Religions > Atheism > Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?
| 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: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 05:01:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:11:14 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back
in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
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.
Speaking of honesty, a few weeks back I agreed to discuss the bible
with you on your terms, now using websites for support and the like.
You then stopped replying to me. Why is that?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 01:21:05 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
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...!".
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?
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,
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.
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.
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
to demand evidence and then to say "thats not really evidence" places
the burden of proof on you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 01:37:19 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
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...!".
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?
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,
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.
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.
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.
And what do you call someone who insists that the behemoth was a
dinosaur, in spite of the fact that dinosaurs did not eat grass, did
not have navels, and whose best supporting evidence for this assertion
is that the behemoth had a tail which is described as moving like a
cedar?
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fencingsax" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 01:46:35 PM |
|
|
Richard Forrest wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
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...!".
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?
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,
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.
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.
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.
And what do you call someone who insists that the behemoth was a
dinosaur, in spite of the fact that dinosaurs did not eat grass
A creationist would say: prehistoric ferns? grass? whatever.
did not have navels, and whose best supporting evidence for this
assertion
is that the behemoth had a tail which is described as moving like a
cedar?
Hells, this is enough evidence to prove anything, when you're a
creationist.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 02:24:06 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
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...!".
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?
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.
So, now you compare me to a murderer?!?!? Do you talk like this to
people when you're face-to-face? Somehow, I doubt it.
Perhaps you'll take pity on me, and explain what my question "actually"
was, since, so far as I know, I meant exactly what I asked, no more and
no less.
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.
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.
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.
I am neither a liar nor a fool. Put hydrogen and oxygen gas together,
add a spark, and you get water... a simple chemical reaction. While
abiogenesis hasn't been observed, it can be hypothesised to have
occured via more complex chemical reactions. If you believe this is so
improbable, then show us the calculations that say so.
So far, you haven't offered a shred of evidence to support your claim
that this scenario is too improbable to have happened... none. My
reference to milk cartons referred to the everyday faith that the
Universe is comprehensible, and has regularities that can be
understood... like the correspondence between what is written on a milk
carton you haven't openned, and what is contained therein.
You sir, are a fool.
And you, Sir, behave in a very Un-Christian manner, and should be
ashamed of yourself for treating your own faith so shabbily.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 02:29:44 PM |
|
|
On 9 Feb 2005 12:24:06 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
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...!".
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?
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.
So, now you compare me to a murderer?!?!? Do you talk like this to
people when you're face-to-face? Somehow, I doubt it.
I didn't compare you to a murderer. I gave an example.
If you can't understand that, then maybe a course in
remedial reading is in order.
And yes, I do speak this way face to face.
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.
I am neither a liar nor a fool.
You are when you use that example.
Put hydrogen and oxygen gas together,
add a spark, and you get water... a simple chemical reaction. While
abiogenesis hasn't been observed, it can be hypothesised to have
occured via more complex chemical reactions. If you believe this is so
improbable, then show us the calculations that say so.
In other words, it's never been observed, so you
imagine it up, believe it and then claim it's
scientific fact. Gotcha.
So far, you haven't offered a shred of evidence to support your claim
that this scenario is too improbable to have happened... none.
Son, let me explain something to you. A positive claim
was made. I responded to it. It isn't my job to
refute what you are unable to demonstrate. You're
doing that yourself. You don't need my help.
--
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: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 03:00:36 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 9 Feb 2005 12:24:06 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
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...!".
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?
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.
So, now you compare me to a murderer?!?!? Do you talk like this to
people when you're face-to-face? Somehow, I doubt it.
I didn't compare you to a murderer. I gave an example.
If you can't understand that, then maybe a course in
remedial reading is in order.
And yes, I do speak this way face to face.
You said "Politeness doesn't mean that you're attempting to be honest
in your approach. " This is true. It is also true that politeness
doesn't mean that I was attempting to be dishonest, either.
What is it, exactly, that you claim I'm being dishonest about?
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.
I am neither a liar nor a fool.
You are when you use that example.
How so?
Put hydrogen and oxygen gas together,
add a spark, and you get water... a simple chemical reaction. While
abiogenesis hasn't been observed, it can be hypothesised to have
occured via more complex chemical reactions. If you believe this is
so
improbable, then show us the calculations that say so.
In other words, it's never been observed, so you
imagine it up, believe it and then claim it's
scientific fact. Gotcha.
Actually, I never claimed that abiogenesis was a "scientific fact." I,
in fact, referred to it as a hypothesis. Do you see the difference?
So far, you haven't offered a shred of evidence to support your
claim
that this scenario is too improbable to have happened... none.
Son, let me explain something to you. A positive claim
was made. I responded to it. It isn't my job to
refute what you are unable to demonstrate. You're
doing that yourself. You don't need my help.
Here is what you actually said:
"Well of course you object to that. That's because you
have a much better and much more scientific idea about
how things got here. It goes as follows...
Nothing blew up and here we are.
There was no life and one day, some chemicals decided,
in spite of the fact that it is impossible, to mix up
just right, even though it could never happen by itself
and start living. And then of course, here we are. "
You made the positive claim, Sir: "... some chemicals decided, *in
spite of the fact that it is impossible*, to mix up just right, even
though *it could never happen by itself and start living.* [emphasis
added] It is your assertion that this is what Science claims (even
though no one has actually said any such thing).
You claim it's impossible. You claim "it could never happen by itself."
So, are you going to do the honorable thing, and support your claims,
or are you going to persist posting in the dishonorable and
un-Christian manner you've been using lately?
It's your choice...
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 03:08:15 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 9 Feb 2005 12:24:06 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
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...!".
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?
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.
So, now you compare me to a murderer?!?!? Do you talk like this to
people when you're face-to-face? Somehow, I doubt it.
I didn't compare you to a murderer. I gave an example.
If you can't understand that, then maybe a course in
remedial reading is in order.
And yes, I do speak this way face to face.
That accounts for the lack of friends.
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.
I am neither a liar nor a fool.
You are when you use that example.
Why, just because you didn't understand it?
Put hydrogen and oxygen gas together,
add a spark, and you get water... a simple chemical reaction. While
abiogenesis hasn't been observed, it can be hypothesised to have
occured via more complex chemical reactions. If you believe this is so
improbable, then show us the calculations that say so.
In other words, it's never been observed, so you
imagine it up, believe it and then claim it's
scientific fact. Gotcha.
To the same extent that your father's birth has never been observed.
What does that say about you? You really should grow out of those
"Gotcha"s especially when you are back-pedalling so fast.
So far, you haven't offered a shred of evidence to support your claim
that this scenario is too improbable to have happened... none.
Son, let me explain something to you. A positive claim
was made. I responded to it. It isn't my job to
refute what you are unable to demonstrate. You're
doing that yourself. You don't need my help.
You made the positive claim that abiogenesis had zero chance of
happening. You cannot justify that claim and are unable to
demostrate any support for it. On the other hand, you do need
our help.
You ought to grow out of those "Son"s too. It makes you seem like
a wantabe Catholic priest.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fencingsax" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 01:24:03 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
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...!".
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?
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.
Wow. Just popped in, and I already got my irony quota for the day.
especially this part: "Politeness doesn't mean that you're attempting
to be honest in your approach".
Of course, he also obsfucates about his answer to a rational question,
but I thought this was funnier.
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.
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.
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.
I agree that it was a crappy analogy. However, that doesn't mean that
life didn't develop. It just means it was a crappy analogy. I think
a better analogy would be something along the lines of trusting that a
chemical reaction would work. But that's just me.
--
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: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 02:12:00 PM |
|
|
On 9 Feb 2005 11:24:03 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Fencingsax" <Christocbd@gmail.com> spake
thusly:
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.
I agree that it was a crappy analogy. However, that doesn't mean that
life didn't develop. It just means it was a crappy analogy. I think
a better analogy would be something along the lines of trusting that a
chemical reaction would work. But that's just me.
And yet, you have zero evidence that such a chemical
reaction happened. But of course, you insist that it
did, in spite of that and then deny that all you have
is faith. So don't mention, "rational" again.
--
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 02:38:44 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 9 Feb 2005 11:24:03 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Fencingsax" <Christocbd@gmail.com> spake
thusly:
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.
I agree that it was a crappy analogy. However, that doesn't mean that
life didn't develop. It just means it was a crappy analogy. I think
a better analogy would be something along the lines of trusting that a
chemical reaction would work. But that's just me.
And yet, you have zero evidence that such a chemical
reaction happened. But of course, you insist that it
did, in spite of that and then deny that all you have
is faith. So don't mention, "rational" again.
You're getting out of your league again, Dave. You are using
words like evidence which you don't seem to even understand.
So how did you calculate that zero probibility again?
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 01:28:42 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
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...!".
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?
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.
Apparently beyond your ability to answer.
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.
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.
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.
Again his proposition was beyond you. Science depends on
natural explanations because they have repeatedly been shown
to work, just like buying stuff in the store based solely on
the labels.
There was a time when there was no life. After that there was
primitive life followed over millions of years by more complex
forms. The trend is clear and points to an abiogenesis event.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
08 Feb 2005 11:46:49 AM |
|
|
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.
It appears he was correct, Dave.
We both know that there is ZERO, ZERO,
ZERO evidence for abiogenesis,
Repeating a lie does not change its character. It only
reflects on your character.
so to sit there and type
this message, pretending that there is evidence for it,
makes you a flat out liar.
Perhaps from your point-of-denial that makes sense.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
10 Feb 2005 05:05:45 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
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.
Once again Disaster Dave proves the only thing he can prove - that he's
a liar, a hypocrite, and a coward.
There's abundant evidence that abiogenesis is possible. That's why
Disaster Dave is a liar.
What there is zero evidence for is a god. That's what makes him a
hypocrite.
He will run away from dealing with these incontrovertible facts.
That's what makes him a coward.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 06:18:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:33:01 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation)
So we are back to that. Lying for Jesus.
You, who have made a virtue of ignorance, and denies what you know to be true,
to strengthen that "virtue", are too dishonest to contemplate.
There are times when I really do wish that there were a god, such as you claim
to worship.
It would be worth spending eternity, screaming in hell, just to hear you and
your ilk, screaming, beside me.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
11 Feb 2005 09:44:16 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:33:01 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:46:17 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Deadrat" <none@none.non> spake thusly:
Incorrect. It was all one thing, until spontaneous
generation was proved wrong, which is the same thing as
abiogenesis, no matter how hard you try to whine that
it isn't.
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) -
where did you get the idea these are identical concepts?
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 01:19:16 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:46:17 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Deadrat" <none@none.non> spake thusly:
Incorrect. It was all one thing, until spontaneous
generation was proved wrong, which is the same thing as
abiogenesis, no matter how hard you try to whine that
it isn't.
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
So are you asserting that modern theories of abiogenesis are exactly
equivalent to the idea that maggots arise for rotting meat? That when
scientists talk about abiogenesis, they know that they mean 'maggots
apearing on rotten meat', and are too stupid and ignorant to know that
this idea was disproved two centuries ago?
Has it not occured to you that the use of the word in modern science
does not mean 'maggots apearing on rotten meat', and that scientists
working in the field are well aware of this? <chuckle>
Are too stupid to realise this, or are you just playing stupid word
games because you have no argument to offer? <chuckle>
By the way, I enjoyed your little comedy routine with Jason <chuckle>.
Did you agree in a spirit of Christin unity that both of your titles
are equaly worthless, or are you both still sulking? <chuckle><chuckle>
And by the way, I'm still waiting to know if you still assert that the
behemoth was a dinosaur. I know you'll either ignore this, or snip it
from your reply <chuckle> but you know and I know that other people
will see that you've failed to respond and see you for what you are
<chuckle>
Try not to look so dishonest, Dave. It does your cause no good.
RF
especially when any educated person knows that it is
impossible for it to happen on its own.
But many educated people know that it *is* possible.
Prove that it is possible then. Explain the exact
mechanism and provide repeatable scientific testing
that demonstrates life from non-life.
Science is the very business of not being able to explain things and
making
the effort to change that.
In other words, you can't explain, yet claim that
educated people know it's possible. And this they know
by not being able to explain it. Gotcha.
--
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: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 01:46:12 PM |
|
|
On 7 Feb 2005 11:19:16 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com>
spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:46:17 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Deadrat" <none@none.non> spake thusly:
Incorrect. It was all one thing, until spontaneous
generation was proved wrong, which is the same thing as
abiogenesis, no matter how hard you try to whine that
it isn't.
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
So are you asserting that modern theories of abiogenesis are exactly
equivalent to the idea that maggots arise for rotting meat?
If you have an argument with it, then go argue with the
book.
That when
scientists talk about abiogenesis, they know that they mean 'maggots
apearing on rotten meat', and are too stupid and ignorant to know that
this idea was disproved two centuries ago?
They try to make abiogenesis something else. The
reality is, this "rotting meat" thing is what was used
as proof of abiogenesis, which is the same thing as
spontaneous generation and that is what the Dictionary
of Theories demonstrates. It does not say that
"abiogenesis equals maggots coming from rotting meat".
It says that this idea was used to support the idea of
abiogenesis/spontaneous generation. But you knew that
and thought you'd try to build a straw man.
--
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: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 03:29:46 PM |
|
|
Disaster Dave lied:
They try to make abiogenesis something else. The
reality is, this "rotting meat" thing is what was used
as proof of abiogenesis,
Lie! If Disaster Dave is opening his mouth, he's lying. This is one
fact about him you can always rely on.
The idea of flies spontaneously arising from rotting meat was a folk
tale that was **DISPROVEN** by science, you clueless *****. It was
**NEVER** used as proof of anything. Now admit to and witdraw your
lie, you worthless *****.
And then go read "Vital Dust" by Christian de Duve to learn where
abiogenesis is at *scientifically* before your open your stupid,
clueless ***** mouth ever again on this topic.
Then go read a good book on evolution to learn what and where the
evidence is dipshit, before you embarrass yourself ever further with
your idiotic childish blind whimpering.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 02:41:02 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 7 Feb 2005 11:19:16 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com>
spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:46:17 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Deadrat" <none@none.non> spake thusly:
Incorrect. It was all one thing, until spontaneous
generation was proved wrong, which is the same thing as
abiogenesis, no matter how hard you try to whine that
it isn't.
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
So are you asserting that modern theories of abiogenesis are exactly
equivalent to the idea that maggots arise for rotting meat?
If you have an argument with it, then go argue with the
book.
That when
scientists talk about abiogenesis, they know that they mean 'maggots
apearing on rotten meat', and are too stupid and ignorant to know
that
this idea was disproved two centuries ago?
They try to make abiogenesis something else.
No, they talk about the processes by which life could have arisen from
prebiotic chemicals, and the environments in which they might have been
found. This is one of the reason why NASA and the ESA spent a lot of
money to sent a space probe to Titan. The environment there resembles
in some way the environment of the early earth, and the precursor
molecules of living organisms may be found there. It's called science,
Dave: you don't make empty assertions. If you have a theory you look
for the evidence which supports your theory, and make predictions about
where and how to look for that evidence.
Hint: The Huygens probe was not sent to Titan to look for 'maggots
appearing in rotten meat'.
The
reality is, this "rotting meat" thing is what was used
as proof of abiogenesis, which is the same thing as
spontaneous generation and that is what the Dictionary
of Theories demonstrates. It does not say that
"abiogenesis equals maggots coming from rotting meat".
It says that this idea was used to support the idea of
abiogenesis/spontaneous generation. But you knew that
and thought you'd try to build a straw man.
So all you have to offer is a play with words.
The straw man is yours. But then you have nothing to offer other than
unfounded assertions and evasion, have you?
To restore the parts that you snipped without marking (tut,tut, Dave,
such poor 'netiquette'). Do you honestly think that people don't notice
such evasion? Do you think it makes you look anything other than
dishonest?
Are too stupid to realise this, or are you just playing stupid word
games because you have no argument to offer? <chuckle>
By the way, I enjoyed your little comedy routine with Jason <chuckle>.
Did you agree in a spirit of Christin unity that both of your titles
are equaly worthless, or are you both still sulking? <chuckle><chuckle>
And by the way, I'm still waiting to know if you still assert that the
behemoth was a dinosaur. I know you'll either ignore this, or snip it
from your reply <chuckle> but you know and I know that other people
will see that you've failed to respond and see you for what you are
<chuckle>
Try not to look so dishonest, Dave. It does your cause no good.
RF
--
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: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
08 Feb 2005 11:07:29 AM |
|
|
On 7 Feb 2005 12:41:02 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com>
spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 7 Feb 2005 11:19:16 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com>
spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:46:17 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Deadrat" <none@none.non> spake thusly:
Incorrect. It was all one thing, until spontaneous
generation was proved wrong, which is the same thing as
abiogenesis, no matter how hard you try to whine that
it isn't.
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
So are you asserting that modern theories of abiogenesis are exactly
equivalent to the idea that maggots arise for rotting meat?
If you have an argument with it, then go argue with the
book.
That when
scientists talk about abiogenesis, they know that they mean 'maggots
apearing on rotten meat', and are too stupid and ignorant to know
that
this idea was disproved two centuries ago?
They try to make abiogenesis something else.
No, they talk about the processes by which life could have arisen from
prebiotic chemicals, and the environments in which they might have been
found.
Go be a moron with someone else. Abiogenesis is a
myth. You have zero support for it and we both know
it.
This is one of the reason why NASA and the ESA spent a lot of
money to sent a space probe to Titan. The environment there resembles
in some way the environment of the early earth, and the precursor
molecules of living organisms may be found there. It's called science,
Dave: you don't make empty assertions. If you have a theory you look
for the evidence which supports your theory, and make predictions about
where and how to look for that evidence.
Yea, you keep looking for what won't happen.
Hint: The Huygens probe was not sent to Titan to look for 'maggots
appearing in rotten meat'.
You're still building your straw man. But you knew
that. I'm done with you, since you obviously choose to
lie about what was said.
--
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? |
08 Feb 2005 11:44:03 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 7 Feb 2005 12:41:02 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com>
spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 7 Feb 2005 11:19:16 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com>
spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:46:17 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Deadrat" <none@none.non> spake thusly:
Incorrect. It was all one thing, until spontaneous
generation was proved wrong, which is the same thing as
abiogenesis, no matter how hard you try to whine that
it isn't.
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
So are you asserting that modern theories of abiogenesis are exactly
equivalent to the idea that maggots arise for rotting meat?
If you have an argument with it, then go argue with the
book.
That when
scientists talk about abiogenesis, they know that they mean 'maggots
apearing on rotten meat', and are too stupid and ignorant to know
that
this idea was disproved two centuries ago?
They try to make abiogenesis something else.
No, they talk about the processes by which life could have arisen from
prebiotic chemicals, and the environments in which they might have been
found.
Go be a moron with someone else. Abiogenesis is a
myth. You have zero support for it and we both know
it.
That was uncalled for. It is you who has zero support.
This is one of the reason why NASA and the ESA spent a lot of
money to sent a space probe to Titan. The environment there resembles
in some way the environment of the early earth, and the precursor
molecules of living organisms may be found there. It's called science,
Dave: you don't make empty assertions. If you have a theory you look
for the evidence which supports your theory, and make predictions about
where and how to look for that evidence.
Yea, you keep looking for what won't happen.
But it is happening and you won't let yourself see. Is it fear?
Hint: The Huygens probe was not sent to Titan to look for 'maggots
appearing in rotten meat'.
You're still building your straw man. But you knew
that. I'm done with you, since you obviously choose to
lie about what was said.
Dave, it was your strawman that his comments referred to. If you
don't like strawmen, don't use them.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 02:35:33 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 7 Feb 2005 12:41:02 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com>
spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 7 Feb 2005 11:19:16 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com>
spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:46:17 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Deadrat" <none@none.non> spake thusly:
Incorrect. It was all one thing, until spontaneous
generation was proved wrong, which is the same thing as
abiogenesis, no matter how hard you try to whine that
it isn't.
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
So are you asserting that modern theories of abiogenesis are
exactly
equivalent to the idea that maggots arise for rotting meat?
If you have an argument with it, then go argue with the
book.
That when
scientists talk about abiogenesis, they know that they mean
'maggots
apearing on rotten meat', and are too stupid and ignorant to know
that
this idea was disproved two centuries ago?
They try to make abiogenesis something else.
No, they talk about the processes by which life could have arisen
from
prebiotic chemicals, and the environments in which they might have
been
found.
Go be a moron with someone else. Abiogenesis is a
myth. You have zero support for it and we both know
it.
What a role model you are to other Christians, Dave!
I'm not sure that Christ would have called someone a moron because they
pointed out that he deliberately misused a term in an attempt to
deceive, but then I doubt that the Christ I was taught about would have
used such an obviously dishonest form of argument. I can only conclude
that you are refering to some other 'Christ' in your claims of
Christianity.
Talking about supporting claims: you have asserted that the behemoth
was a dinosaur, but when pressed on the subject your argument was
reduced to claiming that the only animal which every lived the movement
of whose tail could be compared to a cedar was a dinosaur, and that
this overrode all the contraindications such as grass-eating and the
presence of a navel.
I notice that you have not withdrawn this claim.
My question is this: are you utterly dishonest, or merely utterly
stupid? The people want to know!
This is one of the reason why NASA and the ESA spent a lot of
money to sent a space probe to Titan. The environment there
resembles
in some way the environment of the early earth, and the precursor
molecules of living organisms may be found there. It's called
science,
Dave: you don't make empty assertions. If you have a theory you look
for the evidence which supports your theory, and make predictions
about
where and how to look for that evidence.
Yea, you keep looking for what won't happen.
So tell me, Dave. What would you say if they *did* find evidence?
Hint: The Huygens probe was not sent to Titan to look for 'maggots
appearing in rotten meat'.
You're still building your straw man. But you knew
that. I'm done with you, since you obviously choose to
lie about what was said.
That's it, Dave. When shown to be dishonest, accuse the people who
expose your dishonesty of being liars. You are not speaking from a
pulpit to people you can shout down here, Dave. Anyone can track back
up this thread or look up other threads and see you for the dishonest,
evasive creature you are.
You claim to be a Christian. What you practice is no version of
Christianity I've ever come across.
RF
--
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: "John Collins" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
09 Feb 2005 12:00:10 PM |
|
|
Richard Forrest wrote:
(referring to "Pastor" Dave.
You claim to be a Christian. What you practice is no version of
Christianity I've ever come across.
You're lucky. With only a couple of exceptions I've found it the only sort
I've ever come across.
The dishonesty of people supposedly supporting an Omnipotent god who is
supposed to disapprove of lying never ceases to amaze me.
--
John Collins aa#1639
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 09:29:10 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:04:20 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 01:59:12 -0600, after pondering deep
thoughts, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> spake
thusly:
And they ignorantly claim that evolution is wrong because it does not
adequately explain origins, when evolution was never meant to explain the
origin of the universe, merely changes in life forms.
Incorrect. It was all one thing, until spontaneous
generation was proved wrong, which is the same thing as
abiogenesis, no matter how hard you try to whine that
it isn't.
since when? no one knows how abiogenesis took place, least of all
creationists.
The fact is, nothing matters if you claim that God did
not do it and then can't explain the origin of life,
'god did it' cant explain the origin of life either since it explains
everything. it explains a flat tire. it explains static on the radio.
it explains nothing at all.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 03:49:31 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:04:20 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 01:59:12 -0600, after pondering deep
thoughts, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> spake
thusly:
And they ignorantly claim that evolution is wrong because it does not
adequately explain origins, when evolution was never meant to explain the
origin of the universe, merely changes in life forms.
Incorrect. It was all one thing, until spontaneous
generation was proved wrong, which is the same thing as
abiogenesis, no matter how hard you try to whine that
it isn't. Once it was proved wrong, evolutionists
tried to distance themselves from it and claimed that
it was a separate issue.
The only reason that it is all one thing, in the eyes of creationists, is
because if the allow their straw man, to be honestly separated, they haven't a
leg to stand on.
But tell us, Dave: Who was it proved abiogenesis to be wrong. I am sure that we
would all love to read the papers.
You see, abiogenesis has never been more than a strong hypothesis. However, the
production of organic compounds from inorganic matter, does hint strongly at it
being a high probability.
A couple of years in a lab, is no substitute for a billion and a half years of
everything a new planet can do to oceans of water, and sundry dissolved
chemicals.
How do you expect to reproduce in a lab in a year or two, using a few liters of
fluid, what took nature more than a billion years, and billions of Deca-Liters
of fluid
Using the framework of so many xtian arguments.
For you to be so sure that abiogenesis is wrong, you would have to have spent,
probably millions of years, studying the chemistry of the world, at that time,
first hand.
Unless of course you have some sort of verified, and verifiable, experimental
evidence, to the contrary.
BTW, there is more evidence to support abiogenesis, than there is to support the
existence of a god.
The fact is, nothing matters if you claim that God did
not do it and then can't explain the origin of life,
especially when any educated person knows that it is
impossible for it to happen on its own.
Educated where, Dave, some creationist grade school?
Produce your evidence that it cannot happen; Better yet, produce your evidence
that goddidit.
In support of abiogenesis, we have lab produced organic molecules, the very
building blocks of life, and we can reproduce them at will, in the lab, from
inorganics.
What can you do, in support of your contention that goddidit?
snip remaining illogical drivel.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 10:01:13 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 01:59:12 -0600, after pondering deep
thoughts, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> spake
thusly:
And they ignorantly claim that evolution is wrong because it does not
adequately explain origins, when evolution was never meant to explain the
origin of the universe, merely changes in life forms.
Incorrect. It was all one thing, until spontaneous
generation was proved wrong, which is the same thing as
abiogenesis, no matter how hard you try to whine that
it isn't. Once it was proved wrong, evolutionists
tried to distance themselves from it and claimed that
it was a separate issue. <chuckle>
Dave, you are such a comedian! I don't recall Darwin
talking about evolution covering spontaneous generation.
Spontaneous generation, be it rats forming from sewage,
maggots from spoiled meat, or bacteria from cool broth
points more to forming creatures fully formed like was
described in the Bible. It just shows that you can't
skip the steps.
The fact is, nothing matters if you claim that God did
not do it and then can't explain the origin of life,
especially when any educated person knows that it is
impossible for it to happen on its own.
Really? I'm educated. I believe that it is possible
for it to happen on its own. I think that proves you
are wrong, doesn't it?
Yet, they
believe it anyway, which only shows that your belief is
a religion, not science. Science doesn't spit in the
face of facts and the fact is that you cannot explain
the origin of life.
Depends on how much detail you need.
You cannot repeatedly demonstrate
it through experimentation.
There are experiments that show that key steps are pretty
easy.
Nor can you directly prove
macroevolution.
Except that it has been repeatedly observed.
These are facts and you need to face
them.
It would be refreshing if you could take your own advice.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
