Religions > Atheism > Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Spaza" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 04:20:04 PM |
| Object: |
Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
.
|
|
| User: "Iain Laskey" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 07:59:22 AM |
|
|
In article <3kkse.512$gt5.293@fed1read02>,
(Invisible) wrote:
There's definitely something about and IQ under 90 is required to be a
fundamentalist Christian.
That's a tad harsh but I do wonder about some of them. I recently watched
a good documentry (made by a Christian) about the origins of the Bible,
where it came from, how it was handed down, the political influences, what
was left out and why etc. Near the end they interviewed Bush's personal
religions advisor, can't remember his name. He was shown the evidence and
his comment? 'That's a load of bull'. Nice to see he was seriously
considering compelling information from a fellow Christian. He just made
himself look silly and made me wonder even more about Bush and his mindset
if he was being influenced by such closed minded individuals.
Iain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terrell D Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 03:17:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:22:49 -0700, "Invisible"
<ucantseeme@earthlink.net> wrote:
I just looked at http://www.lastofall.com
Why is it that all fundamentalist Christians are fat (their wives too), look
dumber than dogshit, and this Lewis guy even looks like Flanders on "The
Simpsons"???
A. I'm not Fundamentalist, if anything, I lean liberal.
B. I'm not so young anymore, in my youth, people sald I looked like
the Illya Kurrikan (sp) character on the Man from Uncle.
C. What does what I look like have to do with anything?
D. What's "The Simpsons?" Is it on the Discovery Channel?
E. I have never weighed more than 165lbs in my life, but admittedly
my wife comes from a large sized family, she is actually the smallest
weight-wise of her family. My "fat wife" spends her days taking care
of handicapped children in a home for severely handicapped children.
In that capacity, she is a Certified Nurse's Assistant, 2nd shift
supervisor, a Certified Activities Director, and certified instructor
in CPR and First Aide - she not only teaches the employees of the
home, and teaches the parents so they can take the kids out of the
home for short periods, but also volunteers and teaches for the Red
Cross
There's definitely something about and IQ under 90 is required to be a
fundamentalist Christian.
Not that it matters, but my IQ is well above 90, I was told in school
that it was in the higher end of "gifted," for whatever that's worth.
(I also read at just over a 1000 words a minute with a retention in
the 90 percentile range - for whatever that's worth.)
Let me see, in case you must know, I also prefer boxers, have high
arches so tennis shoes are uncomfortable, I play classical guitar and
keyboard, love to read mystery novels, and enjoy pushing my grand
daughter on the swing. I think KFC makes the best fast food, but
Steak & Shake has awesome milkshakes.
I was raised Southern Baptist, but became an atheist for a time, then
an agnostic, then for a short time a Buddhist gravitating quickly to a
Taoist. I have been a lifelong student of Comparative Religion and
Mythology. Due to some experiences, I rediscovered Christianity, but
became quickly disillusioned with Fundamentalism and consider myself a
Christian Mystic.
I think Fundamentalists are the anti-thesis of Christianity (indeed
fundamentalism of any ilk is the anti-thesis of religion).
Politically I am center-left, leaning liberal on some issues, leaning
conservative on others. I think society should help out those less
fortunate by giving them a hand up, but not making them dependent on
welfare. I think Bush should be impeached for lying to get us into
the Iraqi war. I believe Gays should have the right to marry as long
as churches and ministers who object are allowed to refuse to perform
the ceremonies. I'm against public prayer in schools, anyone can pray
whenever they like privately. I think our Justice System works for
those who can afford it, but the poor get the shaft. I believe our
political system to be a plutocracy run by the wealthy and corporate
elite who, because of our election system choose our candidates for us
so whomever we vote for is already beholden to the wealthy that
financed their campaigns.
I served 8 1/2 years in the US Air Force as an accountant, at my last
assignement, I was the NCOIC of Material, signing my name to over 10
million dollars in vouchers a month to pay for medical supplies. I
have 6 years of college in Business Management.
For 7 years, I was a professional magician with one of the largest
working repetroires of balloon art anywhere, in addition, I decorated
for weddings, parties, events, and provided ballon sculptures for
special events for banks, stores, and so forth. As a professional
magician, I performed in 5 states and had to turn down three times
more bookings than I was able to accept. (I had to retire when I
developed repetitive stress injuries in both wrists and my left
shoulder).
We have a DVR and my wife and I enjoy watching the CSI and Law&Order
franchises, Stargate, Battlestar Galactica, Walker Texas Ranger,
Action Movies and Romantic Comedies.
Anything else that might possibly be any of your business?
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.lastofall.com
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 02:09:47 AM |
|
|
"Terrell D Lewis" :
I was raised Southern Baptist, but became an atheist for a time, then
an agnostic ...
I am still agnostic. And, if you will excuse me for the interruption, I want
to remind you that we agnostics are atheist too. (Anybody who is not theist
is atheist, just as asymmetry is an absence of symmetry.)
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods to
unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
... I think Bush should be impeached for lying to get us into
the Iraqi war.
Now, that's what I'm talking about! Throw the rascals out!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/9/164632/9662
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 10:28:59 PM |
|
|
In article <Y7qdnSR9VNOm6i_fRVn-og@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Terrell D Lewis" :
I was raised Southern Baptist, but became an atheist for a time, then
an agnostic ...
I am still agnostic.
Simple Septic has never been agnostic, he is an out and out anti-theist
of the sort that honest agnostics like Thomas Huxley find repulsive.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terrell D Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 11:48:02 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:09:47 -0700, "Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org>
wrote:
"Terrell D Lewis" :
I was raised Southern Baptist, but became an atheist for a time, then
an agnostic ...
I am still agnostic. And, if you will excuse me for the interruption, I want
to remind you that we agnostics are atheist too. (Anybody who is not theist
is atheist, just as asymmetry is an absence of symmetry.)
Reminds me of Woopie's (sp) line in Sister Act 2: "When I say
"eclectic," I mean ..."
Words always have at least three meanings in a conversation between
two people, what it means to you, what it means to me, and what the
dictionary says it means.
When I say "agnostic, I mean: If we put atheist and theist on a line,
agnostic would go right in the middle between them. An athiest thinks
he knows there is no god and a theist thinks he knows there is, while
a pure agnostic thinks that it is impossible to know if there is or is
not a god. People being people, pure agnosticism probably doesn't
exist, and most lean one way of the other: he thinks one cannot know
there is or is not a god, but leans towards the likelihood that there
might be, or that there likely isn't.
And, by the way, the moral/amoral, symmetry/asymmetry argument may
work in Latin, but this is English where rules are made to be broken.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.lastofall.com
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 01:09:24 PM |
|
|
"Terrell D Lewis" <composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7bu5b11grn59nmgojfdk9t42s0ve4pmm6d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:09:47 -0700, "Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org>
wrote:
"Terrell D Lewis" :
I was raised Southern Baptist, but became an atheist for a time, then
an agnostic ...
I am still agnostic. And, if you will excuse me for the interruption, I
want
to remind you that we agnostics are atheist too. (Anybody who is not
theist
is atheist, just as asymmetry is an absence of symmetry.)
An athiest thinks he knows there is no god ...
No sir, this isn't about knowledge, it is about the folly of believing
things without evidence, and atheism is not "Thinking that he knows there is
no god," atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence
of gods. -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Big difference. Please get it straight next time.
...
When I say "agnostic, I mean: If we put atheist and theist on a line,
agnostic would go right in the middle between them.
You are mistaken, there is no middle ground, this is a clear dichotomy, in
that one either is theist (believes there might be a diety) or is not
theist.
I am sure you won't mind if I will take Thomas Huxley's word over yours for
where we agnostics rightly stand, ON PRINCIPLE => squarely with the
freethinkers, those who are not theist, those who are atheist:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this:
that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of [is convinced,
believes] the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce
evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That which Agnostics deny
and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are
propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory
evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of
disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions." -- Thomas Huxley,
who coined the term, 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods to
unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Jun 2005 12:31:07 PM |
|
|
In article <KrSdnaib1PhKjC7fRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
An athiest thinks he knows there is no god ...
No sir, this isn't about knowledge
Actually it is about the definition of "atheist".
The original meaning, at least among right-pondians, was one who
believed there were no gods, and agnistics were those who just didn't
believe either way.
But time and poor usage has worn the original meaning down to the point
where an atheist can be someone woh merely does not believe that a god
actually exists, and the original meaning is now only described
unambiguously by the expression "anti-theist".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 04:53:27 PM |
|
|
Terrel, thanks for the bio... I've read it with interest.
It's an important observation that just because people have other
beliefs with regard to religion, their other opinions can overlap for
quite a bit... in fact, sometimes even more with people sharing their
exact same religious (non-)beliefs.
I just thought I'd say some positive stuff here too. No reason we can't
get along :-)
Regards,
Talence
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terrell D Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 06:59:36 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2005 14:53:27 -0700, wrote:
Terrel, thanks for the bio... I've read it with interest.
No problem, I was just a little irritated about what was said about my
wife, she is the most kind and generous person I have ever met and
doesn't deserve that.
It's an important observation that just because people have other
beliefs with regard to religion, their other opinions can overlap for
quite a bit... in fact, sometimes even more with people sharing their
exact same religious (non-)beliefs.
I find myself becoming more and more tolerant of every one but
Fundamentalists the older I get, and less and less tolerant of
Fundamentalists the older I get.
I just thought I'd say some positive stuff here too. No reason we can't
get along :-)
Thanks, and you would think we could find a way to get along, while
the Internet has some good things going, it seems we get on here and
forget any semblance of manners. Sometimes I wonder if it's worth it
... or if this is all just a huge distraction when I could be
practicing on my guitar or keyboard -- naw, to tell you the truth, I
enjoy posting and reading, I especially like the ones who can disagree
without being disagreeable - you never learn much conversing with
people who agree with you.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.lastofall.com
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ricky Ticket" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 04:02:06 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:59:36 -0400, Terrell D Lewis wrote
(in message <sp34b15ribmi5q3srml0ghfl2mkf2221ka@4ax.com>):
No problem, I was just a little irritated about what was said about my
wife, she is the most kind and generous person I have ever met and
doesn't deserve that.
She doesn't deserve what? To be defined as fat? You do realize that she is
fat right? Are you saying she does not deserve to be fat, or that you don't
like others seeing it?
Are you irritated because she is fat, or because others see it? :o)
--
"Anytime an inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly force." --Osprey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 02:29:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:14:18 GMT, Terrell D Lewis
<composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:53:46 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
[dishonest unmarked snip]
They have to take our word for it
that our POV is what we describe.
After all, we grant you that courtesy even though what you insist on
telling us is ridiculous.
But only to the extent that atheists take theists "word for it."
You tell us you believe in a deity and we take your word for it.
Please try to be a little less dishonest next time.
And if you have to be dishonest, don't make it so obvious.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.lastofall.com
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 03:00:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:14:18 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , Terrell D
Lewis <composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> in
<sqj3b1163vi23tieppojlpriio40imtfo4@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:53:46 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
They have to take our word for it
But only to the extent that atheists take theists "word for it."
Depends on the claim. If I were to claim that there is no g(G)od(s)
then I am required to provide an argument and evidence for my claim.
That is usually called strong atheism. If I claim there is no reason
to assert there is a god, I don't really have anything to demonstrate.
This is called weak atheism.
Then there are various sects, so to speak. I could assert that there
is no God as described by a literal interpretation of the Bible. This
is the actual question here (and notice that it allows a rather large
number of other possibilities for the existence of God). This requires
an argument and evidence. As it happens I will make this claim and I
can argue for it. First, I assert that the literal interpretation
asserts a non-deceptive God. Second, I assert that the literal
interpretation requires a young Earth, created in a particular order,
and a global flood. Third I assert that this interpretation requires
that the physical evidence support the second claim. I think those
three assertions are non-controversial and do not need support.
Finally I assert, and this is the controversy, that the physical
evidence we have does not support assertion 2, in fact it contradicts
it. This is controversial.
I think we can agree that the above is a logical argument. If all four
assertion were correct then the conclusion that there is no God as
described is also correct. So the question is whether or not I can
provide the evidence. For that I will point to a large number of FAQs
at www.talkorigins.org which, in turn, point to a large amount of
scientific data.
--
Matt Silberstein
All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terrell D Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 03:23:31 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:00:00 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
literal interpretation of the Bible
My apologies, as a Mystic, I lean toward a metaphoric interpretation
of the Bible.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.lastofall.com
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 02:38:47 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:onroa11jj5sv7ils2qi1q3uvkdiajg276p@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:04:51 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:sKSdnemu3Zx89DHfRVn-sg@comcast.com...
"Johnny" :
You have no case to begin with.
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove.
How is that?
If they assert that there is no God then they need to prove it somehow to
be
believed by persons who are seeking proof.
Look up "if", moron.
You idiots are the ones making the ridiculous claims that something
from your mythos exists in the real world outside.
When you do that you have to prove it.
You are exempt from proving atheism and expect me to prove theism?
Since atheism isn't intrinsically positive, there's nothing there to
prove. It's like saying "prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist" as
a "proof" as to why they do. It simply doesn't make sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 03:41:11 PM |
|
|
"Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118691527.706228.196700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:onroa11jj5sv7ils2qi1q3uvkdiajg276p@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:04:51 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:sKSdnemu3Zx89DHfRVn-sg@comcast.com...
"Johnny" :
You have no case to begin with.
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove.
How is that?
If they assert that there is no God then they need to prove it somehow
to
be
believed by persons who are seeking proof.
Look up "if", moron.
You idiots are the ones making the ridiculous claims that something
from your mythos exists in the real world outside.
When you do that you have to prove it.
You are exempt from proving atheism and expect me to prove theism?
Since atheism isn't intrinsically positive, there's nothing there to
prove.
You're a hypocrite, huh?
It's like saying "prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist" as
a "proof" as to why they do. It simply doesn't make sense.
You're an invisible pink unicorn?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 08:38:51 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:29:12 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> in <GKWqe.661$zm.440@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118439035.433443.71530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Jim Spaza wrote:
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
Will you be around to debate points or are you just a troll?
The first thing (of many) that I can see that's wrong with the website
is the subtitle on the banner on the home page: "Upholding the
Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse." This indicates that
the "scientists" involved in the site have no interest in finding truth
unless it complies with the Bible.
Anyone else?
Do you see a problem with amassing evidence which verifies/supports the
Biblical account?
Do you see a problem with independent accounts agreeing with one another
whilst adhering to something which many believe to conflict with the Bible?
If evolution is valid then why hasn't modern man evolved since the Cenozoic
time period began?
H. sapiens have evolved in that time.
How long did it take Neanderthal, Australopithecus, Cro-magnon man to evolve
from their positions into modern man at each step of the way, and why is it
that there has been no further evolution of man given the enormous amount of
time that modern man is supposed by evolutionists to have existed?
There has been evolution since. Why do you say otherwise?
What makes you think that if modern man had been here for 3 million years
already that the world would be in the state it is in now, and why is it
that history has no real record of civilizations which precede those of the
Biblical account with the exception of other accounts of other societies
which go back only about 6000 years, if that much?
There is plenty of evidence for pre-Biblical civilizations. Why do you
claim otherwise? I will supply links if you will read them.
Why can't you use your brain and notice what reality says?
Can you reverse extrapolate population via the Malthus equation and realize
that man just hasn't been here as long as evolutionists want everyone to
believe?
I can.
Can you?
Show us how. I have a feeling I know what you mean, but I would love
to see your work.
--
Matt Silberstein
All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 03:24:14 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:r03ra1demhn0vvh6titutev0uv4v9arkd6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:29:12 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> in <GKWqe.661$zm.440@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118439035.433443.71530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Jim Spaza wrote:
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
Will you be around to debate points or are you just a troll?
The first thing (of many) that I can see that's wrong with the website
is the subtitle on the banner on the home page: "Upholding the
Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse." This indicates that
the "scientists" involved in the site have no interest in finding truth
unless it complies with the Bible.
Anyone else?
Do you see a problem with amassing evidence which verifies/supports the
Biblical account?
Do you see a problem with independent accounts agreeing with one another
whilst adhering to something which many believe to conflict with the
Bible?
If evolution is valid then why hasn't modern man evolved since the
Cenozoic
time period began?
H. sapiens have evolved in that time.
How long did it take Neanderthal, Australopithecus, Cro-magnon man to
evolve
from their positions into modern man at each step of the way, and why is
it
that there has been no further evolution of man given the enormous amount
of
time that modern man is supposed by evolutionists to have existed?
There has been evolution since. Why do you say otherwise?
Evolution or adaptation?
What makes you think that if modern man had been here for 3 million years
already that the world would be in the state it is in now, and why is it
that history has no real record of civilizations which precede those of
the
Biblical account with the exception of other accounts of other societies
which go back only about 6000 years, if that much?
There is plenty of evidence for pre-Biblical civilizations. Why do you
claim otherwise? I will supply links if you will read them.
Evidence or only words?
Why can't you use your brain and notice what reality says?
Can you reverse extrapolate population via the Malthus equation and
realize
that man just hasn't been here as long as evolutionists want everyone to
believe?
I can.
Can you?
Show us how. I have a feeling I know what you mean, but I would love
to see your work.
I feel no need to dig up the equation and reverse engineer the population
decrease in retrospect.
I assume you can accept the fact that there woulda been two individuals,
male and female to propogate the human species from the time of their
beginning.
Simple calculation can take the entire population back to two in how many
years is all I am telling you.
The existence of man does not correlate with evolution.
And, if there were less evolved beings which men and women evolved from why
is it that none of them survived longer?
Why wouldn't the less evolved beings have multiplied as well as humans?
Whey aren't there more fossils of the less evolved beings if they were so
abundant, especially in light of competition for resources being a real
phenomenon?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
13 Jun 2005 06:08:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:24:14 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> in
<pVlre.118930$J25.72657@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:r03ra1demhn0vvh6titutev0uv4v9arkd6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:29:12 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> in <GKWqe.661$zm.440@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Jon." <jd_waller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118439035.433443.71530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Jim Spaza wrote:
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
Will you be around to debate points or are you just a troll?
The first thing (of many) that I can see that's wrong with the website
is the subtitle on the banner on the home page: "Upholding the
Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse." This indicates that
the "scientists" involved in the site have no interest in finding truth
unless it complies with the Bible.
Anyone else?
Do you see a problem with amassing evidence which verifies/supports the
Biblical account?
Do you see a problem with independent accounts agreeing with one another
whilst adhering to something which many believe to conflict with the
Bible?
If evolution is valid then why hasn't modern man evolved since the
Cenozoic
time period began?
H. sapiens have evolved in that time.
How long did it take Neanderthal, Australopithecus, Cro-magnon man to
evolve
from their positions into modern man at each step of the way, and why is
it
that there has been no further evolution of man given the enormous amount
of
time that modern man is supposed by evolutionists to have existed?
There has been evolution since. Why do you say otherwise?
Evolution or adaptation?
Evolution. That is, the change in genetic makeup of a population of
living organisms over time. There has also been natural selection of
populations as well. Adaptation is one result of evolution.
What makes you think that if modern man had been here for 3 million years
already that the world would be in the state it is in now, and why is it
that history has no real record of civilizations which precede those of
the
Biblical account with the exception of other accounts of other societies
which go back only about 6000 years, if that much?
There is plenty of evidence for pre-Biblical civilizations. Why do you
claim otherwise? I will supply links if you will read them.
Evidence or only words?
Evidence. Native Americans, for example, were in North American more
than 10,000 years ago. (And you need them here less than 4,000 since
the Flood was supposedly some 4,000 years ago.)
Why can't you use your brain and notice what reality says?
Can you reverse extrapolate population via the Malthus equation and
realize
that man just hasn't been here as long as evolutionists want everyone to
believe?
I can.
Can you?
Show us how. I have a feeling I know what you mean, but I would love
to see your work.
I feel no need to dig up the equation and reverse engineer the population
decrease in retrospect.
Oh, so you can't do it. Then why did you claim otherwise?
I assume you can accept the fact that there woulda been two individuals,
male and female to propogate the human species from the time of their
beginning.
No, I don't. Populations evolve. There were more than 2 individuals as
the ancestors of (just about) every species on Earth. There is
certainly more genetic diversity in humans (horses, cats, etc.) than
can be explained by evolution for the last 4,000 years.
Simple calculation can take the entire population back to two in how many
years is all I am telling you.
For some particular meaning of "simple" sure. I wanted to see your
work (which you claimed you could do) to show how it is nonsense. I
have seen those calculations, they assume constant growth of the
population. Take 2 individuals 4,000 years ago, apply some growth rate
based on nothing, and you can get any result you want. That does not
mean it happened. If you apply a constant growth rate you end up with
a few thousand people at the time of the pyramids and so on. It is
just silly. And somehow you have to have this constant growth work
while the people are doing a forced march to the Americans and
Australia and the Pacific Islands.
The existence of man does not correlate with evolution.
Why not? Please be specific.
And, if there were less evolved beings
Evolution means change. You can't have less (or more) evolved beings.
All life on Earth is equally evolved.
which men and women evolved from why
is it that none of them survived longer?
Some organisms don't survive to reproduce, some populations go
extinct. No matter what life you saw now you could ask the very same
question: "why didn't the others survive".
Why wouldn't the less evolved beings have multiplied as well as humans?
Again, there is not such things as "less" evolved. That said, look
around you. The world is full of life, humans are but a small portion
of that life. If you are asking why are humans the only surviving
branch of this small part of the tree then I might speculate. But I
would again say it is a meaningless question. No matter what branch
you look at you can see that there are no other surviving branches
*since the last branching*. You are asking why don't we have closer
relatives than the chimps? I don't know, but I could speculate. But
that would be speculation.
Whey aren't there more fossils of the less evolved beings if they were so
abundant, especially in light of competition for resources being a real
phenomenon?
How is that light? It is almost the answer. But there are plenty of
fossils, billions of them AAMOF.
--
Matt Silberstein
All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ricky Ticket" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
12 Jun 2005 01:28:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 9:29:12 -0400, Johnny wrote
(in message <GKWqe.661$zm.440@bignews4.bellsouth.net>):
Do you see a problem with amassing evidence which verifies/supports the
Biblical account?
If it is presented as a "Scientific" study and as "honesty", then yes. I have
a problem with it because it is neither scientific or honest. It is religious
fervor and "belief". :o)
--
"Anytime an inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly force." --Osprey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
12 Jun 2005 06:01:20 PM |
|
|
"Ricky Ticket" <not@given.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BED1F7170007474A2E45AB40@news.east.earthlink.net...
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 9:29:12 -0400, Johnny wrote
(in message <GKWqe.661$zm.440@bignews4.bellsouth.net>):
Do you see a problem with amassing evidence which verifies/supports the
Biblical account?
If it is presented as a "Scientific" study and as "honesty", then yes. I
have
a problem with it because it is neither scientific or honest. It is
religious
fervor and "belief". :o)
Are you missing the evidence by refusing to accept that which you do not
believe?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
12 Jun 2005 08:45:36 PM |
|
|
| | |
