XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet

On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:27:51 -0400, James <1rilu2@windstream.net> wrote:
.
>Bob Casanova 
>>On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by James <1rilu2@windstream.net>:
>>
>>>Bob Casanova 
>>>>On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by James <1rilu2@windstream.net>:
>>>>
>>>>>mur@.not.
>>>>>>    For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence"
of
>>>>>>God's existence? For quite a while, we know that. Yet when challenged to
try to
>>>>>>explain WHAT sort of evidence they think "should be" where, they can't
even
>>>>>>address the challenge. When challenged to explain WHERE the supposed
evidence
>>>>>>"should be" they again are helpless. When challenged to explain WHY it
"should
>>>>>>be" to God's benefit to provide us with it AGAIN they have no clue at
all what
>>>>>>they think they think, or even what they want other people to think they
think
>>>>>>they think. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire
group of
>>>>>>atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, nor can
they as a
>>>>>>group figure out what they think they're trying to talk about. Why is it
sad?
>>>>>>Because it would be interesting to learn what they thought they were
trying to
>>>>>>talk about IF they had any idea themselves. We've seen that they don't.
>>>>>
>>>>>They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
>>>>>will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
>>>>>his personal beliefs.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
>>>>*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
>>>>theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
>>>>"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
>>>>untestable claims in religious texts.
>>>
>>>Yes, some scientists think more of their reputation than being
>>>truthful about their evidence. That is unfortunate.
>>
>>Missed the part about "objective evidence", huh? No problem;
>>most believers do.
>
>They don't go that way when they have a reputation to maintain.
>
>>
>>>Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
>>>archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.
>>
>>Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any
>>book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories
>>about actual places have been confirmed (or were already
>>known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities
>>which haven't been.
>
>Most of what you say are the miracles. I can't prove them, and you
>can't disprove them. They are sitting in the history books.

    One of the very basic starting lines that atheists can't get as "far" as is
the fact that if God does exist and did the things that are recorded in the
Bible, then ALL of those things are evidence of what he did. Even if God
doesn't
exist and did none of those things the written accounts are still evidence, but
in that case they're false evidence. I have known some of these stupid clowns
to
hilariously try to deny that false evidence exists at all, in their maniacal
desperation to deny all evidence.

>>>>> But atheists are apparently a different breed.
>>>>
>>>>Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
>>>>evidence.
>>>>
>>>>>They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
>>>>>personal beliefs.
>>>>
>>>>My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
>>>>
>>>>Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
>>>>evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
>>>>many believers?
>>>
>>>Because the fossil record is more in line with the Bible, than that
>>>pathetic theory of macroevolution.
>>
>>That's ridiculous. The fossil record, among other things,
>>shows that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, and that
>>plant and animal populations have only existed for
>>approximately half a billion years, *and* that they have
>>changed multiple times over that period, with no species
>>lasting more than a few million years. And in contradiction
>>to the Bible, the existence of the sun preceded that of the
>>Earth by many millions of years, as did the stars ("And He
>>made the stars also").
>
>Nonsense. Genesis 1 :1 shows when the sun was made. Ge 1:1,
>
>"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)
>
>Thus in verse 1 the sun is shining brightly in the heavens. Since the
>order here is "heavens" and then the earth, the earth was created
>after the heavens. If you have any more questions about the early
>chapters of Genesis, just ask.

    Some of the seqeunces don't go along with reality though. For example if
I'm
not mistaken it was written that plants were created before the stars, when in
fact the stars existed long before plants on this planet or even the planet
itself. That doesn't mean there still couldn't be truth to it, but it does mean
that how it could be true is not clear to us.
. . .
>Since God created each life form full and complete on the spot,

    Not necessarily. To me it seems obvious that if God did control the
development of life on Earth he made great use of the evolutionary method. But
he did it deliberately and not randomly which is the way things appear to have
gone, unlike just entirely by random chance as atheists would like us to
believe. I've noticed that as they try to argue in favor of that situation they
also try to deny it at the same time, acting like it was random, but somehow at
the same time not random.

>there
>would not be the millions of transitional life forms needed to satisfy
>that theory, there would be none.

    That is what makes it appear that God does exist and made use of evolution
imo. IF it was all just random then there should be LOTS of examples of
creatures in transition like from reptiles to birds. Instead I'm only familiar
with one such example: Archaeopteryx. If it was all random there should be a
LOT
of DIFFERENT similar examples as well as others like flying mammals developing.
Also there should STILL be examples of creatures in such transition states
today.

>Darwin also had problems with that one:
>
>“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of
>such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such
>finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious
>and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (The
>Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)