe but runs into a
burning building to save a stranger a cornered hero?
Eugene Griessel
2006-12-26 20:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom P
What did atheists do when they took control of governments?
Does an atheist controlled government immediately nullify the
religious beliefs of its populace?
Post by Tom P
Post by Eugene Griessel
Statistics to support your contention?
Begin here: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM.
I am well aware of Professor Rummel's work - and also of the criticism
levelled against some of it.

<snip>
Post by Tom P
Post by Eugene Griessel
and end up with the world wars.
Why are those wars especially Christian? Or are you not aware of who the
combatants were? Do you consider the Japanese to be Christian?
The majority of western combatants in both world wars considered
themselves Christians. And all were convinced that God was on their
side.
Post by Tom P
Post by Eugene Griessel
Don't forget
the Christian colonisation of large areas of the world which killed
off millions of heathen.
But not nearly as many were murdered by the entire European colonization
And those Europeans did not consider themselves Christians?
Post by Tom P
everywhere in the world including the African slave trade from 1426 through
1999 as were murdered by the atheist Mao between 1927 and 1977. Even if all
the dead on all sides during the First and Second World Wars are counted as
due only to some aspect of Christianity, Mao still murdered more people than
died in all of the wars of the 20th century.
It does help when one considers the world population against which
these events took place
Post by Tom P
And the atheist Pol Pot managed to murder something over one-fourth of the
population of a modern nation state in less than four years. No Jew,
Christian, or Muslim ever managed to do that.
Why do you refer to the victims as "heathen"? What the hell is the matter
with you?
They were considered heathen by the Christians of the time. Or do you
have evidence to the contrary?


Eugene L Griessel

People who use PowerPoint are dull, boring and unimaginative.
Tom P
2006-12-27 16:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by Tom P
What did atheists do when they took control of governments?
Does an atheist controlled government immediately nullify the
religious beliefs of its populace?
Post by Tom P
Post by Eugene Griessel
Statistics to support your contention?
Begin here: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM.
I am well aware of Professor Rummel's work - and also of the criticism
levelled against some of it.
As am I. But then why did you ask for statistics if you were aware of
Rummell's work?

By the way, does any of this criticism of Rummell negate the numbers?
Post by Eugene Griessel
<snip>
Snip restored.
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by Tom P
Post by Eugene Griessel
Start with the crusades, pass
through the inquisition
The atheist Lenin was responsible for more murders from 1917-1922 than
all of the murders in all of the Crusades and all of the inquisitions.
And the
Roman Catholics the machinery of the inquisitions were just as evil and
culpable as the atheists who carried out the atheist Lenin's orders to
commit mass murder.
Are those conclusions accurate or not?
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by Tom P
Post by Eugene Griessel
and end up with the world wars.
Why are those wars especially Christian? Or are you not aware of who the
combatants were? Do you consider the Japanese to be Christian?
The majority of western combatants in both world wars considered
themselves Christians.
Aren't you glad the use of adjectives was invented? Why did you fudge by
using "western"? Was it because you know that your assertion minus the
adjective was demonstrably false?

Majority? How did you calculate the majority? The number of combatant
nations? The populations of the combatant nations?

In the Second World War, was the Soviet Union "western"? How many of those
citizens of the Soviet Union do you believe considered themselves
Christians?

And what nations suffered the highest death rates? Do you think the
Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Indonesians, Thais, Burmese, Indochinese,
Papuans, and Malaysians might be among those?

Then disprove this thesis: More civilians in areas occupied by the Japanese
were murdered by Japanese swords and bayonets than Japanese civilians were
killed by American aerial and naval bombardment, including the three most
murderous bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
Post by Eugene Griessel
And all were convinced that God was on their
side.
Upon what do you base that conclusion? It sounds like a generalization most
difficult to defend in detail.
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by Tom P
Post by Eugene Griessel
Don't forget
the Christian colonisation of large areas of the world which killed
off millions of heathen.
But not nearly as many were murdered by the entire European colonization
And those Europeans did not consider themselves Christians?
Most likely did. So what? Is your point that there was no other motive to
colonizing the New World and entering the African slave trade than the mass
murder of the native populations because they were not Christian? Well,
prove it, and good luck.
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by Tom P
everywhere in the world including the African slave trade from 1426 through
1999 as were murdered by the atheist Mao between 1927 and 1977. Even if all
the dead on all sides during the First and Second World Wars are counted as
due only to some aspect of Christianity, Mao still murdered more people than
died in all of the wars of the 20th century.
It does help when one considers the world population against which
these events took place
Oh? In what way does that help? And why do you think that is the case?

Do you wish to base your attack on Christianity on the percentage of the
world population murdered by Christians or the percentage of the population
of a given state or other political division over a given time? Proceed,
please. Find some reasonably accurate historical demographic data and do
the comparison. Why not compare the period 1917-1999 in the states ruled
by atheists with any other period in history? I believe you will find that
atheists are just as murderous as any other group you can name by any
measure. Indeed by every measure. But please, do lay out the numbers in a
crystal clear fashion for all to see. And if Christians turn out to be the
most murderous group of human beings in human history, so be it.

Or are you trying to justify or minimize 20 million human beings murdered in
only 2 years during the atheist Mao's "Great Leap Forward" as an
insignificant portion of the total population of China and the world? Or
the atheist Stalin's murder of 40 to 60 million human beings between 1929
and 1953?
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by Tom P
And the atheist Pol Pot managed to murder something over one-fourth of the
population of a modern nation state in less than four years. No Jew,
Christian, or Muslim ever managed to do that.
Do you concur with the conclusion here or not?
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by Tom P
Why do you refer to the victims as "heathen"? What the hell is the matter
with you?
They were considered heathen by the Christians of the time.
Is your vocabulary limited to 16th century nouns for people who happen to
assign themselves to a different place on the theist-atheist spectrum?
Post by Eugene Griessel
Or do you
have evidence to the contrary?
No. Why would you think I would?

The point of my response is that both Christians and atheists have a great
number of murders by the adherents to their ideologies. And atheists have
proven themselves to be every bit as venal, greedy, murderous, and downright
evil as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Shamanists, or
any other religion, but there are a few exceptions, such as the Society of
Friends, Amish, Jaina, and others I have likely never heard of. And recall
if you can that the only publicly avowed atheist governor in American
history enthusiastically supported either the largest or second largest (I
am not certain of the numbers that embarked on the "Trail of Tears") round
up, arrest, and internal exile of American citizens in American history. In
every case, the argument that atheists are somehow more human or humane or
humanitarian than any other group is totally bogus. Specifically, the
various and sundry claims by atheists that Christianity is the source of the
most vicious human slaughters in history is utter nonsense that is utterly
disproved by historical demographics and accounts. And if you are as you
claim familiar with Rummell's work and the various criticisms of it, you
know damned good and well that even if his collations of demographic data
are off by fifty percent regarding the atheists mass murders during the 20th
century, the atheists were still the most prolific mass murderers in human
history.
Post by Eugene Griessel
Eugene L Griessel
People who use PowerPoint are dull, boring and unimaginative.
Another snip restored.

You, Mr. Griessel, obviously have no idea how many millions of people were
murdered by atheist regimes in the 20th century. And, I suspect, you have
little idea how many people died as a result of the Crusades, pogroms,
inquisitions, witch crazes, and even the mass murder by the Belgians in the
Congo. You should inform yourself of certain historical demographics and
then reply. And yes, most of the atheists who committed mass murder were
socialists or communists. But that explains their economic theories and
practices. They were all atheists. At least they themselves claimed they
were atheists.

The point here is not that Christians are innocent and atheists are evil.
Nor is the point that atheists are somehow more innocent than Christians.
Both atheists and Christians committed more than their share of mass murder.
The only difference is that atheists were apparently more determined and
more successful at mass murder. And don't start this atheist blather about
how atheist mass murderers during the 20th century used modern technology.
Most atheist victims died of starvation, epidemics caused by malnutrition,
filthy living conditions, and overwork. Relatively few were executed by
firearms.
No comment?
Post by Eugene Griessel
Heroes are not made...they're cornered.
You are truly weird. How is someone who is perfectly safe but runs into a
burning building to save a stranger a cornered hero?
Heywood Jablomi
2006-12-27 19:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom P
The only difference is that atheists were apparently more determined and
more successful at mass murder. And don't start this atheist blather about
how atheist mass murderers during the 20th century used modern technology.
Most atheist victims died of starvation, epidemics caused by malnutrition,
filthy living conditions, and overwork. Relatively few were executed by
firearms.
Deaths caused by the flaws of socialism in practice should not be attributed to
religious beliefs or lack of them. That would be like directly attributing the
deaths from the Plague to Christianity, since it happened to be the popular
religion of the day. [Actually come to think of it, that is not such a
far-fetched idea, since Christianity obviously retarded scientific progress up
to that point.]
--
If I was in charge of the universe, St Jude's
Hospital for Children would not need to exist


Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.7.3129

[ Followup-To: alt.religion.christian ]
lal_truckee
2006-12-27 20:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom P
What did atheists do when they took control of governments?
I suppose you are referring to the American Revolution? It appears they
form a pretty good government by keeping religion out of politics,
instead encoding tolerance in the founding documents and founding practice.

But then, rhetorically, what do amateur astronomers do when they take
control of usenet? They ban inane,interminable BS coming from
crossposting twits.
Davej
2006-12-25 20:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
[...]
2) Stop looking at what fallible man does and then
turn around and blame Christianity. Man killing people
and doing it in the name of Christ, does not mean that
there is a problem with Christianity. It means that
there is a problem with man.
Look up the word "Hypocrisy" you spamming moron.
p***@hotmail.com
2006-12-25 21:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Azaliah wrote:

snip
Post by Azaliah
2) Stop looking at what fallible man does and then
turn around and blame Christianity. Man killing people
and doing it in the name of Christ, does not mean that
there is a problem with Christianity. It means that
there is a problem with man.
Disgusting moron. I think *this* is what I hate the most about
Christianity. The notion that there is something irrevocably, incurably
WRONG! with someone simply because they were born a human being. Is
there anything more obscene? And what a fraud! They convince people
that there's something seriously lacking in their lives, and then
peddle their dimestore deity (which they've stolen from the pagans in
the first place) as the snake oil that can CURE ALL Y'ALL'S ILLS!
MARANATHA!

Go fuck yourself, Christian. Your religion is an insult to humanity. A
blight on the face of the world. A parasite that would paralyse its
host, and keep it bound to mediocracy. Were I a violent man, I'd
advocate you all being rounded up and jailed, to keep you from ruining
other lives.

However...as an atheist, I cannot help but realize that even the
miserable, ignorant likes of *you* are entitled to live your one and
only life the way you see fit. It is quite frankly, immoral to imprison
another human being simply because of the opinions or beliefs s/he
holds. All I can hope to do is hold up your ignorance, your
self-hatred, and your bigotry up for everyone to see. Hopefully, under
the light of day, more people will see Christianity for the swirling
neurotic mess it *really* is, and place it aside for a healthier way of
living.

-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain

Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
The_Sage
2006-12-28 06:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Date written: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 09:24:17 -0800
Post by jls
Could you please identify an atheist who hates a Christian astronomer
(a contradiction in terms, btw)? I will go to him and try to convince
him of the error of his ways.
Let's let Azaliah dodge and evade that issue by changing the subject first...
The atheists...
This sounds like the beginning of an attack on Atheists. I'm sure it will be
done with many "loving" intentions too...
They love to tell you how Christians prevent science.
Harvard, Yale, etc., were all set up by six day, Bible
believing Creationists for the advancement of science.
Harvard, Yale, etc were not set up to teach scientific reasoning either.
They love to tell you how the church was after those who
believed the Earth was round. In reality, it was
"scientists", who like them, could never admit they were
wrong.
You have obviously either never read the history of Copernicus or you are making
up history as you go along.
They love to tell you how Christianity has taken
more lives than anything else. This is NOT TRUE!
Atheistic nations have caused more deaths than
any nation that was faithful to Christ!
More than the Inquisitions, multiple Crusades, Witch Hunts, 100-Year War,
Catholic vs Protestent War, WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam War? You have no proof
of that. Even Jesus himself clearly told us he came, not to bring peace, but to
bring a sword -- to turn son against father and daughter against mother. When
has any Atheist ever said that?
1) It is not "Christian" to murder people because
they do not believe in Christ as Savior.
So why do they do it so very often?
2) Stop looking at what fallible man does and then
turn around and blame Christianity. Man killing people
and doing it in the name of Christ, does not mean that
there is a problem with Christianity. It means that
there is a problem with man.
The real problem then is that Christianity promises to change men's hearts but
fails to follow through on that promise. Where are all the changed Christians?
They all look alike to me!
The atheists, who are and have to be evolutionists,
Wrong again. Buddhists are Atheists and are free to believe or disbelieve in
evolution all they want.
love to ask the following question...
"If there's a God, how come there is so many bad things
happening in the world?". If you want to know the
answer to that, why don't you look in the mirror? Man
loves to do evil and then blame God for the results!
No Atheist says that. What some Atheists say is that man loves to do evil.
Period. A God or Gods has nothing to do with it.
Here is the whole issue, summed up, because you see,
the atheist actually likes to ask a question that has a
"no win" situation. Let me explain...
1) If God allows man to do what man decides to do,
that is called "free will" and the atheist complains.
Yet, if God stopped all evil from happening, then man
(if he could), would point his finger at God and say,
"If you loved me, you would let me make my own
decisions and learn from my own mistakes!".
Christians say the exact same thing...your point was?
2) If God allows man to make his own decisions
and his own mistakes, man points at God and says,
"If you really are God, how can you allow all of this
evil to exist?!".
The issue isn't that evil exists, the issue is why does evil exist with God's
blessing? According to your storytale, God had to give His permission for evil
to exist, which He did, then God allowed it to exist for thousands and thousands
of years. Clearly God does not believe in damage control or it in the bud. Got
to make sure evil evolves and prospers to it's maximum first, right? Afterall,
your storytale also tells us that the vast majority of humankind will go to
Hell. That means billions of people will go to Hell. Why wouldn't a loving God
cut His losses to a minimum and stop evil at the point that only one thousand or
even one million people would go to Hell, instead of the current billions and
billions? Because God loves to hate. God won't turn the other cheek to His
enemies, but will fry them in His version of Hitler's Ovens...or is that the
reason you love God?
You see what I mean? The atheist asks a rigged
question and tries to stack the deck. Thus, his/her
question is not honest to begin with.
What do you know about being honest?
As far as Creation and evolution, they love to say
the following...
"Creation is NOT science and no REAL scientist
believes in Creation! It does not offer any
testable theory!"
They also love to compare it to gravity, yet,
Sir Isaac Newton was a six day Creationist!
No one said they believed EVERYTHING Newton had to say. Clearly Newton had his
stupid ideas as well as his good ones.

And just like you, Newton couldn't offer any testable theory for creationism
either!
They also love to say that if you don't believe
in evolution as a scientific fact, how do you
explain using your computer, which is based
on evolutionary science?
Huh?! That isn't anywhere NEAR being true!
It is NOT based on "evolutionary science",
nor is evolution even science
Correct, evolution is not a science, it is a fact and a theory.
In fact, the inventors of computer science
and electronics, were six day Creationists!
What unprovable nonsense!
The next time someone tells you that "Creation
scientists are not real scientists", you provide
them with this message, which shows that not
only was the founder of the scientific method
a creationist, but many of the branches of
science, were invented by creationists, who
all believed in a literal six day creation.
I will do that because I know they could use the laugh.
To deny
evolution is not to deny God, nor nature, nor
science. In fact, to deny evolution, is to uphold
science, the truth of God and the nature that
God created. And the greatest scientists in
the world knew that.
But there are even more and greater scientists in the world who do believe in
evolution, and you know it.
In fact, at one time,
the greatest scientific philosopher of all time,
Dr. Karl Popper, said that evolution is not a law,
nor a theory and that it doesn't even rise to the
level of an hypothesis. He said it is nothing more
than a metaphysical research program.
Karl Popper was a philosopher, not a scientist. And all his statements about
evolution were proven wrong.
Here is some information, for those who are
interested in THE TRUTH...
From: The Root of the Problem - Dr. James Kennedy
I looked in all the scohlarly scientific journals in existence, and couldn't
find a "Dr James Kennedy" in any of them. You really need to check the
credentials and credibility of your sources, because Dr James Kennedy has
neither. If you want TRUTH, the way to find it isn't with a preacher or
religious fanatic, but with facts. When Dr James Kennedy can QUOTE each person
he listed where they said they believed in a literal six day creation, I will
consider reading his BS sermon, instead of just sleeping through it.

<Snipped the stupid sermon>
They were Christians, all believers in creation.
At one time everyone believed in God, the Church ruled the land, it was the law
that everyone believe in creation, and you know what they called it? The Dark
Ages!
We actually had an evolutionist in a debate
here many years ago who made this astounding
statement: "Creation is not scientific, and therefore,
anyone who believes in creation is not a scientist."
How's that again? He had better go back and
read a little of his own history to find out if that
is true.
You are not a very good liar.
And I just love this quote from the TV show, "Friends"! :)
"Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in
the world believed that the world was flat? And
up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought
the atom was the smallest thing, until you split
it open and this like, whole mess of crap came out.
Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably
arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny
tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?"
- Phoebe from Friends, regarding evolution
I could say the same exact thing about your belief in God and I don't need a
sitcom to back me up, all I need are logic and facts...

All the while that Atheism has peacefully sat on the sidelines of history, it
has observed your religion going around, looking for a grand and glorious name
for itself, taking part in "Holy wars" and religious cleansings, repressing
science and reason and logic -- all of which your religion still does. Atheism
doesn't falsely claim to have all the answers like your religion pretends it
does. Atheism doesn't falsely pretend to save the world like your religion has
repeatedly failed to do. So what is good is your religion?

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm

"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
Azaliah
2006-12-28 17:07:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 23:32:27 -0700, while bungee jumping,
Post by The_Sage
Date written: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 09:24:17 -0800
Post by jls
Could you please identify an atheist who hates a Christian astronomer
(a contradiction in terms, btw)? I will go to him and try to convince
him of the error of his ways.
Let's let Azaliah dodge and evade that issue by changing the subject first...
You can pretend that's what happened, but we both know
the truth. And the truth is, that an atheist stated that a
Christian astronomer is a contradiction in terms and that
is not true. And it was those words above, that I responded
to, so to claim that I changed the subject, is a lie.
Post by The_Sage
The atheists...
This sounds like the beginning of an attack on Atheists.
The above statement by the atheist, was "the attack".
But you knew that already.
Post by The_Sage
They love to tell you how Christianity has taken
more lives than anything else. This is NOT TRUE!
Atheistic nations have caused more deaths than
any nation that was faithful to Christ!
More than the Inquisitions, multiple Crusades, Witch Hunts, 100-Year War,
Catholic vs Protestent War, WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam War?
I love how you throw every war in there. You're a liar.

I stated the truth. Do some real research. Try something
other than atheist web sites that spew hatred against
Christians.

You hate God and you hate Christians. And I have never
met a real atheist. Just really scared believers. :)

Goodbye now. You can go spew your hatred elsewhere.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
Sorcerer
2006-12-28 15:47:21 UTC
Permalink
Hey fuckhead! I hate fuckheads like you!
I cannot hate your imaginary gods, they do not exist.
Go spew your love elsewhere, you've just encountered
a real atheist. Now fuck off, cunt.
[follow-ups to alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism only]





"Azaliah" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 23:32:27 -0700, while bungee jumping,
| The_Sage <***@everywhere.com> shouted thusly:
|
|
| >>Reply to article by: Azaliah <***@yahoo.com>
| >>Date written: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 09:24:17 -0800
| >>MsgID:<***@4ax.com>
| >
| >>>Could you please identify an atheist who hates a Christian astronomer
| >>>(a contradiction in terms, btw)? I will go to him and try to convince
| >>>him of the error of his ways.
| >
| >Let's let Azaliah dodge and evade that issue by changing the subject first...
|
| You can pretend that's what happened, but we both know
| the truth. And the truth is, that an atheist stated that a
| Christian astronomer is a contradiction in terms and that
| is not true. And it was those words above, that I responded
| to, so to claim that I changed the subject, is a lie.
|
|
| >>The atheists...
| >
| >This sounds like the beginning of an attack on Atheists.
|
| The above statement by the atheist, was "the attack".
| But you knew that already.
|
|
| >>They love to tell you how Christianity has taken
| >>more lives than anything else. This is NOT TRUE!
| >>Atheistic nations have caused more deaths than
| >>any nation that was faithful to Christ!
| >
| >More than the Inquisitions, multiple Crusades, Witch Hunts, 100-Year War,
| >Catholic vs Protestent War, WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam War?
|
| I love how you throw every war in there. You're a liar.
|
| I stated the truth. Do some real research. Try something
| other than atheist web sites that spew hatred against
| Christians.
|
| You hate God and you hate Christians. And I have never
| met a real atheist. Just really scared believers. :)
|
| Goodbye now. You can go spew your hatred elsewhere.
|
| --
|
| Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
|
| <((>< <((>< <((><
|
| "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
| - John 17:17
| .
The_Sage
2006-12-30 00:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Date written: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:07:20 -0800
Post by The_Sage
Post by Azaliah
Post by jls
Could you please identify an atheist who hates a Christian astronomer
(a contradiction in terms, btw)? I will go to him and try to convince
him of the error of his ways.
Let's let Azaliah dodge and evade that issue by changing the subject first...
You can pretend that's what happened, but we both know
the truth. And the truth is, that an atheist stated that a
Christian astronomer is a contradiction in terms and that
is not true. And it was those words above, that I responded
to, so to claim that I changed the subject, is a lie.
As usual, you are taking things out of context. While there are such things as
Christian Astronomers, what the person in question obviously meant was Christian
Astrologers -- and that would be a contradiction of terms.
Post by The_Sage
Post by Azaliah
The atheists...
This sounds like the beginning of an attack on Atheists.
The above statement by the atheist, was "the attack".
But you knew that already.
What I know -- what we all know now -- is that you are a blatent liar. Your
deliberate misquote above ">>>The atheists..." was in reality ">The atheists..."
and was a direct quote from your 12/25/2006 post. The proof is in the MsgID
included with my post:

MsgID:<***@4ax.com>

Just double-click on it or goto http://groups.google.com/ and enter the MsgID as
a search term there.
Post by The_Sage
Post by Azaliah
They love to tell you how Christianity has taken
more lives than anything else. This is NOT TRUE!
Atheistic nations have caused more deaths than
any nation that was faithful to Christ!
More than the Inquisitions, multiple Crusades, Witch Hunts, 100-Year War,
Catholic vs Protestent War, WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam War?
I love how you throw every war in there. You're a liar.
I love how you are call me liar but have no supporting evidence to prove you are
telling the truth. Yet, very much unlike you, I will be honest by giving
examples to demonstrate my point...

The Inquisitions were conducted by the Roman Catholic Church
The Crusades were conducted by the Roman Catholic Church
The Witch Hunts were conducted by the Roman Catholic Church
The 100-Year War was conducted by the Roman Catholic Church
The Catholic vs Protestent War is obvious
WWII was started by a devout Catholic: Hitler
The Korean War was started by Protestents trying to protect America from
"godless communists"
The Vietname War was started by Protestents trying to protect America from
"godless communists"
I stated the truth. Do some real research. Try something
other than atheist web sites that spew hatred against
Christians.
Jesus spoke well of your kind when he said, "Your father is the Devil and the
father of lies". In other words, you have no truth within you.
You hate God and you hate Christians.
Liar.
And I have never met a real atheist.
That's because you never bothered to look for one.
Just really scared believers. :)
If I were a believer, I would be scared of you too,
Goodbye now. You can go spew your hatred elsewhere.
I would have asked you to prove to us, using a dictionary and some quotes from
me, showing where I ever spoke with "hatred" in my last post, but I can't for
you have run away like a little coward. Does becoming a believer make you into a
coward, or is it just you that is the coward? Either way, I'm not going to run
away like a coward as you have. You will hear more from me, as I expose more of
your blatent lies for all the world to see.

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm

"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
Sorcerer
2006-12-30 02:05:58 UTC
Permalink
I wonder if I can appeal to your sagacity and request you respond
to the fucking deluded bigot (whom I do confess to hating) without
cross posting to sci.* newsgroups?



"The_Sage" <***@everywhere.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| >Reply to article by: Azaliah <***@yahoo.com>
| >Date written: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:07:20 -0800
| >MsgID:<***@4ax.com>
|
| >>>>Could you please identify an atheist who hates a Christian astronomer
| >>>>(a contradiction in terms, btw)? I will go to him and try to convince
| >>>>him of the error of his ways.
|
| >>Let's let Azaliah dodge and evade that issue by changing the subject first...
|
| >You can pretend that's what happened, but we both know
| >the truth. And the truth is, that an atheist stated that a
| >Christian astronomer is a contradiction in terms and that
| >is not true. And it was those words above, that I responded
| >to, so to claim that I changed the subject, is a lie.
|
| As usual, you are taking things out of context. While there are such things as
| Christian Astronomers, what the person in question obviously meant was Christian
| Astrologers -- and that would be a contradiction of terms.
|
| >>>The atheists...
|
| >>This sounds like the beginning of an attack on Atheists.
|
| >The above statement by the atheist, was "the attack".
| >But you knew that already.
|
| What I know -- what we all know now -- is that you are a blatent liar. Your
| deliberate misquote above ">>>The atheists..." was in reality ">The atheists..."
| and was a direct quote from your 12/25/2006 post. The proof is in the MsgID
| included with my post:
|
| MsgID:<***@4ax.com>
|
| Just double-click on it or goto http://groups.google.com/ and enter the MsgID as
| a search term there.
|
| >>>They love to tell you how Christianity has taken
| >>>more lives than anything else. This is NOT TRUE!
| >>>Atheistic nations have caused more deaths than
| >>>any nation that was faithful to Christ!
|
| >>More than the Inquisitions, multiple Crusades, Witch Hunts, 100-Year War,
| >>Catholic vs Protestent War, WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam War?
|
| >I love how you throw every war in there. You're a liar.
|
| I love how you are call me liar but have no supporting evidence to prove you are
| telling the truth. Yet, very much unlike you, I will be honest by giving
| examples to demonstrate my point...
|
| The Inquisitions were conducted by the Roman Catholic Church
| The Crusades were conducted by the Roman Catholic Church
| The Witch Hunts were conducted by the Roman Catholic Church
| The 100-Year War was conducted by the Roman Catholic Church
| The Catholic vs Protestent War is obvious
| WWII was started by a devout Catholic: Hitler
| The Korean War was started by Protestents trying to protect America from
| "godless communists"
| The Vietname War was started by Protestents trying to protect America from
| "godless communists"
|
| >I stated the truth. Do some real research. Try something
| >other than atheist web sites that spew hatred against
| >Christians.
|
| Jesus spoke well of your kind when he said, "Your father is the Devil and the
| father of lies". In other words, you have no truth within you.
|
| >You hate God and you hate Christians.
|
| Liar.
|
| >And I have never met a real atheist.
|
| That's because you never bothered to look for one.
|
| >Just really scared believers. :)
|
| If I were a believer, I would be scared of you too,
|
| >Goodbye now. You can go spew your hatred elsewhere.
|
| I would have asked you to prove to us, using a dictionary and some quotes from
| me, showing where I ever spoke with "hatred" in my last post, but I can't for
| you have run away like a little coward. Does becoming a believer make you into a
| coward, or is it just you that is the coward? Either way, I'm not going to run
| away like a coward as you have. You will hear more from me, as I expose more of
| your blatent lies for all the world to see.
|
| The Sage
|
| =============================================================
| http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
|
| "All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
| -- history, religion, duty, social position --
| all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
| John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
| =============================================================

f***@spamcop.net
2006-12-28 17:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
...
From: The Root of the Problem - Dr. James Kennedy
...
CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS
[long list deleted for brevity]
They were Christians, all believers in creation.
Do you, or does Mr Kennedy, have any evidence to
support the statement that any of those Christian
Scientists 'believed' in creation, and if so which ones?

Do you, or does Mr Kennedy, have any evidence as to
how those if any who did, defined 'creation'?

I certainly do not believe that every person associated with
a nominally Christian denomination is a Biblical literalist.
But I do believe that those who claim as much are extremely
dishonest, substantially dysfunctional, or a serious combination
of the two.
--
FF
Azaliah
2006-12-28 22:19:32 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Dec 2006 09:26:47 -0800, while bungee jumping,
Post by f***@spamcop.net
Post by Azaliah
From: The Root of the Problem - Dr. James Kennedy
...
CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS
[long list deleted for brevity]
They were Christians, all believers in creation.
Do you, or does Mr Kennedy, have any evidence to
support the statement that any of those Christian
Scientists 'believed' in creation, and if so which ones?
If you dispute it, then prove I'm wrong. I'm not going to
waste my time trying to prove to you what I know is true.

The fact is, you don't like the fact that doing real science
does not mean denying God.

The truth is, atheists/evolutionists claim that science
doesn't deal with the question of God and yet, we see
people like you who object, whenever someone says
that you don't have to be an atheist to do real science.

And what you foolishly fail to recognize, is that science
is not a conclusion. It is a method that takes one
wherever the method leads, without bias. And science
is not bound to the naturalist conclusion. A true
scientist does not rule out any possibilities. A true
tests and observes and lets the chips fall where they may.
Post by f***@spamcop.net
Do you, or does Mr Kennedy, have any evidence as to
how those if any who did, defined 'creation'?
I certainly do not believe that every person associated with
a nominally Christian denomination is a Biblical literalist.
But I do believe that those who claim as much are extremely
dishonest, substantially dysfunctional, or a serious combination
of the two.
And there it is. You are the dishonest one. You wish
to claim that anyone who believes, must be dysfunctional.
And your evidence for this? Simple. You don't believe.
And that, to you, is all that is needed. And yet, that is
not a scientific approach, which makes you a hypocrite,
who claims that their beliefs aren't proof and aren't science,
yet you conclude that your belief about them is proof,
even though it isn't any more scientific than what you
label theirs.

You're nothing more than a dishonest hypocrite, who is
stupid enough to think that I would read your claims as
if they are somehow validated, when all you really have,
is "I said so", while complaining that all the other side
has is "I said so". Please!

And this is why I won't waste any time with you. You
simply wouldn't care what was offered to you as proof.
You would hand wave it away, as you already did.

But hey, you're an honest, scientific guy, right? <chuckle>

Goodbye!
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"

<((>< <((>< <((><

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
f***@spamcop.net
2006-12-29 02:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Azaliah
On 28 Dec 2006 09:26:47 -0800, while bungee jumping,
Post by f***@spamcop.net
Post by Azaliah
From: The Root of the Problem - Dr. James Kennedy
...
CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS
[long list deleted for brevity]
They were Christians, all believers in creation.
Do you, or does Mr Kennedy, have any evidence to
support the statement that any of those Christian
Scientists 'believed' in creation, and if so which ones?
If you dispute it, then prove I'm wrong. I'm not going to
waste my time trying to prove to you what I know is true.
I gather then that your 'knowledge' is not based on evidence.
Post by Azaliah
The fact is, you don't like the fact that doing real science
does not mean denying God.
Another 'fact' that is not based on evidence.

If you want evidence as to my opinions on the relationship,
or absence thereof, between religion and science, Google
is your friend.
Post by Azaliah
The truth is, atheists/evolutionists claim that science
doesn't deal with the question of God and yet, we see
people like you who object, whenever someone says
that you don't have to be an atheist to do real science.
Another 'fact' (e.g. my 'claim') that you ascertained without
the benefit of evidence.
Post by Azaliah
And what you foolishly fail to recognize, is that science
is not a conclusion. It is a method that takes one
wherever the method leads, without bias.
Yet another...

Perhaps you would consider searching the Usenet archives using
terms like "fredfighter", and "scientific method"?
Post by Azaliah
And science
is not bound to the naturalist conclusion. A true
scientist does not rule out any possibilities. A true
tests and observes and lets the chips fall where they may.
Somehow, perhaps by mistake, you managed to make
a true statement.
Post by Azaliah
Post by f***@spamcop.net
Do you, or does Mr Kennedy, have any evidence as to
how those if any who did, defined 'creation'?
I certainly do not believe that every person associated with
a nominally Christian denomination is a Biblical literalist.
But I do believe that those who claim as much are extremely
dishonest, substantially dysfunctional, or a serious combination
of the two.
And there it is. You are the dishonest one. You wish
to claim that anyone who believes, must be dysfunctional.
Oh, back to those facts that you 'know' despite the
absence of evidence.
Post by Azaliah
And your evidence for this? Simple. You don't believe.
And that, to you, is all that is needed. And yet, that is
not a scientific approach, which makes you a hypocrite,
who claims that their beliefs aren't proof and aren't science,
yet you conclude that your belief about them is proof,
even though it isn't any more scientific than what you
label theirs.
And now you build on those other 'facts'. Cute.
Post by Azaliah
You're nothing more than a dishonest hypocrite, who is
stupid enough to think that I would read your claims as
if they are somehow validated, when all you really have,
is "I said so", while complaining that all the other side
has is "I said so". Please!
All you have for the claim that those men believed in
creation is "I said so", right?
Post by Azaliah
And this is why I won't waste any time with you. You
simply wouldn't care what was offered to you as proof.
You would hand wave it away, as you already did.
You provided nothing to hand wave away.
Post by Azaliah
But hey, you're an honest, scientific guy, right?
Thank you.
--
FF
f***@spamcop.net
2006-12-29 06:33:40 UTC
Permalink
[snipped]
In retrospect, I may have been overly harsh.

Let me summarize my point.

Given reasonable definitions of 'Christian' and 'creation',
the conclusion that a person believes in creation does
not logically follow from the observation that the person
is a Christian, any more than the conclusion that the
person believes in creation logically follows from the
observation that the person is a scientist.

I have no doubt that all or nearly all of the scientists
you mentioned were Christian or that some of them
at least believed in creation, only that the former does
not necessarily imply the latter.
--
FF
The_Sage
2006-12-30 00:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Date written: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:19:32 -0800
Post by f***@spamcop.net
Post by Azaliah
From: The Root of the Problem - Dr. James Kennedy
CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS
[long list deleted for brevity]
They were Christians, all believers in creation.
Do you, or does Mr Kennedy, have any evidence to
support the statement that any of those Christian
Scientists 'believed' in creation, and if so which ones?
If you dispute it, then prove I'm wrong.
If you dispute it, then prove you are right. If you don't dispute it, then don't
bother to prove it right. We will understand...
I'm not going to
waste my time trying to prove to you what I know is true.
In other words, to answer his question, you nor anyone else has any evidence to
support the statement that any of those Christian Scientists 'believed' in
creation. Thank you for letting us expose your lies for the whole world to see.

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm

"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
Matt Silberstein
2006-12-25 18:31:37 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Dec 2006 12:21:56 -0800, in alt.atheism , "jls"
Post by jls
Could you please identify an atheist who hates a Christian astronomer
(a contradiction in terms, btw)?
Was Halley not an astronomer?
Was Galileo not an astronomer?
Would you exclude Newton from the ranks of astronomers?
Post by jls
I will go to him and try to convince
him of the error of his ways.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
f***@spamcop.net
2006-12-28 16:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by jls
Could you please identify an atheist who hates a Christian astronomer
(a contradiction in terms, btw)? ...
"Christian astronomer" is no more a contradiction in terms than
is "Republican chemist".
--
FF
Hagar
2006-12-25 20:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Christian anstronomers attempt to prove that their carticular Gawd created
the universe and all that populates it.

Non-believer astronomers are attemting to discover the true origin of the
universe and of life.
selt
2006-12-28 14:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Borked Pseudo Mailed
http://www.aclj.org
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dangerous+OR+liberal+OR+atheist+OR+socialist+OR+communist+OR+%22anti-christian%22+OR+%22anti-christ%22+%22aclu%22+-%22aclu.org%22+-%22mediamatters.org%22+-%22atheist.tamu%22+-%22liberalavenger%22+-%22atheism.about%22&adult_done=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch&adult_cancel=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fweb%2Fadvanced&_adv_prop=web&ei=UTF-8&vst=0&vf=all&vm=i&fl=0&n=100
spout
You are an Atheist sock puppet. The ACLU only defends your religion
I refer to myself as "atheist" and I don't hate the church. I'm fine
with thier beliefs, as long as they don't force public schools to stop
teaching evolution and teach creationism(I'm fine if they teach both,
just creationism isn't a science), or force the USA to be a completely
Christian state.

I personally don't consider Christian sciences a real science. It's a
belief in my book. Depends what you consider a "science".
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...