| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
04 Feb 2005 08:48:09 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS: Good logic |
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem
Science has with God, The "Almighty". He asks one of his new
Christian students to stand and.....
Professor: You are a Christian, aren't you, son?
Student : Yes, sir.
Prof: So you believe in God?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Prof: Is God good?
Student : Sure.
Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student : Yes.
Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal
him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God
didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm? (Student kepps silence.)
Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is
God good?
Student :Yes.
Prof: Is Satan good?
Student : No.
Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student : From...God... originally, yes!
Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything.
Correct?
Student : Yes.
Prof: So who created evil? (Student does not answer.)
Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these
terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student :Yes, sir.
Prof: So, who created them? (Student has no answer.)
Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe
the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God? God's voice?
Student : No , sir.
Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science
says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.
Student : No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat,
superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we
don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero
which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no
such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence
of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the
opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as
darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing
light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's
called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you
would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue
there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God.You are
viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can
measure.Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity
and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either
one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the
fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.Now tell
me, Professor: Do you teach your students that they evolved from a
monkey?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of
course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize
where the argument is going.)
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at
work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour,
are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a
preacher? (The class is in uproar.)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the
Professor's brain? (The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's
brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done
so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable,
demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,Sir. With
all due respect, Sir, how do we can trust your lectures, Sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face
unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir.. The link between man & God is FAITH.
That is all that keeps things moving & alive........
.
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
10 Feb 2005 09:55:14 AM |
|
|
In article <1108036935.908377.3910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
jabriol@fastmail.fm wrote:
Apollo
The voting for individual candidates is on a rotating schedule.
--
Lady Chatterly
"You know Lady C, it really is sad that even as a bot, you have more
personality than nearly every AHM reg combined." -- Onideus Mad Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
04 Feb 2005 05:28:52 PM |
|
|
In article <1107532072.710165.280300@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<jabriol@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Plagiarized, old story, a pathetic attempt at that, and logic holes you
can
drive a truck through. Finally, completely wrong on evolution not
being
observed, it has been observed and documented.
and the holes are???
and evolution is not observed. unless you are a few billions years old.
this is why it does not pass the scientific method.
I've never seen the inside of my head, but I'm pretty sure there is a
brain there (OTOH, I've never seen the inside of your head and I do not
extend the same courtesy to you).
In science "observation" is not limited to "direct observation". Never has
been. Never will be.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
05 Feb 2005 08:07:04 AM |
|
|
In science "observation" is not limited to "direct observation".
Never has
been. Never will be.
the same could be applied to creation. And it seem, that scien makes
verry specific demands of a creator. and reject intelligent design as
an observation to such..
I wonder why?
so it is ok to not see evolution occur..
but it is necessary to see creation occurring.. got it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
05 Feb 2005 08:47:14 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In science "observation" is not limited to "direct observation".
Never has
been. Never will be.
the same could be applied to creation. And it seem, that scien makes
verry specific demands of a creator. and reject intelligent design as
an observation to such..
I wonder why?
so it is ok to not see evolution occur..
but it is necessary to see creation occurring.. got it.
the same cannot be applied to creation. a supernatural creator could
make things look like whatever he wanted. he could erase all evidence
of his creation and replace it with evidence of evolution. the
supernatural cannot be observed directly or indirectly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rokka Agez" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic but not from JWs |
05 Feb 2005 01:47:06 PM |
|
|
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1107614834.965338.42150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
jabriol@fastmail.fm wrote:
In science "observation" is not limited to "direct observation".
Never has
been. Never will be.
the same could be applied to creation. And it seem, that scien makes
verry specific demands of a creator. and reject intelligent design as
an observation to such..
I wonder why?
so it is ok to not see evolution occur..
but it is necessary to see creation occurring.. got it.
the same cannot be applied to creation. a supernatural creator could
make things look like whatever he wanted. he could erase all evidence
of his creation and replace it with evidence of evolution. the
supernatural cannot be observed directly or indirectly.
========================================
Jabriol is a CREATIONIST who cannot even entertain the idea that a magical
creation did not occur no longer than 14,000 years ago. That was the last
nonsense I got from a JW - that each day of creation lasted 1000 years. So
it took this fantastical god 7,000 years to create the earth & solar system,
and it's been about 6,000 years since then. So they believe the earth is no
older than about 13,000 or 14,000 years old.
Also remember that Jabbers is always *contradictory.* If we all suddenly
agreed there was a magic "creation" 14,000 years ago he would suddenly start
to claim that was nonsense and we all evolved - not that he believed it you
understand. This is all so odd as he stopped serving the Watchtower Society
and peddling their wares years ago....
--
Rokka....
The JWs keep saying it (Armageddon) is imminent, just a matter of time,
only a matter of weeks or months from the predicted date: 1874(+40),
1878(+40), 1910,
1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1922, 1925, 1940, 1945, 1975, 1999/2000...
LATEST DATE: 2034 Come get your predictions and palm read by the GB!
Just one WRONG date after another - they're truly inspired by *GASP* demons!
"If he is a false prophet (like the GB), his prophecy will fail to come to
pass."
(Watchtower, 5/15/30).
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
05 Feb 2005 09:05:32 PM |
|
|
snex wrote:
the same cannot be applied to creation. a supernatural creator could
make things look like whatever he wanted. he could erase all evidence
of his creation and replace it with evidence of evolution. the
supernatural cannot be observed directly or indirectly.
you must be confusing me with a creationist. I am not. no matter how
hard others durring this thread want you to belive so, to disrupt the
thread.
there is no such thing as a magical mystical creator, or mystical
being, who snaps his finger and a bunny appear of a hat. Therefore your
comment above, simply does not apply. If that was the case, then even
those who persue evolution as the origin of man would be suspect. I
side more along the lines of teraforming by a amore advance Being, and
or beings... what is read in the bible is a simplification of what
occurred. a webster dictionary for children so to speak.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 04:37:00 PM |
|
|
On 5 Feb 2005 19:05:32 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
snex wrote:
the same cannot be applied to creation. a supernatural creator could
make things look like whatever he wanted. he could erase all evidence
of his creation and replace it with evidence of evolution. the
supernatural cannot be observed directly or indirectly.
you must be confusing me with a creationist. I am not.
Don't you consider it a sin to bear false witness?
what is read in the bible is a simplification of what
occurred.
Simplified to the point of being wrong and ridiculous.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Linda Lou P@P" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic -but not from JABRIOL (CAMDEN NJ) |
06 Feb 2005 05:09:03 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hu6d011b17vnnq80v9r556h7er8d17mg6m@4ax.com...
On 5 Feb 2005 19:05:32 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
snex wrote:
the same cannot be applied to creation. a supernatural creator could
make things look like whatever he wanted. he could erase all evidence
of his creation and replace it with evidence of evolution. the
supernatural cannot be observed directly or indirectly.
you must be confusing me with a creationist. I am not.
Don't you consider it a sin to bear false witness?
================
WHAT? Jabriol (Antonio L Santana-Candia of Camden NJ) always bears false
witness! He claims I'm an abortionist, that I had 40 abortions myself, that
my husband raped my larger, stronger adult son, that my Aunt was a JW (I
have no JW relatives), that I'm a lesbian, that some man beat me up, that I
took a toddler to a teenage drug and sex party.... on and on. Jabriol's
reality and and the real world are not the same. Jabriol is insane. :-)
I think it's his inability to deal with his sordid past and his sad family
history as much as it is the WTS that drove him over the edge.
-
Linda....
All trees (like the WTS) can be judged by the fruit (Jabriols) they produce.
============================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic -but not from JABRIOL (CAMDEN NJ) |
06 Feb 2005 09:04:49 PM |
|
|
another carolbot reply LOL!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Linda Lou P@P" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic -but not from TROLL JABRIOL (CAMDEN NJ) |
06 Feb 2005 09:54:49 PM |
|
|
<jabriol@fastmail.fm> a KNOWN RACIST and SOCIOPATHIC MASOCHIST wrote in
message news:1107745489.923186.99880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
another carolbot reply LOL!!!!!!!
======================
Report all BOTS to Usenet. ;-D LOL!!!!! In fact, go back to alt.config
so they can laugh you off that NG again. That should really have you
breathing hard....
--
Linda...
"Jabriol wants to be loved; failing this, to be admired; failing this, to be
feared; failing even this, to be hated and despised. Jabriol wants to
arouse
some sort of feeling in people. The soul shrinks from the void and wants
contact at any price." ~ Hjalmar Soderberg ~
==========================================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Hall" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic -but not from JABRIOL (CAMDEN NJ) |
06 Feb 2005 09:54:21 PM |
|
|
On 6 Feb 2005 19:04:49 -0800, wrote:
another carolbot reply LOL!!!!!!!
She's getting to you,eh? Jabriol, you are foul Satanic scum.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
04 Feb 2005 05:39:41 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2005 07:47:52 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
and evolution is not observed. unless you are a few billions years old.
You've been told before, but:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "~*{@" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
04 Feb 2005 10:03:06 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0s1801pm0ik8mpmhanrv9hddfes05algr7@4ax.com...
On 4 Feb 2005 07:47:52 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
and evolution is not observed. unless you are a few billions years old.
You've been told before, but:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
=================
Jabber's will not read anything that is not approved by the WTS/GB. Those
sites are *NOT* allowed.
--
Owl....
Mat 7:22 Many (Jehovah's Witnesses) will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord,
have we not
prophesied in thy name (of the Watchtower?) and in thy name have cast out
devils? and in thy name done
many wonderful works (in getting new recruits and salespeople)?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from
me, ye that work iniquity (for the Watchtower Society).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ }<(((o>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
04 Feb 2005 10:37:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 22:03:06 -0600, "~*{@\(\)@}*~" <P@P> said in
alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0s1801pm0ik8mpmhanrv9hddfes05algr7@4ax.com...
On 4 Feb 2005 07:47:52 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
and evolution is not observed. unless you are a few billions years old.
You've been told before, but:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Jabber's will not read anything that is not approved by the WTS/GB. Those
sites are *NOT* allowed.
I know - thinking isn't allowed either.
--
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
05 Feb 2005 12:23:00 PM |
|
|
ah yes.. the TO speciations FAQ's..
which of the 5 different contradictory defintion od speciation do you
wish to use?
is a wolf a dog? a species of Dog or the reverse..?
Al Klein wrote:
On 4 Feb 2005 07:47:52 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
and evolution is not observed. unless you are a few billions years
old.
You've been told before, but:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
05 Feb 2005 08:14:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
ah yes.. the TO speciations FAQ's..
which of the 5 different contradictory defintion od speciation do you
wish to use?
is a wolf a dog? a species of Dog or the reverse..?
Only 5? Since evolution never stops, there are situations
where species as a concept doesn't even work except
as an unobtainable ideal. Unfortunately, nobody has come
up with a better idea. I can think of far more
definitions of species. Dog breeders use teh word diffrently drom
entomologist who use it differently than mychologists who use it
differently from ichthyologists who use it differently from
botanists. Because each each of these differing organisms
evolves differently from the others.
Botanists are splitters, animal breeders are lumpers.
Its not science, its fashion. Species is merely a loose
concept scientsist use to talk to one another about organisms.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't really except as
a communications device.
Which is exactly what you would expect in a world where evolution
never, ever stops.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
05 Feb 2005 03:46:01 PM |
|
|
On 5 Feb 2005 10:23:00 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
ah yes.. the TO speciations FAQ's..
which of the 5 different contradictory defintion od speciation do you
wish to use?
Any of them.
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "maxwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 05:59:08 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote ...
jabriol@fastmail.fm said in alt.atheism:
ah yes.. the TO speciations FAQ's..
which of the 5 different contradictory defintion od speciation do youwish
to use?
Any of them.
While noting that in a seminar on horizontal gene flow and parallel
evolution we listed nearly 100 working definitions of species, few of which
were actually in any way mutually contradictory, perhaps you should direct
jabriol to the 'classical' reproductive constraint definition of
"speciation," if only to elicit whether new species of *non-interbreeding*
(either with ancestral or parallel derived species) bacteria, flies,
beetles, worms, plants, cichlids, and rats 'don't count'
I suspect not even a *de novo* speciation of alate saurians would suffice to
convince the neo-creationist in question ;~)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 06:11:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:59:08 -0500, "maxwell" <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote ...
jabriol@fastmail.fm said in alt.atheism:
ah yes.. the TO speciations FAQ's..
which of the 5 different contradictory defintion od speciation do youwish to use?
Any of them.
While noting that in a seminar on horizontal gene flow and parallel
evolution we listed nearly 100 working definitions of species, few of which
were actually in any way mutually contradictory, perhaps you should direct
jabriol to the 'classical' reproductive constraint definition of
"speciation,"
That's the one I usually use.
if only to elicit whether new species of *non-interbreeding*
(either with ancestral or parallel derived species) bacteria
"But they're still bacteria"
</fundy creationist>
flies, beetles, worms, plants, cichlids, and rats 'don't count'
I suspect not even a *de novo* speciation of alate saurians would suffice to
convince the neo-creationist in question ;~)
I believe that you're wrong. Jabbers probably believes that accepting
anything that contradicts what the leaders of the Watchtower Society
tell him to believe would send his eternal soul into the fires of hell
for all eternity.
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Linda Lou P@P" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 10:01:37 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:sbcd01lv7bu3pcure5bcebrb4dtqtqt551@4ax.com...
I believe that you're wrong. Jabbers probably believes that accepting
anything that contradicts what the leaders of the Watchtower Society
tell him to believe would send his eternal soul into the fires of hell
for all eternity.
=========================
The WTS/GB tells Jabbers that he'll go into the Lake-O-Fire for the second
and permanent death. They don't believe in hell. We who know Jabber's
KNOW hell, lake of fire, whatever you choose to call it, is where he's going
if such a place exists.
--
Linda....
Will the men of Sodom be resurrected?
1.Yes. Watchtower 7/1879 p.8
2..No. Watchtower 6 /1/52 p.338
3.Yes. Watchtower 8 /1/ 65 p.479
4. No. Watchtower 6 /1/ 88 p. 31
5. Yes. Live Forever (old ed.) p. 179
6. No. Live Forever (new ed.) p.179
7. Yes. Insight, vol. 2, p. 985
8. No. Revelation book p. 273
Alpha and Omega:
1. Jehovah Awake, August 22, 1978, p. 28
2. Jesus Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1978, p. 15
3. Jehovah "Reasoning from the Scriptures" p. 412
Crucifixion of Jesus:
1. Jesus died on a cross " Life", p. 216
2. Jesus did NOT die on a cross "Truth," p. 142
3. We really can't be certain Watchtower, Apr.1 1984. p. 31 (Credit Gordie)
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maxwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 07:14:00 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" wrote ...
"maxwell" said :
"Al Klein" wrote ...
jabriol@fastmail.fm said :
ah yes.. the TO speciations FAQ's..
which of the 5 different contradictory defintion od speciation do
youwish to use?
Any of them.
While noting that in a seminar on horizontal gene flow and parallel
evolution we listed nearly 100 working definitions of species, few of which
were actually in any way mutually contradictory, perhaps you should direct
jabriol to the 'classical' reproductive constraint definition of
"speciation,"
That's the one I usually use.
Most do. Me too, on many occasions.
Here's a page I've recently enjoyed
(noted not in the hopes of this thread evolving divergently, however <g>)
http://members.dodo.com.au/~wilkinsjandp/papers/metataxo.htm
if only to elicit whether new species of *non-interbreeding*
(either with ancestral or parallel derived species) bacteria
"But they're still bacteria"
</fundy creationist>
Heh. I wonder why no mention of *one* each of those that reproduce asexually
were on the Noah boat--oh that's right, they were all in the ocean . .
hmmm...any salt-intolerant species were, umm, buried in little hollows in
the earth--I'm sure something can be dug up.
flies, beetles, worms, plants, cichlids, and rats 'don't count'
I suspect not even a *de novo* speciation of alate saurians would suffice
to
convince the neo-creationist in question ;~)
I believe that you're wrong. Jabbers probably believes that accepting
anything that contradicts what the leaders of the Watchtower Society tell
him to believe would send his eternal soul into the fires of hell for all
eternity.
While that's possible, I'd of course have to observe it <G>
. .hmmm...now would there be evolution observed in hell? --directed by an
intelligent mal-designer, of course <g>
. .oh, and if you re-read my suspicion of 'would not convince,' your regard
of my notion might, ummm, evolve into agreement ;~)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 08:21:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:14:00 -0500, "maxwell" <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Heh. I wonder why no mention of *one* each of those that reproduce asexually
were on the Noah boat--oh that's right, they were all in the ocean . .
hmmm...any salt-intolerant species were, umm, buried in little hollows in
the earth--I'm sure something can be dug up.
I've never had a creationist address my question of how Noah kept
lethal monohosted microorganisms alive for a year.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Linda Lou P@P" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic - ark ammonia manure muck |
06 Feb 2005 10:08:27 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:92kd01h5vie4rdaqtap816i6qoqrrs0int@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:14:00 -0500, "maxwell" <mmmaxwell@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Heh. I wonder why no mention of *one* each of those that reproduce
asexually
were on the Noah boat--oh that's right, they were all in the ocean . .
hmmm...any salt-intolerant species were, umm, buried in little hollows in
the earth--I'm sure something can be dug up.
I've never had a creationist address my question of how Noah kept
lethal monohosted microorganisms alive for a year.
==========================
They refuse to address what the animals ate when they left the ark after
almost a year. There would be no vegetation for the vegetarians and no meat
for the carnivores - unless they ate the vegetarians before they starved to
death for lack of vegetation. We all know what the earth would look like
after being under salt water for a year! Muck, mud and stinking slime. Not
even one apologist came forward with some (implausible) story/excuse. We
wont even get into the ammonia generated by all those animals on the ark and
no mechanical ventilation, ...thousands of gallons of urine they'd pass each
day, the manure.....
--
Linda....
Yep, the sleazebags at the WTS added another 120 years to 1914. What a
hoot! :-D The poor misled JWs who were waiting for 1975 got the shaft,
then 2000, shafted again... now this. What happened to all their promised
and underlined scripture proving the generation who saw 1914 would not pass
away before "the end of this system of things?" And they claim a clear
direct line to Jehovah!!!
How can any rational person be so gullible as to swallow this obvious male
bovine excreta? This GB vomit....
=======================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maxwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 10:26:21 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" wrote ...
"maxwell" said :
Heh. I wonder why no mention of *one* each of those that reproduce
asexually
were on the Noah boat--oh that's right, they were all in the ocean . .
hmmm...any salt-intolerant species were, umm, buried in little hollows in
the earth--I'm sure something can be dug up.
I've never had a creationist address my question of how Noah kept lethal
monohosted microorganisms alive for a year.
1. A foul descendant of Cain snuck onboard the boat, carrying the bug(s).
2. The microbes were slower in those days--but in other ways of course the
same species as now.
3. Thus, the rascal's infection didn't take him down until after landfall,
where he snuck off the mountain to die.
4. While Noah et al knew none of this, of course the big celestial kahuna
saw all, and His scribes had it all ready for press.
5. The Evil One cut this crucial reportage out of the True History of
creation, and in fact all history of the Cainite host of these nasties,
along with other necessary miraculous splicings of the creation narratives,
thus facilitating the explanatory mischief of such errant savages as are
scientists, whom 'true believers' of course realize are in fact imps from
Hell sent forth to test their Faith.
. . there's more, of course, but as a credentialed member of an atheistic
evolutionary cult, I of course may not reveal all in a public forum ;~)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
07 Feb 2005 11:13:55 AM |
|
|
maxwell wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote ...
"maxwell" said :
Heh. I wonder why no mention of *one* each of those that reproduce
asexually
were on the Noah boat--oh that's right, they were all in the ocean . .
hmmm...any salt-intolerant species were, umm, buried in little hollows in
the earth--I'm sure something can be dug up.
I've never had a creationist address my question of how Noah kept lethal
monohosted microorganisms alive for a year.
1. A foul descendant of Cain snuck onboard the boat, carrying the bug(s).
2. The microbes were slower in those days--but in other ways of course the
same species as now.
3. Thus, the rascal's infection didn't take him down until after landfall,
where he snuck off the mountain to die.
4. While Noah et al knew none of this, of course the big celestial kahuna
saw all, and His scribes had it all ready for press.
5. The Evil One cut this crucial reportage out of the True History of
creation, and in fact all history of the Cainite host of these nasties,
along with other necessary miraculous splicings of the creation narratives,
thus facilitating the explanatory mischief of such errant savages as are
scientists, whom 'true believers' of course realize are in fact imps from
Hell sent forth to test their Faith.
. . there's more, of course, but as a credentialed member of an atheistic
evolutionary cult, I of course may not reveal all in a public forum ;~)
6. Rapid mutation after the Water Canopy fell to Earth. (And then
went...somewhere else afterward.)
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "maxwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
07 Feb 2005 10:27:32 PM |
|
|
"Tukla Ratte" wrote ...
maxwell wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote ...
"maxwell" said :
Heh. I wonder why no mention of *one* each of those that reproduce
asexually were on the Noah boat--oh that's right, they were all in the ocean
.. .
hmmm...any salt-intolerant species were, umm, buried in little hollows
in the earth--I'm sure something can be dug up.
I've never had a creationist address my question of how Noah kept lethal
monohosted microorganisms alive for a year.
1. A foul descendant of Cain snuck onboard the boat, carrying the
bug(s).
2. The microbes were slower in those days--but in other ways of course
the
same species as now.
3. Thus, the rascal's infection didn't take him down until after
landfall,
where he snuck off the mountain to die.
4. While Noah et al knew none of this, of course the big celestial
kahuna
saw all, and His scribes had it all ready for press.
5. The Evil One cut this crucial reportage out of the True History of
creation, and in fact all history of the Cainite host of these nasties,
along with other necessary miraculous splicings of the creation
narratives,
thus facilitating the explanatory mischief of such errant savages as are
scientists, whom 'true believers' of course realize are in fact imps
from
Hell sent forth to test their Faith.
. . there's more, of course, but as a credentialed member of an
atheistic
evolutionary cult, I of course may not reveal all in a public forum ;~)
6. Rapid mutation after the Water Canopy fell to Earth. (And then
went...somewhere else afterward.)
I forget if that was 'special old time' water(though not more than Usherian
time, of course) that had astonishingly weak atomic bonds (thermodynamically
defiant, in fact) -- that stuff that spontaneously dissociated 2(H2O)>
2(H2)+O2
(or at least that's what at least one creationist insisted was the
primordial source of free oxygen in earth's atmosphere)
. . alas, it must be that poisonous science rotting out my cortex that
disallows the Holy truth . .
-
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
Great job you have! ;~)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seppo Pietikainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Good logic |
04 Feb 2005 09:10:08 AM |
|
|
Robert Weldon wrote:
<jabriol@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1107528489.231470.162890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem
Science has with God, The "Almighty". He asks one of his new
silly story snipped
Plagiarized, old story, a pathetic attempt at that, and logic holes you can
drive a truck through. Finally, completely wrong on evolution not being
observed, it has been observed and documented.
What does one call something which is not even peripathetic?
Seppo P.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
04 Feb 2005 10:38:39 PM |
|
|
*****@fastmail.fm wrote:
Another Plagiarist for Christ. Jabberasshole stole this from some
creationist site and doesn't even have the decency and honesty to
attribute it. Some Christian, ain't he?
This is his problem - he cannot support a single claim he makes, and he
has been reepatedly proven a liar, a coward, and a hypocrite.
His first lie is his "TOBS" lie. TOBS stands for "Talk-Origins Banned
Subject", but no subject related to origins is banned from
talk.origins, and neither is Santana.
What is frowned upon, and not only in t-o, is moronic assholes like
Santana here, who cannot confine their messages the relevant ngs, but
instead cross-post wildly all over Usenet, and repeatedly post
unattributed ***** like this, which they then cut and run from
without having the courage to stand behind their lies.
Now let's show how pathetic "his" argument against evolution is.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
This is the root lie right here, because evolution has been observed
both in nature and in the laboratory, and this has been pointed out to
this liar, Santana, on numerous occasions. Evolution has also been
observed in the fossil record and in genetics.
The Theory of Evolution is in part an historical science, and it uses
precisely the same scientific methods that other historical sciences
use.
In other words, Jabberasshole's "argument" falls flat with the
slightest examination - as indeed **ALL** of his pathetic arguments do.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
05 Feb 2005 03:33:47 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2005 20:38:39 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Another Plagiarist for Christ. Jabberasshole stole this from some
creationist site and doesn't even have the decency and honesty to
attribute it. Some Christian, ain't he?
http://www.sconsig.com/inspirations/faith.htm
http://www.dpsa.gov.za/documents/service_delivery_review/Vol3ed2/OddsEnds.pdf
http://decrowned1.modblog.com/?show=blogview&blog_id=435013
http://discover.islamway.com/articles.php?article_id=38&lang=1
http://www.kampungnet.com.sg/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=1188
among other places.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
06 Feb 2005 05:46:03 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 4 Feb 2005 20:38:39 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Another Plagiarist for Christ. Jabberasshole stole this from some
creationist site and doesn't even have the decency and honesty to
attribute it. Some Christian, ain't he?
http://www.sconsig.com/inspirations/faith.htm
http://www.dpsa.gov.za/documents/service_delivery_review/Vol3ed2/OddsEnds.pdf
http://decrowned1.modblog.com/?show=blogview&blog_id=435013
http://discover.islamway.com/articles.php?article_id=38&lang=1
http://www.kampungnet.com.sg/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=1188
among other places.
I lvoe the "Discover Islam" site. All this time we thoguht Jabriol was
a JW and it turns out that Jabriol is a muslim! LoL!
B.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Good logic |
07 Feb 2005 10:53:31 AM |
|
|
wrote:
< snip >
Prof: So who created evil? (Student does not answer.)
God did. He said so. This "student" should try reading his Bible.
You, too, Jabba.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
