Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?

Religions > Atheism > Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 5 of 9

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Iainpenis angled at 100 degrees"
Date:	02 Feb 2005 10:11:06 AM
Object:	Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?

Pyroclastic wrote:

view, an emphisis on christian

WHY I OBJECT TO BIBLICAL CREATIONISM: It is malinspired, incorrect, and
useless.
1. It is MALINSPIRED, because the theory of evolution is correct:
a. It is a proven fact than life adapts to it's environment over
numerous generations.
b: Even without ANY fossil record, it is a hypothetical fact that
complex life can be forged naturally by environmental pressures of
millions of generations of an population of molecular replicators, and
that is it quite probable.
c: With point B in mind, the fossil record can be traced and compared
to environmental dynamics throughout the Earth's history -- and has,
very thoroughly.
2. It is INCORRECT: The Earth is not 6000 years old, this is quite
clear. Mankind's ancestors are not a single couple of Homo Sapiens
called Adam and Eve, because the number of generations doesn't match
migration patterns at all. The sky is not a former part of the sea,
although to a guesser, it might look like it(they meet in the horizon),
implying that biblical creationism is an elaborate wild guess evolved
from earlier creation myths, refined over centuries into folklore, and
finally, literature.
3. It is USELESS: Much has been gained from our knowledge of evolution
and in fact, it is actually so proven that if you chose to ignore it,
much of what we know about biology would become inexplicable once
more(even by creationism). "You can't take the benefits of science -
medicine, technology, chemistry, etc. - then deny results the same
methodology leads to, like evolution. It's a package deal." -- Bob
Dog.
~Iain
.

User: "snex"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 08:53:24 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:15:33 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:

Abiogenesis - The supposed development of living
organisms from nonliving matter. Also called
autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abiogenesis

And, unless life has always existed, it must have occurred at

least once.

The only issue is the mechanism.

Agreed. The problem is, you have no mechanism. And
even if you could find one, you now have the whole
macroevolution problem. Abiogenesis is just the
beginning of your problem, son. :)

As my only intent is to maintain that the the issue is still open, I

not need the closure of a specific mechanism.

Your intent was to claim it is scientific. It isn't.

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

what part of the RNA world hypothesis is not scientific? does it make
testable predictions? is it falsifiable? compare your answers to that
of ID.
.

User: "Joe Blow"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	11 Feb 2005 09:37:06 AM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:37:50 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:

In article <u2fn01ppdvso77jvlmmpa85lmqu2a8ij7k@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 10:50:53 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts,

spake thusly:

Don't argue with him about "abiogenesis" or "spontaneous creation." To
him, it just means "from no life to life without supernatural
intervention" regardless of what you say.

That's because that's what it is.

Nothing controversial here and has nothing
to do with the beginning of life

Right. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the
beginning of life. <chuckle>

That's about as dumb and desperate as it gets.

Abiogenesis - The supposed development of living
organisms from nonliving matter. Also called
autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abiogenesis

And, unless life has always existed, it must have occurred at least once.
The only issue is the mechanism.

Agreed. The problem is, you have no mechanism. And
even if you could find one, you now have the whole
macroevolution problem. Abiogenesis is just the
beginning of your problem, son. :)

Hi Dad! Where have you been. Macroevolution was solved
in 1859.
Joe
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 01:56:06 PM

On 10 Feb 2005 08:57:21 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Abiogenesis could have happened this way:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

"Could have"???

Yes, "could have." You keep saying that abiogenesis is impossible, and
I'm giving you a way in which it could happen. If you don't agree, then
please tell me which step(s) of the description given in the link I
provided qualify as "impossible", and please explain why.

Sorry son, you perverted methods won't work with me.
You claim it's science, so prove it is more than just
faith. I responded to a claim. The onus of proof is
on you, but in the typical evolutionist fashion, once
you realize that you have nothing, you try to turn the
tables and of course, you'll pretend I'm dodging you
when I point out that the burden of proof is on you.

"That isn't evidence."

You're right... it's a hypothesis.

Then you admit that you did not meet what you needed to
meet.

YOU tell me IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what the evidence is for abiogenesis.

Don't worry, it won't take but zero lines of text.

As you wish (and there's no need to shout, you know...):

First, let me clear up something: I offer up this description as a
*possible* scenario of abiogenesis.

Then it isn't evidence and therefore, has no place in a
discussion that requires evidence.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 02:35:41 PM

In article <kten01lvpivqffeimj4lhg4fil2vmf8n3v@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 08:57:21 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Abiogenesis could have happened this way:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

"Could have"???

Sorry son, you perverted methods won't work with me.
You claim it's science, so prove it is more than just
faith. I responded to a claim. The onus of proof is
on you

But if Pastor Dave is claiming to know how the initial transition from
non-living to living occurred, he has an equal burden of proof to meet.
The true scientist will say that there is not enough known to determine
how that transition occured with any certainty.
And the scientist will also say that creationist or intelligent design
theories are outside of science, and so irrelevant to scientific
investigation of the issue.
, but in the typical evolutionist fashion, once

you realize that you have nothing, you try to turn the
tables and of course, you'll pretend I'm dodging you
when I point out that the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on anyone who claims to have any specific
mechanism for the transition from no life to some life. Those who say
they do not know how it happened have nothing to prove.
Does Pastor Dave accede that he does not know how it happened?
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 02:46:46 PM

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:35:41 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:

In article <kten01lvpivqffeimj4lhg4fil2vmf8n3v@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 08:57:21 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Abiogenesis could have happened this way:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

"Could have"???

Sorry son, you perverted methods won't work with me.
You claim it's science, so prove it is more than just
faith. I responded to a claim. The onus of proof is
on you

But if Pastor Dave is claiming to know how the initial transition from
non-living to living occurred, he has an equal burden of proof to meet.

No, I don't. I'm not the one claiming that it is
scientific fact, as the evolutionists do.

The true scientist will say that there is not enough known to determine
how that transition occured with any certainty.

Of course there isn't, because it didn't happen.

And the scientist will also say that creationist or intelligent design
theories are outside of science, and so irrelevant to scientific
investigation of the issue.

And the scientist would be lying. Science is not
"natural only". Science is the pursuit of reality. If
that reality leads one to conclude that intelligence
must have been at work, that is not outside of science.
That is simply what evolutionists try to convince
themselves of and so, do a disservice to science.

, but in the typical evolutionist fashion, once

you realize that you have nothing, you try to turn the
tables and of course, you'll pretend I'm dodging you
when I point out that the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on anyone who claims to have any specific
mechanism for the transition from no life to some life. Those who say
they do not know how it happened have nothing to prove.

No son, sorry, it isn't. But I knew you'd try to avoid
the fact that you believe by faith what you believe.
The burden of proof is on the one who made the claim.
I responded to a claim that abiogenesis happened.
The simple fact is, there is absolutely zero evidence
for what you believe and until you admit that you
believe it by faith, without any evidence, you are
being dishonest. You are lying.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 05:19:32 PM

In article <drhn01la3f8s7o9m56hi524hr4jrab062j@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:35:41 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:

In article <kten01lvpivqffeimj4lhg4fil2vmf8n3v@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 08:57:21 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Abiogenesis could have happened this way:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

"Could have"???

Sorry son, you perverted methods won't work with me.
You claim it's science, so prove it is more than just
faith. I responded to a claim. The onus of proof is
on you

But if Pastor Dave is claiming to know how the initial transition from
non-living to living occurred, he has an equal burden of proof to meet.

No, I don't. I'm not the one claiming that it is
scientific fact, as the evolutionists do.

The true scientist will say that there is not enough known to determine
how that transition occured with any certainty.

Of course there isn't, because it didn't happen.

And the scientist will also say that creationist or intelligent design
theories are outside of science, and so irrelevant to scientific
investigation of the issue.

, but in the typical evolutionist fashion, once

you realize that you have nothing, you try to turn the
tables and of course, you'll pretend I'm dodging you
when I point out that the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on anyone who claims to have any specific
mechanism for the transition from no life to some life. Those who say
they do not know how it happened have nothing to prove.

WRONG! The theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, nor
does any theory of biogenesis that I am aware of have anything to do
with evolution. The one is only concerned with how life came into being
at all, the other only with the way life changes over time.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 08:14:43 PM

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:19:32 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:

In article <drhn01la3f8s7o9m56hi524hr4jrab062j@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:35:41 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:

In article <kten01lvpivqffeimj4lhg4fil2vmf8n3v@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 08:57:21 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Abiogenesis could have happened this way:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

"Could have"???

Sorry son, you perverted methods won't work with me.
You claim it's science, so prove it is more than just
faith. I responded to a claim. The onus of proof is
on you

But if Pastor Dave is claiming to know how the initial transition from
non-living to living occurred, he has an equal burden of proof to meet.

No, I don't. I'm not the one claiming that it is
scientific fact, as the evolutionists do.

The true scientist will say that there is not enough known to determine
how that transition occured with any certainty.

Of course there isn't, because it didn't happen.

And the scientist will also say that creationist or intelligent design
theories are outside of science, and so irrelevant to scientific
investigation of the issue.

, but in the typical evolutionist fashion, once

you realize that you have nothing, you try to turn the
tables and of course, you'll pretend I'm dodging you
when I point out that the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on anyone who claims to have any specific
mechanism for the transition from no life to some life. Those who say
they do not know how it happened have nothing to prove.

Now you once again twist the conversation to avoid
admitting your faith. We're done. Goodbye.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 09:16:43 PM

In article <p75o01th2qdpkqrrcvp3m1th4r6fk5n6q5@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:19:32 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:

In article <drhn01la3f8s7o9m56hi524hr4jrab062j@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:35:41 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:

In article <kten01lvpivqffeimj4lhg4fil2vmf8n3v@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 08:57:21 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Abiogenesis could have happened this way:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

"Could have"???

Sorry son, you perverted methods won't work with me.
You claim it's science, so prove it is more than just
faith. I responded to a claim. The onus of proof is
on you

But if Pastor Dave is claiming to know how the initial transition from
non-living to living occurred, he has an equal burden of proof to meet.

No, I don't. I'm not the one claiming that it is
scientific fact, as the evolutionists do.

The true scientist will say that there is not enough known to determine
how that transition occured with any certainty.

Of course there isn't, because it didn't happen.

And the scientist will also say that creationist or intelligent design
theories are outside of science, and so irrelevant to scientific
investigation of the issue.

, but in the typical evolutionist fashion, once

you realize that you have nothing, you try to turn the
tables and of course, you'll pretend I'm dodging you
when I point out that the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on anyone who claims to have any specific
mechanism for the transition from no life to some life. Those who say
they do not know how it happened have nothing to prove.

Now you once again twist the conversation to avoid
admitting your faith.

What faith do you allege I have that I am not admitting? If it is
anything contrary to what I have been posting here, Father Dave's faith
in my faith is misplaced.

We're done. Goodbye.

You may be done, but I reserve the right to continue pointing out your
errors in future as I have been doing up until now.
.

User: "Richard Forrest"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	11 Feb 2005 02:40:18 AM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:19:32 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:

In article <drhn01la3f8s7o9m56hi524hr4jrab062j@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:35:41 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:

In article <kten01lvpivqffeimj4lhg4fil2vmf8n3v@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 08:57:21 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Abiogenesis could have happened this way:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

"Could have"???

Yes, "could have." You keep saying that abiogenesis is

impossible, and

I'm giving you a way in which it could happen. If you don't

agree, then

please tell me which step(s) of the description given in the

link I

provided qualify as "impossible", and please explain why.

Sorry son, you perverted methods won't work with me.
You claim it's science, so prove it is more than just
faith. I responded to a claim. The onus of proof is
on you

But if Pastor Dave is claiming to know how the initial

transition from

non-living to living occurred, he has an equal burden of proof to

meet.

No, I don't. I'm not the one claiming that it is
scientific fact, as the evolutionists do.

The true scientist will say that there is not enough known to

determine

how that transition occured with any certainty.

Of course there isn't, because it didn't happen.

And the scientist will also say that creationist or intelligent

design

theories are outside of science, and so irrelevant to scientific
investigation of the issue.

, but in the typical evolutionist fashion, once

you realize that you have nothing, you try to turn the
tables and of course, you'll pretend I'm dodging you
when I point out that the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on anyone who claims to have any specific
mechanism for the transition from no life to some life. Those who

say

they do not know how it happened have nothing to prove.

WRONG! The theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis,

nor

does any theory of biogenesis that I am aware of have anything to do
with evolution. The one is only concerned with how life came into

being

at all, the other only with the way life changes over time.

Now you once again twist the conversation to avoid
admitting your faith. We're done. Goodbye.

When are you going to tell us what your faith is, Dave?
It's quite evident from your intellectual and moral cowardice that it
isn't Christianity.
RF
.

User: "Joe Blow"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	11 Feb 2005 09:44:52 AM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:35:41 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:

In article <kten01lvpivqffeimj4lhg4fil2vmf8n3v@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 08:57:21 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Abiogenesis could have happened this way:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

"Could have"???

Sorry son, you perverted methods won't work with me.
You claim it's science, so prove it is more than just
faith. I responded to a claim. The onus of proof is
on you

But if Pastor Dave is claiming to know how the initial transition from
non-living to living occurred, he has an equal burden of proof to meet.

No, I don't. I'm not the one claiming that it is
scientific fact, as the evolutionists do.

Then you will be joining us in keeping the Bible out of science classes.

The true scientist will say that there is not enough known to determine
how that transition occured with any certainty.

Of course there isn't, because it didn't happen.

Here is another claim of yours which you can not substantiate.

And the scientist will also say that creationist or intelligent design
theories are outside of science, and so irrelevant to scientific
investigation of the issue.

And the scientist would be lying. Science is not
"natural only". Science is the pursuit of reality.

Almost, Dave. Science is the pursuit of universally shared
reality. You have to be able to support your claims to any
honest seeker.

If
that reality leads one to conclude that intelligence
must have been at work, that is not outside of science.

Only if you can convince people like me. And, Dad, you're
not close.

That is simply what evolutionists try to convince
themselves of and so, do a disservice to science.

Your religious denial of honest science is a disservice
to religion.

, but in the typical evolutionist fashion, once

you realize that you have nothing, you try to turn the
tables and of course, you'll pretend I'm dodging you
when I point out that the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on anyone who claims to have any specific
mechanism for the transition from no life to some life. Those who say
they do not know how it happened have nothing to prove.

No son, sorry, it isn't.

Yes, Dad, it is. That is the nature of science. Open
and compelling. It is time for you to get to work and
publish.

But I knew you'd try to avoid
the fact that you believe by faith what you believe.

The burden of proof is on the one who made the claim.
I responded to a claim that abiogenesis happened.

By claiming that it happened as described in the Bible.

The simple fact is, there is absolutely zero evidence
for what you believe and until you admit that you
believe it by faith, without any evidence, you are
being dishonest. You are lying.

And your lies are so woven into your psyche of denial
that you are blind to the truth.
Joe
.

User: "Michael Altarriba"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 03:13:33 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:35:41 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:

In article <kten01lvpivqffeimj4lhg4fil2vmf8n3v@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 08:57:21 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Abiogenesis could have happened this way:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

"Could have"???

Yes, "could have." You keep saying that abiogenesis is

impossible, and

I'm giving you a way in which it could happen. If you don't

agree, then

please tell me which step(s) of the description given in the link

provided qualify as "impossible", and please explain why.

Sorry son, you perverted methods won't work with me.
You claim it's science, so prove it is more than just
faith. I responded to a claim. The onus of proof is
on you

But if Pastor Dave is claiming to know how the initial transition

from

non-living to living occurred, he has an equal burden of proof to

meet.

No, I don't. I'm not the one claiming that it is
scientific fact, as the evolutionists do.

The true scientist will say that there is not enough known to

determine

how that transition occured with any certainty.

Of course there isn't, because it didn't happen.

How do you know it [the initial transition from non-living to living
matter] didn't happen?
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 04:54:04 PM

On 10 Feb 2005 13:13:33 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Of course there isn't, because it didn't happen.

How do you know it [the initial transition from non-living to living
matter] didn't happen?

Thank you for proving the stupidity of the average
evolutionist.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 05:23:10 PM

In article <jfpn01d48ol8ia5tdira4goqkouhfm0oo8@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 13:13:33 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Of course there isn't, because it didn't happen.

How do you know it [the initial transition from non-living to living
matter] didn't happen?

Thank you for proving the stupidity of the average
evolutionist.

Theories of abiogenesis and evolution are quite independent.
On the evidence visible here, one cannot properly conclude that "Michael
Altarriba" is an evolutionist.
.

User: "snex"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 05:05:55 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 13:13:33 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Of course there isn't, because it didn't happen.

How do you know it [the initial transition from non-living to living
matter] didn't happen?

Thank you for proving the stupidity of the average
evolutionist.

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

the stupidity of the average creationist is that which forces him to
abandon all of science because his 2000 year old book disagrees. but
even the 2000 year old book agrees that the earth was lifeless at one
time and then life arose!
.

User: "Michael Altarriba"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 05:33:25 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 13:13:33 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Of course there isn't, because it didn't happen.

How do you know it [the initial transition from non-living to living
matter] didn't happen?

Thank you for proving the stupidity of the average
evolutionist.

You say that "life from non-life" never happened. We look at the fossil
evidence and find that, three billion or so years ago, there is no
evidence of life. Go back not quite as far, and you find evidence.
What's more, you can find a pattern of change of lifeforms as you
traverse the geologic strata, including evidence of many species that
no longer exist.
How do you explain that evidence? Can you give me a better answer than
"You're stupid!" ?
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 05:00:43 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 13:13:33 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Of course there isn't, because it didn't happen.

How do you know it [the initial transition from non-living to living
matter] didn't happen?

Thank you for proving the stupidity of the average
evolutionist.

The most stupid evolutionist on the planet is smarter than a liar who
pretends there's no evidence for evolution, and who runs away every
time he's called on his lies.
Budikka
.

User: "Joe Blow"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	11 Feb 2005 09:49:27 AM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 13:13:33 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Of course there isn't, because it didn't happen.

How do you know it [the initial transition from non-living to living
matter] didn't happen?

Thank you for proving the stupidity of the average
evolutionist.

And thank you for once again demonstrating your lack of
understanding the basic concepts of science.
Joe
.

User: "snex"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 03:15:00 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:35:41 -0700, after pondering
deep thoughts, Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>
spake thusly:

In article <kten01lvpivqffeimj4lhg4fil2vmf8n3v@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 08:57:21 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Abiogenesis could have happened this way:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

"Could have"???

Yes, "could have." You keep saying that abiogenesis is

impossible, and

I'm giving you a way in which it could happen. If you don't

agree, then

please tell me which step(s) of the description given in the link

provided qualify as "impossible", and please explain why.

Sorry son, you perverted methods won't work with me.
You claim it's science, so prove it is more than just
faith. I responded to a claim. The onus of proof is
on you

But if Pastor Dave is claiming to know how the initial transition

from

non-living to living occurred, he has an equal burden of proof to

meet.

No, I don't. I'm not the one claiming that it is
scientific fact, as the evolutionists do.

really? do you want your ideas as to how life came about taught in
public school science classes?

The true scientist will say that there is not enough known to

determine

how that transition occured with any certainty.

Of course there isn't, because it didn't happen.

then you believe life has always existed? present your evidence then.

And the scientist will also say that creationist or intelligent

design

theories are outside of science, and so irrelevant to scientific
investigation of the issue.

you claim to know what science is, yet you disagree with what
scientists do. this does not make any sense. the fact is that reality
does NOT lead one to conclude that intelligence must have been at work.
if it did, those who are doing science would be presenting their
evidence. "evolutionists" make up 99% of the science community. the
other 1% has not presented evidence for intelligent design, but rather
has attempted to tear down the current theory.

, but in the typical evolutionist fashion, once

you realize that you have nothing, you try to turn the
tables and of course, you'll pretend I'm dodging you
when I point out that the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on anyone who claims to have any specific
mechanism for the transition from no life to some life. Those who

say

they do not know how it happened have nothing to prove.

No son, sorry, it isn't. But I knew you'd try to avoid
the fact that you believe by faith what you believe.

you do have a specific mechanism, the book of genesis. the burden of
proof for the book of genesis is therefore on you.

The burden of proof is on the one who made the claim.
I responded to a claim that abiogenesis happened.

The simple fact is, there is absolutely zero evidence
for what you believe and until you admit that you
believe it by faith, without any evidence, you are
being dishonest. You are lying.

but there is evidence. you have just ignored it. a good example of
evidence is the existence of very small and non-complex imperfect
self-replicating systems. another piece of evidence is the fact that
computer simulations show that small and non-complex imperfect
self-replicating systems can become large and complex self-replicating
systems through evolution.

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\

"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html

User: "hamilton"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 05:09:01 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 10 Feb 2005 05:32:11 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "hamilton" <kwandongbrian@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:21:32 +0000, after pondering
deep thoughts, Ash <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk>
spake thusly:

<snip>

Exactly, but that is now what abiogenesis is about

So then you admit that the definition was changed, to
try to hide from the faux pas with the dead meat.

The fact is, abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are
one and the same thing. The life from rotting meat
wasn't the argument of where life came from, as far as
non-living matter. It was simply, in error, used to
try to support the idea. The evolutionists then tried
to distance themselves from it and claim that
abiogenesis is a separate thing from spontaneous
generation, but it isn't. Spontaneous generation (read
it as words, not a label) is still what would have been
required.
<snip>

I'm willing to accept that the terms abiogenesis and

spontaneous

generation could be considered synonyms but that would require
qualifiers after the term

No, it wouldn't.

for example "abiogenesis of complex forms
from previously living forms" or "spontaneous generation of living
forms from materials never part of a previously living form".

That is not the definition and we both know it. You're
now trying to find a way around the fact that you are
forced to admit that you have zero proof for
abiogenesis, which means, life from non-living matter.

Luckily, I'm not forced to admit anything as I never claimed to have
proof.
I wonder if I could change your last line just a little? I would
prefer, "...abiogenesis, which means, life from [never]-living matter."
This was the heart of my earlier post; that the dead meat and animal
broth that Pasteur used were never claimed to be laying around some
billion years ago.
.

User: "TCS"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	10 Feb 2005 09:16:20 AM

On 10 Feb 2005 05:32:11 -0800, hamilton <kwandongbrian@gmail.com> wrote:

My knowledge of the big bang is about as slim as my knowledge of
abiogenesis. I do know however, that one of the bits of evidence for
the big bang is that stars, galaxies, space itself is expanding and

What I find so amusing is how bent out of shape theists get when anything
conflicts with their books of fairytales.
We can see stars in the sky; by the dopler shift we can get their velocities
and from that we can backtrack. Trace back a few billion years
and it looks like what you described, everything coming from a single point.
That's it.
But I wasn't there, none of this has the slightest effect on my life, and
if theists would shut up about it then it would be a non-issue.
I don't see them putting such effort in saying the earth is flat. I guess
they've conceded that they lost that one.
.

User: "Joe Blow"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	09 Feb 2005 01:18:55 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:47:24 +0000, after pondering
deep thoughts, Ash <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk>
spake thusly:

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 8 Feb 2005 11:32:15 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts,

spake thusly:

It is not even an "object of much speculation." After all, the basis
for abiogenesis is plainly obvious. There is absolutely nothing "weird"
about it just because abiogenesis is a low probability event. The only
questions are (1) to determine the physical state on earth when life
arose (this will give us a bound on the probability of occurrence,
which is a function of the energy distribution of molecules,
compositions of them, etc.) and (2) to find the distribution of
conditions of planets in the universe and hence of life in the
universe, which is why looking for life and life-like conditions
elsewhere is valuable.

It isn't a "low probability" event. It is beyond the
statistics of impossibility. Nor can anyone
demonstrate it, but you believe it. That requires
faith, not science.

oh? care to show why it is beyond the statistics of impossibility?
Without claiming that a modern cell couldn't form?

Without claiming that a modern cell couldn't form.
Isn't that what the odds are supposed to be about?

No Dave. Modern cells are the product of evolution acting
ultimately upon the primitive cell. It is the formation of
the primitive cell that the probability should describe.
Joe
.

User: "Joe Blow"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	09 Feb 2005 12:16:37 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 8 Feb 2005 11:32:15 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts,

spake thusly:

It isn't a "low probability" event. It is beyond the
statistics of impossibility. Nor can anyone
demonstrate it, but you believe it. That requires
faith, not science.

In order to actually put a statistic on this probability, you need
to know the exact process involved. Since I doubt that you know
the process, your statistic is equally unknown. Its not a bad
thing to not know something.
Joe
.

User: "Michael Altarriba"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	09 Feb 2005 01:17:39 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 8 Feb 2005 11:32:15 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts,

spake thusly:

It is not even an "object of much speculation." After all, the basis
for abiogenesis is plainly obvious. There is absolutely nothing

"weird"

about it just because abiogenesis is a low probability event. The

only

questions are (1) to determine the physical state on earth when life
arose (this will give us a bound on the probability of occurrence,
which is a function of the energy distribution of molecules,
compositions of them, etc.) and (2) to find the distribution of
conditions of planets in the universe and hence of life in the
universe, which is why looking for life and life-like conditions
elsewhere is valuable.

It isn't a "low probability" event. It is beyond the
statistics of impossibility. Nor can anyone
demonstrate it, but you believe it. That requires
faith, not science.

How did you arrive at your estimation of the probabilities involved?
Can you show me the calculations that were made to arrive at this
conclusion?
<snip>
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	09 Feb 2005 02:10:11 PM

On 9 Feb 2005 11:17:39 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 8 Feb 2005 11:32:15 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts,

spake thusly:

It is not even an "object of much speculation." After all, the basis
for abiogenesis is plainly obvious. There is absolutely nothing

"weird"

about it just because abiogenesis is a low probability event. The

only

It isn't a "low probability" event. It is beyond the
statistics of impossibility. Nor can anyone
demonstrate it, but you believe it. That requires
faith, not science.

How did you arrive at your estimation of the probabilities involved?
Can you show me the calculations that were made to arrive at this
conclusion?

Right after you prove to me that I should even consider
what you have zero evidence for to be scientific. You
claim it happened, now prove it isn't just faith on
your part.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.

User: "Joe Blow"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	09 Feb 2005 02:36:17 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 9 Feb 2005 11:17:39 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 8 Feb 2005 11:32:15 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts,

spake thusly:

It is not even an "object of much speculation." After all, the basis
for abiogenesis is plainly obvious. There is absolutely nothing

"weird"

about it just because abiogenesis is a low probability event. The

only

It isn't a "low probability" event. It is beyond the
statistics of impossibility. Nor can anyone
demonstrate it, but you believe it. That requires
faith, not science.

How did you arrive at your estimation of the probabilities involved?
Can you show me the calculations that were made to arrive at this
conclusion?

Right after you prove to me that I should even consider
what you have zero evidence for to be scientific. You
claim it happened, now prove it isn't just faith on
your part.

Ahh, another admission that you have no concept for that which
you claim as zero probability of happening. If you don't know
what it is, how could you know if it can happen or not?
Joe
.

User: "Michael Altarriba"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	08 Feb 2005 06:02:05 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:00:31 -0500, after pondering
deep thoughts, Theo Bromine <the0br0mine@yahoo.ca>
spake thusly:

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:43:41 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Deadrat" <none@none.non> spake thusly:

"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in

message

news:cqcf01pivpo5m2ovdaej4mja0d3ajjh34c@4ax.com...

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:46:17 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Deadrat" <none@none.non> spake thusly:

... snip ...

Spontaneous generation is an explanation for live things

appearing

(nearly immediately) from dead things, e.g., maggots from rotten

meat.

Abiogenesis is any explanation of how self-replicating molecules

arise

from non-self-replicating molecules. The former was indeed

"proved

wrong." The latter is the object of much speculation. If you

don't

believe in abiogenesis, tell us why.

Sorry, that isn't true.

Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) - the now
discredited idea that living organisms can arise
spontaneously from inanimate matter. This theory was
supported by such observations as maggots appearing on
rotten meat left outdoors, which led to the mistaken
conclusion that the meat itself, rather than adult
flies laying eggs in the meat, created the maggots.
- Dictionary of Theories

My reply is not intended to convince you that we're here as a

result of

natural processes.

Then you have no reason to respond.

It's clear that no amount of evidence would ever wean
you from your religious beliefs.

You are a liar. We both know that there is ZERO, ZERO,
ZERO evidence for abiogenesis, so to sit there and type
this message, pretending that there is evidence for it,
makes you a flat out liar.

On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence for life arising where
there was previously no life.

Then present it. You people always claim this and
never live up to your claim.

If I may join in on the conversation...
You, Pastor Dave, assert that there is no evidence for abiogenesis.
There's something I'm unclear on, however: What, to you, would
constitute evidence? What data would you need to see before you could
say "Yes, there is now evidence to support abiogenesis." I presume that
the observation that, at one point in the geologic history of Earth, we
see no signs of life, and that, at a later point, we do, does not
constitute evidence from your perspective.
You might be interested in looking at this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
You'll find three different articles concerning abiogenesis, which will
shed light on current theory. Perhaps you'll find something here that
will provide what you would consider to be evidence?
And, evidence aside, is it your position that (a) "We don't know how
life began.", (b) "We know that life couldn't have begun without
outside help.", or something else?
Finally, if you are certain that life on Earth required an outside
agent to get its start, do you accept the possibility that said start
came from some extraterrestrial intelligence (and yes, I'm being
perfectly serious)?
Thanks for your time...
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	09 Feb 2005 10:48:49 AM

On 8 Feb 2005 16:02:05 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

You, Pastor Dave, assert that there is no evidence for abiogenesis.
There's something I'm unclear on, however: What, to you, would
constitute evidence?

This is where the evolutionist tries to muddy the
waters. "Duuuuh, duuuuh, what wood u consthiter
evidaaance Davey? Duuuuh...!".

What data would you need to see before you could
say "Yes, there is now evidence to support abiogenesis." I presume that
the observation that, at one point in the geologic history of Earth, we
see no signs of life, and that, at a later point, we do, does not
constitute evidence from your perspective.

You see no life, then life. And yet, think it happened
all by itself. That requires more faith than I have.

You might be interested in looking at this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

You might be interested to know that the numbers come
from respected scientists.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.

User: "Richard Forrest"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	09 Feb 2005 12:00:03 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 8 Feb 2005 16:02:05 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

You, Pastor Dave, assert that there is no evidence for abiogenesis.
There's something I'm unclear on, however: What, to you, would
constitute evidence?

This is where the evolutionist tries to muddy the
waters. "Duuuuh, duuuuh, what wood u consthiter
evidaaance Davey? Duuuuh...!".

If you can't be bothered to have an adult conversation, why bother to
post here? When you resort to ridiculing an honest question, it shows
that you have nothing to offer.
What a tribute you are to your faith, Dave. I'm sure your God is proud
of you.
By the way, who is your God? Your standard of behaviour makes it pretty
clear that it isn't the Christian God.
RF

What data would you need to see before you could
say "Yes, there is now evidence to support abiogenesis." I presume

that

the observation that, at one point in the geologic history of Earth,

see no signs of life, and that, at a later point, we do, does not
constitute evidence from your perspective.

You see no life, then life. And yet, think it happened
all by itself. That requires more faith than I have.

You might be interested in looking at this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

You might be interested to know that the numbers come
from respected scientists.

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

User: "Michael Altarriba"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	09 Feb 2005 12:51:09 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 8 Feb 2005 16:02:05 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

You, Pastor Dave, assert that there is no evidence for abiogenesis.
There's something I'm unclear on, however: What, to you, would
constitute evidence?

This is where the evolutionist tries to muddy the
waters. "Duuuuh, duuuuh, what wood u consthiter
evidaaance Davey? Duuuuh...!".

Why did you not answer my question? I've been nothing but civil with
you , and you turn around and insult me. That isn't very polite of you,
much less very mature or very Christian. Would Christ approve of you
acting in this way?

What data would you need to see before you could
say "Yes, there is now evidence to support abiogenesis." I presume

that

the observation that, at one point in the geologic history of Earth,

see no signs of life, and that, at a later point, we do, does not
constitute evidence from your perspective.

You see no life, then life. And yet, think it happened
all by itself. That requires more faith than I have.

Well it does require faith, in that one must have faith that the
Universe works in ways that can be understood by observation and
experimentation, but it's no greater a level of faith than that which
is demanded when you go to the grocery store, and pick up a carton of
milk from the shelf with relative certainty that the carton does not in
fact contain water, or motor oil, or something other than what the
markings on the carton indicate.

You might be interested in looking at this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

You might be interested to know that the numbers come
from respected scientists.

Which numbers? Which scientists? You neglected to give specifics. Also,
did you examine the material I linked to above? It may answer some of
your questions, and explain how abiogenesis doesn't require the level
of faith you assume.
<snip>
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?	09 Feb 2005 01:11:14 PM

On 9 Feb 2005 10:51:09 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

Pastor Dave wrote:

On 8 Feb 2005 16:02:05 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:

You, Pastor Dave, assert that there is no evidence for abiogenesis.
There's something I'm unclear on, however: What, to you, would
constitute evidence?

This is where the evolutionist tries to muddy the
waters. "Duuuuh, duuuuh, what wood u consthiter
evidaaance Davey? Duuuuh...!".

Some murderers smile at you when they shoot you.
Politeness doesn't mean that you're attempting to be
honest in your approach. I merely showed your question
for what it was.

What data would you need to see before you could
say "Yes, there is now evidence to support abiogenesis." I presume

that

the observation that, at one point in the geologic history of Earth,

see no signs of life, and that, at a later point, we do, does not
constitute evidence from your perspective.

You see no life, then life. And yet, think it happened
all by itself. That requires more faith than I have.

Once again, you lie. No life, then life, all by itself
and you wish to claim that you believe this because you
believe that it is no different than picking up a
carton of milk and expecting milk to be in it.
You sir, are a fool.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.

Page 5 of 9