Linda Lee wrote:
> On Jun 15, 8:40 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Apobetics" <apobe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:1181863595.553687.80680@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>>On Jun 14, 11:14 am, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Tiktaalik" <corneliusjmch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Jun 14, 4:40 pm, Apobetics aka
>>>>>>IKnowIAmAnOffensivePieceOfOrdure<apobe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wailed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Myth of Evolution
>>>>>>>"Dr. Louis Bounoure, former director of research at the French
>>>>>>>National Center for Scientific Research, calls evolution "a fairy
tale
>>>>>>>for grown-ups." It actually is a cruel hoax! In fact, the
arguments
>>>>>>>that are used to support evolutionary theory are astonishingly weak
>>>>>>>and many are downright frauds.
>>>>>>>First, the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists. No
>>>>>>>verifiable transitions from one kind to another have as yet been
>>>>>>>found. Charles Darwin had an excuse: in his day fossil finds were
>>>>>>>relatively scarce. Today, however, we have an abundance of
fossils.
>>>>>>>Still, we have yet to find even one legitimate transition from one
>>>>>>>kind to another (sorry no apes to humans and no cats to dogs).
>>>>>>>Furthermore, in Darwin's day such enormously complex structures as
a
>>>>>>>human egg were thought to be quite simple - for all practical
>>>>>>>purposes, little more than a microscopic blob of gelatin (the same
>>>>>>>argument used by Planed Parenthood to justify abortions today).
>>>>>>>Today, we know that a fertilized egg is among the most organized,
>>>>>>>complex structures in the universe. In an age of scientific gains,
it
>>>>>>>is incredible to think people are willing to maintain that
something
>>>>>>>so vastly complex arose by chance and accident. Like an egg or the
>>>>>>>human eye, the universe is a masterpiece of precision and design
that
>>>>>>>could not have come into existence by blind chance.
>>>>>>>Finally, while chance is a blow to the theory of evolution, the
basic
>>>>>>>laws of science, including law of effects and their causes -energy
>>>>>>>conservation and entropy - undergird the creation model for origins
>>>>>>>leaving evolution with no foundation at all in science and making
it
>>>>>>>just another faith - based religion."
>>
>>>>>>>The Bible Answer Book, Hank Hanegraaff, Countryman Press, 2004
>>
>>>>>>A cretin citing a moron. How typical.
>>
>>>>>Of course you provide no scientific rebuttal because you are
incapable of
>>>>>doing so.
>>>>>Talking mud, flying pigs, magic monkeys, and breathing rocks.
>>>>>It's all right there in the church of Darwin the apostate preacher
who once
>>>>>practiced witchcraft in the South Pacific.
>>>>
>>>>______________________________________________________________
>>>>I never read or answer these naked apes. I do not suffer fools.
>>>>Have you noticed that they only attack the person and never have
>>>>anything on the subject?
>>>>This is the standard MO of the lost.
>>>>Who cares what they attempt to think (atheist -think...oxymoron)
>>
>>>Yea and never forget we come from rocks--<snicker>
>>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>(sorry for the long reply, but this got me to thinking)
>>
>>I agree with what you're saying, as the sixth evening and morning
>>in Genesis chapter one unambiguously states that Adam (pronounced
>>"aw-dawm", meaning the red race, the first race, of human beings)
>>was Created in the image and similitude of the elohiym (which is
>>plural, ergo the Gods, better known as God the Creator), but here
>>is an interesting quote from Jesus' first cousin John the Baptist:
>>
>> "...for I say unto you, that God is able of these
>> stones to raise up children unto Abraham"
>> --Matthew 3:9, Luke 3:8 AV
>>
>>This goes back to Genesis 2:6-7, most of which agrees pristinely
>>with the creation myths of other cultures. Moses was a very-well
>>educated, royal Egyptian high priest in the temple of Vulcan. So
>>it's not surprising that his incomparably erudite understanding
>>of the Creation myth agreed those of others, e.g., that mankind
>>was "Created from the dust and spittle of the earth", "Created
>>from the dust and foamy-crest of the salty ocean waves", etc.
>>
>>One more quote, where Jesus said:
>>
>> "...Among them that are born of women there hath not risen
>> a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that
>> is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."
>> --Matthew 11:11; cf. Luke 7:28 AV
>>
>>So everything that John the Baptist ever said, you can take it
>>to the bank. God can do anything -- obviously! I'm sure every
>>believer will agree with that. But why the Atheists seem hell-
>>bent for leather to "debunk" things which they either don't
>>understand, or as you've pointed out, Atheists don't *want*
>>to understand, you seem to have a better grasp of why Atheists
>>don't want to understand, than I have. I just think Atheists
>>are mentally insane. I truly believe someone has to be insane
>>not to believe in God the Creator, our heavenly father, the
>>One Universal God of all. So what is the Atheists' problem?
>
>
>>From what I've seen on these newsgroups, reluctance to change and fear
> of God's punishment (which they believe to be Hell) leads some people
> to convince themselves that God does not exist and will never punish
> anyone. Atheists are insane because their conscious mind maintains
> the delusion that God does not exist, while their subconscious mind
> *knows* that God does exist. This is viewed as a survival mechanism
> for them (their ego), which is why they're not above outright lies to
> promote their fallacies.
>
>
>>Like what makes Atheists believe in their "big bang" theory?
>>I think the reason they believe that, is because to believe
>>that the Universe is infinite and eternal, that sounds too
>>much like God the Creator. So I think that that is why the
>>Atheists prefer their pet "big bang" theory, because they
>>can't get their fragile egos around infinity and eternity.
>>
>>Who can, after all? That's why the ultimate name for God,
>>and for the dimensions, planes, heavens, of God's Universe,
>>is deemed ultimately ineffable, unspeakable, indescribable,
>>etc. It's like that classic 1962 film 'Barabbas', starring
>>Anthony Quinn, where he visits the house of aging Lazarus,
>>and asks him "what's it like?" "What's it like to be dead?"
>>And Lazarus replies with what is arguably the best-written
>>description of what it's like to be dead, ever rendered in
>>the history of cinema. I googled for the film's script, but
>>to no avail. I do remember that Lazarus told him "how do I
>>tell an unborn child what life is like? Death is like that."
>>
>>When I first watched that film years ago, I didn't like what
>>Lazarus said. But when I watched the film again earlier this
>>year, the writer's *very* keen insight became crystal clear.
>>
>>I think that if "unbelievers" would listen more carefully
>>for the profound, spiritual connotation above the mundane
>>denotation, as with the Egyptian hieroglyphs, for example,
>>they would then begin to realize what they've been missing,
>>and have been so foolishly mocking, for all these years.
>>
>>Perhaps that's the main reason why Atheists refuse to see
>>the Light, because of the shame that it would illuminate.
>>That would be one rational explanation, but I'm not sure
>>Atheists are particularly rational people to begin with.
>>
>>So they'll argue "but the evidence shows this", or "the
>>evidence shows that", ad nauseam. Like the ancient maxim
>>says, "any finite set of facts can evoke an infinite set
>>of conclusions". So the Atheists simply skew all of their
>>theories, conclusions, etc., to fit their profane agenda,
>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>>whilst completely ignoring (or gratuitously mocking) all
>>evidence which proves things supernatural, paranormal,
>>spiritual, divine, Intelligent Design, ad infinitum.
>>
>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>>You know how their "peer review" process works, or their
>>"million dollar prize" so-called "contests" for anyone who
>>"proves the supernatural", ad nauseam. Personally, I'd like
>>to see one of their famous "skeptics" spend the night alone
>>in one of the most maliciously-haunted castles in the world,
>>with no phone, no cameras, no outside contact whatsoever.
>>Just a bottle of drinking water, a good flashlight, and a
>>backup flashlight, extra batteries, and the clothes on their
>>back. Lock *all* the doors and shutters. They must enter at
>>sunset, and they don't get to leave until sunrise. And this
>>is no matter what. If they're screaming bloody murder, too
>>bad. They do *NOT* get to leave until sunrise. Also, do it
>>during a Full Moon, of course. The only other stipulation
>>is that we get to pick the castle they have to investigate,
>>and they have to enter parts of the castle we tell them to.
>>We'll leave a notepad where they can sign their name, thus
>>proving they were there. It'd be a world-infamous hellhole,
>>probably somewhere in the UK, although there are plenty of
>>other badly-haunted locations around the world which would
>>assuredly make a believer out of that poor "skeptic", too.
>>
>>But fools rush in where angels fear to tread, etc. Maybe
>>there's a "skeptic" out there who is actually dumb enough
>>to try it? And you can bet the resident poltergeists would
>>have a freaking field day with a dyed-in-the-wool Atheist! :)
>
>
> Since fear of God (and God's punishment) is the reason many atheists
> reject God, yes, a night spent experiencing the supernatural would
> probably be a very terrifying night for such people.
I'd take your challenge up in a hot sec... piece of Lindy's
cheese cake. I believe in the God of Moses. I do not
believe in ghosts, angelic visitations, ethereal spirits,
wandering souls or any other form of supernatural fairy.
|
