*plonk*

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 02:17:37 +0000 (UTC),
eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) spake thusly:

Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<kf0740humlk2l1ha3j74g7qv94dt49lbpo@4ax.com>...

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:46:32 +0000 (UTC),
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) spake thusly:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...

Nerd Gerl wrote:

The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation

Darwin admitted far more than that...

It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species
evolve. If that is true, then what options are atheists left
with? Creation? That's unpalatable, isn't it? Yet the fact
remains, Darwin's theory of evolution is just that, a theory that
best describes the evolutionary processes we can observe with our
five senses. Darwin does not explain "creation," indeed, if any
of the nitwits who espouse it have actually read "Origin of
Species," Darwin closes his theory with these words:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms
or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on
according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning
endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and
are being evolved."

If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument
as to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so
happens that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a
logically valid reason why God should not exist, which makes all
atheists idiots. The only "reason" they proffer is that God is
not seen, therefore it must be assumed that God does not exist.

There is no objective evidence for god. Why believe in something
for which there is no objective evidence?

That's a disingenuous argument, since any evidence
presented would be labeled religious and dismissed.

Not "any evidence"... only the evidence that did not stand up to
scientific scrutiny.

You mean, anything that you evolutionists did not agree
with.

However, since the *ONLY* evidence for God is
Biblical in nature,

That's not true.

the whole Creationist argument for the existence
of God is purely circular reasoning, as I have already shown you.

You've shown me nothing.

In fact, objective evidence and Creation "science" are mutally

exclusive... as its major proponents freely admit;-

That's not true.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any
field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it
contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact

that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people
who do not possess all information." -- Answers in Genesis',
"Statement of Faith":-
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp>

"There is not the slightest possibility that the *facts* of science
can contradict the Bible." -- Dr. Henry Morris (Institute for
Creation Research)

"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or
another, be made to fit the creation model." -- Dr. Henry Morris
(Institute for Creation Research)

"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to
tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the
Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more,
that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology.
For those who believe in Creation, therefore, physical processes and
evidence that indicate an immense time scale must be EXPLAINED AWAY.
Only those processes or evidence commensurate with a short (i.e. 6000
years) time scale can be accepted for use in Creationism."
[Dr. H.M. Morris, 1974, "Scientific Creationism", Public School
Edition, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, p.136)]


So much for objectivity!!

Yea, kinda sounds like the creed by evolutionists...
"...we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept
a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but,
on the contrary, that we are forced by our 'a priori'
adherence to material causes to create a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter
how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door." - Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions
of Demons, The New York Review of Books,
January 9, 1997, p. 31

"Even if all the evidence pointed to an intelligent
designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science
because it is not naturalistic." - Scott C. Todd

"In fact, there is a great deal more to the
creation/evolution controversy than meets the eye,
or rather than meets the carefully cultivated media
stereotype of 'creationists' as Bible quoting know
nothings who refuse to face up to the scientific
evidence. The creationists may be wrong about many
things, but they have at least one very important
point to argue, a point that has been thoroughly
obscured by all the attention paid to Noah's Flood
and other side issues. What science educators
propose to teach as 'evolution' and label it as fact,
is based not upon any incontrovertible empirical
evidence (scientifically proven facts, ed.), but upon
a highly controversial philosophical presupposition.

The controversy over evolution is therefore not going
to go away as people become better educated on the
subject. On the contrary, the more people learn

about the philosophical content of what scientists
are calling the 'fact of evolution', the less they
are going to like it." - Philip E. Johnson, Evolution
as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:37:56 +0000 (UTC), Matt Davis
<m_davis@pacific.edu> spake thusly:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:48:15 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:46:57 +0000 (UTC), Matt Davis
<m_davis@pacific.edu> spake thusly:

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:06:59 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:43:14 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> spake thusly:

The following is a statement by L. Harrison Matthews.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology
and biology is thus in the peculiar position of
being a science founded on an unproved theory."

Is it the entire quote? No. Is it an accurate quote?
Yes. I did not cut a sentence in half and make it say
the opposite. Dana did.

I've seen this argument before. It is very bad moral judgement to
think that it is honest to cite PART of what someone wrote in
order to characterize them as saying something they do not
actually support.

I did not make a claim as to what he supports. I made
a claim as to what he said. There is a difference. I
do not need to quote everything he ever said, to make
that point.

What was the purpose of posting the quotation if not to capture the
author's meaning?

To capture the author's meaning about a specific point.

That's fine, but it has been demonstrated that some of your quotes do
*not* capture the author's meaning about the point. That's why you
get in trouble when you do it.

Let's try this: Please tell me what the author's meaning was from
just that quote.

The only meaning I care about, is in relation to that
one specific point and the quote portrays that.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:37:15 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@NOSPAMlink.net> spake thusly:

"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qeaa40l3su96enbaj2kpfq5p0b03dgo17b@4ax.com...

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:06:42 +0000 (UTC),
eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) spake thusly:

Caught out again... huh, Friar Dave? When will you ever learn
that blindly cutting and pasting from creationist web-sites can
be very, very embarrassing.

He stated what I said.

So, if I said that the Bible clearly states the following;- "There
is no God", would I be equally correct?

Do you understand what a lie of omission is, Dave?

You don't understand what it is you're saying. To
claim that the Bible says that, would be to cut a
sentence in half. "The fool hath said in his heart
there is no God".

Yes, Dave, and to leave out the rest of the explanation that Stanley
provided in his writings is just as wrong. He only 'stated what I
said' because the fragment of the statement that Stanley actually
wrote, had the context removed. It's exactly the same as leaving out
the the first seven words of the Bible quote. If you can't see that,
I can only wonder why.

The following is a statement by L. Harrison Matthews.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology
and biology is thus in the peculiar position of
being a science founded on an unproved theory."

Is it the entire quote? No. Is it an accurate quote?
Yes. I did not cut a sentence in half and make it say
the opposite. Dana did.

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:56:22 +0000 (UTC),
darkstar@shell1.iglou.com (Keenan Clay Wilkie) spake
thusly:

Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> writes:

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:33:11 +0000 (UTC),
diri.gini@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) spake thusly:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<XfyQMC2lsPQJFDD1BF518305B84CKTPxRFKErbi5@kadaitcha.cx>...

Nerd Gerl wrote:

The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation

Darwin admitted far more than that...

It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species
evolve.

I'll take that. If all I have is the BEST explanation of why species
evolve, then I'm most likely to have the TRUE one.

That's assuming that they do what you believe they do.
There is no proof of that.

You're right, there is no "proof". There's just lots and lots of
evidence suggesting such a thing. Similarly, there's no "proof" for
gravitational theory.

Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:46:57 +0000 (UTC), Matt Davis
<m_davis@pacific.edu> spake thusly:

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:06:59 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:43:14 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> spake thusly:

The following is a statement by L. Harrison Matthews.

You are also hypocrites. You will claim that I am not
being scientific, because I believe in something I
cannot prove exists, yet you cannot prove what you
believe and will then tell me how science isn't about
proof, even though you demand God be proven

scientifically, which makes you dishonest in your
approach and you will say anyone who doesn't believe
what you do, is an idiot, even though you can't prove
what you believe to be true. You are liars and
hypocrites.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:43:14 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> spake thusly:

The following is a statement by L. Harrison Matthews.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology
and biology is thus in the peculiar position of
being a science founded on an unproved theory."

Is it the entire quote? No. Is it an accurate quote?
Yes. I did not cut a sentence in half and make it say
the opposite. Dana did.

I've seen this argument before. It is very bad moral judgement to

that it is honest to cite PART of what someone wrote in order to
characterize them as saying something they do not actually support.

I did not make a claim as to what he supports. I made
a claim as to what he said. There is a difference. I
do not need to quote everything he ever said, to make
that point.

Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:

There is nothing in any of these links, that shows a
clear progression of fossils, showing that man came
from anything else.

Try going into more detail. WHY do these fail to show evolution? What
is missing? What sorts of evidence would you consider valid?

If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist, which makes all atheists idiots.
The only "reason" they proffer is that God is not seen, therefore
it must be assumed that God does not exist.

Illogical twits.

Nerd Gerl wrote:

The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation

Darwin admitted far more than that...

It just so happens that the theory BEST explains why species evolve.
If that is true, then what options are atheists left with? Creation?
That's unpalatable, isn't it? Yet the fact remains, Darwin's theory
of evolution is just that, a theory that best describes the evolutionary
processes we can observe with our five senses. Darwin does not explain
"creation," indeed, if any of the nitwits who espouse it have actually
read "Origin of Species," Darwin closes his theory with these words:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or
into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according
to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

If an alt.atheism atheist cannot come up with a logical argument as
to why God does not exist then he is an idiot. It just so happens
that most alt.atheism atheists cannot think of a logically valid
reason why God should not exist, which makes all atheists idiots.
The only "reason" they proffer is that God is not seen, therefore
it must be assumed that God does not exist.

Illogical twits.