On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 02:17:37 +0000 (UTC),
eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) spake thusly:

Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kf0740humlk2l1ha3j74g7qv94dt49lbpo@4ax.com>...

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:46:32 +0000 (UTC),
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) spake thusly:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...

Nerd Gerl wrote:

The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation

Darwin admitted far more than that...

It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
If that is true, then what options are atheists left with? Creation?
That's unpalatable, isn't it? Yet the fact remains, Darwin's theory
of evolution is just that, a theory that best describes the evolutionary
processes we can observe with our five senses. Darwin does not explain
"creation," indeed, if any of the nitwits who espouse it have actually
read "Origin of Species," Darwin closes his theory with these words:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or
into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according
to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist, which makes all atheists idiots.
The only "reason" they proffer is that God is not seen, therefore
it must be assumed that God does not exist.

There is no objective evidence for god. Why believe in something for
which there is no objective evidence?

That's a disingenuous argument, since any evidence
presented would be labeled religious and dismissed.

Not "any evidence"... only the evidence that did not stand up to
scientific scrutiny.

You mean, anything that you evolutionists did not agree
with.

However, since the *ONLY* evidence for God is
Biblical in nature,

That's not true.

the whole Creationist argument for the existence
of God is purely circular reasoning, as I have already shown you.

You've shown me nothing.

In fact, objective evidence and Creation "science" are mutally
exclusive... as its major proponents freely admit;-

That's not true.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any
field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it
contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact
that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people
who do not possess all information." -- Answers in Genesis',
"Statement of Faith":-
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp>

"There is not the slightest possibility that the *facts* of science
can contradict the Bible." -- Dr. Henry Morris (Institute for
Creation Research)

"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or
another, be made to fit the creation model." -- Dr. Henry Morris
(Institute for Creation Research)

"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to
tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the
Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more,
that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology.
For those who believe in Creation, therefore, physical processes and
evidence that indicate an immense time scale must be EXPLAINED AWAY.
Only those processes or evidence commensurate with a short (i.e. 6000
years) time scale can be accepted for use in Creationism."
[Dr. H.M. Morris, 1974, "Scientific Creationism", Public School
Edition, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, p.136)]


So much for objectivity!!

Yea, kinda sounds like the creed by evolutionists...

"...we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept
a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but,
on the contrary, that we are forced by our 'a priori'
adherence to material causes to create a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter
how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door." - Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions
of Demons, The New York Review of Books,
January 9, 1997, p. 31

"Even if all the evidence pointed to an intelligent
designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science
because it is not naturalistic." - Scott C. Todd


"In fact, there is a great deal more to the
creation/evolution controversy than meets the eye,
or rather than meets the carefully cultivated media
stereotype of 'creationists' as Bible quoting know
nothings who refuse to face up to the scientific
evidence. The creationists may be wrong about many
things, but they have at least one very important
point to argue, a point that has been thoroughly
obscured by all the attention paid to Noah's Flood
and other side issues. What science educators
propose to teach as 'evolution' and label it as fact,
is based not upon any incontrovertible empirical
evidence (scientifically proven facts, ed.), but upon
a highly controversial philosophical presupposition.
The controversy over evolution is therefore not going
to go away as people become better educated on the
subject. On the contrary, the more people learn
about the philosophical content of what scientists
are calling the 'fact of evolution', the less they
are going to like it." - Philip E. Johnson, Evolution
as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism

--

ħ Pastor Dave Raymond ħ

"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16

http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/christ_scientific_creation.html



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 02:17:37 +0000 (UTC),
eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) spake thusly:

Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kf0740humlk2l1ha3j74g7qv94dt49lbpo@4ax.com>...

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:46:32 +0000 (UTC),
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) spake thusly:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...

Nerd Gerl wrote:

The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation

Darwin admitted far more than that...

It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
If that is true, then what options are atheists left with? Creation?
That's unpalatable, isn't it? Yet the fact remains, Darwin's theory
of evolution is just that, a theory that best describes the evolutionary
processes we can observe with our five senses. Darwin does not explain
"creation," indeed, if any of the nitwits who espouse it have actually
read "Origin of Species," Darwin closes his theory with these words:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or
into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according
to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist, which makes all atheists idiots.
The only "reason" they proffer is that God is not seen, therefore
it must be assumed that God does not exist.

There is no objective evidence for god. Why believe in something for
which there is no objective evidence?

That's a disingenuous argument, since any evidence
presented would be labeled religious and dismissed.

Not "any evidence"... only the evidence that did not stand up to
scientific scrutiny.

You mean, anything that you evolutionists did not agree
with.

However, since the *ONLY* evidence for God is
Biblical in nature,

That's not true.

the whole Creationist argument for the existence
of God is purely circular reasoning, as I have already shown you.

You've shown me nothing.

In fact, objective evidence and Creation "science" are mutally
exclusive... as its major proponents freely admit;-

That's not true.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any
field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it
contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact
that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people
who do not possess all information." -- Answers in Genesis',
"Statement of Faith":-
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp>

"There is not the slightest possibility that the *facts* of science
can contradict the Bible." -- Dr. Henry Morris (Institute for
Creation Research)

"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or
another, be made to fit the creation model." -- Dr. Henry Morris
(Institute for Creation Research)

"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to
tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the
Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more,
that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology.
For those who believe in Creation, therefore, physical processes and
evidence that indicate an immense time scale must be EXPLAINED AWAY.
Only those processes or evidence commensurate with a short (i.e. 6000
years) time scale can be accepted for use in Creationism."
[Dr. H.M. Morris, 1974, "Scientific Creationism", Public School
Edition, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, p.136)]


So much for objectivity!!

Yea, kinda sounds like the creed by evolutionists...

In article <18510aff.0403040157.1bd75975@posting.google.com>,
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...

Nerd Gerl wrote:

The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation

Darwin admitted far more than that...

It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
If that is true, then what options are atheists left with? Creation?
That's unpalatable, isn't it? Yet the fact remains, Darwin's theory
of evolution is just that, a theory that best describes the evolutionary
processes we can observe with our five senses. Darwin does not explain
"creation," indeed, if any of the nitwits who espouse it have actually
read "Origin of Species," Darwin closes his theory with these words:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or
into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according
to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

That's not what the 1st edition says:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and
that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed
law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin1859/origin14
.html

"Creator" was added in the third edition, I think.

If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist, which makes all atheists idiots.
The only "reason" they proffer is that God is not seen, therefore
it must be assumed that God does not exist.

Illogical twits.

If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with
a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot.

You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof
rests on the claim
of the positive.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Nobody is asking anyone
to prove ANYTHING,
let alone a negative, you illogical twat. All that
was sked for
was a coherent argument as to why God does not exist.

In other words,

You're an idiot. An illogical idiot at that.

*plonk*

mvillanu wrote:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...

Nerd Gerl wrote:

[snip]

If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot.

You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof rests on the claim
of the positive.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Nobody is asking anyone to prove ANYTHING,
let alone a negative, you illogical twat. All that was sked for
was a coherent argument as to why God does not exist.

In other words,

You're an idiot. An illogical idiot at that.

*plonk*

mvillanu wrote:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...

Nerd Gerl wrote:

[snip]

If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot.

You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof rests on the claim
of the positive.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Nobody is asking anyone to prove ANYTHING,
let alone a negative, you illogical twat. All that was sked for
was a coherent argument as to why God does not exist.

In other words,

You're an idiot. An illogical idiot at that.

*plonk*

No, I'm not. That's what you would like to infer, but it is a faulty
inference. I'm on record as stating what my position is, very
plainly. The google record seems to disgaree with your interpretation.

It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist, which makes all atheists idiots.

You are proposing more than just "God exists" Trole.
You are proposing "God exists as my Christian eisegesis of the Bible
envisions him."

No, I'm not. That's what you would like to infer, but it is a faulty
inference. I'm on record as stating what my position is, very
plainly. The google record seems to disgaree with your interpretation.
Please validate your interpretation.

And that makes YOU look like an idiot, because there
is lots of evidence which calls that myth into question.

See above for a bigger and better signpost to the idiot.

The only "reason" you proffer that God exists as Jesus is the
falshoods of unknown Gospel writers and that old fraud Paul's
letters.

See above. Your assertion is not in accord with verifiable
evidence.

Please verify your wild assertions.

Your challenge: show how eternal torment is loving.

Why? You don't believe any of it anyway. Do you?