Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<8su6a0lpna55g1vl093sa9jid1npeqknhg@4ax.com>...

On 12 May 2004 11:35:32 -0700,
102250.1425@compuserve.com (SD Anderson) posted thusly:

You see, Cambridge has the records, Cambridge knows what it did.

Yes, it gave a man who never studied for his masters
there, a masters degree. That makes it honorary,
regardless of what Cambridge claims. If his was
legitimate, then ALL people who have received a degree
in the same manner, do not hold honorary degrees, but
legitimate ones. The fact is, Cambridge is big on
evolution and wanted Darwin to appear to be a
legitimate scientist, when he was no more than a man
who saw finches and concluded that the animals and the
bananas were related.

Actually Dave, they gave a man who met the criteria for a degree a
degree.

They also gave honorary degrees and **********made the
distinction********** between them. His is legitimate and was
recognized as such by his contemporaries.

On 12 May 2004 11:35:32 -0700,
102250.1425@compuserve.com (SD Anderson) posted thusly:

You see, Cambridge has the records, Cambridge knows what it did.

Yes, it gave a man who never studied for his masters
there, a masters degree. That makes it honorary,
regardless of what Cambridge claims. If his was
legitimate, then ALL people who have received a degree
in the same manner, do not hold honorary degrees, but
legitimate ones. The fact is, Cambridge is big on
evolution and wanted Darwin to appear to be a
legitimate scientist, when he was no more than a man
who saw finches and concluded that the animals and the
bananas were related.

On 11 May 2004 17:13:36 -0700,
102250.1425@compuserve.com (SD Anderson) posted thusly:

Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<tlas90hgu7u4tc9aaj7r6t69kvf0hr9uk4@4ax.com>...

On 8 May 2004 20:33:16 -0700,
102250.1425@compuserve.com (SD Anderson) posted thusly:

Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<tp4n90tfhqh3796q34hng13876a80n5bc9@4ax.com>...

On 6 May 2004 21:55:51 -0700,
102250.1425@compuserve.com (SD Anderson) posted thusly:

Factually untrue Dave. Darwin held a Master's degree in Science,
confered upon him by Cambridge. This specifically was NOT an honorary
degree but awarded for the quality of his work in the fields of
Geology, Zoology and Botany he did as Naturalist aboard the HMS
Beagle.

In other words, after he had done some research, while
NOT a scientist, they gave him a degree. Yet you claim
it isn't honorary. Tell me, how long did he spend in
school, at Cambridge and during what years?

Specifically CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY STATED UNEQUIVOCABLY that the
degree was given for work done on the Beagle and was not honorary.

Did they now? Tell me, in what year was this degree
given and how many people do you know of today, that
are considered scientists with a masters degree, just
for having done some research, without attending school
and earning it?

Sorry to have delayed my reply on this. I took the trouble to
email Cambridge through it's website and it took a couple of days to
get the reply.

Darwin got his Bachelors degree in 1832 and his Masters in 1837.

Masters in what? Darwin attended Cambridge and
received a degree in theology, in 1831. He did not
attend Cambridge to earn any Masters in any science at
all and after attending Cambridge for theology, he set
out on the Beagle and did not return home until 1836.
So tell me, did he teleport to Cambridge every day to
study and earn his Masters?

It was not honorary.

It sure was, regardless of what Cambridge wishes to
call it. The fact is, that they do this, because they
want to claim he is a scientists and not because he
actually earned the degree from them. It is no
different than an honorary degree given to anyone else,
who has done something in their life that a university
wishes to recognize and you and I both know, that if
anyone claiming to be a scientist opposed your
evolutionary beliefs and you knew that they received
their degree without attending school and earning it,
you would not cease to publish this and ridicule them.

The fact is, that you are lying about what Darwin did
and you intentionally avoided dealing with the solid
points I made about Darwin and his supposed
"education". Nor could you answer the investigative
questions I asked about when he studied there.

Suffice it to say Dave, the claim that Darwin wasn't awarded a
legitimate post graduate degree in science is dead.

It sure is. He never got a legitimate one.

On Wed, 5 May 2004 03:49:25 -0400, "David Smith"
<DavidPun@comcast.net> spake thusly:

The rules aren't "artificial" and by your rules, Darwin
was not a scientist. He held no degrees in any
science. Hardly anyone did in those days and yet, look
at what you believe today about evolution. So is that
REALLY a criteria you want to be telling me about?

The fact is, that one does not need to be a scientist
to understand these things. And it is a common tactic
used, humorously enough, by evolutionists, who are NOT
scientists, to try to silence believers in Christ.
They tell us how dumb we are and that we should just
listen to the experts. You know, the same guys who
tell us one year that an aspirin a day is good for us
and the next that it can cause a stroke and then the
next that it won't. :) A big problem with society
today, is that they do tend to listen to the experts.

There is zero fossil evidence for macroevolution.
ZERO.

Science proposes that the explanation of this is an
extrapolation of the well-documented process of evolutionary change based on
random mutation and natural selection that it sees occuring today.

It doesn't see that. It sees no mutations giving new
features to creatures. Hey, that rhymes. :)

Of course there is a chance that scientists are
wrong. I think they are wrong frankly, but there is presently no coherent
alternative.

Maybe not as far as you can see, but that doesn't mean
they don't exist. You're taking the word of those who
are anti-God, as to whether or not such a theory
exists.

If 'macroevolution' is hypothesized to be a long term
process taking millions or even billions of years of small accumulated
changes, what would you expect to see happening over a period of 150 years.

Well, we should see at least some creatures at an in
between stage and yet, we don't. Why? Because they
couldn't function if they were, which means that they
would have died off and that would be that. There
would be no new kind.

You make an argument that's convenient for you, but it
is you who has claimed that it happens and I am not
bound to prove anything to you. I didn't make any
claims. I responded to claims. No one can demand a
thing of me, as far as making an argument for a
replacement theory.

You seem to think that if what you
believe is destroyed, that means that I have to find
something to replace it with. No sir, that's YOUR
problem. It boils down to an implication that you will
continue to desire it to be believed, even if it is
wrong, because otherwise you would have no explanation
at all. I say to you that it is not my problem. I am
only here to reveal the truth about what you believe,
nothing more. What you want to replace it with, is up
to you to figure out.

On what basis. In 1785, James Hutton, one of that remarkable bunch of wild
Scotsmen in the Edinburgh Philosophical Society, a group which practically
developed every key pillar of our modern world, in science, politics,
economics, architecture, medicine, modern industry etc. , was the first
person to actually present evidence that categorically showed that the Earth
could not be as young as the Bible predicted.

No. James Hutton proposed uniformitarianism, from
which the Geologic Column sprang. The Geologic Column,
which actually exists only in text books and not world
wide, uses circular reasoning. It dates the fossil by
the rocks and the rocks by the fossil.

I have snipped much here. As for the Sun, we still
don't know for sure how it burns, but seem to have
narrowed it down to two possibilities. This is another
example of what happens, when you "listen to the
experts". Anyone who told we know for sure how the Sun
burns, is a liar.

No that simply points to the problem of gathering data over long time
periods. Its the fingerprints at the crime scene after 100years problem. It
is what it is.

No, it isn't. A set of fingerprints is not the same as
billions of fossils stored in the Earth.

True, but that is what the theory is all about.

No, it's about imagining more than that happens.

Not true. There are gaps and there are complete records.

Show me one.

Science often starts with noting
something that can't be explained by existing theories. For example the
fossil record cannot be explained by mechanistic theories of creation. The
constant speed of light cannot be explained by Newtonian relativity. Science
then posits a new theory to explain the initial facts that caused the
questions, and only then can it collect more evidence, because it has no
framework in which to interpret the evidence until the theory is placed. If
you begin by collecting the evidence, what evidence are you collecting? If
you don't have a theory, you don't know what evidence to look for. Of course
you assume the theory is true. But you make sure it is testable. Gee wizz
Dave. You need to sit back and just think this stuff through. I am happy to
discuss the weaknesses of modern evolution with you, but we have to be able
to get past this point. This is science 101.

I understand science. But you are wrong.

And btw,
the fossil evidence can be easily explained by Creation
Science and already has been.

The fact is, that
atheistic and evolutionary scientists assume that there
is a natural answer, when there may not be one and that
because of their own personal bias. Do not fool
yourself into thinking that a scientist cannot be
biased. To do so, is to elevate them to the level of
God. Take careful note of what is said.

Which gets us to the real point.
Why do you get so upset about evolution?

I didn't say anything about being upset. Evolutionists
are however, typically dishonest in these newsgroups.
I also don't like fairy tales being taught as science.
Real science is observable. You call evolution not
observable and still insist it's science. I'm not
saying you personally are dishonest. I think you're
trying to be very honest with me. I think you are just
blinded to some simple facts, whether you decide to
believe in creation or not.

Well in all probability, you get
upset about any facet of science that questions "truths" derived from a
literal interpretation of the Bible.

Well, let's look at it this way. If the Bible is God's
word to mankind, then to disbelieve it, is to
disbelieve God. That would not be a plus in the world
of worshipping God, ya know? :)

I have questioned the existence of God. I have
carefully researched, which is how I one day came to
the conclusion that either the Bible was right, or
evolution was right, but they can't both be right. The
Bible does not allow for evolution.

It makes zero room
for man from ape. Once I came to that conclusion, I
realized that I had better set out to find out which
one is true. After years of careful research, I came
to the conclusion that evolution was built on a house
of cards and all of them were Jokers. Not one solid
piece of evidence can be put forth for it, other than
microevolution and that includes no evidence for the
other five kinds of evolution. There are six kinds, ya
know.

I'm quite intelligent and I have a way of
examining ALL of the words used and not glossing over
what almost all people do.

Let me tell you something, friend. There is only ONE
thing you know about a fossil when you pick it up,
since it doesn't have a date stamped on it. It died.
that's it. You don't know if it had any kids, let
alone different kids.

Where have you been? It is a common argument by them.
They show commonalities as proof that God didn't create
the different kinds. I let them know that a common
designer would use common parts and they laugh and
claim that isn't true.

On Wed, 5 May 2004 03:49:25 -0400, "David Smith"
<DavidPun@comcast.net> spake thusly:

The rules aren't "artificial" and by your rules, Darwin
was not a scientist. He held no degrees in any
science. Hardly anyone did in those days and yet, look
at what you believe today about evolution. So is that
REALLY a criteria you want to be telling me about?

The fact is, that one does not need to be a scientist
to understand these things. And it is a common tactic
used, humorously enough, by evolutionists, who are NOT
scientists, to try to silence believers in Christ.
They tell us how dumb we are and that we should just
listen to the experts. You know, the same guys who
tell us one year that an aspirin a day is good for us
and the next that it can cause a stroke and then the
next that it won't. :) A big problem with society
today, is that they do tend to listen to the experts.

There is zero fossil evidence for macroevolution.
ZERO.

Science proposes that the explanation of this is an
extrapolation of the well-documented process of evolutionary change based on
random mutation and natural selection that it sees occuring today.

It doesn't see that. It sees no mutations giving new
features to creatures. Hey, that rhymes. :)

Of course there is a chance that scientists are
wrong. I think they are wrong frankly, but there is presently no coherent
alternative.

Maybe not as far as you can see, but that doesn't mean
they don't exist. You're taking the word of those who
are anti-God, as to whether or not such a theory
exists.

If 'macroevolution' is hypothesized to be a long term
process taking millions or even billions of years of small accumulated
changes, what would you expect to see happening over a period of 150 years.

Well, we should see at least some creatures at an in
between stage and yet, we don't. Why? Because they
couldn't function if they were, which means that they
would have died off and that would be that. There
would be no new kind.

You make an argument that's convenient for you, but it
is you who has claimed that it happens and I am not
bound to prove anything to you. I didn't make any
claims. I responded to claims. No one can demand a
thing of me, as far as making an argument for a
replacement theory.

You seem to think that if what you
believe is destroyed, that means that I have to find
something to replace it with. No sir, that's YOUR
problem. It boils down to an implication that you will
continue to desire it to be believed, even if it is
wrong, because otherwise you would have no explanation
at all. I say to you that it is not my problem. I am
only here to reveal the truth about what you believe,
nothing more. What you want to replace it with, is up
to you to figure out.

On what basis. In 1785, James Hutton, one of that remarkable bunch of wild
Scotsmen in the Edinburgh Philosophical Society, a group which practically
developed every key pillar of our modern world, in science, politics,
economics, architecture, medicine, modern industry etc. , was the first
person to actually present evidence that categorically showed that the Earth
could not be as young as the Bible predicted.

No. James Hutton proposed uniformitarianism, from
which the Geologic Column sprang. The Geologic Column,
which actually exists only in text books and not world
wide, uses circular reasoning. It dates the fossil by
the rocks and the rocks by the fossil.

I have snipped much here. As for the Sun, we still
don't know for sure how it burns, but seem to have
narrowed it down to two possibilities. This is another
example of what happens, when you "listen to the
experts". Anyone who told we know for sure how the Sun
burns, is a liar.

No that simply points to the problem of gathering data over long time
periods. Its the fingerprints at the crime scene after 100years problem. It
is what it is.

No, it isn't. A set of fingerprints is not the same as
billions of fossils stored in the Earth.

True, but that is what the theory is all about.

No, it's about imagining more than that happens.

Not true. There are gaps and there are complete records.

Show me one.

Science often starts with noting
something that can't be explained by existing theories. For example the
fossil record cannot be explained by mechanistic theories of creation. The
constant speed of light cannot be explained by Newtonian relativity. Science
then posits a new theory to explain the initial facts that caused the
questions, and only then can it collect more evidence, because it has no
framework in which to interpret the evidence until the theory is placed. If
you begin by collecting the evidence, what evidence are you collecting? If
you don't have a theory, you don't know what evidence to look for. Of course
you assume the theory is true. But you make sure it is testable. Gee wizz
Dave. You need to sit back and just think this stuff through. I am happy to
discuss the weaknesses of modern evolution with you, but we have to be able
to get past this point. This is science 101.

I understand science. But you are wrong.

And btw,
the fossil evidence can be easily explained by Creation
Science and already has been.

The fact is, that
atheistic and evolutionary scientists assume that there
is a natural answer, when there may not be one and that
because of their own personal bias. Do not fool
yourself into thinking that a scientist cannot be
biased. To do so, is to elevate them to the level of
God. Take careful note of what is said.

Which gets us to the real point.
Why do you get so upset about evolution?

I didn't say anything about being upset. Evolutionists
are however, typically dishonest in these newsgroups.
I also don't like fairy tales being taught as science.
Real science is observable. You call evolution not
observable and still insist it's science. I'm not
saying you personally are dishonest. I think you're
trying to be very honest with me. I think you are just
blinded to some simple facts, whether you decide to
believe in creation or not.

Well in all probability, you get
upset about any facet of science that questions "truths" derived from a
literal interpretation of the Bible.

Well, let's look at it this way. If the Bible is God's
word to mankind, then to disbelieve it, is to
disbelieve God. That would not be a plus in the world
of worshipping God, ya know? :)

I have questioned the existence of God. I have
carefully researched, which is how I one day came to
the conclusion that either the Bible was right, or
evolution was right, but they can't both be right. The
Bible does not allow for evolution.

It makes zero room
for man from ape. Once I came to that conclusion, I
realized that I had better set out to find out which
one is true. After years of careful research, I came
to the conclusion that evolution was built on a house
of cards and all of them were Jokers. Not one solid
piece of evidence can be put forth for it, other than
microevolution and that includes no evidence for the
other five kinds of evolution. There are six kinds, ya
know.

I'm quite intelligent and I have a way of
examining ALL of the words used and not glossing over
what almost all people do.

Let me tell you something, friend. There is only ONE
thing you know about a fossil when you pick it up,
since it doesn't have a date stamped on it. It died.
that's it. You don't know if it had any kids, let
alone different kids.

Where have you been? It is a common argument by them.
They show commonalities as proof that God didn't create
the different kinds. I let them know that a common
designer would use common parts and they laugh and
claim that isn't true.

On 5/1/04 Pastor Dave wrote

Ahh!! Perhaps we are getting straight to the root of the matter. You
appear
to have a very simplistic black and white view of science and you
also appear to be reluctant to apply the same vision to your own
creation hypothesis.

That is not an accurate assessment.

1) I will not tolerate this gray area argument that
evolutionists use. Either you can demonstrate it, or
you can't. The word science means "knowledge", or by
extension in scientific research, "knowledge gained by
observation, or experimentation". That's it. That's
all I'll accept as a scientific argument.

In all humility, I've got to say you have just demonstrated my point.
It's not really your place to tolerate or not tolerate anything.

The reality of
science, imperfect though it may be, is fairly plain for all to see. I
don't see how it benefits you or anyone else to try to squeeze it into
some narrow, unrealistic box. However, if your are going to take that
position, frankly, I'm disappointed in you. If you don't start your
quest for knowledge with the reality you can see, is your ability to
understand the reality you can't see going to be somewhat suspect?

2) You have no idea what standard I apply to my
beliefs, nor what I've studied.

You are quite right. I apologize if I have offended you.

That's a nice speech. It really is. However, there is
one flaw in it. You talk about "explaining the
observable". Macroevolution has never been observed.
There is no "observable" when it comes to
macroevolution and the only reason that "mutations are
necessary", even though they have never been observed
producing a new kind, is because no one can think of
another way for macroevolution to happen. The problem
is, that they never consider throwing the whole concept
of macroevolution out as garbage. It basically boils
down to the following...

"It is the only way that we can conceive of it
happening. We have never observed it. We have no
evidence for it. But yes, it did happen and if you
don't agree, you are anti-science."

That's ridiculous!

OK. Youve got the creationist rhetoric out of your blood.

Lets get down to some rational discussion.

Macroevolution, as you call it, is not an
observable.How can it be, if it happened, it happened millions of years
ago.

It is a theory to explain the true observeables, the fossil record, the
apparent cladistic and temporal relationship between observed fossils,
and a perfectly reasonable extrapolation of the "microevolution" for
which there is abundant evidence.

Frankly, science is going to have a hell of a job
finding the degree of observable evidence that you are looking for,
hundreds of millions of years after the events are purported to take
place.

Its a bit
like re-opening a murder case after 100 years and trying to look for
fingerprints from the crime scene. However.......DNA evidence.......now
thats a bit more promising. I would contend that DNA evidence will
provide proof for evolution when we have learned to sequence the
genome properly, and its still early days for that. So frankly, the
evidence is still circumstancial.

The fact is, that you seek a naturalistic approach. An
event that does not include God. You rule out God.
You can claim that you don't, but you do. You say that
God can only be considered as someone who set things in
motion, yet, you even seek a naturalistic answer for
that.

And what is wrong with looking for a naturalistic description of how
biological systems have emerged on this earth.

If you would grant me the
latitude of changing your words around for a moment, and I promise I
will not try to claim you have actually said this. I just want to draw
a comparison and I know you are not trying to say this. Suppose we
change evolution to quantum mechanics where a key part of the theory
states that particles can spontaneously emerge from nothing as long as
they return to nothing within a time consistent with Heisenbergs
uncertainty principle. Dirac predicted this long before it was actually
observed. You could equally well apply every argument you have used
above to attack that theory, because only God can create something from
nothing. "The fact is, that you seek a naturalistic approach. An event
that does not include God. You rule out God.You can claim that you
don't, but you do. You say that God can only be considered as someone
who set things in motion, yet, you even seek a naturalistic answer for
that."

In fact the Catholic Church pretty much said the same thing that you
are saying to me, to Galileo, when he tried to uphold the Copernican
theory. To paraphrase them. < Your search for a naturalistic
explanation contradicts the Bible and shows a lack of faith.> That was
a load of nonsense then as it still is today. Galileo was right to
uphold his search for a naturalistic explanation and it did not show a
lack of faith. The only difference now is that you appear to have
appointed yourself as the new Pope.

The real issue I am trying to make here is this. What criterion should
science follow to determine when it should or should not search for a
naturalistic explanation? Frankly, science should always look for a
naturalistic explanation, because that is all it has the tools to
do.... and I am a scientist. And where exactly did I say that I am
looking for a naturalistic answer for God being the prime mover? God
created this universe and the laws that govern it. Consequently, if I
look at those laws unfolding why would I expect to see some
inexplicable gap in them. God has blessed us with the gift of reason
and in my opinion He expects us to use it. I have total faith that if
we use it in the spirit of humility and trust, it will not point to
anything that contradicts God

And I do believe in God and try very hard to implement everything that
He asks of me in my daily life. I try to pray every day and I read
Scripture every day. I do go to Church and I will defend my faith when
attacked.

Has it ever occurred to you, that what you
believe is false? You ask me to consider that in what
I believe and assume that I haven't, but you won't
consider that in what you believe, even though you
can't give me one shred of evidence to support what you
believe and then, have the audacity to claim that you
do not believe what you do by faith!

Yes , I question myself all the time. I am not so arrogant as to think
that I have all the answers. Nor will I ever accuse you of not thinking
about your faith or being insincere. But if I think you are mistaken,
then I will say that. I think you are wrong!

Creation, as a scientific, mechanistic explanation of the observable
data, is a miserable failure. It flatly contradicts the observable
data , it offers no mechanistic description of how the process
occurred, it offers no predictability in terms of using it to
predict when or if a new species will ever appear.

And there is the problem. You try to force Creationism
through the funnel of macroevolution, which you cannot
demonstrate is true to begin with. It doesn't have to
predict new kinds. It states clearly that none will
appear.

You try to force Creationism to explain what you claim
is "observable data". Yet you don't have any data that
you have observed, that supports macroevolution.
That's not only hypocrisy, it's insanity.

In fact it is so bad at explaining the data, its proponents
find themselves having to claim that God created the universe with
the appearance of age, just to fool us. For example, the fact that
we see starlight from galaxies and other deep space objects that are
measured by other techniques to be at least hundreds of millions of
years away, was a ploy by God to make the universe look old. Why?
Unfortunately, they can't answer that either.

The fact is, that if God created a universe and put man
on Earth, then yes, things would appear to be old, IF
someone who believe what you do, were to use their
supposedly accurate measurements.

What you don't appear to realize is that your theory of biblical
literalism is only that....a human theory.

Because you have chosen to reject the Church
and its authority to interpret scripture, you have to replace it with
something that gives you certainty.

You have replaced it with a yardstick of
human knowledge rather than divine inspiration. You appear to have
reached the rather startling conclusion that a 21st Century American
translation of the ancient biblical texts is the yardstick we use to
assess the true meaning of Divine revelation. You are forcing the
mystery of revelation into a simple banal and human criterion. It has
to fit your criterion for what is acceptable or not, namely it either
is a literal translation in your eyes or it is not from God.

1) God did not put man on Earth as an infant. He was a
human adult

Really?

2) God did not put Adam and Eve on Earth and say, "Now
listen, I planted some seeds here and a few years from
now, you'll be able to eat.".

Yes I agree with that, He certainly didn't.

3) You do not know that the speed of light has always
been constant. There is some research that show that
it may not always have been and also, there is some
interesting research that shows that light may not
travel through space the way you think and may arrive
much sooner than you think.

An open minded scientist will consider any evidence put in front of
them. To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that the speed
of light is slowing down. And there is no theoretical model that would
accomodate this that we know of that also fits all other observed data
and proven theory.

There are certainly some interesting scenarios if indeed light did slow
down from the early days of the universe and I suppose that we cannot
say never, but measurements of the speed of light over the last 150
years show not a scrap of evidence of any slow down, only of an
increase in accuracy of the measurement, and if it did slow down at the
rate creationsists suggest to explain a 7000yr old earth and enough to
invalidate radiometric dating etc you had better believe the
deceleration would have been measurable over the last 150yrs. The only
valid trustworthy observation that I am aware of was given in 2 papers
1. Davies, P.C.W., Davis T.M. and Lineweaver, C.H., Nature, 418, 602
(2002)

2. Webb, J.K. et al. Phys. Rev. Lett., 87, 091301 (2001)

where a very small change in the fine structure constant was observed.
However, this measurement has so far been unrepeatable and there is
also some wierd stuff in the first paper about surface states of a
black hole which is completely wrong and would invalidate the
conclusions of paper 1 regarding the speed of light.

In addition to that, they find they have to keep
attacking an ever widening circle of other scientific disciplines,
e.g radiometric dating , astronomy, geology just to keep their deck
of cards from collapsing.

Radiometric dating is a sham. It assumes
uniformitarianism, which is what you are forced to
believe in. The fact is, that 80% decay can be had in
three or four days, in distilled water. Did you know
that?

No I didn't know that. Actually, radiometric dating works fairly well
if the origin of the samples is carefully controlled.

If they are not then all bets
are off. Contamination can screw up anything. But you know what,
scientists can tell when the results are screwball because when you
process the data it is all over the place. Sometimes it predicts too
long, sometimes too short.

But when it is right, all the points line up nicely on the theoretical
curves.

For example, they troll through mountains of scientific
data looking for cases of where there are some questionable
radiometric dating results, most of which, when you bother to read
the actual scientific
reports that they were drawn from, were identified as questionable
by the papers authors, and reasons for the problems were offered.

The fact is, that varying dates are had all the time
and any dates that don't line up with what is
previously believed, are thrown out.

You like to present this dating, as if that is how man
arrived at these dates. It isn't. It all started with
the Geologic Column, which assumed various dates,
without any other dating method at all. They labeled
them with dates and that was it. No scientific
research, or dating, at all. The dated the fossils by
the rocks and the rocks by the fossils. And now, any
radiometric dates that don't line up, are discarded.

Sorry can't help you on that one. I've never come across any scientist
who throws out dating info.

The truth of the matter is that science addresses the facts as they
present themselves, creationsism already has an answer that it must
reach.

Science does. Evolutionary scientists, do not. They
discard anything that goes against their faith.

That's your bias showing.

I doubt you have ever read a single scientific
paper by a evolutionary biologist. I have my issues with them, but they
appear to me to be as honest as any other scientists. Look, if they
thought they could debunk Darwinism that easily, they would be fighting
with each to be first, because they would probably get a Nobel prize or
something.

Naw. Jesus told us that we all have a common Father in heaven. So
therefore
they are my brothers and sisters. Perhaps atheists are just the
Prodigal Siblings and I should be praying that God elightens
their hearts?

Jesus never said that.

Sorry, the loud scratching noise you hear is me trying to change the
first line of the Lord's prayer.

Father of some of us, who art in heaven.
hallowed be your name.

Who is "OUR"? Who does that consist of? Who did Jesus
teach the prayer to?

He was teaching it to his disciples

I think if He had meant
it to be confined to only the disciples, he would have pointed that
out.

And
then why would the early Church have adopted the prayer and included it
in the canon of scripture. I think you are playing with words and not
listening to God talking to you in your heart. You have to be so
careful of this literalism.

I agree not everyone behaves as if God is their Father, but whether
we accept Him as such or not, does not change matters. That is why I
alluded to the parable of the prodigal sone earlier

The Prodigal Son assumes that the person was his child
to begin with. That isn't the case here.

Jesus said to the religious leaders of the day...

"You are of YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL..." - John 8:44

I'm sure He did. He was very angry with them. But I think he was
talking about their hypocrisy in claiming God to be their Father and
then behaving in a way that was completely evil

Politeness is always preferable to insulting people. We should always listen
calmly to others or we will never truly understand what they are trying to
say.