XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
From: sylvia@not.at.this.address

On 3/07/2014 1:26 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
> 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.

You mean like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_glider

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Squirrel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_fish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_frog

Sylvia.

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