| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bill Gamelson" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2005 04:37:37 PM |
| Object: |
Question for "Evolutionists" |
Do you really believe that there may be intelligent life on other planets?
If so, what about the possibility that THEY may have created us, the
universe did evolve, and they were here first?
After all, we have successfully cloned animals and are very close to cloning
human beings. This is the first step in learning how to CREATE humans. How
do you know that these space aliens on a distant planet that we have been
long searching for are not simply millions of years ahead of us in
technology and they created us as a long-term science experiment in their
search to explain THEIR existence?
That would be a plausible scientific explanation for our existence, would it
not?
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 12:44:56 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1911051029560001@pm4-broad-15.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <a0Kff.35177$0l5.22142@dukeread06>, "Bill Gamelson"
<bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1911051004500001@pm4-broad-15.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
How could the "Big Bang" be considered a "theory" if the advocates of
the
theory don't even attempt to explain how the matter that exploded came
to
be?
Yea, I see what you're saying now. The biggest problem is that
scientists
refuse to believe that all that matter came from nothing because then it
would support creation. This is the reason for the "pinpoint" theory.
I have not yet read any articles about the "pinpoint" theory. I did see
some posts related to it. Don't the proponents of that theory still need
to explain how the matter came to be?
Yes, and they can't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 12:57:24 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" wrote
: "Jason" wrote
: > "Bill Gamelson" wrote:
: >> "Jason" wrote
: >>
: >> > How could the "Big Bang" be considered a "theory" if the advocates of
: >> > the
: >> > theory don't even attempt to explain how the matter that exploded
came
: >> > to
: >> > be?
: >>
: >> Yea, I see what you're saying now. The biggest problem is that
: >> scientists
: >> refuse to believe that all that matter came from nothing because then
it
: >> would support creation. This is the reason for the "pinpoint" theory.
: >
: >
: > I have not yet read any articles about the "pinpoint" theory. I did see
: > some posts related to it. Don't the proponents of that theory still need
: > to explain how the matter came to be?
:
: Yes, and they can't.
Can you tell us how your deity created matter. Just asserting that your
deity created matter doesn't prove anything.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 01:00:30 PM |
|
|
In article <uoKff.35185$0l5.34859@dukeread06>, "Bill Gamelson"
<bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1911051029560001@pm4-broad-15.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <a0Kff.35177$0l5.22142@dukeread06>, "Bill Gamelson"
<bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1911051004500001@pm4-broad-15.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
How could the "Big Bang" be considered a "theory" if the advocates of
the
theory don't even attempt to explain how the matter that exploded came
to
be?
Yea, I see what you're saying now. The biggest problem is that
scientists
refuse to believe that all that matter came from nothing because then it
would support creation. This is the reason for the "pinpoint" theory.
I have not yet read any articles about the "pinpoint" theory. I did see
some posts related to it. Don't the proponents of that theory still need
to explain how the matter came to be?
Yes, and they can't.
Bill,
Thanks--that's what I guessed--I was right.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 01:07:07 PM |
|
|
"Jason" wrote
: "Bill Gamelson" wrote:
: > "Jason" wrote
: > > "Bill Gamelson" wrote:
: > >> "Jason" wrote
: > >>
: > >> > How could the "Big Bang" be considered a "theory" if the advocates
of
: > >> > the
: > >> > theory don't even attempt to explain how the matter that exploded
came
: > >> > to
: > >> > be?
: > >>
: > >> Yea, I see what you're saying now. The biggest problem is that
: > >> scientists
: > >> refuse to believe that all that matter came from nothing because then
it
: > >> would support creation. This is the reason for the "pinpoint"
theory.
: > >
: > >
: > > I have not yet read any articles about the "pinpoint" theory. I did
see
: > > some posts related to it. Don't the proponents of that theory still
need
: > > to explain how the matter came to be?
: >
: > Yes, and they can't.
:
: Bill,
: Thanks--that's what I guessed--I was right.
: Jason
Jason,
First, let me say that you are one sloppy poster. The explanation of how
matter came to be can be that we don't know. But guess what guys, you don't
know how your deity created matter, so you have nothing to rave about!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 01:42:26 PM |
|
|
In article <KvSdnf05M7ho6uLenZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Bear"
<bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote:
"Jason" wrote
: "Bill Gamelson" wrote:
: > "Jason" wrote
: > > "Bill Gamelson" wrote:
: > >> "Jason" wrote
: > >>
: > >> > How could the "Big Bang" be considered a "theory" if the advocates
of
: > >> > the
: > >> > theory don't even attempt to explain how the matter that exploded
came
: > >> > to
: > >> > be?
: > >>
: > >> Yea, I see what you're saying now. The biggest problem is that
: > >> scientists
: > >> refuse to believe that all that matter came from nothing because then
it
: > >> would support creation. This is the reason for the "pinpoint"
theory.
: > >
: > >
: > > I have not yet read any articles about the "pinpoint" theory. I did
see
: > > some posts related to it. Don't the proponents of that theory still
need
: > > to explain how the matter came to be?
: >
: > Yes, and they can't.
:
: Bill,
: Thanks--that's what I guessed--I was right.
: Jason
Jason,
First, let me say that you are one sloppy poster. The explanation of how
matter came to be can be that we don't know. But guess what guys, you don't
know how your deity created matter, so you have nothing to rave about!
great point. However, when we claim that "creation science" is a
theory--you object since we have to eye-witness evidence to prove that God
created life and matter. On the other hand, scientists can develop the Big
Bang Theory and you don't object despite the lack of evidence related to
how the matter that exploded came to be. It's a double standard.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 02:10:41 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1911051142260001@pm4-broad-15.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <KvSdnf05M7ho6uLenZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Bear"
<bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote:
Jason,
First, let me say that you are one sloppy poster. The explanation of how
matter came to be can be that we don't know. But guess what guys, you
don't
know how your deity created matter, so you have nothing to rave about!
great point. However, when we claim that "creation science" is a
theory--you object since we have to eye-witness evidence to prove that God
created life and matter. On the other hand, scientists can develop the Big
Bang Theory and you don't object despite the lack of evidence related to
how the matter that exploded came to be. It's a double standard.
This was exactly what I expected from him. Didn't I say that already?
Because you cannot explain in full detail how God created matter, it must
mean that God does not exist. (By the way if you somehow came up with some
scientific explanation of how God created matter, he would have accused you
of making that up, so the question didn't mean anything in the first place.)
The double-standard of course is that he cannot explain how this matter came
to be, but somehow that doesn't matter. It still means there is no God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 02:19:06 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" wrote
: The double-standard of course is that he cannot explain how this matter
came
: to be, but somehow that doesn't matter. It still means there is no God.
What a liar. All it means is that the creation of matter is not evidence for
any deity.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 02:44:37 PM |
|
|
In article <TELff.35192$0l5.1229@dukeread06>, "Bill Gamelson"
<bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1911051142260001@pm4-broad-15.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <KvSdnf05M7ho6uLenZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Bear"
<bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote:
Jason,
First, let me say that you are one sloppy poster. The explanation of how
matter came to be can be that we don't know. But guess what guys, you
don't
know how your deity created matter, so you have nothing to rave about!
great point. However, when we claim that "creation science" is a
theory--you object since we have to eye-witness evidence to prove that God
created life and matter. On the other hand, scientists can develop the Big
Bang Theory and you don't object despite the lack of evidence related to
how the matter that exploded came to be. It's a double standard.
This was exactly what I expected from him. Didn't I say that already?
Because you cannot explain in full detail how God created matter, it must
mean that God does not exist. (By the way if you somehow came up with some
scientific explanation of how God created matter, he would have accused you
of making that up, so the question didn't mean anything in the first place.)
The double-standard of course is that he cannot explain how this matter came
to be, but somehow that doesn't matter. It still means there is no God.
Bill,
Great point
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 03:56:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:10:41 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
<TELff.35192$0l5.1229@dukeread06>:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1911051142260001@pm4-broad-15.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <KvSdnf05M7ho6uLenZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Bear"
<bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote:
Jason,
First, let me say that you are one sloppy poster. The explanation of how
matter came to be can be that we don't know. But guess what guys, you
don't
know how your deity created matter, so you have nothing to rave about!
great point. However, when we claim that "creation science" is a
theory--you object since we have to eye-witness evidence to prove that God
created life and matter. On the other hand, scientists can develop the Big
Bang Theory and you don't object despite the lack of evidence related to
how the matter that exploded came to be. It's a double standard.
This was exactly what I expected from him. Didn't I say that already?
Because you cannot explain in full detail how God created matter, it must
mean that God does not exist. (By the way if you somehow came up with some
scientific explanation of how God created matter, he would have accused you
of making that up, so the question didn't mean anything in the first place.)
The double-standard of course is that he cannot explain how this matter came
to be, but somehow that doesn't matter. It still means there is no God.
Nowhere does science say that there is no God. It's unfortunate to see
Christians make such fundamental mistakes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 01:46:53 PM |
|
|
"Jason" wrote
: "Bear" wrote:
: > "Jason" wrote
: > : "Bill Gamelson" wrote:
: > : > "Jason" wrote
: > : > > "Bill Gamelson" wrote:
: > : > >> "Jason" wrote
: > : > >>
: > : > >> > How could the "Big Bang" be considered a "theory" if the
advocates
: > of
: > : > >> > the
: > : > >> > theory don't even attempt to explain how the matter that
exploded
: > came
: > : > >> > to
: > : > >> > be?
: > : > >>
: > : > >> Yea, I see what you're saying now. The biggest problem is that
: > : > >> scientists
: > : > >> refuse to believe that all that matter came from nothing because
then
: > it
: > : > >> would support creation. This is the reason for the "pinpoint"
: > theory.
: > : > >
: > : > >
: > : > > I have not yet read any articles about the "pinpoint" theory. I
did
: > see
: > : > > some posts related to it. Don't the proponents of that theory
still
: > need
: > : > > to explain how the matter came to be?
: > : >
: > : > Yes, and they can't.
: > :
: > : Bill,
: > : Thanks--that's what I guessed--I was right.
: > : Jason
: >
: > Jason,
: > First, let me say that you are one sloppy poster. The explanation of how
: > matter came to be can be that we don't know. But guess what guys, you
don't
: > know how your deity created matter, so you have nothing to rave about!
:
: great point. However, when we claim that "creation science" is a
: theory--you object since we have to eye-witness evidence to prove that God
: created life and matter. On the other hand, scientists can develop the Big
: Bang Theory and you don't object despite the lack of evidence related to
: how the matter that exploded came to be. It's a double standard.
Not me. You are stereotyping!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 02:08:58 PM |
|
|
In article <S6adnUEVNuzbHOLeRVn-sw@comcast.com>, "Bear"
<bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote:
"Jason" wrote
: "Bear" wrote:
: > "Jason" wrote
: > : "Bill Gamelson" wrote:
: > : > "Jason" wrote
: > : > > "Bill Gamelson" wrote:
: > : > >> "Jason" wrote
: > : > >>
: > : > >> > How could the "Big Bang" be considered a "theory" if the
advocates
: > of
: > : > >> > the
: > : > >> > theory don't even attempt to explain how the matter that
exploded
: > came
: > : > >> > to
: > : > >> > be?
: > : > >>
: > : > >> Yea, I see what you're saying now. The biggest problem is that
: > : > >> scientists
: > : > >> refuse to believe that all that matter came from nothing because
then
: > it
: > : > >> would support creation. This is the reason for the "pinpoint"
: > theory.
: > : > >
: > : > >
: > : > > I have not yet read any articles about the "pinpoint" theory. I
did
: > see
: > : > > some posts related to it. Don't the proponents of that theory
still
: > need
: > : > > to explain how the matter came to be?
: > : >
: > : > Yes, and they can't.
: > :
: > : Bill,
: > : Thanks--that's what I guessed--I was right.
: > : Jason
: >
: > Jason,
: > First, let me say that you are one sloppy poster. The explanation of how
: > matter came to be can be that we don't know. But guess what guys, you
don't
: > know how your deity created matter, so you have nothing to rave about!
:
: great point. However, when we claim that "creation science" is a
: theory--you object since we have to eye-witness evidence to prove that God
: created life and matter. On the other hand, scientists can develop the Big
: Bang Theory and you don't object despite the lack of evidence related to
: how the matter that exploded came to be. It's a double standard.
Not me. You are stereotyping!
sorry--I should have stated "most of the advocates of evolution theory"
I have had some conversations with advocates of evolution theory that are
able think rationally.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 02:11:37 PM |
|
|
"Jason" wrote
: sorry--I should have stated "most of the advocates of evolution theory"
: I have had some conversations with advocates of evolution theory that are
: able think rationally.
I don't advocate the evolution theory at all Jason.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 02:47:29 PM |
|
|
In article <vo2dnSzn2pqIGuLeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>, "Bear"
<bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote:
"Jason" wrote
: sorry--I should have stated "most of the advocates of evolution theory"
: I have had some conversations with advocates of evolution theory that are
: able think rationally.
I don't advocate the evolution theory at all Jason.
Bear,
I was not aware of that. Thanks for letting me know. How do you think that
life came to be on this planet?
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 02:49:12 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1911051247300001@pm4-broad-15.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <vo2dnSzn2pqIGuLeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>, "Bear"
<bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote:
"Jason" wrote
: sorry--I should have stated "most of the advocates of evolution theory"
: I have had some conversations with advocates of evolution theory that
are
: able think rationally.
I don't advocate the evolution theory at all Jason.
Bear,
I was not aware of that. Thanks for letting me know. How do you think that
life came to be on this planet?
That'a a good question because at Planck time there was no life. Just
expansion of mass. Life had to begin somewhere somehow even if it was a
micro-organism.
Damn those unanswerable questions!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 03:25:13 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:_cMff.35205$0l5.18675@dukeread06:
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1911051247300001@pm4-broad-15.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <vo2dnSzn2pqIGuLeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>, "Bear"
<bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote:
"Jason" wrote
: sorry--I should have stated "most of the advocates of evolution
: theory" I have had some conversations with advocates of evolution
: theory that
are
: able think rationally.
I don't advocate the evolution theory at all Jason.
Bear,
I was not aware of that. Thanks for letting me know. How do you think
that life came to be on this planet?
That'a a good question because at Planck time there was no life. Just
expansion of mass. Life had to begin somewhere somehow even if it was
a micro-organism.
So? What makes "life" special anyway?
Damn those unanswerable questions!
Damn them why? What on earth makes you think that "We don't know" or "We
aren't certain" is some sort of showstopper?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 03:38:37 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713A72E6DD8Ffstone69@213.155.197.138...
So? What makes "life" special anyway?
Did you forget to take your anti-depressant?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 03:54:44 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in news:jXMff.35218
$0l5.32621@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713A72E6DD8Ffstone69@213.155.197.138...
So? What makes "life" special anyway?
Did you forget to take your anti-depressant?
No, I took my meds this morning. But you didn't answer my question, and you
snipped the context so that you could make a smartass remark. Shame on you.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 04:12:47 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713AC3025AB3fstone69@213.155.197.138...
So? What makes "life" special anyway?
Did you forget to take your anti-depressant?
No, I took my meds this morning. But you didn't answer my question, and
you
snipped the context so that you could make a smartass remark. Shame on
you.
Even Christians have a sense of humor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 05:20:56 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:jrNff.35227$0l5.14150@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713AC3025AB3fstone69@213.155.197.138...
So? What makes "life" special anyway?
Did you forget to take your anti-depressant?
No, I took my meds this morning. But you didn't answer my question,
and you
snipped the context so that you could make a smartass remark. Shame
on you.
Even Christians have a sense of humor.
They duck the difficult questions too.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 06:36:18 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713BACDEAFFBfstone69@213.155.197.138...
Even Christians have a sense of humor.
They duck the difficult questions too.
Difficult ones like "Do you believe this scripture is an outright lie?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 06:51:18 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:QxPff.35486$0l5.19869@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713BACDEAFFBfstone69@213.155.197.138...
Even Christians have a sense of humor.
They duck the difficult questions too.
Difficult ones like "Do you believe this scripture is an outright
lie?"
I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text. Whoever
wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't prove that the
Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 09:59:31 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713CA2096FDEfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:QxPff.35486$0l5.19869@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713BACDEAFFBfstone69@213.155.197.138...
Even Christians have a sense of humor.
They duck the difficult questions too.
Difficult ones like "Do you believe this scripture is an outright
lie?"
I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text. Whoever
wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't prove that the
Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
You're not going to answer the question, are you?
Are you afraid to give it a yes or a no?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 10:09:04 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in news:nwSff.39854
$0l5.17415@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713CA2096FDEfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:QxPff.35486$0l5.19869@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713BACDEAFFBfstone69@213.155.197.138...
Even Christians have a sense of humor.
They duck the difficult questions too.
Difficult ones like "Do you believe this scripture is an outright
lie?"
I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text. Whoever
wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't prove that the
Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
You're not going to answer the question, are you?
Are you afraid to give it a yes or a no?
Are you not able to understand my answer?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
19 Nov 2005 10:15:33 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713EBA967191fstone69@213.155.197.138...
Difficult ones like "Do you believe this scripture is an outright
lie?"
I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text. Whoever
wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't prove that the
Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
You're not going to answer the question, are you?
Are you afraid to give it a yes or a no?
Are you not able to understand my answer?
I can understand your question as being evasive. You have yet to state your
personal belief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
20 Nov 2005 07:20:40 AM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:kLSff.40202$0l5.9966@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713EBA967191fstone69@213.155.197.138...
Difficult ones like "Do you believe this scripture is an outright
lie?"
I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text.
Whoever wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't prove
that the Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
You're not going to answer the question, are you?
Are you afraid to give it a yes or a no?
Are you not able to understand my answer?
I can understand your question as being evasive. You have yet to
state your personal belief.
I have answered you twice, not evasively.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
20 Nov 2005 09:29:51 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9714550507FDDfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:kLSff.40202$0l5.9966@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713EBA967191fstone69@213.155.197.138...
Difficult ones like "Do you believe this scripture is an outright
lie?"
I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text.
Whoever wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't prove
that the Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
You're not going to answer the question, are you?
Are you afraid to give it a yes or a no?
Are you not able to understand my answer?
I can understand your question as being evasive. You have yet to
state your personal belief.
I have answered you twice, not evasively.
Yes, because you are apparantly afraid to give it a yes or a no.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
20 Nov 2005 10:24:10 AM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in news:wD0gf.41340
$0l5.4693@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9714550507FDDfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:kLSff.40202$0l5.9966@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713EBA967191fstone69@213.155.197.138...
Difficult ones like "Do you believe this scripture is an
outright
lie?"
I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text.
Whoever wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't
prove
that the Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
You're not going to answer the question, are you?
Are you afraid to give it a yes or a no?
Are you not able to understand my answer?
I can understand your question as being evasive. You have yet to
state your personal belief.
I have answered you twice, not evasively.
Yes, because you are apparantly afraid to give it a yes or a no.
You mistake a more complete answer for fear?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
20 Nov 2005 10:47:46 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns971474225D20Efstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in news:wD0gf.41340
$0l5.4693@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9714550507FDDfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:kLSff.40202$0l5.9966@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713EBA967191fstone69@213.155.197.138...
Difficult ones like "Do you believe this scripture is an
outright
lie?"
I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text.
Whoever wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't
prove
that the Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God, etcetera.
You're not going to answer the question, are you?
Are you afraid to give it a yes or a no?
Are you not able to understand my answer?
I can understand your question as being evasive. You have yet to
state your personal belief.
I have answered you twice, not evasively.
Yes, because you are apparantly afraid to give it a yes or a no.
You mistake a more complete answer for fear?
You have yet to state your personal belief of whether this scripture is a
lie or the truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
20 Nov 2005 11:10:53 AM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:IM1gf.42795$0l5.37517@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns971474225D20Efstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in news:wD0gf.41340
$0l5.4693@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9714550507FDDfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:kLSff.40202$0l5.9966@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713EBA967191fstone69@213.155.197.138...
Difficult ones like "Do you believe this scripture is an
outright
lie?"
I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text.
Whoever wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't
prove
that the Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God,
etcetera.
You're not going to answer the question, are you?
Are you afraid to give it a yes or a no?
Are you not able to understand my answer?
I can understand your question as being evasive. You have yet to
state your personal belief.
I have answered you twice, not evasively.
Yes, because you are apparantly afraid to give it a yes or a no.
You mistake a more complete answer for fear?
You have yet to state your personal belief of whether this scripture
is a lie or the truth.
I gave you my answer. I believe that it's not true.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for "Evolutionists" |
20 Nov 2005 11:25:04 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97147C0EAFC1Ffstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:IM1gf.42795$0l5.37517@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns971474225D20Efstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in news:wD0gf.41340
$0l5.4693@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9714550507FDDfstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Bill Gamelson" <bill_gamelson@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:kLSff.40202$0l5.9966@dukeread06:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9713EBA967191fstone69@213.155.197.138...
Difficult ones like "Do you believe this scripture is an
outright
lie?"
I think it's consistent with being part of a religious text.
Whoever wrote it might well have believed it. But it doesn't
prove
that the Bible is in fact given by inspiration of God,
etcetera.
You're not going to answer the question, are you?
Are you afraid to give it a yes or a no?
Are you not able to understand my answer?
I can understand your question as being evasive. You have yet to
state your personal belief.
I have answered you twice, not evasively.
Yes, because you are apparantly afraid to give it a yes or a no.
You mistake a more complete answer for fear?
You have yet to state your personal belief of whether this scripture
is a lie or the truth.
I gave you my answer. I believe that it's not true.
Thankyou. You finally answered it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
