Anonymous

[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:34:39] <Wadiv>	VirtualPreacher, if we can't look at men who claim to have sought God and found him and can't see a discernable difference in them, then it is safe to conclude that even obeying God's instruction has no power to improve the human condition
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:34:40] <Tanekinkata>	Donco Dont you find that with most things? For example, to know Euclidian geometry you must accept some of that others claim first to accept it?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:35:01] <Donco>	50 pages of deconversion stories in less than 24 hours... apparently not everyone buys into the BS (Bible Stories)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:35:04] <VirtualPreacher>	Wadiv i dont see anyone trying to make you do anything.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:35:04] <Donco>	http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/how_ricky_gervais_lost_his_fai.php
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:35:05] <Tanekinkata>	Donco Dont you find that with most things? For example, to know Euclidian geometry you must accept some of what others claim first to accept it?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:35:09] Quit	Littlefoot has left this server (Ping timeout).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:35:36] <Donco>	Tanekinkata that does not imply that you accept all claims of others
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:35:47] <Donco>	Tanekinkata I trust you are not Muslim, right?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:35:53] <Tanekinkata>	Donco None of it does in either case
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:35:54] <Donco>	or Buddhist
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:36:07] <Tanekinkata>	Donco I dont think it matters
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:36:12] <TowerOfBabel>	Buddha bless you
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:36:25] Mode	CancelBot sets a ban on *!*@212.23.103.84.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:36:26] <jim9>	Eheh, the mathmatical proof of Euclidian geometry is suddenly in question?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:36:26] <Donco>	Tanekinkata I would be happy to test your God for validity... give me a test to try
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:36:29] Kick	Micha81 has been kicked from the channel by CancelBot (Bad channel event triggered).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:36:33] <jim9>	I find that laughable in the extreme.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:36:51] <Tanekinkata>	Donco heh, shoot yourself
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:37:08] <Donco>	pass
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:37:13] <Tanekinkata>	good idea
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:37:19] <NaomiRuth>	whoa, whoa, whoa, Tanekinkata
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:37:37] <thywillbedone>	TowerOfBabel, if mormons believe satan is jesus brother then they are not listening to his word but making up things as they go
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:37:54] <TowerOfBabel>	thywill, get your facts straight
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:37:59] <TowerOfBabel>	get with it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:38:00] <Wadiv>	VirtualPreacher, you're telling us that unless we follow the protocol exactly we aren't going to find what we're looking for, you'll sit there and call us lost and decieved and hardened and yet make an indirect claim of yourself at having found the truth concerning God, salvation etc, but how are you any different from any other man on the street selling lies and yet claiming to in fact be selling truth?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:38:02] <TowerOfBabel>	get it toether
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:38:06] <Tanekinkata>	Donco there are other means, honestly, but they do not produce absolute results, so there is an element of acceptance that is different
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:38:23] <Donco>	Tanekinkata propose a falsifiable test
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:38:29] <Tanekinkata>	NaomiRuth I was just making a point :)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:38:38] <VirtualPreacher>	Wadiv i did not claim to be able to identify those God has given over to a hardened heart. i dont know who is gone baby gone and who will wake up tomorrow and see the light.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:38:58] Nick	icytakenashower is now known as icequeen81.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:39:18] <Tanekinkata>	Donco Why must it be falsifiable, not that you cant, but why pick that? Why not use comparitve evidence or some other form?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:39:18] Part	Homer-Simpson has left this channel.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:39:41] <Donco>	Tanekinkata what use is a test which is not falsifiable?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:39:45] <Wadiv>	Of course not, you've covered yourself just enough to say that, but you don't mind making claims that God hardens people's hearts and letting us know that some just won't see or understand God's truth, that some are actually deceieved, all while we're sitting in here chatting.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:39:49] <jim9>	Comparitive evidence?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:39:59] Quit	Azazel08 has left this server (Read error: Operation timed out).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:40:03] <jim9>	Humourous.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:40:04] <Donco>	jim9 compare the Bible to the Koran?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:40:04] <Wadiv>	The implication, VirtualPreacher, is rather obvious.  And rather offensive.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:40:18] <thywillbedone>	TowerOfBabel, i dont have the facts so thats why i said 'IF the mormons believe satan is jesus brther'
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:40:18] Join	Homer-Simpson has joined this channel (ouch@2.drunk.2.drink.at).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:40:18] <Tanekinkata>	Donco It can have very good use. Some things cannot be falsified
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:40:24] Mode	SeekHim gives Homer-Simpson the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:40:27] <Shirakawasuna>	Donco: did you know that leprechauns are always just beyond your sight, and only you experience this?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:40:36] <jim9>	I do not care too Donco.  They both have no evidence.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:40:43] Notice	-EnglishGent- Mabus your sounding like butthead (or is it Beavis?) - stop it :P
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:40:49] <Tanekinkata>	Donco We use non falsifiable methods commonly and they are necessary
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:40:52] <Donco>	Tanekinkata can you propose a relevant test or not? Remember, you said "not that you can't"
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:41:01] <VirtualPreacher>	Wadiv thats your problem.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:41:10] <Tanekinkata>	Donco Could you answer my question?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:41:10] <VirtualPreacher>	if you dont like what the bible says take it up with God.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:41:31] <Wadiv>	VirtualPreacher, not really, its your testimony and it's a bad taste in the mouth, if your God does exist, your own scripture says you will be held to account for it.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:41:47] <Donco>	Shirakawasuna I can deduce the existence of leprechauns since pots exist, gold exists, rainbows exist... no reason they don't all exist together at the same time with leprechauns!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:42:22] <icequeen81>	Virtualpreacher, I would like to apologize to you. It was wrong of me to say you were not in active ministry to God. I hope you would forgive me.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:42:24] <thywillbedone>	Wadiv, when a person can see nor hear to begin with God hardens their hearts. pharoah chose not to see nor hear
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:42:28] <Donco>	Tanekinkata I asked that you present a test.. if you want to present one that is not falsifiable, go ahead
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:42:32] Quit	bnyfoofoo has left this server (Quit:).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:42:38] <Wadiv>	I could really care less what you think about me, except for the fact that your actions and your attitude are a testimony to the living God you would have us believe is in your life and has changed you.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:42:40] <VirtualPreacher>	its not a bad taste in my mouth. I am very grateful that God has allowed me to know these things. i'm very grateful that God lifted the veil off of my eyes and allowed me to see the truth. I am not the least bit ashamed to say it. Jesus Christ is the Lord and if that offends you i cannot say i'm sorry because i'm not.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:42:43] <Tanekinkata>	Donco Falsifiable test. I define what I am looking for, what I predict God will be like, I test by looking as many places as possible for this, after a time I report my observations
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:42:49] Mode	SeekHim sets the channel limit to 50 nicks.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:43:02] <VirtualPreacher>	icequeen81 i dont recall you saying that i wasnt actively involved in a ministry.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:43:15] <TowerOfBabel>	Thywill, sorry.  It just is such a basic deception that socalled Christians wield on their brethren.  Here is a Mormon wiki on the subject if you want the link and really learn what Mormons believe, not what antimormons say mormons believe.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:43:16] <Tanekinkata>	Donco But what is wrong with other methods, are they valid?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:43:21] <icequeen81>	I did not mean that you weren't saved, although perhaps thats how you took it.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:43:26] <VirtualPreacher>	ok
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:43:33] <Wadiv>	I'm pretty sure Pharisees felt the same way back in the time of Jesus, I don't think Jesus liked them very much, you don't calll people you like vipers.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:43:39] <icequeen81>	I still would like to apologize, either way it was wrong to say that.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:43:59] <Donco>	Tanekinkata I just requested that you present a falsifiable test. You need not do that
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:44:00] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: sounds like astrology
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:44:19] <Shirakawasuna>	they make predictions, they look places, they report observations
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:44:23] <Tanekinkata>	Donco Many atheists, improperly, hang their hat on a "Falsifiable" test implying that is the only means acceptable, which is false
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:44:24] <Wadiv>	The Pharisees were enlightened, they had the truth, they knew the truth, the veil had been lifted from their eyes, the weight of the world lifted from the shoulder...and yet, they still didn't mind putting unreasonable burdens on the shoulders of their fellow men.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:44:42] <Shirakawasuna>	but when their predictions are false, it's always something wrong with the measurement or they didn't quite do something right.  But astrology is still true!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:44:43] <Tanekinkata>	Donco I just presented one
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:44:53] <Shirakawasuna>	which is why astrology is unfalsifiable (in practice)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:45:30] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna I did not suggest astrology, what I proposed has nothing to do with it and doesnt even sound like it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:45:39] <Donco>	Tanekinkata you didn't actually provide a test. You provided the framework for a test
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:46:17] <Tanekinkata>	Donco No, I didnt do a detailed test, it isnt necessary, just the means of doing it is necessary
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:46:19] <TowerOfBabel>	Thywill, would you like the link?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:46:57] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I know you didn't suggest astrology.  *I* suggested it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:47:08] <thywillbedone>	Wadiv, the fact that pharoah chose not to see nor hear hardened his heart. God hardened his heart just by being the truth and pharoah like atheists dont want to except the truth so denial is what hardens your heart. the fact of God hardens your heart because you are set in your ways
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:47:11] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: and it does sound like it, given the vagueness
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:47:21] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Yes and what I proposed had nothing to do with it, it doesnt even sound like it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:47:36] <jim9>	I submit that scientific falsifiable, double blind tests are incompatable with religious beliefs, hence Tanekinkata's reluctance to provide one.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:47:37] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: the methodology does.  I've already explained how
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:47:40] <Donco>	Tanekinkata so the test you provided for me is that I define what I am looking for, predict what God will be like, and test by observation? OK: I predict God is evil, I will look for unnecessary suffering in the world... Oh, there it is! God exists!!!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:47:48] <Wadiv>	Alright, thywillbedone, I can accept that, now show me a real christian, one who follows the commandments of Jesus Christ
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:47:48] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: astrologers make predictions, they go out and look, they make conclusions
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:48:04] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna There is nothing vauge about seting a criteria for God, for what you are looking for and then trying to find it. How is that like astrology?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:48:21] <insomniac_cat>	lol god hardens your heart so you won't know him, but he loves you!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:48:23] <TowerOfBabel>	Jesus had His own star not recorded in astrology
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:48:34] <Wadiv>	Otherwise, I have no reason to believe that Jesus or the Holy Spirit or God have any power to change a person for the better once receiving any part of God into his or her life.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:48:35] <Tanekinkata>	Donco Fine, publish it. It will be reviewed.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:48:39] <TowerOfBabel>	He is the morning star
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:48:57] <thywillbedone>	TowerOfBabel, i never believed mormons thought that but ppl will say things through lack of ignorance like how they used to tell children blacks grew tails
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:49:07] <Wadiv>	but let's be clear on this, it isn't denial to reject a phoney, it isn't denial to call a bad fruit what it is: bad fruit
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:49:08] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna heh so does all science. Does all science sound like astrology to you?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:49:12] <Donco>	Tanekinkata your test is silly... I suppose it could justify just about any claim  you want
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:49:17] <icequeen81>	LOL they said that thywillbedone?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:49:18] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: science does more than that
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:49:29] <TowerOfBabel>	thywill, another one is Mormon's have horns.  People actually ask where they are.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:49:39] <Tanekinkata>	Donco Nothing silly about it, it IS what science does.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:49:53] <jim9>	Tanekinkata:  Because people believe in astrology despite all the contracdicting evidence provided by modern science, the same science thats provides modern medical care we rely on and this very chatroom.  Belief in God is the same.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:50:06] <Donco>	Tanekinkata well, you have yet to provide an actual test... go ahead, present a specific test
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:50:06] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: it's also falsifiable, follows methodological methodological materialism, tends to reject nonparsimonious claims, has peer review, requires experiments...
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:50:11] <TowerOfBabel>	The wise men followed a star.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:50:14] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Sure it does more, but laying out an entire process, in detail isnt necessary here
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:50:20] <VirtualPreacher>	Wadiv again, thats *your* problem. if you stand before God having rejected him and say "but those people are bad whaa whaa whaa" what do u think that will accomplish? God did not ever tell you or me to go out and find him in the world. Jesus Christ is the truth the life and the way, not VirtualPreacher, or any other professing Christian. your just chasing a phantom
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:50:22] <thywillbedone>	Wadiv, they knew their torah inside out but could not see who jesus was
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:50:31] <TowerOfBabel>	Herod searched for the star
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:50:45] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Fine and my test can do ALL of that
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:50:51] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: goal-seeking is precisely what astrology does, and I'm laying out the differences between pseudoscience and science atm.  Astrology is pseudoscience and uses a methodology that *sounds* like what you've proposed.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:51:05] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: in other words, confirmation-seeking exercises.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:51:38] <TowerOfBabel>	Signs will appear in the Heavens in the last days.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:51:43] <Wadiv>	VirtualPreacher, it's God's problem, he has been misrepresented and he has allowed it to happen, in essence he's letting misrepresentation to be passed off as valid representation, in which case it is valid for any reasonable sentient being to reject out of hand the notion that this "god" has the power to change my life
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:51:57] <thywillbedone>	Wadiv, the scribes were the experts but they could not see who jesus was. either they knew but still denied or could not hear the word
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:52:16] <Tanekinkata>	jim9 There is nothing in science that shows God does not exist, there is no comparison to medicine. If you claim Science provides evidence that God does not exist, present it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:52:21] <Wadiv>	I am not going to buy into God when it is so apparent that receieving him into one's life has no effect whatsoever for the better
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:52:25] <TowerOfBabel>	when one sees these signs know that the end is nigh
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:52:34] <Wadiv>	it is preposterous to expect anyone to do so
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:52:43] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna You can do all of that with my test, its no different than any other test
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:53:04] <Wadiv>	it's like asking you to believe that drinking a bottle of cyanide will make you super strong, while ignoring all the evidence that people who do generally DIE
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:53:05] <TowerOfBabel>	Wadiv, you are left to save yourself then
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:53:08] <jim9>	Tanekinkata:  Indeed, there is no disproof in science of God, just as there is no disproof of the tooth fairy.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:53:12] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: 'all that' being the scientific method?  Then how's it falsifiable?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:53:13] <insomniac_cat>	many people change when they become christians, but in very few cases it's because of god changing them
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:53:19] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: what's your proposed experiment?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:53:21] <Donco>	Tanekinkata why won't you present an actual test I can do right now?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:53:23] <Tanekinkata>	jim9 add atheism to your list then
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:53:29] Quit	shOck_w[a]vE has left this server (Read error: Connection reset by peer).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:53:33] <thywillbedone>	<+Wadiv> Alright, thywillbedone, I can accept that, now show me a real christian, one who follows the commandments of Jesus Christ - no one says christians are perfect.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:53:40] <Tanekinkata>	Donco I did present one, no, two
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:53:45] <jim9>	Tanekinkata:  Disprove Athiesm?  Did you seriously just say that?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:53:51] <Wadiv>	thywillbedone, christians say that to get out of their responsibility to follow Christ
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:53:55] <Wadiv>	it doesn't fly with me, I'm not stupid
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:10] <insomniac_cat>	maybe christians are not perfect, but wouldn't you expect a christian to attempt to follow jesus and what he taught?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:16] <Tanekinkata>	jim9 sure I did, why do you think an atheist has no burden of proof whatever?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:20] <Wadiv>	thank you!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:22] <TowerOfBabel>	It is better to not be perfect and seek after such, than to not be perfect and to not seek after perfection.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:24] <Donco>	Tanekinkata I didn't see one, can you please repost the EXACT test and the predications it makes?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:25] <VirtualPreacher>	[16:52] <Wadiv> I am not going to buy into God when it is so apparent that receieving him into one's life has no effect whatsoever for the better<----------------okie dokie. so what are you doing here then? you have declared you intend to reject the gospel. why are you still hanging around arguing with Christians long after you have rejected it? what gives?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:42] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: they really don't :/
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:44] Join	floydfp has joined this channel (ui@c-71-59-119-232.hsd1.pa.comcast.net).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:48] <jim9>	Tanekinkata:  Because an Atheist does not claim a God or Gods and therefore has no burden of proof.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:49] <Wadiv>	VirtualPreacher, I'm looking for an example, I'm not going to find one in #Atheist or #Islam
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:49] Mode	SeekHim gives floydfp the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:51] <thywillbedone>	insomniac_cat, pharoah didn't want to accept the truth like the ppl in noahs days
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:52] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: God is not obvious, despite what whackjobs claim.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:53] <Wadiv>	I'm not finding one yet.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:54:59] <VirtualPreacher>	Wadiv LOL sure
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:55:09] <TowerOfBabel>	an example of what?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:55:10] <Wadiv>	VirtualPreacher, apparently you can read minds
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:55:13] <insomniac_cat>	thywillbedone, what does that have to do with what i was saying?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:55:18] <Tanekinkata>	Donco if you didnt see it, scroll back. Its there, I posted a test you could do
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:55:24] <Wadiv>	VirtualPreacher, should I just stop typing now and let you do all my typing for me?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:55:30] <Shirakawasuna>	it takes books and indoctrination to keep the belief in God going properly (God always has theistic baggage)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:55:37] <VirtualPreacher>	your "looking for an example" of a "real christian" presuming you would know one when you met one.........you think you can discern what a person does or does not do on IRC? all these professing christians here might be part time serial killers for all you know
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:55:37] <Donco>	Tanekinkata can you tell me the time you posted it?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:55:59] <Donco>	Tanekinkata or give me a key word I can search for?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:56:06] <Wadiv>	VirtualPreacher, I do, I've read the bible, I know how Jesus acted
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:56:07] <TowerOfBabel>	show me a real atheist
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:56:07] <icequeen81>	lol
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:56:09] <Wadiv>	and he didn't act like you
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:56:11] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: do you believe in Zeus?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:56:14] 	 * icequeen81 sharpens her serial killer tools
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:56:41] <TowerOfBabel>	not one of those everyday atheists, I want to see a real one.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:56:49] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna and yes an atheist has a burden of proof. Many want to deny it by hiding behind a claim that atheism is merely a lack of belief, I dont buy that, I think it is distorted. Ive yet to meet ANY atheist who lacks a belief for no reasons, they ALL have had reasons and as soon as they do they have a burden, if not to me, to themselves
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:56:50] <Wadiv>	I am not an atheist
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:56:59] <TowerOfBabel>	never said you were
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:57:06] <TowerOfBabel>	But I still want to see one
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:57:14] <Tanekinkata>	Donco Sure, God...I used it in the test
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:57:19] <jim9>	I am.  I have no idea if I satisfy ToB's criteria of a real atheist or not.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:57:23] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: having reasons doesn't mean you suddenly have a burden :/.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:57:24] <Wadiv>	TowerOfBabel, that's fine, I didn't want to misrepresent atheists
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:57:30] <Donco>	Tanekinkata if there is no God how does one prove no God exists?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:57:36] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: so, do you believe in Zeus?  How about Vishnu?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:57:36] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Sure zeus was a character in ancient religions
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:57:48] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: you know what I mean.  Do you make offerings to Zeus?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:57:58] <Shirakawasuna>	do you take him as a literal deity?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:58:21] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Sure it does, unless your reasons have no basis. Do you claim your reasons for non believe have no basis whatever, if so then you are right. Which is it?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:58:37] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Nope, not to zeus
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:58:38] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: a burden of proof is not simply having a basis, sheesh
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:58:47] <TowerOfBabel>	very few atheists in a fox hole, my stepfather used to say after three campaigns in WWII.  But he did find one once.  But only one.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:58:48] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Of course it is
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:58:52] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: nope
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:59:01] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: you clearly have no clue what it is ;)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:59:21] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: it is the onus to show, or evidence, your proposition.  An onus is not made simply by having reasons for *disbelief*
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:59:24] <Shirakawasuna>	that's charity
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:59:27] <jim9>	TowerOfBabel:  'No atheists in a foxhole' is an arguement against foxholes, not atheists.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:59:28] <Donco>	Tanekinkata I just searched for your post with there word "god". There was no test presented
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:59:44] <Wadiv>	personally, I'm all for God resuming the policy he had with Ananias and Saphira with his modern church, it would clear things up so much better so that the rest of us lost, deceieved and apparently stupid sinners could find this golden needle
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:59:48] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: so, you're an azeustist.  Time for you to present some of that burden.  Why are you azeustist?  Prove that Zeus does not exist.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:59:54] <TowerOfBabel>	There were many that claimed atheism but when the bombs and hand-to-hand started they all got down on their knees and prayed...all but one.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:00:53] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Now be open about this, no games. If you have thought about why you dont believe in God, think of a reason why. Perhaps you can say God makes no sense, or it could be "I dont believe in what I have seen so far" pick one any reason, that reason needs to be valid, you need to beable to know it withstands review, you need to support those reasons with evidence or facts or something more than just claiming it, right?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:00:53] <TowerOfBabel>	there's a lot of big talkers around these days.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:00:53] <Wadiv>	I believe there is a scripture that gives directions on the selection of elders, do not choose a man to be elder when he has trouble running his own house, the same could be said of God.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:01:07] <jim9>	TowerOfBabel:  I am sure some converted on the spot.  I am also sure some saw the horror an converted to atheism.  What is it you have to offer apart from a strawman here?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:01:41] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna I dont have to "Prove" zeus doesnt exist. I only have to show reasonableness in not believing Zeus exists
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:01:43] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: oh, I agree the reason needs to be valid for the various points.  That does not transfer an onus, however.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:01:43] <TowerOfBabel>	jim9, my steppa can whip your steppa :)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:02:07] <jim9>	I am sure he was a very tough person.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:02:09] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I'll give you another example.  Dogs do not grow wings (biological)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:02:17] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I am an a-dogs-growing-wings-ist
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:02:18] <Donco>	Tanekinkata I searched for your post with the word "god". There was no test presented
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:02:21] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: so are you, I'd imagine
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:02:38] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: Do you now assume a burden, an onus, an argumentative *necessity* to prove that dogs don't grow wings?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:02:49] <Wadiv>	"An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient."
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:03:04] <TowerOfBabel>	jim9, besides you are the one claiming to be atheist, so you prove it.  It is not on me.  I have my opinions though based on live and "dead" data.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:03:09] <Wadiv>	Titus 1:6
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:03:15] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Sure it does, just claiming I do not believe in God/gods is a action statement. without reasons it is mindless. If not then you need substance to accept it, you have a burden to take your lack of belief from a mindless state to a reasonable state, that IS a burden
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:03:16] <Shirakawasuna>	sure, if someone's telling you dogs *do* have wings and are using bad reasons, to have a reasonable denial of their cleam you must have valid reasons.  But that doesn't make it your job to disprove their ideas.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:03:18] <Wadiv>	so much for the Church
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:03:47] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: the phrase is "burden of proof"
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:03:51] <jim9>	ToB:  I dont believe in a diety, that is not a claim that is a fact.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:03:51] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: it's not just a metaphorical weight
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:04:04] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: it's an argumentative onus.  Do you know what that means?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:04:14] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna You do need reasons, you need a basis for ANY belief if it to not be mindlessly derived
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:04:38] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: this isn't about having reasons.  This is about having a burden of proof
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:04:43] <Shirakawasuna>	pay attention! ;)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:04:50] <Tanekinkata>	Donco Its posted, I think Shirakawasuna saw it, I think you commented on it. Maybe your search tool doesnt work
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:05:08] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I didn't see the test, either
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:05:14] <TowerOfBabel>	jim9, that's easy to say but how have you tested your beliefs?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:05:26] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna You commented on it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:05:34] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: no, I commented on your vague methodology.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:05:39] <Shirakawasuna>	vague methodology isn't a test
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:05:48] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: so back to the burden of proof.  Could you define it for me?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:05:58] <Shirakawasuna>	it seems you keep equivocating it with having a 'basis' for an idea
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:06:00] <Donco>	Tanekinkata that was not an actual test... that would be like me claiming cold fusion works and presenting the scientific method as evidence. That tells you nothing about an actual test
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:06:08] <jim9>	ToB:  With skeptical and scientific observation.  I wasn't always an Atheist.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:06:26] <tzip>	Hey TowerOfBabel :)    Another excommunication over the gay issue, I read.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:06:42] <TowerOfBabel>	jim9, but you have no test.  Christians test themselves against the commmandments, what is your test?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:06:57] <TowerOfBabel>	tzip, I'm sorry.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:07:12] <Tanekinkata>	Donco I had no trouble finding it. In fact, I had no trouble finding your comments about it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:07:27] <jim9>	Tob:  I test myself with rationality, facts and evidence.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:07:38] <Donco>	Tanekinkata what part of THAT WAS NOT AN ACTUAL TEST don't you understand?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:07:42] <Tanekinkata>	Donco It wasnt like that at all. Yes it was not detailed
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:07:43] <TowerOfBabel>	jim9, that is no test
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:07:59] <Donco>	Tanekinkata it was not a test at all
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:07:59] <Tanekinkata>	Donco So you want an entire proceedure posted?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:08:15] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: that's what a test is
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:08:17] <jim9>	Tob:  That is your opinion based upon what I deem as mythical writings.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:08:20] <TowerOfBabel>	you can test a plane with rationality, facts and evidence but until you fly it you never know.  What what is your "real" test?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:08:21] <Donco>	Tanekinkata I want an actual test I can do myself to test for the validity of your God
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:08:22] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: it's not your vague methodology
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:08:24] <Tanekinkata>	Donco It was an outline for a test. Not very difficult to do
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:08:36] <Shirakawasuna>	this is all I see: [Mon Feb 25 2008] [14:42:43] <Tanekinkata>      Donco Falsifiable test. I define what I am looking for, what I predict God will be like, I test by looking as many places as possible for this, after a time I report my observations
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:08:39] Nick	Elduran is now known as Elduran-afk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:08:55] <Shirakawasuna>	replace 'God' with unicorn
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:09:02] <Shirakawasuna>	look, a test for a unicorn!  What more do you want?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:09:05] <TowerOfBabel>	jim9, but we test these mythical writings against God and find testimony.  You have no test.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:09:08] <tzip>	TowerOfBabel, I lied, Danzig resigned his membership.  I need to resign mine too... it's just never seemed that important.. to do that.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:09:11] <Donco>	Tanekinkata the reality is you cannot present an actual test
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:09:40] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: it seems you're using the all-too-common rhetorical tactic of just ignoring points when they go downhill.  So, what's a burden of proof?  Could you define it for me?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:09:51] <Donco>	Tanekinkata is prayer in any way effective? How about we do a prayer test right now... what should I pray for and how long will it take to be answered?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:10:19] <TowerOfBabel>	tzip, well, I suggest much thoughtful prayer on the subject and waiting for answers.  But sometimes cutting the chord is helpful to find what it is like without the strings.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:10:30] <Donco>	Tanekinkata present a test that will not always result in exactly what we would expect if there were no God
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:10:54] Quit	artnis has left this server (Quit:).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:10:58] <Tanekinkata>	FIne, God is an all powerfull being that knows all and can do anything, he has always existed. Now, I proceed on a long term project sending probes to as many places as I can over as many years as possible. If I find a being who fits this decription, who can show me... he created a universe, tells me the future, creates life, changes the laws of physics I can feel to a level of confidence I found God
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:11:06] <tzip>	TowerOfBabel, I attended a class at one time on leaving the church and yes, you can disagree with the doctrine and policy, but it's a hard thing leaving the support group.   On the other hand, selling out your conscience for social support is pretty sleezy, isn't it.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:11:27] <jim9>	ToB:  Your tests depends upon circular logic and a misunderstanding of what you think rationality is.   You claim I have no test, I welcome the tsunami of logical fallacies that you would use to argue that claim.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:11:41] <Tanekinkata>	Donco There you go
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:11:43] <Wadiv>	tzip: yes
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:11:49] <TowerOfBabel>	selling your conscience?  I don't follow.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:12:01] <Donco>	ROFL Tanekinkata
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:12:10] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: that description is kinda vague.  How would you know it's that being?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:12:15] <Shirakawasuna>	what's your actual methodology for the test?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:12:25] <TowerOfBabel>	jim9, what do you test your speculation upon?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:12:42] <Shirakawasuna>	replace God with unicorn and 'can do anything' with 'has a pretty and magical horn'
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:12:45] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna It fits the description of God in the bible, that is all I need to have
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:12:58] <Donco>	Tanekinkata how about a meta test... we have sent probes to many points of our solar system and no Gods have been detected. We can look with various types of telescopes across the Universe.. no Gods are detected
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:13:01] <Shirakawasuna>	actually I was being too concrete
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:13:04] <Shirakawasuna>	you can look at a pretty magical horn
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:13:15] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: it isn't a test
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:13:24] Join	TriloByte has joined this channel (~Me@wnpgmb0909w-ad01-199-253.dynamic.mts.net).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:13:28] Mode	SeekHim gives TriloByte the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:13:30] <Tanekinkata>	Donco Fine so draw a conclusion from that
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:13:31] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: you have no given any method for identification, only some vague attributes
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:13:39] <Shirakawasuna>	how do you detect this 'always existed' property?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:13:42] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Of course its a test.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:13:43] <Donco>	Tanekinkata how about the test: God is everywhere, God is not in my hand, thus God does not exist
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:13:44] <TriloByte>	yeah I guess so.. and of course, I am right and my god is the only real one.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:14:07] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Well, you can ask, I suppose
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:14:22] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: so if someone says they've always existed, you believe them?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:14:30] <jim9>	ToB:  I base my speculations upon falsifiability.  After all, if speculation were not falsifiable then random thoughts would rule supreme.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:14:34] <TriloByte>	meanwhile I still have to make my own spagetti.. because god sure doesn't do that for me.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:14:36] <TriloByte>	:P
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:14:37] <Tanekinkata>	Donco What about it? You COULD use that, for what its worth, just like any test
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:14:38] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: the reason I ask this silly question is that it's allowed given your undefined methodology
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:14:45] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: which is why you don't have a test.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:15:01] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna It depends, you have to look at the data and make a determination
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:15:05] <Donco>	Tanekinkata so I have presented two tests, your god seems to have failed both
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:15:09] <TowerOfBabel>	jim9, you changed my wording.  I didn't ask what you base your speculations upon.  I asked what you test them against.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:15:21] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: what data? Are there measuring instruments now?  What do they measure?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:15:41] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: you need to give a methodology for detection for a test.  
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:15:56] <jim9>	ToB:  I test speculation against its predicted results.  Ie. Falsifiable.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:16:07] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna the methodology is fine and defined, what is wrong is you want to apply a methodology that wont work to make a point. That isnt science and not how it works, not all experimentation works the way you want it to
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:16:24] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: actually, that is precisely how it works.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:16:27] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna You dont need a Measuring instrument in all cases
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:16:34] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: hypotheses always have a methodology for testing
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:16:52] <jim9>	ToB:  If I speculate that the interest rates will go down...well that is easily falsifible.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:17:17] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: whether it's spectroscopy or growing pupae, there's always a methodology for measurement.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:17:23] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna No it does not, much of science uses varied techniques, the test I described works fine. Is it exactly what we would want it to be? No, but you learn and move on
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:17:29] <jim9>	ToB:  If they do the predictions of my speculation were correct.  If they dont...
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:17:33] <TowerOfBabel>	jim9 anyway, you are saying you really don't know if your speculation is truth.  It is only speculation.  So try coming up with a test to know for sure.  In the gospel the test is to follow and it will be manifested.  Atheism has no similar test.  You are relying solely on your own power.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:17:42] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: you're still quite wrong about science.  
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:17:57] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: give me any source that requires a methodology for detecting/recording the results
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:17:59] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Again, you are building a strawman and may not realize it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:18:03] <Donco>	Tanekinkata your test would only show what people believe regarding God, it is not a repeatable methodology that anyone can use
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:18:17] <Donco>	to show an actual God
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:18:21] <Wadiv>	now we're fighting over who gets to wear the staff and high priest robes of science
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:18:22] <Donco>	exists
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:18:50] <jim9>	ToB:  Yes, that is exactly what I said.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:18:55] Join	fatjac has joined this channel (fatjac@adsl-67-124-36-198.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:19:01] <Wadiv>	is there a book somewhere that describes in precise details what science is that everyone agrees on?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:19:01] Mode	SeekHim gives fatjac the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:19:01] <jim9>	ToB:  About Speculation.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:19:02] <fatjac>	Hi folks! May the good Lord grant you peace.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:19:19] Part	Homer-Simpson has left this channel.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:19:51] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I mean the opposite
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:20:03] <tzip>	Hi fatjac :)))
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:20:07] <jim9>	ToB:  I dont see the correlation between how I deal with speculation and you claims of the gospel?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:20:16] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: give me a scientific hypothesis or credible resource that says no methodology for detection is required.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:20:17] <fatjac>	 Topic is '1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, <-- Do Catholics, Mormons, Baptist, (insert favorite group) believe this?'--Catholics for sure. Baptists I would think so too. Don't know about Mormons.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:20:18] Join	Homer-Simpson has joined this channel (ouch@2.drunk.2.drink.at).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:20:23] Mode	SeekHim gives Homer-Simpson the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:20:24] <fatjac>	Hi tzip!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:21:14] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Sure, for example, if I had a population that had a disease of some sort. If I wanted to determine what the cause had been. If, perhaps a particular cause was identifiable, I could not do experimentation as you want, I cannot repeat what happened, nor do a test to determine what happened, but science can determine this. They can analize data of that populationa and compare it to a similar population that is unafffected, that d
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:21:15] <fatjac>	Any Mormons aboard?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:21:36] <TowerOfBabel>	jim9, you will never "see" my claims.  But the test is there for you to "see" for yourself.  Simply perform the test.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:21:41] <TowerOfBabel>	yo fatjac
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:22:01] <TowerOfBabel>	mormons here
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:22:10] <fatjac>	How about the banner topic TowerOfBabel?  What's the Mormon position?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:22:17] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna I will find you a source on this as well
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:22:29] <TowerOfBabel>	devinitely better than the baptist position.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:22:35] <fatjac>	lol
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:22:48] <TowerOfBabel>	seriously
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:22:52] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: a disease of some sort?  I'm asking for a real example, not one you just made up
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:23:02] <fatjac>	Now TowerOfBabel, you think you might be a tad prejudiced there?<G>
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:23:14] <jim9>	ToB:  I do see for myself.  I see no god, christian or otherwise.  Is the only correct result of YOUR test the acceptance of your faith?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:23:19] <Donco>	Tanekinkata let's hypothesize that your God exists. I want to test for your God's existence. Specifically, how do I do that?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:23:27] <TowerOfBabel>	nope.  I used to be baptist, ya know?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:23:31] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: the method of analysis depends on what kind of 'cause' you're looking for.  If we're figuring out where the strain likely originally came from, there are absolutely measurements.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:23:52] <TowerOfBabel>	jim9, not at all.  But it is for you to test God.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:23:52] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Do you understand the concept I posted?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:23:54] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: if we're identifying diseases based on symptoms, that's qualitative analysis with clear methodologies.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:23:59] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, why did you change?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:24:00] <Shirakawasuna>	aka measurement
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:24:20] <TowerOfBabel>	I actually have a mediator now
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:24:27] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I understand what you're trying to communicate.  The problem is that it's vague and your pure invention.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:24:28] <TowerOfBabel>	and many other reasons
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:24:36] <jim9>	ToB:  I dont test god in the same way I dont test santa claus.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:24:45] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: in other words, is not in any way what I asked for.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:24:56] <TowerOfBabel>	jim9, your choice.  I can't make you drink.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:25:08] <fatjac>	Donco, proof for the existence of God is best approached first through philosophy.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:25:23] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: you were cut off at 'unafffected, that d' if you gave an actual source after that.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:25:23] <jim9>	ToB:  Fair Enough.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:25:39] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, I truly love the doctrine.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:25:47] <Donco>	fatjac that has nothing to do with my discussion with Tanekinkata
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:25:57] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac,  I love ideas of progression.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:26:06] <fatjac>	Sorry Donco. Didn't mean to butt in.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:26:16] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna I think you are being obtuse, it is not pure invention and if you are not aware of comparative evience and experimentation then you are not familiar with science.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:26:18] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, I can't countenance Jesus being the Father.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:26:25] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna I will give you a study
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:26:36] <TowerOfBabel>	literally
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:26:38] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, you mean the doctrine of the Trinity?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:26:54] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, there is no doctrine of the trinity, it is so vague.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:26:59] <TowerOfBabel>	unintelligible
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:27:05] <TowerOfBabel>	they even say it in the creed
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:27:11] <TowerOfBabel>	"incomprehensible"
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:27:12] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: yes, give me a study.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:27:13] <jim9>	Tanekinkata:  Comparative evidence is an oxymoron.  Evidence proves one thing or another, otherwise lump yourself with proponents ID.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:27:18] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Im not even a scientist and I know about comparative experimentation
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:27:27] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, sounds like you see it as a math problem.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:27:51] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, sounds like you don't have any great comebacks :)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:27:56] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: comparative experimentation has *measurement*
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:28:02] <jim9>	Tanekinkata:  You are quite clearly not a scientist.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:28:07] <TowerOfBabel>	1+1 = 2
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:28:23] <fatjac>	lol I save my big guns til I have you hooked TowerOfBabel.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:28:39] <TowerOfBabel>	1 Jesus + 1 Father = 1 in evangelism.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:28:52] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I fully expect your source to show the testing methodology (measurement) or assume it's really obvious.  (Patients developed a yellowish skin, etc, obviously one uses the eyes).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:28:53] <TowerOfBabel>	Evangelicalism
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:29:04] Nick	NaomiRuth is now known as NaomiRuth-afk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:29:06] <Shirakawasuna>	but I'll wait ;)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:29:08] <jim9>	Tanekinkata:  The only scientists who can possibly think that it is possible to comapre fact v truthiness are mostly in the discovery institute.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:29:30] <fatjac>	Seriously I read a great explanation of the doctrine TowerOfBabel.  Have you given much thought to what attributes might be ascribed to an infinite being?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:29:35] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Here is a test that was done, it was done by glassner on Gulf War syndrome, google it, my google isnt working for some reason
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:29:59] <TowerOfBabel>	yes.  Can you describe spirit?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:30:15] <Shirakawasuna>	sociology?  I'll let it pass to be nice
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:30:26] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: what was the study?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:30:36] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna It glassners work, he determined that there was no eveidence indicating any sort of real Gulf war syndome using the technique I described
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:31:00] Quit	jim9 has left this server (Quit:).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:31:16] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: it really isn't my job to find the source for you, but I'll do what I can to find the real study
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:31:23] <Tanekinkata>	He could not recreate the gulf war, he could only look at the data after the fact, this IS science, but not as you describe
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:31:30] <Shirakawasuna>	simply declaring it to use your technique doesn't count ;)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:31:58] <fatjac>	By spirit I mean a being that lacks the properties of matter, whose activity (i.e. what it does) is to know and to love, and who has its nature so firmly in its grasp that it can never become some other thing.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:32:01] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Be honest here, I can get google to work, try it, if you wont, then you simply dont want to know, it shows you wrong
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:32:11] <Donco>	Tanekinkata why not just admit you have no test that can test for your God
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:32:28] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, does that sound correct to you?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:32:48] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I'm using google to do *your* job for you, and it isn't as obvious as you're pretending
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:33:09] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, where in the gospel does it say that?  Nevermind.  Let's not go there.  Give me another example in nature of something that lacks properties of matter.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:33:10] <floydfp>	fatjac, are demons spirits?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:33:22] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: here's an IP for google if it's not resolving: 209.85.173.99
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:33:28] <Shirakawasuna>	put it in your browser, should work
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:33:37] Part	TriloByte has left this channel (Leaving).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:33:51] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, in Mormonism spirit is refined matter, just we can't detect it.  But still matter.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:33:55] <fatjac>	floydfp, if you mean Satan and his minions then yes. They are fallen angels.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:33:57] <TowerOfBabel>	That's a key difference.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:34:26] <floydfp>	fatjac, so demons love according to your definition
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:34:31] <TowerOfBabel>	So obviously our thinking will be diferrent on an infinite beings composition.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:34:31] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, then that is one area where the Mormons and I disagree.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:34:54] <fatjac>	<floydfp> fatjac, so demons love according to your definition??  Where did you get that?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:35:04] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, but your position is not Biblical.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:35:14] <floydfp>	fatjac, tell us what the spirit is. You just told us what it's not. "lacks the properties of matter"
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:35:18] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: it seems to be in a book, not something we can actually cehck
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:35:19] <Shirakawasuna>	*check
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:35:45] <floydfp>	fatjac, "whose activity (i.e. what it does) is to know and to love" <-- there
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:35:50] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna There is also his study on the net, it is also in his book
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:35:50] <TowerOfBabel>	not scientific I guess too :)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:35:53] <icequeen81>	heya floyd!!!!!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:36:01] <floydfp>	hi icequeen81 :)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:36:04] <Donco>	"nothing" lacks the properties of matter, so spirit is "nothing"
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:36:14] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I don't see it, you'll have to give your own source
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:36:25] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, you are in a corner.  Paint ... Paint ... Paint!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:36:39] <fatjac>	n nature of something that lacks properties of matter?  TowerOfBabel, ever heard the old canard "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"  You see the oxymoron there I'm sure.  The question correctly posed is "How much space does something take up that takes up no space at all?"
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:36:46] <Tanekinkata>	Comparisons can be highly effective when experiments cannot be conducted. For instance, Glassner describes comparative studies in which the rate of birth defects is examined in the children of military personnel deployed to the Persian Gulf vs. deployed elsewhere. The studies show no difference -- and therefore no effect to investigate. Comparative studies can yield a high degree of certainty as well, though not as high as well designed exp
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:36:55] <Tanekinkata>	http://instructors.cwrl.utexas.edu/spinuzzi/node/145
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:37:04] <Tanekinkata>	There is a reference to it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:37:17] <TowerOfBabel>	fatfack, you avoid my response.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:37:22] Quit	macdig has left this server (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:37:26] <TowerOfBabel>	dance...dance...dance
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:37:28] <floydfp>	fatjac, you are only telling us what the spirit is not. Tell us what it is
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:37:29] <fatjac>	<floydfp> fatjac, "whose activity (i.e. what it does) is to know and to love" <-- there!!  Right on!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:37:47] <floydfp>	fatjac, right on so demons love according to you
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:38:09] <fatjac>	Demons hate floydfp. That is why they are demons.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:38:14] <icequeen81>	do you  believe that demons do not love floyd?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:38:21] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: yes, but that doesn't show the study
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:38:21] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, not Biblical and not Judaistic, not Hebrewish.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:38:25] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Do you see that comparative evidence is valid in science? or do you deny this?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:38:28] wallops	 jingo.ix.us.dal.net will be going offline for maintenance shortly. It may be down for several hours.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:38:36] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: the comparative evidence is based on measurement!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:38:40] <floydfp>	fatjac, then your definition makes no sense. You contradicted yourself
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:38:47] <TowerOfBabel>	they love pain and pleasure
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:38:52] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: it says, right there, " For instance, Glassner describes comparative studies in which the rate of birth defects is examined in the children of military personnel deployed to the Persian Gulf vs. deployed elsewhere."
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:39:06] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: see the part with "rate of birth defects in the children of military personnel"?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:39:15] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I guarantee it was sourced, and that the source gave a methodology.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:39:25] <Shirakawasuna>	he seems to be a well-respected sociologist
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:39:30] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, so you can see a basic difference I'm sure, even though you may disagree.  I suggest giving it some thought.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:39:35] <floydfp>	icequeen81, I never met a real life demon. I've only read about them and seen them in fictional stories.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:39:35] <fatjac>	If any soul in hell would turn to God and ask for mercy, God would grant his prayer. But the souls in hell will not ask. They hate their suffering: but they hate God more.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:39:52] <icequeen81>	hehe, i had to ask floyd
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:40:18] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Sure it did, BUT, his work used comparative methods and is valid and accepted, which you denied
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:40:25] <fatjac>	<TowerOfBabel> fatjac, not Biblical and not Judaistic, not Hebrewish.--Sorry got distracted by other posts. What do you mean?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:40:25] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac another difference is that black/white, heaven/hell scenario.  It is not biblical either.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:40:31] <floydfp>	fatjac, how do you know? Ever been to hell?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:40:47] <icequeen81>	oy...i think depression is a bit of hell
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:40:52] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: comparative methods died to methodology.  If you had ever actually given me his writings, we'd most likely see *his* as well
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:41:01] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, your definition of spirit.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:41:04] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna The point is that in science you have to use the BEST method you can, but it isnt always what you would like
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:41:06] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: the part where he would describe going through X research papers and correlating them, for exmaple
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:41:11] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: that would be a methodology
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:41:30] <TowerOfBabel>	That's not what the Bible says, that's not what Hebrews or Jews though in the original context, according to recent understandings.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:41:51] <fatjac>	You have a problem with my definition of 'spirit' TowerOfBabel?  What would be yours?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:42:06] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, in mormonism, only very few will not receive a mansion in heaven.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:42:09] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Yes, you use methodology in comparative evidence, but that was not what you said. Earlier you claimed comparative methods were not acceptable. Do you agree now that comparative evidence is acceptable?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:42:20] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, I gave it already.  Refined matter, but not detectable.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:42:46] <TowerOfBabel>	unless revealed
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:42:51] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, so pure spirit does not exist for Mormons?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:42:52] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: that's not what I claimed
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:43:03] <Tanekinkata>	Yes, it was stronger, lol
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:43:15] <TowerOfBabel>	pure spirit?  Don't put words on what I am saying.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:43:21] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: you are falsely implying that comparative evidence does not require measurement.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:43:27] <Shirakawasuna>	and explanation of that measurement
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:43:39] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, not putting words simply trying to uerstand.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:43:41] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: perhaps you could give me a true source this time rather than a vague reference
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:43:53] <Shirakawasuna>	then we can study the *real* thing and I'll point it out.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:44:00] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, to mormons, god the father has a body of spiritual flesh and bones, refined, the same as jesus had when he showed himself to the apostles, but obviously greater in glory.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:44:11] Join	glk4 has joined this channel (glk@adsl-75-50-22-123.dsl.tul2ok.sbcglobal.net).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:44:16] Mode	SeekHim gives glk4 the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:44:21] 	 * VirtualPreacher imagines a meteor impacting a group of astronomers watching it thru a telescope arguing about how to determine its velocity and exact trajectory without a reference point as it gets bigger and bigger in the scope
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:44:24] Join	S|J_McPherson has joined this channel (~justme@d220-238-144-9.dsl.vic.optusnet.com.au).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:44:29] Mode	SeekHim gives S|J_McPherson the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:44:33] <fatjac>	OIC TowerOfBabel,  I can't agree of course.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:44:41] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna When I presented the comparative methods here is your response: 2[17:23] 01(Shirakawasuna01): Tanekinkata: I understand what you're trying to communicate. The problem is that it's vague and your pure invention.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:44:52] <Tanekinkata>	It is not invention
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:45:08] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac this is why I say we have an actual mediator and Evangelical Baptists do not.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:45:09] <Tanekinkata>	Nor is it vauge
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:45:13] <icequeen81>	night all
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:45:15] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: ... now you're just jumping around
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:45:22] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: It seemed like invention 
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:45:26] Quit	icequeen81 has left this server (Quit:).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:45:27] <VirtualPreacher>	in other words mormonism has a god that got nekked with mary and commmited fornication and adultery.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:45:30] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna And was it?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:45:34] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, ever read any of Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica"?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:45:41] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: it is vague, though.  You still have'nt given me the actual source document
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:45:52] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna it seemed like invention because you werent aware of it?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:45:55] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: you've given a reference and declared victory, no quotes, etc.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:45:59] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, I don't know.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:46:00] Quit	Wadiv has left this server (Quit:).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:46:24] <TowerOfBabel>	Virtual, let's not get off track, unless you wnat proof to what you are saying is a deception against mormons.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:46:28] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: it seemed like invention because you used hypothetical language and gave no source.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:46:33] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, I suspect there are as many opinions on that as there are Evangelical Baptists do not.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:46:33] <fatjac>	<Tanekinkata> Nor is it vauge
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:46:42] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: when my question was asking for a specific, real source....
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:46:52] <fatjac>	Oops. Missed the cut.:=(
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:47:27] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, I don't care what people believe.  I care what my relationship to god is, and I say those who don't understand the nature of god cannot know his attributes, and without knowing his attributes he cannot be worshipped.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:47:50] <TowerOfBabel>	you worship something that which is not
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:47:56] <glk4>	I know nothing about God
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:47:57] <TowerOfBabel>	a figment of your imagination, otherwise.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:48:09] <TowerOfBabel>	glk4 then you don't know yourself.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:48:18] <glk4>	I know glk
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:48:38] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna sure it was, but it deliniated a methodology that even I was aware of and Im not a scientist. I dont understand why you would not be aware of this
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:48:44] <TowerOfBabel>	you know not from whence thou comest or where thou goest, except as a wave in the sea
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:49:01] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, the Summa's theology makes Evangelicals, Baptists and yes Mormons sound like three year olds discussing the origin of the universe.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:49:05] Quit	jks[a] has left this server (Quit: If you meet me and forget about me, you have lost nothing. If you meet Jesus and forget about Him, You have lost everything.).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:49:47] Mode	SeekHim sets the channel limit to 47 nicks.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:50:00] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, generalizations are weighted where they should be.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:50:04] <glk4>	I added to my url
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:50:08] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I am aware of it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:50:14] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: like I said, you're wrong about your characterization of it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:50:45] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: if you had given an actual source, I could point out specific flaws.  But you're not right, you're not even wrong.  Just vague.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:50:55] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna I think not, as I posted from a credible source
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:51:01] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: no, you didn't.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:51:05] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: you never gave the source
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:51:07] <Shirakawasuna>	you gave the name
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:51:16] <Shirakawasuna>	I have yet to see this study by Glassner
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:51:16] <glk4>	Tulsa was 70 f today
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:51:32] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, I have a one page paper proving the existence of God.   It's a little long to post on channel. Can I Email it to you. It bears on this point.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:51:53] Join	incy has joined this channel (~e234@cpe-72-224-209-152.maine.res.rr.com).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:51:55] <glk4>	I doubt all gods. Offer proof
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:51:57] Mode	SeekHim gives incy the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:52:01] <Tanekinkata>	I gave you the name of the study, which is really all I need do, Glassners Gulf war study.. is really enough. You can check it out, show me wrong if you wish
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:52:29] <glk4>	http://www.grahamkendall.net/Unsorted_files-2/A446-Godproofs.txt
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:52:32] <TowerOfBabel>	You can private channel.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:52:40] <glk4>	Lots of proofs
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:52:44] <fatjac>	BTW TowerOfBabel, isn't it great that God looks at the heart and not the theology?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:52:55] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: no, it's not enough... you still clearly have no idea what the burden of proof is.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:53:25] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Sure its enough and what does it have to do with burden of proof?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:53:36] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: If you want, I can give you a study that *does* include measurement.  But I don't think you'd accept that.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:53:58] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, I can also DCCif that is better for you.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:54:06] <TowerOfBabel>	fatjac, yes, but our openness to his greater mysteries are essential.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:54:06] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: you have multiple claims and it comes down to me wanting your source.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:54:13] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I don't have it and can't get it without buying a book
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:54:15] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Sure I would, so what? All it would do is show that measurements are used as well. We already know that
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:54:19] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: that's a failure to prove your claim.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:54:19] <glk4>	I read all proofs for a god
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:54:21] <TowerOfBabel>	I don't know how to do that, but whatever you think best.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:54:40] <TowerOfBabel>	settle down glk4
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:54:43] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I have access to essentially all major and lots of minor journals, if you can find an actual citation to a published study.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:54:44] <TowerOfBabel>	:)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:54:54] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, if you haven't used DCC Email would be simpler.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:55:03] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna Thats silly, even if google was working and I posted the exact name of the study, what difference would it make?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:55:19] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna you would still have to look it up, just the same
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:55:19] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I could look up the study and see if you're correct about remembering the analysis.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:55:33] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: then do so.  I've given you an IP for google, did it work?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:55:35] <Tanekinkata>	You can look it up now, with what I just gave you
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:55:37] <TowerOfBabel>	I prefer not to give out my email address.  Thanks!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:55:44] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna nope
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:55:47] <Shirakawasuna>	here's another: 209.85.173.104
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:55:49] Quit	Raino has left this server (toronto.on.ca.dal.net jingo.ix.us.dal.net).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:55:57] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, DCC then?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:56:09] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: I've tried looking it up.  It appears to be just his book.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:56:10] <TowerOfBabel>	ok.  What do I do?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:56:20] <Shirakawasuna>	I've checked google, JSTOR, MUSE, and ScienceDirect
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:56:40] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: and this is what it means by burden of proof.  It's not my job to find the name of the citation.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:56:49] <Shirakawasuna>	if you give me a specific citation to where the study is published, I'll find it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:57:02] <tzip>	TowerOfBabel, for what it's worth, our fatjac is the kindest, most ethical, trustworthy, upstanding Cat'lic in the world.  He'll only burn you ONCE.    hehehehe!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:57:10] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, your tool bar should have a DCC button.  It's like sending a private message.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:57:33] <fatjac>	rofl tzip, you're a hoot!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:57:35] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna This is an informal discussion, simply giving the author, the study and references to it from a credible source is all that is needed unless you are being obtuse
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:57:49] Join	Ghulam-e-Mustafa has joined this channel (~Ghulam-@78.144.169.160).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:57:52] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: you haven't given the study and the reference you gave had no formal citation
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:57:54] Mode	SeekHim gives Ghulam-e-Mustafa the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:57:55] Quit	_ryan1_ has left this server (Quit:).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:57:58] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: meaning I still don't have the study
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:58:03] <TowerOfBabel>	okay.  send it.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:59:10] <Ghulam-e-Mustafa>	who or waht are jahovaz vitnes?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:59:13] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: there, I found it.  On the reference you gave me, it just points to the book again.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:59:19] Part	Homer-Simpson has left this channel.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:59:25] <Shirakawasuna>	on the class's syllabus
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:59:30] <Ghulam-e-Mustafa>	let me know in prvt n e one
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:59:34] <Shirakawasuna>	it's not a published study so far as i can tell
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:59:43] <Shirakawasuna>	(published in a journal)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [15:59:46] <fatjac>	TowerOfBabel, you should see some sort of accept button.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:00:18] Join	Homer-Simpson has joined this channel (ouch@2.drunk.2.drink.at).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:00:24] Mode	SeekHim gives Homer-Simpson the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:01:10] <TowerOfBabel>	Yeah I keep accepting but it's not coming through.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:01:21] <Shirakawasuna>	TowerOfBabel: you probably have a firewall
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:01:25] <Shirakawasuna>	(good for you!) :D
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:01:35] <TowerOfBabel>	I'll have to maybe log in later through a fater connection.  I'm running this through my cell phone.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:01:36] <tzip>	TowerOfBabel, if you're running XP DCC doesn't work well.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:01:44] <Shirakawasuna>	I don't know what port DCC uses, but you'll need to forward it to get it working
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:01:48] <TowerOfBabel>	yeah, it's xp
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:02:01] <TowerOfBabel>	I gotta go to dinner anyway right now.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:02:10] <TowerOfBabel>	I'll check back with you.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:02:19] <tzip>	TowerOfBabel, I've never been able to get mine to work and I've tried a zillion things.  There's a site that tells you what to do to your configuration, did it, no joy.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:02:25] <fatjac>	Ok TowerOfBabel.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:02:36] <TowerOfBabel>	later all.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:02:41] Quit	TowerOfBabel has left this server (Quit:).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:02:51] <Tanekinkata>	Shirakawasuna I have seen the study using google, for some reason I cant goolge
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:03:38] <Shirakawasuna>	Tanekinkata: if you're in the U.S., change your DNS server to 4.2.2.1 and try again
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:04:13] <fatjac>	Gotta go. If I don't see you in the future I'll see you in the pasture.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:04:18] Quit	fatjac has left this server (Quit:).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:08:31] Join	Raino has joined this channel (hymn101@how-great-thou-art2008.co.cc).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:08:31] Mode	ChanServ gives channel operator privileges to Raino.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:08:36] Mode	SeekHim gives Raino the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:08:56] Join	GG_Allin has joined this channel (GG_Allin@76-10-149-208.dsl.teksavvy.com).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:09:02] Mode	SeekHim gives GG_Allin the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:09:24] <Tanekinkata>	Not working
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:09:29] <Tanekinkata>	I will reboot
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:11:36] Join	Biologyguy has joined this channel (~biologygu@69.154.224.217).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:11:36] Mode	ChanServ gives channel operator privileges to Biologyguy.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:11:41] Mode	SeekHim gives Biologyguy the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:13:36] Join	DemocracyNow has joined this channel (~bilbo@dsl-202-72-187-76.wa.westnet.com.au).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:13:42] Mode	SeekHim gives DemocracyNow the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:13:48] Part	S|J_McPherson has left this channel.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:13:51] <DemocracyNow>	hi folks
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:15:20] Quit	Zjagolan has left this server (Quit: Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:24:00] Quit	Tanekinkata has left this server (Quit: Peace and Protection 4.22.2).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:25:02] <Sara_Ks>	Well
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:25:12] <Sara_Ks>	Shirakawasuna
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:25:26] <floydfp>	Well Well Well
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:25:31] <Shirakawasuna>	Well
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:25:32] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: 
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:26:30] <Sara_Ks>	you were being a bit well, I scrolled back... maybe unreasonable?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:26:53] <Shirakawasuna>	nope
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:27:37] <Shirakawasuna>	the person I was arguing with said they had a test for God, said it fit the rigors of science, but didn't have any kind of measurement system.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:27:50] <Shirakawasuna>	they essentially said that was ok, it wasn't necessary, look comparative analysis
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:27:57] <Sara_Ks>	I know If someone gave me the information about a study, the author and references to it by a university, stating the nature of the study, I would accept it unless there was reason to no believe that source
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:28:13] <DemocracyNow>	hi ya Sara_Ks
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:28:13] <Shirakawasuna>	I asked for a source showing them to be correct, they gave me a book (something I can't check without paying/going away for hours)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:28:18] <Sara_Ks>	Hi DemocracyNow
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:28:24] <Shirakawasuna>	they thought it was enough that they gave me a name :D
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:29:04] <DemocracyNow>	Sara_Ks they are prophetic words
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:29:07] <Sara_Ks>	I saw it, but I saw reference to the underlying study on that web site. There was enough to accept it. I didn't need the exact study
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:29:09] <DemocracyNow>	and true
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:29:12] <VirtualPreacher>	its funny when folks will demand instant satisfaction about this God thing, but then will demand it continually for hours and days and weeks and months and years lol
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:29:29] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: you would accept my summary of the contents of an article if I gave you the name, generic description, and you couldn't find the article?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:29:35] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: because that's what I was asked to do
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:29:46] <Shirakawasuna>	I looked for the article - it doesn't exist so far as i can tell.  It's a book.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:30:09] 	 * Ghulam-e-Mustafa slaps Fundamenta|ist around a bit with a large trout
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:30:11] Part	Ghulam-e-Mustafa has left this channel.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:30:27] <Sara_Ks>	Shirakawasuna Sure, especially when a professor at a university is using it as part of his course and the professor acknowledged it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:30:50] <floydfp>	It seems like no one just believes in faith anymore. They claim to have evidence
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:30:58] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: really?  Where does he say his study had no methodology for measurement?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:31:08] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: that's what I was asked to believe.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:31:15] <Sara_Ks>	Shirakawasuna It didn't appear that was the question
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:31:32] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: it was.  It was about the necessity of having a methodology for measurement when testing a claim.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:31:37] <Shirakawasuna>	*scientifically*
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:31:54] <Sara_Ks>	Nor did I see anyone claim that, I saw a claim that science isn't always experimental in nature, that there are other means
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:32:02] <Shirakawasuna>	Barry Glassner's writings on the Gulf War Syndrome were supposed to be evidence against that idea
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:32:22] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: then you didn't look very closely
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:32:29] <Sara_Ks>	They showed a methodology that was not experimental in nature
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:32:43] <Sara_Ks>	He did no experimentation
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:32:47] <Shirakawasuna>	[15:15] <Tanekinkata> Shirakawasuna It depends, you have to look at the data and make a determination
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:32:55] <Shirakawasuna>	[15:15] <Shirakawasuna> Tanekinkata: what data? Are there measuring instruments now?  What do they measure?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:32:55] <Shirakawasuna>	[15:15] <Shirakawasuna> Tanekinkata: you need to give a methodology for detection for a test.  
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:33:00] <Sara_Ks>	That would be true
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:33:02] <Shirakawasuna>	[15:15] <jim9> ToB:  I test speculation against its predicted results.  Ie. Falsifiable.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:33:02] <Shirakawasuna>	[15:16] <Tanekinkata> Shirakawasuna the methodology is fine and defined, what is wrong is you want to apply a methodology that wont work to make a point. That isnt science and not how it works, not all experimentation works the way you want it to
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:33:25] <Shirakawasuna>	oops, jim9's comment is randomly in there
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:33:30] <Sara_Ks>	Yes, I see tanekinkatas point
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:33:52] <Shirakawasuna>	I see it, too.  It's misguided
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:34:12] Join	jks[a] has joined this channel (~jks_a_@adsl-75-52-171-145.dsl.dytnoh.sbcglobal.net).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:34:13] <Shirakawasuna>	she was proposing to have a *test* for her idea, one that was scientific
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:34:16] Mode	SeekHim gives jks[a] the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:34:25] <Sara_Ks>	There are two types of methods being mentioned, experimental and comparative, they are not the same
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:34:26] <DemocracyNow>	hello jk
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:34:33] <jks[a]>	hi
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:34:34] <Shirakawasuna>	she said she would send out a probe to find God
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:34:37] Nick	jks[a] is now known as jks.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:34:39] <Shirakawasuna>	I asked how, she said she didn't need to
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:34:45] <Sara_Ks>	Tanekinkata was pointing that out, it seems
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:35:12] <Shirakawasuna>	and as I pointed out, comparative studies which are scientific rely on other scientific studies where there is indeed data.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:35:25] <Sara_Ks>	Shirakawasuna Well, you could, you could examine every part of the universe to see if what you think God is exists.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:35:50] <Sara_Ks>	At some point you could say you believe it or not
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:35:55] <Shirakawasuna>	and that's vague
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:35:56] <jks>	Shirakawasuna.....what do you see? randomness or ID?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:35:58] <Shirakawasuna>	she said she had a test
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:36:01] <Shirakawasuna>	a scientific one, in fact
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:36:19] <Shirakawasuna>	how is 'examining' up to the rigors of a scientific test?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:36:31] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: false dichotomy
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:36:39] <jks>	why?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:36:44] <Sara_Ks>	Shirakawasuna It is a test and it would be scientific, it would not be a good test unless you examined a large enough sample to be confident of your conclusion though
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:36:53] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: the alternative to ID isn't randomness
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:37:23] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: you're declaring it to be scientific, it has no properties that make it scientific yet
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:37:42] <Sara_Ks>	Shirakawasuna If you follow standard proceedures, why not?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:37:48] <jks>	well Shirakawasuna...i am sure if i put a bumper on the winsheild at work...it would be random
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:38:02] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: uh... see above.  You're declaring it to be scientific, it has no properties that make it scientific yet.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:38:13] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: that was my original complaint.  You need to be more specific for it to be scientific
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:38:20] <Sara_Ks>	Shirakawasuna What properties do you think it lacks?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:38:23] <Shirakawasuna>	right now we have, 'I'd go look at stuff'
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:38:33] <jks>	i will shut up and let Sara_Ks talk
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:38:43] <jks>	sorry for the interuption Sara_Ks
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:38:44] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: bumper?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:38:53] <Shirakawasuna>	no worries, I can handle two convos at once :D
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:38:57] Join	Zjagolan has joined this channel (Zjagolan@netblock-68-183-131-4.dslextreme.com).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:39:00] <Sara_Ks>	jks No problem, keep going :)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:39:03] Mode	SeekHim gives Zjagolan the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:39:17] Part	Homer-Simpson has left this channel.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:39:25] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: falsifiability, clear things to be analyzed and measured, a coherent hypothesis...
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:39:34] <Sara_Ks>	Shirakawasuna science IS observational, you look at sample often
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:39:46] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: gah, stop missing the point.  Are you doing it deliberately?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:39:52] <jks>	ok...if too Shirakawasuna i put the gas pedal on the front bumper...my boss wouldnt like that....he knows where it probably should go
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:40:10] <jks>	the universe does show order Shirakawasuna
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:40:11] <floydfp>	With a good scientific theory, you should be able to make accurate predictions from it.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:40:18] Join	Homer-Simpson has joined this channel (ouch@2.drunk.2.drink.at).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:40:22] Mode	SeekHim gives Homer-Simpson the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:40:34] <jks>	thats true floydfp
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:40:55] <Sara_Ks>	Shirakawasuna I think I see the problem. Here, in this format, to type out an entire proceedure would be a giant waste of time. The concept tanekinkata presented could meet all that, it could be designed, that I can see.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:40:58] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: would this get published in a journal: "My hypothesis is that warm things are fuzzy. My test was to go look outside and see if my hypothesis was confirmed."
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:41:00] <Shirakawasuna>	?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:41:00] <jks>	but many things you do are not scientific but you know the outcome
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:41:09] <floydfp>	jks, yes. There does seem to be order to the universe. and?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:41:26] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: I will gladly say there's the possibility of eventually making a scientific test for it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:41:31] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: she said she *had* one
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:41:31] <jks>	perhaps floydfp if like glk4 says....someone hit him in the nose
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:41:45] <jks>	you would expect maybe something to issue out from his nose
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:41:59] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: gas pdeal, front bumper?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:42:04] <jks>	if the bb is so......well you would expect certain things to happen
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:42:08] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: what does this have to do with intelligent design/evolution?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:42:16] <Sara_Ks>	Shirakawasuna More than a possibility, it can easily be done, it isn't necessary nor proper to ask the room be flooded with an entire experimental proceedure
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:42:22] <jks>	Shirakawasuna...i am trying to explain design
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:42:30] <jks>	it shows design
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:42:42] <jks>	and i know you have heard these things before
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:42:51] <jks>	and they might seem minute to you
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:42:57] <jks>	but i see design in everything
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:43:01] <Donco>	Sara_Ks how about a request that she just provide something specific?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:43:02] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: it's necessary *and* proper to ask someone to back up their claims, and if that includes claiming to have a scientific test, so be it.  She could have written it up and pasted it to rafb.net/paste
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:43:20] <floydfp>	jks, so far we have established that there seems to be some order/laws in the universe. Where do we go from there?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:43:26] <Shirakawasuna>	Sara_Ks: So, do I have a scientific test if I go see if warm things are fuzzy?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:43:57] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: I don't see what you're getting at.  It seems to be a car analogy, so right off the bat: cars don't mutate or have babies.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:44:23] <jks>	floydfp..... and Shirakawasuna..can i direct your attention to another website
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:44:24] 	 * tzip returns to see that we've devised a test for God..???
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:44:37] <jks>	one that shows that it is impossible for evolution to exist
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:44:40] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: well, I won't promise to read much of it unless you give me a point ;)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:44:47] <jks>	by atheist standards
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:44:55] <Shirakawasuna>	oh yay, another evolution refutation site ;)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:45:07] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: I'll give it a look if you're willing to defend it.  Are you familiar with the claims?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:45:08] <jks>	but its by atheist standards Shirakawasuna
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:45:11] <jks>	not mine
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:45:24] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: that has yet to be seen.  Also, atheism really doesn't describe much.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:45:26] <jks>	they are scientists and they are atheists
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:45:34] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: atheists can have high and low standards...
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:45:48] <jks>	ok Shirakawasuna and floydfp...we shall see
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:45:50] <tzip>	mostly low ones
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:45:50] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: but if you're willing to defend the ideas *yourself*, I'll read it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:45:50] <jks>	just a sec
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:46:04] <Shirakawasuna>	otherwise I'll be arguing with a phantom
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:46:12] <floydfp>	jks, is it a christian site?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:46:35] <floydfp>	Are there any creationists that are not theists?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:46:50] <Shirakawasuna>	floydfp: ... he says it's 'scientists and atheists'
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:47:55] 	 * Shirakawasuna wants a cheeseburger
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:48:05] <Shirakawasuna>	yay for clogged arteries!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:48:19] <NaomiRuth-afk>	lol
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:48:24] <jks>	now...you will notice at the first that this is a Christian site....but it uses atheist data
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:48:30] <jks>	http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:48:40] <jks>	have a good day gentlemen
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:48:53] <floydfp>	That's a atheist site?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:48:58] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: so... are you willing to defend the claims on that site?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:49:03] <jks>	it uses atheist data
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:49:07] <floydfp>	atheist data?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:49:10] <floydfp>	what's atheist data?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:49:10] <jks>	of course
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:49:13] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: I'm not going to do much more than peruse it lightly unless you're willing to be an active part of the conversation.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:49:15] <jks>	keep reading
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:49:36] <floydfp>	there is such a thing as "atheist data"?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:49:46] <jks>	Shirakawasuna....since i am not a scientist...probably like you are not...i depend on scientific data
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:50:12] <jks>	and the heart of the matter with evolution is that we evolved
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:50:16] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: that sounds like you're prepping yourself to ignore my counterpoints...
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:50:20] <jks>	this shows it is impossible
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:50:22] <Shirakawasuna>	because some 'scientists' disagree with me
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:50:34] <Shirakawasuna>	are you willing to defend the site's claims or not?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:50:40] <jks>	they are not my points Shirakawasuna...they are atheists
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:50:56] <jks>	of course Shirakawasuna
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:51:03] <jks>	i have already read it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:51:10] Join	everyone^ has joined this channel (~Abilene@ip68-98-78-159.ph.ph.cox.net).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:51:15] Mode	SeekHim gives everyone^ the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:51:21] Quit	thywillbedone has left this server (Quit:).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:51:28] <jks>	hey....you cant be everyone^
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:51:30] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: they're not atheistic points so far.  The first quote is AE Wilder Smith, a creationist
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:51:36] <jks>	because i am someone
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:51:49] <jks>	keep reading my friend
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:51:56] <everyone^>	jks, lol yep, nope you cannot be just me.. :P
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:52:04] <jks>	it will take time just as it did me
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:52:22] <jks>	:)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:52:23] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: evolution is not abiogenesis.  Do you realize that the first third (at least) of that page seems to be about abiogenesis?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:52:39] <floydfp>	jks, it talks about abiogenesis
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:52:48] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: evolution + biology could eventually cover abiogenesis, but not knowing quite how life started does not weaken our knowledge of how it changes
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:53:11] <jks>	Shirakawasuna...and floydfp...it talks about the impossibiltiy of cell structure....amino acids etc
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:53:20] <floydfp>	jks, evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life on earth.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:53:22] <jks>	how long it would have to be just for the dna
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:53:25] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: Do you know what abiogenesis is?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:53:29] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: please define it for me :D
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:53:32] <glk4>	The early cells are found in formations 3.5 billion years old
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:54:18] <jks>	spontaneous generation
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:54:33] <jks>	right now!!!!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:54:36] <jks>	it just happened
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:54:39] <jks>	period
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:54:49] <jks>	there is no way it could have..........just happened
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:55:01] <jks>	glk4........please give my post a read
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:55:18] <glk4>	The chemical origins of cells is a mystery
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:55:22] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: so you're saying abiogenesis is spontaneous generation?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:55:24] <jks>	read on glk4
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:55:43] <jks>	glk4....with this post it couldnt have possibly worked
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:55:50] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: you said you were going to participate in discussion...
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:55:58] <floydfp>	jks, the bottom line is that if evolution was totally disproven tomorrow it would not make creationism right.  That's argumentum ad ignorantiam
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:56:15] <jks>	Shirakawasuna...living matter...cannot come from non living matter
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:56:15] <Shirakawasuna>	floydfp: nah, the bottom line also includes a complete misunderstanding of evolution
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:56:26] <glk4>	Science has many mysteries. Some are solved each year
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:56:36] <jks>	floydfp.....ok...but it does disprove it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:56:37] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: What is abiogenesis?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:56:47] <jks>	life from non life Shirakawasuna
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:56:50] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: good
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:56:53] <jks>	nothing is there
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:56:53] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: what is evolution?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:57:05] <glk4>	Each geological period evolved different species over millions of years. Genetic continuity is a law of nature.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:57:12] <jks>	Shirakawasuna...you have to have some sort of life first
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:57:20] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: that doesn't answer my question
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:57:21] <floydfp>	jks, but since creationism is not science it's not even a candidate. It's simply back to the drawing board
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:57:21] <jks>	and according to that post....it is impossible
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:57:23] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: what is evolution?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:57:27] <jks>	and it is by atheists
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:57:33] <glk4>	The origin of cells is unknown
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:57:36] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: so far I see no indication of it being by atheists
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:57:39] <jks>	you have to have life first Shirakawasuna
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:57:43] <jks>	and you cant
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:57:46] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: there are creationist quotes and ID quotes for which religion us unknown
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:58:01] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: you still haven't answered my question
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:58:03] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: what is evolution?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:58:27] <jks>	Shirakawasuna....there is no such thing according to glk4 and floydfp and you
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:58:30] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: if you think this is unfair, ask me any question.  I'll explain how it's misguided or answer to the best of my abilities
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:58:36] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: again, what is evolution?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:58:38] <glk4>	Evolution is descent with variation
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:58:42] <floydfp>	complexity has been shown to arise from simplistic systems. Using a lack of understanding of complexity as an argument for the existence of supernatural invisible friends is truly an argument from ignorance.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:58:46] <jks>	because this post makes it perfectly clear life cannot spring from non life
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:59:04] <jks>	but glk4...you have to have life first
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:59:06] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: I presupposed that when I asked you to participate in discussion that you'd answer my questions
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:59:09] <Shirakawasuna>	maybe I'll have to ask now
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:59:12] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: will you answer my question?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:59:16] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: I'll answer yours
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:59:18] <jks>	and by this post it is impossitb[e]\
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:59:19] <glk4>	Evolution occurs only after cells form
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:59:30] <jks>	thats right glk4
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:59:34] <Shirakawasuna>	glk4: not necessarily
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:59:37] <jks>	and cells cant form on their own
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:59:49] <glk4>	The origin of cells is unknown
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [16:59:56] <jks>	even scientist with all the right formulas cant make l ife
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:00:08] <Shirakawasuna>	glk4: what you're saying would give the impression that cells are the first life
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:00:08] <jks>	they have tried for decades
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:00:14] <jks>	and havnt come up with nother
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:00:18] <jks>	nothing
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:00:19] <glk4>	Some science mysteries take a while to solve
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:00:20] <floydfp>	glk4, again...how does any of this support your creationist claims?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:00:32] <jks>	but glk4....this one is impossible
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:00:33] <glk4>	Creation is religion, not science
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:00:36] <Shirakawasuna>	glk4: it is entirely possible, and is in fact the position of the most common theories, that life arose before cells and later evolved into them.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:00:43] <jks>	oh quit trolling glk4
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:00:48] <jks>	i gave you the answer
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:00:52] <Shirakawasuna>	or hypotheses, if we want to be technical
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:00:58] <jks>	post that on your web site
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:01:01] <glk4>	The first cells/life is a mystery
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:01:04] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: will you be honest with me and answer a direct question?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:01:08] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: I will be with you.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:01:12] <Shirakawasuna>	(honest)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:01:13] <jks>	of course it is glk4 because its impossible
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:01:17] <MrDav>	glk4 If creation were what had happened, would you then call it science?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:01:18] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: what is evolution?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:01:31] <glk4>	Creation is religion, not science
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:01:36] <jks>	Shirakawasuna...life from non life
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:01:37] <MrDav>	glk4 If creation were what had happened, would you then call it science?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:01:41] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: that is false
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:01:47] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: that is abiogenesis, not evolution.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:01:47] <jks>	you need those cells first Shirakawasuna
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:01:51] <jks>	and you cant have them
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:05] <jks>	but Shirakawasuna...you have to have life first
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:06] <floydfp>	MrDav, just offer a scientific theory; not any explanation. No "god of the gaps"
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:13] <jks>	and its impossible
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:17] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: you need electricity to make large motor vehicles.  Are large motor vehicles electricity?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:26] <glk4>	Think of all the past mysteries science solved
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:27] <MrDav>	glk4 Are you stumped?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:27] Join	Massinissa has joined this channel (~a@bas1-barrie18-1242378404.dsl.bell.ca).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:29] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: you still have not answered my question, however
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:31] <jks>	even the great physicist himself...says it is a mysteryt
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:33] Mode	SeekHim gives Massinissa the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:33] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: what is evolution?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:43] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: you were wrong about it being life from non life
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:47] <jks>	i answered your question Shirakawasuna
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:48] <Massinissa>	Shirakawasuna, it is a noun.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:52] <jks>	but you wont accept it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:02:54] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: you answered incorrectly
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:00] <jks>	no i didnt
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:08] <jks>	because you had to have the first cells first
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:08] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: yes, you did.  Evolution is not life from non-life.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:11] <MrDav>	glk4 It is a simple question.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:12] <jks>	and its impossible
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:14] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: evolution is how life changes over time
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:26] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: are cars electricity?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:28] <jks>	Shirakawasuna.....very circular to me
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:34] <jks>	you have to have life first
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:41] <jks>	and this post says it is impossible
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:44] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: ... you don't seem to know what 'circular' means, either
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:48] 	 * insomniac_cat shakes her head
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:49] <jks>	even by atheist standards
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:53] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: circular is presupposing the conclusion to make your argument
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:03:54] <insomniac_cat>	unbelievable
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:04:02] <Massinissa>	Surely we believe life came from non-life just as we believe that the universe was created ex nihilo.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:04:07] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: life from nonlife is not a conclusion of evolution, nor is it necessary.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:04:07] <floydfp>	MrDav, I'll answer you. If it's presented as a true scientific theory I would accept it as would the scientific community
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:04:11] <glk4>	The expanding universe, the 2.7 degree radiation and the ratio of light isotopes all validate the big bang. The origin of the bb is unknown.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:04:14] <insomniac_cat>	maybe the christians here should only focus on discussing the bible
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:04:17] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: so again, what is evolution?  Hint: I've told you already.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:04:22] <jks>	oh Shirakawasuna quit using your flowery words to try to sway me
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:04:26] <MrDav>	heh
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:04:34] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: they're clear words
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:04:39] <Massinissa>	Father Georges LeMaitre first proposed the Big Bang.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:04:40] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: was there a part you didn't understand?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:04:44] <jks>	by all rights.....the site i posted by the atheists scientists....say it is impossible
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:04:47] <Massinissa>	He was a Belgian priest
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:04:54] <jks>	so what Massinissa
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:05:01] <Massinissa>	jks, it is a fact.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:05:10] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: none of the sources for that site have said anything about being atheist
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:05:10] <jks>	like glk4 says....he wasnt as smart as the people of today
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:05:12] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: some are creationist
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:05:15] <glk4>	The origin of life/cells is still a mystery
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:05:23] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: so please correct your ideas about that site, first off.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:05:27] <jks>	oh Shirakawasuna...i looked at them all
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:05:37] <jks>	that is the first thing i checked
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:05:39] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: you didn't look very closely, then...
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:05:45] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: who is AE Wilder Smith?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:05:50] 	 * everyone^ is getting dizzy watching you guys go around and around and around and around..
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:07:00] <Massinissa>	The hijacking of science (especially in the form of evolution and cosmology) by militant, evangelical atheist to advance their own philosophical agenda is one of the most unfortunate developments of the last 80 years.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:07:13] <Shirakawasuna>	it'd be a lot easier if I'd get the same courtesy I extend, which is to directly answer questions ;)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:07:25] <glk4>	No sciennce includes any gods
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:07:36] <Shirakawasuna>	Massinissa: hijacking? How?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:07:36] <jks>	glk4...have you read my post yet?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:07:38] <glk4>	Atheism makles no science claims
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:07:47] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: who is AE Wilder Smith?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:07:59] <floydfp>	Massinissa, how has science been hi-jacked?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:08:04] <jks>	what i am doing Shirakawasuna..is showiing you all that even atheists say it is impossible
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:08:14] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: no, you're avoiding questions :/
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:08:17] <glk4>	Science works very well without God or Bible stories
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:08:27] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: like I keep saying, ask me a question, I'll answer in one of two direct, honest fashions.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:08:32] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: who is AE Wilder Smith?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:08:36] <Shirakawasuna>	is he a creationist?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:08:55] <Shirakawasuna>	Is he cited ten times in your 'atheist scientist' article?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:08:59] <Massinissa>	floydfp, that second part of my last statement explains what hijacking of science means.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:09:12] <floydfp>	"Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith (1915 - 1995), more commonly known as A. E. Wilder-Smith, was a creationist and a chemist.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:09:13] <floydfp>	"
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:09:24] <floydfp>	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._E._Wilder-Smith
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:09:24] <DemocracyNow>	everyone^ hello there ..... bluedaisy found that verse I went looking for yesterday
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:09:26] <jks>	Shirakawasuna...apparently you only want to pick and choose who is in the site
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:09:31] <glk4>	Pasteur never proved life could not appear from chemicals
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:09:37] <floydfp>	"He and creationist physicist Edgar Andrews debated biologists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith in the Oxford Union's Huxley Memorial Debate in 1986."
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:09:43] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: I'm not picking and choosing.  He's cited ten times and you said it was an 'atheist' page.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:09:47] <everyone^>	DemocracyNow, yes I know, I was there..
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:09:52] <DemocracyNow>	ah
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:09:57] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: that would mean you are wrong about it being 'atheist'.  I mean, it's on a christian page, sheesh ;)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:10:02] <jks>	ok then Shirakawasuna....are there any? atheists?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:10:15] <floydfp>	Massinissa, that doesn't explain any hijacking. sorry
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:10:20] <Massinissa>	What is a "Christian page"?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:10:22] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: I'll have to see.  People aren't assumed to be atheist if their religion is unknown ;)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:10:25] <jks>	and show me also the odds of the cell structure doing anything
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:10:34] <Shirakawasuna>	Massinissa: christiananswers.net makes it kinda obvious
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:10:35] <Massinissa>	oh, floydfp, sorry. I'm not sure perhaps what you are asking then.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:10:37] <DemocracyNow>	glk4 but where did the chemical come from even if the rest could just happen without help?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:10:44] <jks>	you probably wont even look any farther Shirakawasuna
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:10:46] <glk4>	There is no science data for a statisdtics claims
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:10:51] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: I will, so long as you promise to be honest with me
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:10:52] <floydfp>	Massinissa, how has science been hi-jacked?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:10:56] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: will you answer my questions when I ask them?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:11:02] <glk4>	The earth was full of chemicals, so was space
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:11:06] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: it isn't worth my time if you're going to ignore my counterpoints
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:11:10] <jks>	glk4....why cant a scientists reproduce life'?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:11:13] <Massinissa>	Shirakawasuna, but I wonder what we really mean by that? Is a Notre Dame University page a "Christian Page", for instance.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:11:19] <Zjagolan>	Avarujina, the Hindu god of wine and matter, created all chemicals.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:11:20] <DemocracyNow>	glk4 you proposal uses less science and statistics and more faith
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:11:29] <Shirakawasuna>	Massinissa: I mean it's an overtly Christian source
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:11:31] <glk4>	It  is a difficult problem, still being worked on
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:11:40] <Massinissa>	floydfp, I'm really not sure what to say except to repeat what I said earlier about philosophy.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:11:44] <jks>	why is it difficult?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:11:48] <DemocracyNow>	hi Massinissa
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:11:53] <Massinissa>	Shirakawasuna, okay.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:02] <jks>	glk4..is it possible to create life in the lab?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:08] <floydfp>	Massinissa, I'm just asking you to support your claim. That's all.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:08] <glk4>	Not yet
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:13] <Shirakawasuna>	Massinissa: I'm not saying that's necessarily bad, either.  He's just trying to claim it's an 'atheist' source.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:14] <jks>	and how long have scientist been trying?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:17] <Massinissa>	hi, DemocracyNow. That is quite a nick. You aren't an ancient Athenian, are you?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:28] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: ...
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:32] <jks>	you would think scientists would know by now
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:33] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: I"ll take that as a no, then?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:35] <jks>	poooooof
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:37] <jks>	there is life
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:40] <glk4>	3 viruses have been manufactured so  far
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:42] <Massinissa>	floydfp, oh, you want stats from Time Magazine or something? I really don't know what you are asking.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:51] <Massinissa>	Shirakawasuna, I see
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:12:52] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: I asked if you would be honest and directly answer my questions.  That's a yes or no question.  If you ask me the same, my answer is 'yes'
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:13:01] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: will you do so?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:13:01] <floydfp>	jks, you are simply making an argument from ignorance
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:13:05] <Massinissa>	glk4, why???
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:13:24] <DemocracyNow>	Massinissa no just an amy goodman fan .... 12 http:/www.democracyNow.org
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:13:32] <Massinissa>	Isn't recognising our ignorance the first step to enlightenment?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:13:36] <jks>	floydfp....i am not the one making the argument....the whold site makes it impossible for evolution to happen
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:13:40] <jks>	even glk4 admits it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:13:42] <Massinissa>	DemocracyNow, oh.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:13:47] <floydfp>	Massinissa, I am asking how science has gotten hi-jacked? Are atheists threatening scientists or something?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:13:49] <glk4>	Each geological period evolved different species over millions of years. Genetic continuity is a law of nature.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:13:53] <Shirakawasuna>	it's not just a third, the entire page is about abiogenesis...
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:14:07] <jks>	glk4....you dont have anything to evolve
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:14:11] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: evolution is not abiogenesis.  Also, do not lie about glk4 
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:14:15] <floydfp>	jks, not evolution. You don't even know what it is
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:14:24] <jks>	you insist glk4 that the first cells are a mystery
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:14:25] <glk4>	Cells appeared 3.5 billion years ago
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:14:25] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: what is evolution? ;)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:14:31] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: the fact that you won't answer that should trouble you
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:14:41] <jks>	Shirakawasuna..i keep telling you.....you have to have life first
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:14:46] <jks>	and its impossible
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:14:51] <floydfp>	jks, what is evolution?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:14:56] <Massinissa>	floydfp, I'm saying that militant evangelical atheists often try to substitute science for some kind of spirituality and have unfortunately convinced many people that science somehow supports their philosophical presuppositions. That is all.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:14:57] <jks>	floydfp....see above
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:15:13] <Shirakawasuna>	I can honestly say that creationism is the belief that God created matter, life, etc.  I don't have to agree with a proposition to be honest about knowing what it means.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:15:14] <glk4>	You need more knowledge than is available to say formation of cells is impossible
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:15:16] <Massinissa>	floydfp, and yes I do see that as a threat to science
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:15:21] <DemocracyNow>	glk4  I am very will to go with all that you say, providing you apply the same scrutiny to your own sources that you present as proof
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:15:28] <floydfp>	<jks> and its impossible <-- argumentum ad ignorantiam
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:15:32] <jks>	Shirakawasuna.....am i talking about creationism?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:15:40] <jks>	nope although that is what i believe
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:15:42] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: slow down and pay attention
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:15:48] <glk4>	All I stated is they can not yet make living cells
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:15:49] <everyone^>	Massinissa, a good example of what you are trying to say is the "global warming debate"
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:15:51] <jks>	what i am saying is that evolution is impossitlbe
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:15:56] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: the point is that you don't have to agree with an idea to understand it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:16:00] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: what is evolution?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:16:08] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: the answer is not: "evolution's impossible!"
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:16:29] <Shirakawasuna>	that would be your answer to "is evolution possible"?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:16:31] <jks>	Shirakawasuna...the answer is that you have to have life.....from non life
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:16:43] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: that's not a definition, either
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:16:49] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: describe evolution.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:16:49] <jks>	why not?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:16:55] <floydfp>	Massinissa, I dont see any militant evangelical atheists threatening scientific work. Sorry
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:17:01] <jks>	Shirakawasuna..it has to have a beginning
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:17:12] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: so do cars
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:17:19] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: are cars electricity?  You need electricity to make cars
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:17:23] <jks>	oh really?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:17:30] <Shirakawasuna>	yeah, really
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:17:35] <Shirakawasuna>	a car analogy actually works for once
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:17:44] Nick	DemocracyNow is now known as scubaTeach.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:17:45] Quit	scubaTeach has left this server (Quit:).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:17:45] <floydfp>	Massinissa, would you agree that science presupposes methodological naturalism?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:17:46] <jks>	looking at a care Shirakawasuna....you have ID
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:17:58] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: ...
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:17:58] <jks>	looking at everything you see....you see ID
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:18:00] <glk4>	ID is religion
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:18:02] <jks>	well..i do
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:18:05] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: ok, I'm not going to try to help you anymore ;)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:18:10] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: you're obviously not paying any attention
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:18:16] <glk4>	No science has ID
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:18:28] <jks>	glk4......where did the life come from?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:18:43] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: if you're willing to be open and honestly answer questions in the future, feel free to ask.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:18:43] <everyone^>	The only thing I can say is that the "creation/debate" won't be won here.. But it's sure fun watching the circles
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:18:44] <glk4>	The origin of life/cells is presently unknown
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:18:51] Quit	Zjagolan has left this server (Quit: Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:19:11] <everyone^>	glk4, and scientists will never find the answer either
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:19:18] Part	Homer-Simpson has left this channel.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:19:25] <jks>	Shirakawasuna...i always..since i dont know science myself...look at people that do
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:19:35] <jks>	i dont just blindly accept ones thoughts
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:19:36] <Shirakawasuna>	like I said
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:19:36] <glk4>	Are you a prophet? Man will never fly!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:19:47] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: if you're willing to openly and honestly discuss this topic in the future, just ask.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:19:58] <floydfp>	jks, The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy asserting that if something is currently unexplained then it did not (or could not) happen, or that if evidence of something has not been proven to their satisfaction, then it cannot exist.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:01] <jks>	well..i can see you are not floydfp or Shirakawasuna
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:04] <everyone^>	glk4, I don't have to be a prophet to answer that question.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:04] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: I have no qualms about admitting falt when I am wrong or directly answering questions
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:12] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: ask me any question
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:12] <jks>	you can call me all you want
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:17] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: we'll take turns
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:19] Join	Homer-Simpson has joined this channel (ouch@2.drunk.2.drink.at).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:26] Mode	SeekHim gives Homer-Simpson the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:28] <jks>	Shirakawasuna....then where did the life come from?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:33] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: I don't know.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:36] <jks>	do you disagree with the site?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:36] <Shirakawasuna>	my turn
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:39] <glk4>	Man  will never go to the moon!
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:40] <jks>	well my my
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:47] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: what is evolution?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:49] Join	Barabbas` has joined this channel (~Me@c-24-22-203-107.hsd1.wa.comcast.net).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:55] Mode	SeekHim gives Barabbas` the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:57] <jks>	life from non life Shirakawasuna
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:20:58] <glk4>	What goes up must come down
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:21:00] <jks>	it has to be
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:21:11] Join	^OneArchAngel^ has joined this channel (~onearchan@user-119bcoj.biz.mindspring.com).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:21:23] Mode	SeekHim gives ^OneArchAngel^ the permission to talk.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:21:35] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: why does it have to be?  It is *explicitly* the study of how life changes.  You're right, you need life first.  That's why abiogenesis isn't evolution.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:21:49] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: give me your source for evolution = abiogenesis.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:22:01] <jks>	ok then
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:22:13] <jks>	according to that site.....there is no chance it could have happened
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:22:24] <glk4>	That is a religion site
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:22:25] <jks>	but you keep saying it has
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:22:39] <glk4>	It makes  bad claims
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:22:49] <jks>	the site is what you call religious...but it uses atheists claims
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:23:04] <floydfp>	jks, creationists are saying that. It's a totally biased site
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:23:12] <jks>	ok floydfp..hang on
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:23:21] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: where does it say that evolution is abiogenesis?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:23:23] <floydfp>	jks, Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith (1915 - 1995), more commonly known as A. E. Wilder-Smith, was a creationist and a chemist.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:23:47] <glk4>	Much progress has been made in these matters
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:24:09] <glk4>	The complete genome of a bacteria has been manufactured
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:24:47] <Shirakawasuna>	John Grebe is also cited
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:24:50] <Shirakawasuna>	He's a creationist chemist
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:25:30] <floydfp>	jks, you are not taking an honest approach to seeking truth. Christians rarely do
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:25:39] <floydfp>	bbl
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:25:45] Nick	floydfp is now known as floydaway.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:26:59] <Shirakawasuna>	wow
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:27:01] <Shirakawasuna>	it even cites Gish
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:27:16] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: you have a smattering of a number of famous creationists being cited on that site... didn' you say you read all the references?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:27:37] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: the proper reaction is to say, "Yes, I was wrong.  Oops"
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:28:01] <Barabbas`>	The problem with abiogenesis is the cell wall. One hypothesis has clay as the medium in which the chemicals necessary for life were held together long enough to begin to replicate on their own. This does beg the question, how is this different from the Biblical model of all life originating in the earth, God commanding the earth to bring forth all life as it says in Genesis.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:28:14] <glk4>	1920  They never split the atom of found the source of sun energy
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:28:46] <glk4>	The Bible has modern complex animals without ancestors
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:29:09] <glk4>	God stories have no science value
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:30:18] <Shirakawasuna>	abiogenesis is interesting, sure, but I don't hold to any one theory
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:30:24] Nick	}{obbes is now known as }{obZzz.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:30:25] <Aminadabb>	Maybe not to you glk4, but for generations of believers those factual accounts of God handy work were a blessing indeed.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:30:31] <Barabbas`>	every geological era has new complex animals without any ancestors
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:30:45] <glk4>	 Bible stories were bad science
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:30:52] <Shirakawasuna>	Barabbas`: yeah, how do you know that?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:30:56] <Barabbas`>	Bible stories aren
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:31:00] <Barabbas`>	't science at all.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:31:06] <Aminadabb>	Science is only half truth glk4.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:31:07] <glk4>	All animals have ancestors
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:31:08] <Barabbas`>	Shirakawasuna: Reading
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:31:17] Part	^OneArchAngel^ has left this channel.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:31:18] <jks>	no i will not say that Shirakawasuna....there are some and like floydaway says....they are scientists
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:31:19] <Shirakawasuna>	Barabbas`: oh, ok.  Same here, only you're wrong.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:31:42] <jks>	glk4.....how did you get life from non life?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:31:47] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: some, although a number are quotemined.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:31:52] <jks>	you are old and wise....please tell me
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:31:54] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: however, you said it was an atheist site.  It's not.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:31:55] Quit	insomniac_cat has left this server (Quit:).
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:31:57] <glk4>	The origin of cells/life is presently unknown
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:32:00] <Barabbas`>	Shirakawasuna: I doubt it, unless something has been discovered in the past couple months thats says differently about cells and their formation in clay.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:32:06] <Aminadabb>	There is not one incidence of transmutation of species in any of that animal history glk4.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:32:10] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: the honest thing to do would be to admit that it's not and quotes some of the most famous antievolution creationists out there
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:32:15] <jks>	no its not Shirakawasuna....i was wrong on that....but many are used
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:32:24] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: alrighty then
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:32:26] <jks>	there are many Shirakawasuna
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:32:29] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: that wasn't so bad, was it? ;)
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:32:30] <jks>	but
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:32:39] <glk4>	All species have ancestors and each geological period has different species
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:32:49] <jks>	there is nothing wrong with a creation scients coming up the the same things
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:01] <glk4>	Creation is religion
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:05] <VirtualPreacher>	prove it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:06] <jks>	glk4...you have to have life first
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:07] <Shirakawasuna>	Barabbas`: I'm not talking about abiogenesis, I'm talking about your assertion that animals pop into existence without ancestors.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:10] <Aminadabb>	Not one single species came from transmutation glk4.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:11] <jks>	and you cant produce it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:12] <VirtualPreacher>	prove all species have ancestors.
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:21] <jks>	welcome VirtualPreacher
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:25] <glk4>	All species come from ancestors
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:32] <VirtualPreacher>	prove it
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:37] <jks>	glk4...where did you come from?
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:42] <Aminadabb>	He can't vp
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:46] <glk4>	Genetic continuity is a biological law
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:54] <Shirakawasuna>	jks: alright, maybe you'll pay attention if I highlight where we agree
[Mon Feb 25 2008] [17:33:56] <jks>	glk4 where did you come from?