| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Overis" |
| Date: |
08 May 2006 08:16:24 AM |
| Object: |
Darwin Basic Flaws |
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately. Nowhere does it
say that each species was created in a certain location. And nowhere
does it say that there could be no variety in the same type of living thing.
.
|
|
| User: "Lukas Mariman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 10:19:48 AM |
|
|
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> schreef in bericht
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately. Nowhere does it
say that each species was created in a certain location. And nowhere does
it say that there could be no variety in the same type of living thing.
The Bible and what you think it has to say are very much irrelevant. But you
probably know that all too well.
Religion and science don't belong in the same sentence. Science studies
reality, while religion attempts to explain the "why", the "purpose of
life", but has its roots in ancient myths and plain old wishful thinking.
Any attempt to compare the 2 or confront them over whatever issue is, at
best, awkward.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 10:57:54 AM |
|
|
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately. Nowhere does it
say that each species was created in a certain location. And nowhere does
it say that there could be no variety in the same type of living thing.
So? Why should I give a hoot what the bible has to say? Do you give a flying
fig about what's written in the Koran?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Overis" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 11:36:03 AM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately. Nowhere does it
say that each species was created in a certain location. And nowhere does
it say that there could be no variety in the same type of living thing.
So? Why should I give a hoot what the bible has to say? Do you give a flying
fig about what's written in the Koran?
Actually I do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sara Brum" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 09:48:28 AM |
|
|
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
Stipulating that Darwin did indeed come to this conclusion, his
interpretation of Genesis has no bearing on the validity of his theory of
evolution.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately.
Have you actually read Genesis?
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed
is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and
every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,
which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the
fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air,
and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I
have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
That pretty much covers it, don't you think?
Nowhere does it say that each species was created in a certain location.
And nowhere does it say that there could be no variety in the same type of
living thing.
Is it your contention that because the bible fails to mention something,
then Darwin must have been wrong?
Nowhere does the bible say that each species was not created in a certain
location. And nowhere does it say that there could be variety in the same
type of living thing. How does that fit in with your argument?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
30 May 2006 11:28:49 PM |
|
|
"Sara Brum" <right@home.here> wrote in message
news:0TI7g.3$S7.1@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
Stipulating that Darwin did indeed come to this conclusion, his
interpretation of Genesis has no bearing on the validity of his theory of
evolution.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible's account of
creation say that every species was created separately.
Have you actually read Genesis?
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose
seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Let you keep your fairy tails out of a biology newsgroup.
And it was so.
SNIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Koi-Lo Reply to NG Only" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
31 May 2006 01:19:17 AM |
|
|
"Ash" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message
news:5Y8fg.727$ap3.627@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Let you keep your fairy tails out of a biology newsgroup.
And it was so.
What is it doing in a pond keepers NG? It doesn't belong there either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TesarSebatyne" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
01 Jun 2006 04:39:47 PM |
|
|
Koi-Lo wrote:
"Ash" <mail@mail.com> wrote in message
news:5Y8fg.727$ap3.627@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Let you keep your fairy tails out of a biology newsgroup.
And it was so.
What is it doing in a pond keepers NG? It doesn't belong there either.
What Pond keeper group?
Rec.ponds is a discussion group of life emerging from the primordial pond.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
31 May 2006 12:21:02 AM |
|
|
Ash wrote:
"Sara Brum" <right@home.here> wrote in message
news:0TI7g.3$S7.1@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
Stipulating that Darwin did indeed come to this conclusion, his
interpretation of Genesis has no bearing on the validity of his theory of
evolution.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible's account of
creation say that every species was created separately.
Have you actually read Genesis?
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose
seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
According to some primitive fable writer.
So what is gour point?
You are descended from a branch of the ape family - get used to it.
Let you keep your fairy tails out of a biology newsgroup.
And it was so.
SNIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sara Brum" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
31 May 2006 01:19:05 AM |
|
|
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:447D275C.4E0460E6@netvigator.com...
Ash wrote:
"Sara Brum" <right@home.here> wrote in message
news:0TI7g.3$S7.1@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises
prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe
that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
Stipulating that Darwin did indeed come to this conclusion, his
interpretation of Genesis has no bearing on the validity of his theory
of
evolution.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible's account of
creation say that every species was created separately.
Have you actually read Genesis?
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose
seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
According to some primitive fable writer.
No *****, Sherlock.
So what is gour point?
My point is, the pinhead holding the religious babblings of ancient nomads
in authority to support his argument apparently hasn't even read them.
You are descended from a branch of the ape family - get used to it.
I enjoy rubbing fundies' noses in the mess they leave on the rug - get used
to it.
Try reading posts in context. You don't have to be a theist to quote the
bible to good effect.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Overis" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 09:59:15 AM |
|
|
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
Stipulating that Darwin did indeed come to this conclusion, his
interpretation of Genesis has no bearing on the validity of his theory of
evolution.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately.
Have you actually read Genesis?
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed
is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and
every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,
which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the
fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air,
and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I
have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
First I've read Genesis.
That pretty much covers it, don't you think?
Second, It does not. It is generalized.
Nowhere does it say that each species was created in a certain location.
And nowhere does it say that there could be no variety in the same type of
living thing.
Is it your contention that because the bible fails to mention something,
then Darwin must have been wrong?
No. It is how you or others may interpret Genesis. The interpretation
that leads to misinformation and misunderstanding.
Nowhere does the bible say that each species was not created in a certain
location. And nowhere does it say that there could be variety in the same
type of living thing. How does that fit in with your argument?
That is correct. It fits nicely.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sara Brum" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 06:53:39 PM |
|
|
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:71J7g.4802$k%2.877@trnddc03...
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
Stipulating that Darwin did indeed come to this conclusion, his
interpretation of Genesis has no bearing on the validity of his theory of
evolution.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately.
Have you actually read Genesis?
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose
seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and
every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and
cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the
which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the
air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is
life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
First I've read Genesis.
That pretty much covers it, don't you think?
Second, It does not. It is generalized.
Of course it's generalised, were you perhaps expecting a complete catalogue
of creation? However, you'll note the liberal use of the word "every" in
there. Now I realise this is a translation of a translation, but surely if
we can't trust the use of the word "every", then the rest of the translation
must be suspect, at best.
Nowhere does it say that each species was created in a certain location.
And nowhere does it say that there could be no variety in the same type
of living thing.
Is it your contention that because the bible fails to mention something,
then Darwin must have been wrong?
No. It is how you or others may interpret Genesis. The interpretation that
leads to misinformation and misunderstanding.
So, basically, the bible says what you say is says, and everyone else is
wrong. You have to love a book that's so obscure in its meaning as to be
worthless for anything but argument.
Nowhere does the bible say that each species was not created in a certain
location. And nowhere does it say that there could be variety in the same
type of living thing. How does that fit in with your argument?
That is correct. It fits nicely.
Strange, what I wrote is the complete opposite of what you used to support
your argument in the first instance. I guess we can make any claim we like
so long as the bible doesn't mention it. But, of course, if the bible does
happen to say "every", we can just ignore that if it doesn't fit in with our
argument. Such a wonderful tool, this bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Overis" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 07:19:17 PM |
|
|
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:71J7g.4802$k%2.877@trnddc03...
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
Stipulating that Darwin did indeed come to this conclusion, his
interpretation of Genesis has no bearing on the validity of his theory of
evolution.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately.
Have you actually read Genesis?
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose
seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and
every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and
cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the
which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the
air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is
life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
First I've read Genesis.
That pretty much covers it, don't you think?
Second, It does not. It is generalized.
Of course it's generalised, were you perhaps expecting a complete catalogue
of creation? However, you'll note the liberal use of the word "every" in
there. Now I realise this is a translation of a translation, but surely if
we can't trust the use of the word "every", then the rest of the translation
must be suspect, at best.
Let me ask you this. Did God created the Pittbull?
Nowhere does it say that each species was created in a certain location.
And nowhere does it say that there could be no variety in the same type
of living thing.
Is it your contention that because the bible fails to mention something,
then Darwin must have been wrong?
No. It is how you or others may interpret Genesis. The interpretation that
leads to misinformation and misunderstanding.
So, basically, the bible says what you say is says, and everyone else is
wrong. You have to love a book that's so obscure in its meaning as to be
worthless for anything but argument.
Lack of information, is not missing information.
Nowhere does the bible say that each species w
as not created in a certain
location. And nowhere does it say that there could be variety in the same
type of living thing. How does that fit in with your argument?
That is correct. It fits nicely.
Strange, what I wrote is the complete opposite of what you used to support
your argument in the first instance.
not at all.
I guess we can make any claim we like
so long as the bible doesn't mention it. But, of course, if the bible does
happen to say "every", we can just ignore that if it doesn't fit in with our
argument. Such a wonderful tool, this bible.
Yes it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
30 May 2006 11:35:58 PM |
|
|
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:9eR7g.15632$yU6.6797@trnddc05...
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:71J7g.4802$k%2.877@trnddc03...
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises
prime
Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the
air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is
life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
First I've read Genesis.
That pretty much covers it, don't you think?
Second, It does not. It is generalized.
Of course it's generalised, were you perhaps expecting a complete
catalogue of creation? However, you'll note the liberal use of the word
"every" in there. Now I realise this is a translation of a translation,
but surely if we can't trust the use of the word "every", then the rest
of the translation must be suspect, at best.
Let me ask you this. Did God created the Pittbull?
Did god create the bible?
.
|
|
|
| User: "TesarSebatyne" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
01 Jun 2006 04:38:41 PM |
|
|
Ash wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:9eR7g.15632$yU6.6797@trnddc05...
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:71J7g.4802$k%2.877@trnddc03...
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises
prime
Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the
air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is
life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
First I've read Genesis.
That pretty much covers it, don't you think?
Second, It does not. It is generalized.
Of course it's generalised, were you perhaps expecting a complete
catalogue of creation? However, you'll note the liberal use of the word
"every" in there. Now I realise this is a translation of a translation,
but surely if we can't trust the use of the word "every", then the rest
of the translation must be suspect, at best.
Let me ask you this. Did God created the Pittbull?
Did god create the bible?
Failure to answer the question noted. God did not create a bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
01 Jun 2006 09:04:11 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:38:41 GMT, TesarSebatyne <barabel@blue.org>
wrote:
- Refer: <B7Jfg.45391$As2.3848@trnddc02>
Ash wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:9eR7g.15632$yU6.6797@trnddc05...
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:71J7g.4802$k%2.877@trnddc03...
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises
prime
Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the
air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is
life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
First I've read Genesis.
That pretty much covers it, don't you think?
Second, It does not. It is generalized.
Of course it's generalised, were you perhaps expecting a complete
catalogue of creation? However, you'll note the liberal use of the word
"every" in there. Now I realise this is a translation of a translation,
but surely if we can't trust the use of the word "every", then the rest
of the translation must be suspect, at best.
Let me ask you this. Did God created the Pittbull?
Did god create the bible?
Failure to answer the question noted. God did not create a bible.
Define 'God', please?
And why just one out the literraly millions of fantasy beings?
Did Thor create a bible?
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Apprentice Thumbscrew Oiler.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
31 May 2006 02:30:45 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 31 May 2006 04:35:58 GMT, "Ash" <mail@mail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <O29fg.732$ap3.80@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:9eR7g.15632$yU6.6797@trnddc05...
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:71J7g.4802$k%2.877@trnddc03...
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises
prime
Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the
air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is
life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
First I've read Genesis.
That pretty much covers it, don't you think?
Second, It does not. It is generalized.
Of course it's generalised, were you perhaps expecting a complete
catalogue of creation? However, you'll note the liberal use of the word
"every" in there. Now I realise this is a translation of a translation,
but surely if we can't trust the use of the word "every", then the rest
of the translation must be suspect, at best.
Let me ask you this. Did God created the Pittbull?
Did god create the bible?
Which god?
Which bible?
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Rack Monitor, Chamber 5B
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sara Brum" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 07:47:20 PM |
|
|
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:9eR7g.15632$yU6.6797@trnddc05...
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:71J7g.4802$k%2.877@trnddc03...
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises
prime examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He
had concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe
that every species was created, and in certain localities; also that
minor variations meant that something was evolving.
Stipulating that Darwin did indeed come to this conclusion, his
interpretation of Genesis has no bearing on the validity of his theory
of evolution.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately.
Have you actually read Genesis?
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose
seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature
that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was
good.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and
cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the
which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for
meat.
Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the
air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is
life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
First I've read Genesis.
That pretty much covers it, don't you think?
Second, It does not. It is generalized.
Of course it's generalised, were you perhaps expecting a complete
catalogue of creation? However, you'll note the liberal use of the word
"every" in there. Now I realise this is a translation of a translation,
but surely if we can't trust the use of the word "every", then the rest
of the translation must be suspect, at best.
Let me ask you this. Did God created the Pittbull?
You haven't convinced me that your god created anything, so that question is
pointless.
Nowhere does it say that each species was created in a certain
location. And nowhere does it say that there could be no variety in
the same type of living thing.
Is it your contention that because the bible fails to mention
something, then Darwin must have been wrong?
No. It is how you or others may interpret Genesis. The interpretation
that leads to misinformation and misunderstanding.
So, basically, the bible says what you say is says, and everyone else is
wrong. You have to love a book that's so obscure in its meaning as to be
worthless for anything but argument.
Lack of information, is not missing information.
Nowhere does the bible say that each species w
as not created in a certain
location. And nowhere does it say that there could be variety in the
same type of living thing. How does that fit in with your argument?
That is correct. It fits nicely.
Strange, what I wrote is the complete opposite of what you used to
support your argument in the first instance.
not at all.
Completely. Put the two side by side, and play a game of "spot the
difference".
I guess we can make any claim we like so long as the bible doesn't mention
it. But, of course, if the bible does happen to say "every", we can just
ignore that if it doesn't fit in with our argument. Such a wonderful
tool, this bible.
Yes it is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 09:21:27 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Mon, 08 May 2006 14:59:15 GMT, Overis
<overis@stellvia.org> let us all know that:
Sara Brum wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07...
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
Stipulating that Darwin did indeed come to this conclusion, his
interpretation of Genesis has no bearing on the validity of his theory of
evolution.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately.
Have you actually read Genesis?
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed
is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and
every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,
which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the
fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air,
and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I
have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
First I've read Genesis.
That pretty much covers it, don't you think?
Second, It does not. It is generalized.
It's quite specific, especially the parts in Gen 2 which
contradict parts of Gen 1.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Overis" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
09 May 2006 06:46:49 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Mon, 08 May 2006 14:59:15 GMT, Overis
It's quite specific, especially the parts in Gen 2 which
contradict parts of Gen 1.
There is no contradiction. It is you misunderstanding of Genesis
language and the way it was written.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
30 May 2006 11:31:12 PM |
|
|
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:Ji%7g.3094$OF6.2274@trnddc06...
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Mon, 08 May 2006 14:59:15 GMT, Overis
It's quite specific, especially the parts in Gen 2 which
contradict parts of Gen 1.
There is no contradiction. It is you misunderstanding of Genesis language
and the way it was written.
There are many interpretations of these fairy tails.
It's sad some people actuallly believe them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TesarSebatyne" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
01 Jun 2006 04:36:18 PM |
|
|
Ash wrote:
"Overis" <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in message
news:Ji%7g.3094$OF6.2274@trnddc06...
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Mon, 08 May 2006 14:59:15 GMT, Overis
It's quite specific, especially the parts in Gen 2 which
contradict parts of Gen 1.
There is no contradiction. It is you misunderstanding of Genesis language
and the way it was written.
There are many interpretations of these fairy tails.
It's sad some people actuallly believe them.
You may be right. I believe Alexander the great was a myth as well.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ferrous Patella" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
09 May 2006 12:40:37 AM |
|
|
In article <IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07>, Overis <overis@stellvia.org>
wrote:
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bibleąs account of
creation say that every species was created separately. Nowhere does it
say that each species was created in a certain location. And nowhere
does it say that there could be no variety in the same type of living thing.
You are quite wrong about what Darwin thought. In _The Beagle Diary_, he
spoke explicitly about "centers of creation". These were places where
"kinds" were created and radiated out into species. So Darwin was well
familiar with the concept of variation of types after creation. In fact,
it was the leading idea amongst naturalist when he was learning his
craft.
Where did you get the idea that Darwin thought that all species must be
created individually?
--
Ferrous Patella
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 07:02:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:16:24 GMT, Overis <overis@stellvia.org> wrote:
- Refer: <IwH7g.2089$W83.956@trnddc07>
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately. Nowhere does it
say that each species was created in a certain location. And nowhere
does it say that there could be no variety in the same type of living thing.
Read Genesis, and then get back to us, jabriol.
Read it in Hebrew.
All of it.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 10:10:33 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:16:24 GMT, Overis <overis@stellvia.org> wrote:
***** off, Jabbers.
<PLONK!>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
02 Jun 2006 07:14:04 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:16:24 GMT, Overis <overis@stellvia.org> wrote:
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately. Nowhere does it
say that each species was created in a certain location. And nowhere
does it say that there could be no variety in the same type of living thing.
It's a book written by apes. They weren't there, so the idea of it as
an "account of creation" is supremely ridiculous.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 08:47:54 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:16:24 GMT, Overis <overis@stellvia.org> wrote:
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately. Nowhere does it
say that each species was created in a certain location. And nowhere
does it say that there could be no variety in the same type of living thing.
Who gives a ***** what the bible has to say, moron?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Overis" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 09:34:22 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:16:24 GMT, Overis <overis@stellvia.org> wrote:
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately. Nowhere does it
say that each species was created in a certain location. And nowhere
does it say that there could be no variety in the same type of living thing.
Who gives a ***** what the bible has to say, moron?
Somebody who has more intellectual capacity than you.
Now please turn off your computer and study your alphabet. Your mommy
may get mad at you, for using her personal computer. Children should not
be left alone playing on the Internet unsupervised.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 10:43:08 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 May 2006 14:34:22 GMT, Overis <overis@stellvia.org> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:16:24 GMT, Overis <overis@stellvia.org> wrote:
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately. Nowhere does it
say that each species was created in a certain location. And nowhere
does it say that there could be no variety in the same type of living thing.
Who gives a ***** what the bible has to say, moron?
Somebody who has more intellectual capacity than you.
Now please turn off your computer and study your alphabet. Your mommy
may get mad at you, for using her personal computer. Children should not
be left alone playing on the Internet unsupervised.
Why are so many theists such stupid assholes? Like you.
It's not rocket science, but the bible is only relevant to Christians.
For exactly the same reason the Vedas are only relevant to Hindus. And
the Greek stories about Zeus etc were only relevant to the Ancient
Greeks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Overis" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
08 May 2006 10:57:29 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 08 May 2006 14:34:22 GMT, Overis <overis@stellvia.org> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:16:24 GMT, Overis <overis@stellvia.org> wrote:
While Darwin considered animals such as the finches and tortoises prime
examples of evolution, his reasoning was seriously flawed. He had
concluded that believing in creation meant that one had to believe that
every species was created, and in certain localities; also that minor
variations meant that something was evolving.
None of these ideas are correct. Nowhere does the Bible’s account of
creation say that every species was created separately. Nowhere does it
say that each species was created in a certain location. And nowhere
does it say that there could be no variety in the same type of living thing.
Who gives a ***** what the bible has to say, moron?
Somebody who has more intellectual capacity than you.
Now please turn off your computer and study your alphabet. Your mommy
may get mad at you, for using her personal computer. Children should not
be left alone playing on the Internet unsupervised.
Why are so many theists such stupid assholes? Like you.
I gather because we mock your inability to write a sentence without
cursing or insulting others who disagree with you. Were you molested as
a child by a priest? That would make sense of your constant anger, and
reference to your *****, and that of other people.
It's not rocket science, but the bible is only relevant to Christians.
And it a wonder that atheist attack it more than any other religious
document.
For exactly the same reason the Vedas are only relevant to Hindus. And
the Greek stories about Zeus etc were only relevant to the Ancient
Greeks.
If that was the case. Greek mythology would not be considered in the
American classroom as part of a social studies or history class. Why do
the American public school system teaches irrelevant items?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Basic Flaws |
10 May 2006 10:56:45 AM |
|
|
Overis <overis@stellvia.org> wrote in alt.atheism
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Why are so many theists such stupid assholes? Like you.
I gather because we mock your inability to write a sentence without
cursing or insulting others who disagree with you. Were you molested as
a child by a priest? That would make sense of your constant anger, and
reference to your *****, and that of other people.
Where's your invisible space pixie when children are being molested by
priests? On vacation? Maybe he's watching, cheering on the priests?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
