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: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
09 Aug 2005 10:19:28 AM |
|
|
"On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:38:40 EDT, in article
<200508091439.j79EdFLA011942@nym.hush.com>, B Richardson stated..."
Grasshopper wrote:
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:49:33 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On 8 Aug 2005 13:22:52 -0700, "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
TomS wrote:
"On 5 Aug 2005 06:21:22 -0700, in article
<1123248082.004388.96580@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Jim Spaza
stated..."
[...snip...]
I believe that God created a few thousand or more forms of life (from
bacteria to mammoths) and let them loose in this world.
[...snip...]
I'd like to hear from anyone who thinks like this.
Could you give us a bit more, just what you mean by this?
When you are speaking of creating a form of life, do you mean:
1. Literally, a *form* -- rather than a living thing that has that
form. Something like a pattern, or template, that things then grow
into. Or, perhaps, just the pattern of a particular organ, or maybe
a new stretch of DNA.
I believe that God actually materialized living animals and plants
including microbe-sized life with complete sets of DNA allowing vast
reproduction and speciation. I don't know exactly what these life
forms looked like. I guess I shouldn't use the term "life form" as
this indicates a genetic template and/or physical shell without life,
perhaps.
IOW: you believe in magic.
And, then I'd like to hear something about the ecology of this
new creation -- how the new form of life fares in its environment,
dealing with food, predators, parasites, others of the same kind,
the physical environment. How the new kind manages to survive and
pass on its genes to the next generation. Whether the environment
had to be shaped to fit this new kind, or whether there was a
vacant niche before this appeared.
Just like today, except before Adam and Eve screwed up in the Garden of
Eden, all animals were vegetarian.
So cats were vegetarian? Wolves were vegetarian? Sharks were
vegetarian?
Don
And what did venus flytraps eat?
Did spiders spin webs?
I wonder whether anyone has any example of "intelligent design"
in the world of life on earth which does *not* show a world of
conflict.
The "bombardier beetle" -- if that defense mechanism is designed,
it is designed as a defense -- if it is not a defense, there is nothing
about it which even the creationists could call designed.
The "bacterial flagellum" -- it is an enhancement to the virulence
of bacteria.
The "adaptive immune system" of some vertebrates -- it functions
as a defense against invasion of alien bodies.
The wings, feathers, and so on are all parts of the mechanisms which
either help a bird to escape from a predator, or else to be a predator.
Without predation, flight is pointless.
There is no design which is not part of a world of conflict.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"What power of mental vision enabled your master Plato to discern the ...
process which ... the deity adopted in building the structure of the universe?
...a system that seems to be the result of idle theorizing rather than of real
research" Cicero: De Natura Deorum 1.8.19
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
08 Aug 2005 04:12:54 PM |
|
|
In article <1123532572.853084.57840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes:
{...}
TomS wrote:
And, then I'd like to hear something about the ecology of this
new creation -- how the new form of life fares in its environment,
dealing with food, predators, parasites, others of the same kind,
the physical environment. How the new kind manages to survive and
pass on its genes to the next generation. Whether the environment
had to be shaped to fit this new kind, or whether there was a
vacant niche before this appeared.
Just like today, except before Adam and Eve screwed up in the Garden of
Eden, all animals were vegetarian.
Are you envisioning things such that there were, say, lions and snakes,
lions and snakes with the same teeth and digestive tracts as today's
lions and snakes, but eating vegetation?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Aug 2005 10:16:11 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1123532572.853084.57840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes:
{...}
TomS wrote:
And, then I'd like to hear something about the ecology of this
new creation -- how the new form of life fares in its environment,
dealing with food, predators, parasites, others of the same kind,
the physical environment. How the new kind manages to survive and
pass on its genes to the next generation. Whether the environment
had to be shaped to fit this new kind, or whether there was a
vacant niche before this appeared.
Just like today, except before Adam and Eve screwed up in the Garden of
Eden, all animals were vegetarian.
Are you envisioning things such that there were, say, lions and snakes,
lions and snakes with the same teeth and digestive tracts as today's
lions and snakes, but eating vegetation?
I honestly do not know exactly what was occurring at the time
concerning the diet of the animals. I am beginning to think that the
teeth and digestive tracts of carnivorous animals were actually put to
good use at that time. I read Genesis 1:29-30 again. It says that it
was God's design for animals to be vegetarian. Now, did those animals
ever deviate from God's will? Perhaps. Maybe these animals'
evolutionary ancestors were vegetarian but became carnivorous over
time. Thus, by the time of Adam and Eve, some animals sometimes ate
meat. I really don't know.
What is troubling me a little is why snakes and spiders would have
venom and fangs, sharks seemed to be designed perfectly for being a
predator, and some animals teeth designed to puncture not grind. The
more I think about it, the more it seems reasonable that God intended
animals to be vegetarian, but over the years (for some reason) some
evolved into carnivorous life forms. On a theological note, with all
those fallen angels (demons) roaming the earth, I could see them
screwing with the animal kingdom (modifying genetics, if that is
possible for them) and causing God's vegetarian plan to be attacked.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Aug 2005 09:45:00 AM |
|
|
"On 15 Aug 2005 20:16:11 -0700, in article
<1124162171.554206.47590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Jim Spaza stated..."
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1123532572.853084.57840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> writes:
{...}
TomS wrote:
And, then I'd like to hear something about the ecology of this
new creation -- how the new form of life fares in its environment,
dealing with food, predators, parasites, others of the same kind,
the physical environment. How the new kind manages to survive and
pass on its genes to the next generation. Whether the environment
had to be shaped to fit this new kind, or whether there was a
vacant niche before this appeared.
Just like today, except before Adam and Eve screwed up in the Garden of
Eden, all animals were vegetarian.
Are you envisioning things such that there were, say, lions and snakes,
lions and snakes with the same teeth and digestive tracts as today's
lions and snakes, but eating vegetation?
I honestly do not know exactly what was occurring at the time
concerning the diet of the animals. I am beginning to think that the
teeth and digestive tracts of carnivorous animals were actually put to
good use at that time. I read Genesis 1:29-30 again. It says that it
was God's design for animals to be vegetarian. Now, did those animals
ever deviate from God's will? Perhaps. Maybe these animals'
evolutionary ancestors were vegetarian but became carnivorous over
time. Thus, by the time of Adam and Eve, some animals sometimes ate
meat. I really don't know.
What is troubling me a little is why snakes and spiders would have
venom and fangs, sharks seemed to be designed perfectly for being a
predator, and some animals teeth designed to puncture not grind. The
more I think about it, the more it seems reasonable that God intended
animals to be vegetarian, but over the years (for some reason) some
evolved into carnivorous life forms. On a theological note, with all
those fallen angels (demons) roaming the earth, I could see them
screwing with the animal kingdom (modifying genetics, if that is
possible for them) and causing God's vegetarian plan to be attacked.
It isn't only the organs of predation that are a difficulty,
there are also the organs of defense.
Why would there be protective coloration and other methods of
disguise in animals? Why would there be the chemical defenses of
skunks and bombardier beetles? Why would rabbits and deer run fast?
To go back to some of the old standards of "design" -- why do
animals have vision? (Prey animals tend to have all-around vision,
and predators tend to have binocular vision.) Why do birds fly?
(Isn't it either to escape from predators or to be a predator?) Or
to take more recent examples -- what sense is there to the "design"
of the blood-clotting system and the immune system, except as
defenses against life-threatening situations?
Vast amounts of what we see as "design" in the world of life
turns out to make sense only in the context of predators and prey.
If there is design in the world of life, it is largely a design
for a world of predation.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"a man who is not sometimes a fool, is always one."
Archdeacon William Paley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Aug 2005 12:30:59 PM |
|
|
TomS wrote:
"On 15 Aug 2005 20:16:11 -0700, in article
<1124162171.554206.47590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Jim Spaza stated..."
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1123532572.853084.57840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Jim Spaza"
<spaza9@yahoo.com> writes:
{...}
TomS wrote:
And, then I'd like to hear something about the ecology of this
new creation -- how the new form of life fares in its environment,
dealing with food, predators, parasites, others of the same kind,
the physical environment. How the new kind manages to survive and
pass on its genes to the next generation. Whether the environment
had to be shaped to fit this new kind, or whether there was a
vacant niche before this appeared.
Just like today, except before Adam and Eve screwed up in the Garden of
Eden, all animals were vegetarian.
Are you envisioning things such that there were, say, lions and snakes,
lions and snakes with the same teeth and digestive tracts as today's
lions and snakes, but eating vegetation?
I honestly do not know exactly what was occurring at the time
concerning the diet of the animals. I am beginning to think that the
teeth and digestive tracts of carnivorous animals were actually put to
good use at that time. I read Genesis 1:29-30 again. It says that it
was God's design for animals to be vegetarian. Now, did those animals
ever deviate from God's will? Perhaps. Maybe these animals'
evolutionary ancestors were vegetarian but became carnivorous over
time. Thus, by the time of Adam and Eve, some animals sometimes ate
meat. I really don't know.
What is troubling me a little is why snakes and spiders would have
venom and fangs, sharks seemed to be designed perfectly for being a
predator, and some animals teeth designed to puncture not grind. The
more I think about it, the more it seems reasonable that God intended
animals to be vegetarian, but over the years (for some reason) some
evolved into carnivorous life forms. On a theological note, with all
those fallen angels (demons) roaming the earth, I could see them
screwing with the animal kingdom (modifying genetics, if that is
possible for them) and causing God's vegetarian plan to be attacked.
It isn't only the organs of predation that are a difficulty,
there are also the organs of defense.
Why would there be protective coloration and other methods of
disguise in animals? Why would there be the chemical defenses of
skunks and bombardier beetles? Why would rabbits and deer run fast?
Random chance cannot explain all these mechanisms. These are almost
assuredly due to the predator/prey system in play over the millions of
years.
To go back to some of the old standards of "design" -- why do
animals have vision? (Prey animals tend to have all-around vision,
and predators tend to have binocular vision.) Why do birds fly?
(Isn't it either to escape from predators or to be a predator?) Or
to take more recent examples -- what sense is there to the "design"
of the blood-clotting system and the immune system, except as
defenses against life-threatening situations?
Vast amounts of what we see as "design" in the world of life
turns out to make sense only in the context of predators and prey.
If there is design in the world of life, it is largely a design
for a world of predation.
All good points. I was wrong to suggest that all animals had to be
vegetarian.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"a man who is not sometimes a fool, is always one."
Archdeacon William Paley
.
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Aug 2005 11:38:03 PM |
|
|
On 2005-08-16 10:30:59 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> said:
Random chance cannot explain all these mechanisms.
Natural selection is hardly "random chance."
These are almost assuredly due to the predator/prey system in play
over the millions of years.
That's part of the forces that make the system decidedly not random.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
25 Aug 2005 03:54:18 PM |
|
|
655321 wrote:
On 2005-08-16 10:30:59 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> said:
Random chance cannot explain all these mechanisms.
Natural selection is hardly "random chance."
I meant "random chance" as in no intelligence directing things to
happen, just pure unintelligent nature. It's like rolling dice. The
dice are governed by the laws of physics, mechanics, and aerodynamics.
Technically, throwing dice is not random either, if we apply the same
thought process.
These are almost assuredly due to the predator/prey system in play
over the millions of years.
That's part of the forces that make the system decidedly not random.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
- Jim
* The opinions expressed herein are my own and not that of my company
(which is so worried about public opinion that they are making me post
this disclaimer when they should be worried about all the waste, fraud,
and abuse within their own offices).
.
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
25 Aug 2005 06:44:06 PM |
|
|
Jim Spaza wrote:
655321 wrote:
On 2005-08-16 10:30:59 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> said:
Random chance cannot explain all these mechanisms.
Natural selection is hardly "random chance."
I meant "random chance" as in no intelligence directing things to
happen, just pure unintelligent nature.
Your definition is wanting, then.
It's like rolling dice. The
dice are governed by the laws of physics, mechanics, and aerodynamics.
Technically, throwing dice is not random either, if we apply the same
thought process.
That image is fairly apt, actually. A die has six sides, not an
infinite number. The randomness is therefore *limited* to a specific
range of outcomes. Similarly, the forces of nature result in tendencies
toward outcomes that are not as random as *you* would like to lead one
to infer.
When you release a plucked leaf from your hand, the tendency is for it
to drop to the ground, not to go just *anywhere*. Other forces of
nature -- a breeze, the aerodynamic shape of the leaf -- might alter its
path somewhat, but it will ultimately come to rest somewhere.
Perceived randomness applies, but once one has a bit of an understanding
of the forces at work, it becomes clear that there's little random about it.
"Intelligence" is but one "non-random" force that leads to a given
outcome or set of outcomes.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances."
-Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
25 Aug 2005 05:32:41 PM |
|
|
On 25 Aug 2005 13:54:18 -0700,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
655321 wrote:
On 2005-08-16 10:30:59 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> said:
Random chance cannot explain all these mechanisms.
Natural selection is hardly "random chance."
I meant "random chance" as in no intelligence directing things to
happen, just pure unintelligent nature. It's like rolling dice. The
dice are governed by the laws of physics, mechanics, and aerodynamics.
Technically, throwing dice is not random either, if we apply the same
thought process.
I'm not going to get into the game of whether the universe is deterministic
or not (I personally don't think it is), but you do at least admit that
there are underlying laws here, and that not all outcomes are likely, or
even possible. Life, irregardless of its complexity, is basically just
chemistry, and we all know very well that chemistry does not require the
supernatural to work.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Aug 2005 10:00:33 AM |
|
|
In article <1124162171.554206.47590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1123532572.853084.57840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes:
{...}
TomS wrote:
And, then I'd like to hear something about the ecology of this
new creation -- how the new form of life fares in its environment,
dealing with food, predators, parasites, others of the same kind,
the physical environment. How the new kind manages to survive and
pass on its genes to the next generation. Whether the environment
had to be shaped to fit this new kind, or whether there was a
vacant niche before this appeared.
Just like today, except before Adam and Eve screwed up in the Garden of
Eden, all animals were vegetarian.
Are you envisioning things such that there were, say, lions and snakes,
lions and snakes with the same teeth and digestive tracts as today's
lions and snakes, but eating vegetation?
I honestly do not know exactly what was occurring at the time
concerning the diet of the animals. I am beginning to think that the
teeth and digestive tracts of carnivorous animals were actually put to
good use at that time. I read Genesis 1:29-30 again. It says that it
was God's design for animals to be vegetarian. Now, did those animals
ever deviate from God's will? Perhaps. Maybe these animals'
evolutionary ancestors were vegetarian but became carnivorous over
time. Thus, by the time of Adam and Eve, some animals sometimes ate
meat. I really don't know.
What is troubling me a little is why snakes and spiders would have
venom and fangs, sharks seemed to be designed perfectly for being a
predator, and some animals teeth designed to puncture not grind. The
more I think about it, the more it seems reasonable that God intended
animals to be vegetarian, but over the years (for some reason) some
evolved into carnivorous life forms. On a theological note, with all
those fallen angels (demons) roaming the earth, I could see them
screwing with the animal kingdom (modifying genetics, if that is
possible for them) and causing God's vegetarian plan to be attacked.
Well, that's certainly a novel explanation. But in any event, thank
you for your honest (and civil) response.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cyde Weys" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Aug 2005 11:36:15 AM |
|
|
Jim Spaza wrote:
What is troubling me a little is why snakes and spiders would have
venom and fangs, sharks seemed to be designed perfectly for being a
predator, and some animals teeth designed to puncture not grind. The
more I think about it, the more it seems reasonable that God intended
animals to be vegetarian, but over the years (for some reason) some
evolved into carnivorous life forms. On a theological note, with all
those fallen angels (demons) roaming the earth, I could see them
screwing with the animal kingdom (modifying genetics, if that is
possible for them) and causing God's vegetarian plan to be attacked.
Here we go again, invoking angels and demons, for which there is no
evidence whatsoever, to explain something that is much more suitably
explained by simply naturalistic phenomena. You are (literally)
invoking angels to explain a hole in your theology-derived creationism
when, using Occam's Razor, it is much more likely that animals are
exactly the way they are because they evolved to be that way. It
doesn't make much sense to say that all animals were supposed to be
vegetarian when clearly many are highly evolved to be effective and
vicious predators.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Aug 2005 01:42:06 PM |
|
|
On 15 Aug 2005 20:16:11 -0700,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1123532572.853084.57840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes:
{...}
TomS wrote:
And, then I'd like to hear something about the ecology of this
new creation -- how the new form of life fares in its environment,
dealing with food, predators, parasites, others of the same kind,
the physical environment. How the new kind manages to survive and
pass on its genes to the next generation. Whether the environment
had to be shaped to fit this new kind, or whether there was a
vacant niche before this appeared.
Just like today, except before Adam and Eve screwed up in the Garden of
Eden, all animals were vegetarian.
Are you envisioning things such that there were, say, lions and snakes,
lions and snakes with the same teeth and digestive tracts as today's
lions and snakes, but eating vegetation?
I honestly do not know exactly what was occurring at the time
concerning the diet of the animals. I am beginning to think that the
teeth and digestive tracts of carnivorous animals were actually put to
good use at that time. I read Genesis 1:29-30 again. It says that it
was God's design for animals to be vegetarian. Now, did those animals
ever deviate from God's will? Perhaps. Maybe these animals'
evolutionary ancestors were vegetarian but became carnivorous over
time. Thus, by the time of Adam and Eve, some animals sometimes ate
meat. I really don't know.
What is troubling me a little is why snakes and spiders would have
venom and fangs, sharks seemed to be designed perfectly for being a
predator, and some animals teeth designed to puncture not grind. The
more I think about it, the more it seems reasonable that God intended
animals to be vegetarian, but over the years (for some reason) some
evolved into carnivorous life forms. On a theological note, with all
those fallen angels (demons) roaming the earth, I could see them
screwing with the animal kingdom (modifying genetics, if that is
possible for them) and causing God's vegetarian plan to be attacked.
Now you're wandering into what almost seems to be heretical territory, Jim.
Your giving creative powers to Satan and his servants. I'm no expert on
theology or philosophy, but this sounds Gnostic, and certainly not like any
modern form of Christianity that I am aware of.
But worse for your case among us is that now, instead of just one extra
unevidence entity to contend with you, now you're asking us to swallow many
such entities. Now you have a lot of entities to provide evidence for, as
well as providing evidence for your genetic islands claim.
You seem to have left both science and recognizable Christian theology
behind, Jim.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Aug 2005 02:32:50 PM |
|
|
In article <slrndg718c.ri2.mightymartianca@nobody.here> writes:
On 15 Aug 2005 20:16:11 -0700,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1123532572.853084.57840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes:
{...}
TomS wrote:
And, then I'd like to hear something about the ecology of this
new creation -- how the new form of life fares in its environment,
dealing with food, predators, parasites, others of the same kind,
the physical environment. How the new kind manages to survive and
pass on its genes to the next generation. Whether the environment
had to be shaped to fit this new kind, or whether there was a
vacant niche before this appeared.
Just like today, except before Adam and Eve screwed up in the Garden of
Eden, all animals were vegetarian.
Are you envisioning things such that there were, say, lions and snakes,
lions and snakes with the same teeth and digestive tracts as today's
lions and snakes, but eating vegetation?
I honestly do not know exactly what was occurring at the time
concerning the diet of the animals. I am beginning to think that the
teeth and digestive tracts of carnivorous animals were actually put to
good use at that time. I read Genesis 1:29-30 again. It says that it
was God's design for animals to be vegetarian. Now, did those animals
ever deviate from God's will? Perhaps. Maybe these animals'
evolutionary ancestors were vegetarian but became carnivorous over
time. Thus, by the time of Adam and Eve, some animals sometimes ate
meat. I really don't know.
What is troubling me a little is why snakes and spiders would have
venom and fangs, sharks seemed to be designed perfectly for being a
predator, and some animals teeth designed to puncture not grind. The
more I think about it, the more it seems reasonable that God intended
animals to be vegetarian, but over the years (for some reason) some
evolved into carnivorous life forms. On a theological note, with all
those fallen angels (demons) roaming the earth, I could see them
screwing with the animal kingdom (modifying genetics, if that is
possible for them) and causing God's vegetarian plan to be attacked.
Now you're wandering into what almost seems to be heretical territory, Jim.
And you know?... I like that about him. I think it's hugely refreshing
when compared to the screamers and the frothers who chant the rigid
party line in response to anything and everything that the critics
might say.
Jim, at least, is THINKING about the topics, whatever you may feel
about his conclusions.
-- cary
Your giving creative powers to Satan and his servants. I'm no expert on
theology or philosophy, but this sounds Gnostic, and certainly not like any
modern form of Christianity that I am aware of.
But worse for your case among us is that now, instead of just one extra
unevidence entity to contend with you, now you're asking us to swallow many
such entities. Now you have a lot of entities to provide evidence for, as
well as providing evidence for your genetic islands claim.
You seem to have left both science and recognizable Christian theology
behind, Jim.
--
Aaron Clausen
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Aug 2005 03:15:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:32:50 +0000 (UTC),
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <slrndg718c.ri2.mightymartianca@nobody.here> writes:
On 15 Aug 2005 20:16:11 -0700,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1123532572.853084.57840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes:
{...}
TomS wrote:
And, then I'd like to hear something about the ecology of this
new creation -- how the new form of life fares in its environment,
dealing with food, predators, parasites, others of the same kind,
the physical environment. How the new kind manages to survive and
pass on its genes to the next generation. Whether the environment
had to be shaped to fit this new kind, or whether there was a
vacant niche before this appeared.
Just like today, except before Adam and Eve screwed up in the Garden of
Eden, all animals were vegetarian.
Are you envisioning things such that there were, say, lions and snakes,
lions and snakes with the same teeth and digestive tracts as today's
lions and snakes, but eating vegetation?
I honestly do not know exactly what was occurring at the time
concerning the diet of the animals. I am beginning to think that the
teeth and digestive tracts of carnivorous animals were actually put to
good use at that time. I read Genesis 1:29-30 again. It says that it
was God's design for animals to be vegetarian. Now, did those animals
ever deviate from God's will? Perhaps. Maybe these animals'
evolutionary ancestors were vegetarian but became carnivorous over
time. Thus, by the time of Adam and Eve, some animals sometimes ate
meat. I really don't know.
What is troubling me a little is why snakes and spiders would have
venom and fangs, sharks seemed to be designed perfectly for being a
predator, and some animals teeth designed to puncture not grind. The
more I think about it, the more it seems reasonable that God intended
animals to be vegetarian, but over the years (for some reason) some
evolved into carnivorous life forms. On a theological note, with all
those fallen angels (demons) roaming the earth, I could see them
screwing with the animal kingdom (modifying genetics, if that is
possible for them) and causing God's vegetarian plan to be attacked.
Now you're wandering into what almost seems to be heretical territory, Jim.
And you know?... I like that about him. I think it's hugely refreshing
when compared to the screamers and the frothers who chant the rigid
party line in response to anything and everything that the critics
might say.
Ascribing such creative powers to Satan is, from what I understand of
Christian theology, not a legitimate view. Satan is not given creative
powers. Weren't the Cathars, at least in part, pursued because they held
such a view? I'll gladly recind the statement if I'm wrong, but this
certainly seems to be what Jim is saying.
Jim, at least, is THINKING about the topics, whatever you may feel
about his conclusions.
I never said he wasn't. Surely, however, if he's attempting an explanation,
I am permitted to critique it, and point out where it may be causing
problems for his overall theology. I wasn't aware that I had to go through
you first, just to make sure that I'm not sticking to closely to the "party
line".
Is that what you desire, because, oddly enough, you seem to be the one
contributing nothing. If you wish to be a cheerleader, then so be it. If
that's the case, then I case safely ignore your posts as being content-free
rants.
--
Aaron Clausen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Aug 2005 03:47:34 PM |
|
|
In article <slrndg76nq.oor.mightymartianca@nobody.here> writes:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:32:50 +0000 (UTC),
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <slrndg718c.ri2.mightymartianca@nobody.here> writes:
On 15 Aug 2005 20:16:11 -0700,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1123532572.853084.57840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes:
{...}
TomS wrote:
And, then I'd like to hear something about the ecology of this
new creation -- how the new form of life fares in its environment,
dealing with food, predators, parasites, others of the same kind,
the physical environment. How the new kind manages to survive and
pass on its genes to the next generation. Whether the environment
had to be shaped to fit this new kind, or whether there was a
vacant niche before this appeared.
Just like today, except before Adam and Eve screwed up in the Garden of
Eden, all animals were vegetarian.
Are you envisioning things such that there were, say, lions and snakes,
lions and snakes with the same teeth and digestive tracts as today's
lions and snakes, but eating vegetation?
I honestly do not know exactly what was occurring at the time
concerning the diet of the animals. I am beginning to think that the
teeth and digestive tracts of carnivorous animals were actually put to
good use at that time. I read Genesis 1:29-30 again. It says that it
was God's design for animals to be vegetarian. Now, did those animals
ever deviate from God's will? Perhaps. Maybe these animals'
evolutionary ancestors were vegetarian but became carnivorous over
time. Thus, by the time of Adam and Eve, some animals sometimes ate
meat. I really don't know.
What is troubling me a little is why snakes and spiders would have
venom and fangs, sharks seemed to be designed perfectly for being a
predator, and some animals teeth designed to puncture not grind. The
more I think about it, the more it seems reasonable that God intended
animals to be vegetarian, but over the years (for some reason) some
evolved into carnivorous life forms. On a theological note, with all
those fallen angels (demons) roaming the earth, I could see them
screwing with the animal kingdom (modifying genetics, if that is
possible for them) and causing God's vegetarian plan to be attacked.
Now you're wandering into what almost seems to be heretical territory, Jim.
And you know?... I like that about him. I think it's hugely refreshing
when compared to the screamers and the frothers who chant the rigid
party line in response to anything and everything that the critics
might say.
Ascribing such creative powers to Satan is, from what I understand of
Christian theology, not a legitimate view. Satan is not given creative
powers. Weren't the Cathars, at least in part, pursued because they held
such a view? I'll gladly recind the statement if I'm wrong, but this
certainly seems to be what Jim is saying.
Well, yeah. Absolutely true, insofar as I remember.
But orthodox theology, like history, is written by the
victors. At least the Gnostics, if any are still around, would have
a really nifty response to the standard atheist challenge: "If your
God is all good, then why is the world filled with pain and cruelty?"
Jim, at least, is THINKING about the topics, whatever you may feel
about his conclusions.
I never said he wasn't. Surely, however, if he's attempting an explanation,
I am permitted to critique it,
Of course. I don't understand why you think I feel otherwise...
and point out where it may be causing
problems for his overall theology. I wasn't aware that I had to go through
you first, just to make sure that I'm not sticking to closely to the "party
line".
Beg pardon? I merely said I found Jim refreshing in that HE does not
reflexively adhere to the usual theist party line.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Aug 2005 09:21:52 AM |
|
|
On 15 Aug 2005 20:16:11 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1124162171.554206.47590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1123532572.853084.57840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes:
....
Are you envisioning things such that there were, say, lions and snakes,
lions and snakes with the same teeth and digestive tracts as today's
lions and snakes, but eating vegetation?
I honestly do not know exactly what was occurring at the time
concerning the diet of the animals. I am beginning to think that the
teeth and digestive tracts of carnivorous animals were actually put to
good use at that time. I read Genesis 1:29-30 again. It says that it
was God's design for animals to be vegetarian. Now, did those animals
ever deviate from God's will? Perhaps. Maybe these animals'
evolutionary ancestors were vegetarian but became carnivorous over
time. Thus, by the time of Adam and Eve, some animals sometimes ate
meat. I really don't know.
It's an allegory. Any attempts to focus on the details will guarantee
that you end up with a false sense of the history of life on earth and
that you miss the big picture of the story.
What is troubling me a little is why snakes and spiders would have
venom and fangs, sharks seemed to be designed perfectly for being a
predator, and some animals teeth designed to puncture not grind. The
more I think about it, the more it seems reasonable that God intended
animals to be vegetarian, but over the years (for some reason) some
evolved into carnivorous life forms. On a theological note, with all
those fallen angels (demons) roaming the earth, I could see them
screwing with the animal kingdom (modifying genetics, if that is
possible for them) and causing God's vegetarian plan to be attacked.
Demons are also allegorical, even though evil is quite real.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Aug 2005 11:33:02 PM |
|
|
On 2005-08-15 20:16:11 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> said:
Now, did those animals
ever deviate from God's will? Perhaps.
Whoah. And were they cast out of the "garden"?
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Aug 2005 12:20:25 PM |
|
|
655321 wrote:
On 2005-08-15 20:16:11 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> said:
Now, did those animals
ever deviate from God's will? Perhaps.
| | | | |
