| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Zhavahutt" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2005 08:14:30 PM |
| Object: |
Darwin and the Bible are in agreement. |
As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands was
not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation within a
major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just
one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24) So it is nothing strange
that those different species of finches would spring from a common
ancestral species. But they did remain finches. They did not evolve into
hawks or eagles.
Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw
proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea gulls,
elephants or earthworms, have a common ancestor. Nevertheless, many
scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it
is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory’s problems, say that
they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. We, however, need to
know whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that the Bible
must be wrong.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin and the Bible are in agreement. |
02 Oct 2005 09:48:25 PM |
|
|
"Zhavahutt" <witkowski@shared-secrets.com> wrote
Neither the various species of finches nor anything
else Darwin saw proved that all living things, whether
they be sharks or sea gulls, elephants or earthworms,
have a common ancestor.
So you're looking at micro evolution and saying that
it's not macro evolution. We know that. We also know
that if this is the best you can do -- slight of hand -- you
haven't a leg to stand on.
Nevertheless, many scientists assert that evolution is
no longer just a theory but that it is a fact.
You just said it is a fact. Heck, you went one further
and pointed out various examples of evolution being
observed. Say, your "finches" for example.
See what I mean by "Slight of hand"? You pointed
towards an undeniable observation, admitted the
fact, then turned around and concluded that it doesn't
exist.
Others, while recognizing the theory’s problems,
There are no problems.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orion deElder" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin and the Bible are in agreement. SOCK ALERT |
03 Oct 2005 12:45:23 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:W-udndhyw9EeBN3eRVn-sw@comcast.com...
"Zhavahutt" aka *JABRIOL*/Antonio L Santana/Zod/Gantz
<witkowski@shared-secrets.com> wrote
Neither the various species of finches nor anything
else Darwin saw proved that all living things, whether
they be sharks or sea gulls, elephants or earthworms,
have a common ancestor.
So you're looking at micro evolution and saying that
it's not macro evolution. We know that. We also know
that if this is the best you can do -- slight of hand -- you
haven't a leg to stand on.
=====================
Just to let you know who you're trying to reason with. This is JABRIOL from
ARJ-W with a new sock-puppet every few hours. He's a Jehovah's Witness
*creationist* so you wont get anywhere. Please remove irrelevant NGs if you
think you can succeed in teaching him anything where no one else has...
thanks. :-)
--
Orion........
"True, there have been those in times past who
predicted an 'end of the world,' even announcing a specific date...The 'end'
did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was
missing?...Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that
he was guiding and using them." Awake October 8, 1968, p. 23
NOTE: But when THEY predicted the end and it never came - that was
different?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nog" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin and the Bible are in agreement. |
03 Oct 2005 01:01:57 PM |
|
|
"Zhavahutt" <witkowski@shared-secrets.com> wrote in message
news:1C%%e.99$2l2.455811@news.sisna.com...
As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands was
not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation within a
major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just
one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24) So it is nothing strange
that those different species of finches would spring from a common
ancestral species. But they did remain finches. They did not evolve into
hawks or eagles.
Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw
proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea gulls,
elephants or earthworms, have a common ancestor. Nevertheless, many
scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it is
a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory’s problems, say that they
believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. We, however, need to know
whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that the Bible must be
wrong.
The bible was written by middle eastern retards.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin and the Bible are in agreement. |
02 Oct 2005 10:37:58 PM |
|
|
Note: I am not a biologist. I have what I think is a fairly good grasp
of the concepts of evolution, but if I make a mistake, I ask that
someone correct me. I'd hate to be giving out misinformation.
Zhavahutt wrote:
As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands was
not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation within a
major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just
one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24) So it is nothing strange
that those different species of finches would spring from a common
ancestral species. But they did remain finches. They did not evolve into
hawks or eagles.
Woops, nobody ever claimed that species transmutate. You don't
understand evolution at all, it would seem. Speciation is a very slow
process that involves separating groups of the same species for long
enough that their differing developmental paths diverge sufficiently to
make inter-breeding impossible. (That's not entirely true. Horses and
donkeys are different species, yet they can produce mules. So I don't
know the exact distinction, but given long enough apart, inter-breeding
will eventually become impossible.)
There's never an instance of a fish turning into a goat, and the Theory
of Evolution does not make that claim. That's ignorant creationists
trying to display the "absurdities" of evolution, while in fact they
simply display their own ignorance.
Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw
proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea gulls,
elephants or earthworms, have a common ancestor. Nevertheless, many
scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it
is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory's problems, say that
they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so.
First, please understand what a theory is. It is not a guess. We call
those hypotheses. When they've been tested rigorously and refined, some
may acheive the status of theory, and be used to make predictions about
the universe. So theories are actually above laws and facts in the
realm of science. Laws and facts are individual data. Theories tie them
together. (For a much better summary, check out the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory ) Now we continue.
The Theory of Evolution is to evolution as the General Theory of
Relativity is to gravity. Evolution and gravity are well established
facts (simply put, they're observable phenomena). Their respective
theories are probably not completely accurate, but so far have made
many successful predictions and have not yet been contradicted to such
a point that they should be thrown out rather than revised in light of
the new data.
That said, the Theory of Evolution would suggest that we all evolved
from a unicellular organism. That is why scientists treat it like fact:
It's a prediction from one of the most well supported theories we have.
We, however, need to know whether evolution has been proved to such an
extent that the Bible must be wrong.
I think common sense would show that to be the case. Biggest problem:
how did this god thingy get there? Next biggest problem is the fact
that an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god created a world that he
would need to kill himself (sorta) to save from his own wrath. It just
doesn't make sense.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin and the Bible are in agreement. |
02 Oct 2005 08:59:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:14:30 -0400, Zhavahutt
<witkowski@shared-secrets.com> wrote:
As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands was
not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation within a
major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just
one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24) So it is nothing strange
that those different species of finches would spring from a common
ancestral species. But they did remain finches. They did not evolve into
hawks or eagles.
Idiot.
Why do you morons imagine citing the bible proves anything in the real
world? Let alone your post-facto rationalisations?
Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw
proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea gulls,
elephants or earthworms, have a common ancestor. Nevertheless, many
scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it
is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory’s problems, say that
they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. We, however, need to
know whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that the Bible
must be wrong.
Why do you imagine we give a ***** about the bible? It is irrelevant in
the real world outside your religion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "HMS Beagle" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin and the Bible are in agreement. |
07 Oct 2005 09:20:40 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:14:30 -0400, Zhavahutt
<witkowski@shared-secrets.com> wrote:
Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw
proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea gulls,
elephants or earthworms, have a common ancestor. Nevertheless, many
scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it
is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory’s problems, say that
they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. We, however, need to
know whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that the Bible
must be wrong.
[...long sigh...] Let me just make a list here.
1. The Bible depicts women's bodies as mere incubators of the man's
seed. Today we know women contribute a zygote as well. (In fact, I
even think there is a passage in which Jehovah himself tells the
Isrealites to round up all the Medianite girls who have not "layed
with men". Did God himself not know that women contribute a zygote?)
Therefore, the Bible is wrong.
2. The Bible says that two modern human beings appeared magically
fully formed somewhere in Iraq. And that around this same time, all
other animals on earth were also appeared magically. We now have a
window in history when modern homo sapiens appeared. And we have
physical evidence of two-dozen hominid species that lived and went
extinct before this window. Therefore, the Bible is wrong.
3. You beleive that Heaven is a nether-realm that does not exist in
this physical dimension. i.e. Heaven is not anywhere in the
observable universe. But in the Bible, Heaven is merely a place way
up in the sky. Therefore, the Bible is wrong.
4. The Bible says that there were days elapsing before the sun was
created. This is absurd. A "day" is defined as one rotation of the
earth near the sun. You don't have "days" without a sun. Therefore,
the Bible is wrong.
5. .... therefore, the Bible is wrong.
Me and about 12 other people who post here could continue to add to
this list until we are blue in the face. When will you people get
it? The Bible is Jewish mythology complete with a creation myth.
This pattern is seen repeated in various religions. !WAKE UP!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Soul food" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin and the Bible are in agreement. |
03 Oct 2005 02:02:29 AM |
|
|
Zhavahutt <witkowski@shared-secrets.com> shamelessly dissembled:
As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands was
not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation within a
major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just
one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24) So it is nothing strange
that those different species of finches would spring from a common
ancestral species. But they did remain finches. They did not evolve into
hawks or eagles.
Witkowski: Living proof that ignorance and dishonesty are
indistinguishable.
1. There are no subspecies of Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Modern Man).
2. Darwin never thought that finches started out as finches, any more
than today's epidemiologists thought the HIV virus (A completely
different species of virus from any other which is functionally unique
and hasn't been around as long as I have) started out as the HIV
virus. That, oh Turds of Wrath, *is* 'macro-evolution'.
------------------------------------------------
"The real dichotomy in today's world is between reason and religion.
The future of civilisation rests upon how many people realise that and do something about it."
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zhavahutt" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin and the Bible are in agreement. |
03 Oct 2005 05:54:07 PM |
|
|
Soul food wrote:
Zhavahutt <witkowski@shared-secrets.com> shamelessly dissembled:
As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands was
not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation within a
major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just
one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24) So it is nothing strange
that those different species of finches would spring from a common
ancestral species. But they did remain finches. They did not evolve into
hawks or eagles.
Witkowski: Living proof that ignorance and dishonesty are
indistinguishable.
1. There are no subspecies of Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Modern Man).
Tes there is, they are call new yorkers!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin and the Bible are in agreement. |
02 Oct 2005 08:42:24 PM |
|
|
Zhavahutt <witkowski@shared-secrets.com> wrote in news:1C%%e.99
$2l2.455811@news.sisna.com:
As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands was
not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation within a
major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from
just
one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24) So it is nothing strange
that those different species of finches would spring from a common
ancestral species. But they did remain finches. They did not evolve
into
hawks or eagles.
Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw
proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea gulls,
elephants or earthworms, have a common ancestor. Nevertheless, many
scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it
is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory’s problems, say that
they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. We, however, need to
know whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that the Bible
must be wrong.
And there is so much wrong crap in the bible, that even if evolution were
totally false, the bible would still be wrong.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin and the Bible are in agreement. |
07 Oct 2005 10:32:01 PM |
|
|
Zhavahutt wrote:
[...] We, however, need to know whether evolution has been
proved to such an extent that the Bible must be wrong.
If the Bible was true the distribution of land animals would be quite
different, since all of them would have dispersed from Mt. Ararat just
a few thousand years ago. We would not, for example, find Kangaroos
only in Australia.
If the Bible was true then why are almost all of the animal species
that ever existed already extinct?
If the Bible was true then why would a gorilla be able to learn and use
american sign language?
.
|
|
|
| User: "TJT2" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin and the Bible are in agreement. |
08 Oct 2005 01:14:06 PM |
|
|
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128742321.956208.166880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Zhavahutt wrote:
[...] We, however, need to know whether evolution has been
proved to such an extent that the Bible must be wrong.
If the Bible was true the distribution of land animals would be quite
different, since all of them would have dispersed from Mt. Ararat just
a few thousand years ago. We would not, for example, find Kangaroos
only in Australia.
Why? Have you read
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp ?
If the Bible was true then why are almost all of the animal species
that ever existed already extinct?
Some species died in the Flood, some after that because climate changes,
etc.
If the Bible was true then why would a gorilla be able to learn and
use american sign language?
God created apes with some intelligence, so that ability to learn is
evidence for creationism.
--
--TJT--
"Kuoleman lapset jo odottaa, heidät täytyy pelastaa."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin and the Bible are in agreement. |
08 Oct 2005 07:37:44 PM |
|
|
TJT2 wrote:
"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
Zhavahutt wrote:
[...] We, however, need to know whether evolution has been
proved to such an extent that the Bible must be wrong.
If the Bible was true the distribution of land animals would
be quite different, since all of them would have dispersed
from Mt. Ararat just a few thousand years ago. We would not,
for example, find Kangaroos only in Australia.
Why? Have you read
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp ?
So it was magic, huh?
If the Bible was true then why are almost all of the animal
species that ever existed already extinct?
Some species died in the Flood, some after that because climate
changes, etc.
Really a clueless answer if you understood the grand scope of the
extinctions.
If the Bible was true then why would a gorilla be able to
learn and use american sign language?
God created apes with some intelligence, so that ability to
learn is evidence for creationism.
Why would God create animals with near-human intelligence when [h]e
already had idiots like you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
