Simple Quiz For Creationists

Religions > Atheism > Simple Quiz For Creationists

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 4

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Budikka666"
Date:	30 Sep 2005 05:16:37 PM
Object:	Simple Quiz For Creationists

This article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4292426.stm
reports that bird flu, once it gets loose among the human population,
could conceivably kill anywhere between 2 million and 150 million.
Even 2 million would make the 9/11 death toll look paltry.
If and when this happens, who or what is going to save most lives?
Will it be:
A. Creation science?
B. Intelligent design?
C. Prayers of believers
D. The hard work of scientists whose understanding of the virus is
grounded in the science of evolution?
Support your answer with solid evidence.
Budikka
.

User: "Mr. Bla"
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	01 Oct 2005 05:34:57 PM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128118597.234981.233200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

This article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4292426.stm
reports that bird flu, once it gets loose among the human

population,

could conceivably kill anywhere between 2 million and 150 million.

Even 2 million would make the 9/11 death toll look paltry.

If and when this happens, who or what is going to save most lives?
Will it be:
A. Creation science?
B. Intelligent design?
C. Prayers of believers
D. The hard work of scientists whose understanding of the virus is
grounded in the science of evolution?

Support your answer with solid evidence.

Budikka

That is an absolutely foolish question. Will anthropology save lives
if this flu strikes? Will geology save lives if this flu strikes?
Creation science is not a field of study/philosophy/theology which has
as its purpose the idea of saving lives from viruses. It is a field of
endeavor which tries to explain our existence and the existence of
things around us as being of sufficient complexity as to have required
a designer/builder.
Up until a few years ago there were 2 interesting rock formations in
America; The Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire and Mount
Rushmore.
The evolutionist looks at both of them and supposes that Mount
Rushmore MUST be older as it would have taken longer for the erosive
processes to smooth the exact contours of each face. The creation
science believer looks at them and says "Mount Rushmore was
CONSTRUCTED, but The Old Man is a random occurrence.The strange irony
is that "evolution" has taken the Old Man away! His features didn't
become sharper and he didn't become more human appearing. ( I realize
geologic erosion and evolutionary biology are not the same but the
analogy stands)
As to your question; The answer is E, none of the above! What will
save the majority of people will be the human immune system. (the
irony is that this brings us back to square one: did the human immune
system evolve to its current state or was it designed to function this
way?)
Just for the sake of knowledge how are we supposed to support our
opinion of what will happen in the future with "solid evidence"? But,
to humor you, It wont be A or B for the above stated reason. It may be
B but that cannot be proved or disproved without a controlled blinded
study. It will almost definitely not be D as it is unlikely that an
immunization will arrive rapidly enough and the current anti-virals
are not that great, and it is unlikely that any new ones will be
available anytime soon.( just for the sake of argument, I doubt this
will be the pandemic it is purported to become, remember swine flu
from the 70s? what ever became of it?)
There is room enough for everyone on this wee ball of mud we inhabit.
You are not the end-all be-all of truth. A massive amount of people
on this world are theists. The surgeon who repairs the damage done to
your body in a trauma may well be a believer, the aerodynamicist who
designed the aircraft in which you fly may be. You, unfortunately like
many Christians, seem to be a man who believes that all you profess
MUST be true, and all others are morons for not believing as you
do.( I realize that playing with Jabriol here you must get the
impression that he is representative of theists. That would be akin to
believing that a special Olympian is a good representation of the
caliber of athlete who competes in the regular Olympic games)
I am a repulsively conservative republican type person. What I hate
most about people like me is that they tend to act as if all Democrats
are evil morons. This is absurd. How can nearly 1/2 of a large
population group be so wrong that their perspective/opinion can be
thrown out immediately? It makes no sense. Republicans have a
perspective and Democrats have a perspective. There is no right or
wrong in that debate, it is a question of opinions.
What is the right way to make love with your wife? There is no right
answer to the question......The answer is; whichever way you 2 wish to
!!
I look at the world, the complexity of the Human Immune system and the
miracle of conception/embryology/birth/development and I see the hand
of a designer. You see biological processes. Who is right? For now
that question CANNOT be answered no matter what you may think.
Sincerely
Mr. Bla
.

User: "DeeDee deElder"
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	03 Oct 2005 03:48:27 PM

"Mr. Bla" <bla@bla.com> wrote in message
news:KpidnSXSvsPGkNzeRVn-rA@comcast.com...

As to your question; The answer is E, none of the above! What will
save the majority of people will be the human immune system. (the
irony is that this brings us back to square one: did the human immune
system evolve to its current state or was it designed to function this
way?)

$$ Another question is why would a god CREATE the bacterial, fungal and
viral diseases to start with so animals and humans (who are also mammals)
would need an immune system? As for the immune system *faith* doesn't give
us the antibiotics, I.V.s etc. to help prevent other opportunistic invaders
while we're trying to overcome the main disease/infection. Science does!
*Faith* does not give us vaccines........

$$ I remember it well as I was so sick I lost 2 weeks from work and ended
up in the ER with a fever of 103. People did die from it. You need to read
the book "The Coming Plague" by Laurie Garrett.

There is room enough for everyone on this wee ball of mud we inhabit.
You are not the end-all be-all of truth. A massive amount of people
on this world are theists. The surgeon who repairs the damage done to
your body in a trauma may well be a believer, the aerodynamicist who
designed the aircraft in which you fly may be. You, unfortunately like
many Christians, seem to be a man who believes that all you profess
MUST be true, and all others are morons for not believing as you
do.

$$ Most theists feel that way. Only THEY have the truth.
( I realize that playing with Jabriol here you must get the

impression that he is representative of theists. That would be akin to
believing that a special Olympian is a good representation of the
caliber of athlete who competes in the regular Olympic games)

$$ Jabbers gets his education from the WTS and pro-creation websites.

I look at the world, the complexity of the Human Immune system and the
miracle of conception/embryology/birth/development and I see the hand
of a designer.

$$ And others see the hand of evolution, change, mutation, millions of
years.... and evolution. If our immune systems were designed by a god (who
created the diseases to start with) there would be no disease. Design?
Look at all the problems women have with their reproductive organs and tell
me about "intelligent design."
You see biological processes. Who is right? For now

that question CANNOT be answered no matter what you may think.

$$ The question has already been answered but you don't care to accept it.

Sincerely
Mr. Bla

DeeDee........
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not
based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
~ Carl Sagan ~
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
========================================
.

User: "maff"
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	06 Oct 2005 05:41:28 AM

Mr. Bla wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128118597.234981.233200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

This article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4292426.stm
reports that bird flu, once it gets loose among the human

population,

That is an absolutely foolish question. Will anthropology save lives
if this flu strikes? Will geology save lives if this flu strikes?
Creation science is not a field of study/philosophy/theology which has
as its purpose the idea of saving lives from viruses. It is a field of
endeavor which tries to explain our existence and the existence of
things around us as being of sufficient complexity as to have required
a designer/builder.

Up until a few years ago there were 2 interesting rock formations in
America; The Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire and Mount
Rushmore.
The evolutionist looks at both of them and supposes that Mount
Rushmore MUST be older as it would have taken longer for the erosive
processes to smooth the exact contours of each face. The creation
science believer looks at them and says "Mount Rushmore was
CONSTRUCTED, but The Old Man is a random occurrence.The strange irony
is that "evolution" has taken the Old Man away! His features didn't
become sharper and he didn't become more human appearing. ( I realize
geologic erosion and evolutionary biology are not the same but the
analogy stands)

As to your question; The answer is E, none of the above! What will
save the majority of people will be the human immune system. (the
irony is that this brings us back to square one: did the human immune
system evolve to its current state or was it designed to function this
way?)

Just for the sake of knowledge how are we supposed to support our
opinion of what will happen in the future with "solid evidence"? But,
to humor you, It wont be A or B for the above stated reason. It may be
B but that cannot be proved or disproved without a controlled blinded
study. It will almost definitely not be D as it is unlikely that an
immunization will arrive rapidly enough and the current anti-virals
are not that great, and it is unlikely that any new ones will be
available anytime soon.( just for the sake of argument, I doubt this
will be the pandemic it is purported to become, remember swine flu
from the 70s? what ever became of it?)

There is room enough for everyone on this wee ball of mud we inhabit.
You are not the end-all be-all of truth. A massive amount of people
on this world are theists. The surgeon who repairs the damage done to
your body in a trauma may well be a believer, the aerodynamicist who
designed the aircraft in which you fly may be. You, unfortunately like
many Christians, seem to be a man who believes that all you profess
MUST be true, and all others are morons for not believing as you
do.( I realize that playing with Jabriol here you must get the
impression that he is representative of theists. That would be akin to
believing that a special Olympian is a good representation of the
caliber of athlete who competes in the regular Olympic games)

I am a repulsively conservative republican type person. What I hate
most about people like me is that they tend to act as if all Democrats
are evil morons. This is absurd. How can nearly 1/2 of a large
population group be so wrong that their perspective/opinion can be
thrown out immediately? It makes no sense. Republicans have a
perspective and Democrats have a perspective. There is no right or
wrong in that debate, it is a question of opinions.
What is the right way to make love with your wife? There is no right
answer to the question......The answer is; whichever way you 2 wish to
!!

I look at the world, the complexity of the Human Immune system and the
miracle of conception/embryology/birth/development and I see the hand
of a designer. You see biological processes. Who is right? For now
that question CANNOT be answered no matter what you may think.

Nah. That's not what the evolutionary biologists say. They are too busy
healing the sick and feeding the world using their knowledge of
evolutionary biology instead of racketeering.
Practical Applications of Evolutionary Biology
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/ad05bd62e37d7bdc

Sincerely
Mr. Bla

User: ""
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	06 Oct 2005 06:07:41 PM

maff wrote:

Mr. Bla wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128118597.234981.233200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

This article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4292426.stm
reports that bird flu, once it gets loose among the human

population,

could conceivably kill anywhere between 2 million and 150 million.
Even 2 million would make the 9/11 death toll look paltry.
If and when this happens, who or what is going to save most lives?
Will it be:
A. Creation science? B.Intelligent design? C. Prayers of believers
D. The hard work of scientists whose understanding of the virus is
grounded in the science of evolution? Support answer with evidence.

<snip>

Just for the sake of knowledge how are we supposed to support our
opinion of what will happen in the future with "solid evidence"? But,
to humor you, It wont be A or B for the above stated reason. It may be
B but that cannot be proved or disproved without a controlled blinded
study. It will almost definitely not be D as it is unlikely that an
immunization will arrive rapidly enough and the current anti-virals
are not that great, and it is unlikely that any new ones will be
available anytime soon.( just for the sake of argument, I doubt this
will be the pandemic it is purported to become, remember swine flu
from the 70s? what ever became of it?)

There is room enough for everyone on this wee ball of mud we inhabit.
You are not the end-all be-all of truth. A massive amount of people
on this world are theists. The surgeon who repairs the damage done to
your body in a trauma may well be a believer, the aerodynamicist who
designed the aircraft in which you fly may be. You, unfortunately like
many Christians, seem to be a man who believes that all you profess
MUST be true, and all others are morons for not believing as you
do.( I realize that playing with Jabriol here you must get the
impression that he is representative of theists. That would be akin to
believing that a special Olympian is a good representation of the
caliber of athlete who competes in the regular Olympic games)

<snip>

I look at the world, the complexity of the Human Immune system and the
miracle of conception/embryology/birth/development and I see the hand
of a designer. You see biological processes. Who is right? For now
that question CANNOT be answered no matter what you may think.

Nah. That's not what the evolutionary biologists say. They are too busy
healing the sick and feeding the world using their knowledge of
evolutionary biology instead of racketeering.

Practical Applications of Evolutionary Biology
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/ad05bd62e37d7bdc

Evolutionists (from 1859 - the publication of the Origin of the
Species) have not developed every part of science. They are not doing
that today, although they would like to say that they are by
indoctrinating the school students in Australia, America, I would also
think England and other countries, that evolution DID happen.
I am not doubting that Evolutionists, be they atheists or religionists,
are providing answers to many scientic problems.
However, modern science in Europe and the British Isles began in the
Universities and in private studies was led by Christians from at least
the Fifteenth century ie about 400 years before Darwin's supposed proof
that evolution happened.
http://answersingenesis.org In 'Search' type 'Christian Scientists'.
I'll list more specific websites in my next posting.
That is your answer to the point you made (above) that 'evolutionary
biologists ....(are mot involved in) racketeering.'
I am not aware that Creation biologists, botanists, geologists,
astronomers, etc, etc are involved in racketeering. Name-calling will
not solve the contentions raised in the evolution/creation controversy.
Evolutionists will not touch the wonderful moment when non-living
became living. Modern day experiements will not conclusively solve that
problem because living persons (scientists) have to be involved.
Creationists say that the creation of living organisms (ex nihilo - out
of nothing) by the Almighty - Omnipotent - God is an extremely
important fact, because it gives glory to Whom it is due.
Both Creation and Evolutionary scientists are exploring / assessing the
scientific evidence. Both are providing new discoveries that are
helping the peoples of the world.
Gladys Swager
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	06 Oct 2005 07:53:01 PM

wrote:

Evolutionists (from 1859 - the publication of the Origin of the
Species) have not developed every part of science.

Who said they did? The fact you and all creationists keep running from
the truth is very revealing: **EVOLUTIONISTS USE THE SAME SCIENTIFIC
METHOD THAT ALL SCIENTISTS USE. CREATIONISTS DO NOT**.

They are not doing
that today, although they would like to say that they are by
indoctrinating the school students in Australia, America, I would also
think England and other countries, that evolution DID happen.

That's a fact. That's why it's taught in school, that's why the
science of evolution is a valuable part of medicine whereas creationism
and prayer are not. **THAT'S ANOTHER FACT FROM WHICH YOU HAVE RUN IN
EVERY MESSAGE YOU HAVE POSTED**.

I am not doubting that Evolutionists, be they atheists or religionists,
are providing answers to many scientic problems.

How could they do that if they did not have valid science at their
disposal? How can creationists pretend that the Theory of Evolution is
wrong when it is supported by the facts and creation is not? I'll tell
you how: creationists are pathological congenital liars.

However, modern science in Europe and the British Isles began in the
Universities and in private studies was led by Christians from at least
the Fifteenth century ie about 400 years before Darwin's supposed proof
that evolution happened.

This is relevant to what? **NOTHING** All it does is show how
pathetic and shameful modern creationists are, when their counterparts
from Darwin's time supported evolution.

http://answersingenesis.org In 'Search' type 'Christian Scientists'.
I'll list more specific websites in my next posting.

This is relevant to what? **NOTHING** All it does is show how
pathetic and shameful modern creationists are, when their counterparts
from Darwin's time supported evolution.

That is your answer to the point you made (above) that 'evolutionary
biologists ....(are mot involved in) racketeering.'
I am not aware that Creation biologists, botanists, geologists,
astronomers, etc, etc are involved in racketeering.

What creation biologists, botanists, geologists, and astronomers? What
science pepers have they published in the recognized, peer-reviewed
science journals which either:
1. refute the theory of evolution
or
2. establish a theory that better explains the evidence?

Name-calling will
not solve the contentions raised in the evolution/creation controversy.

There is no controversy. *That* is another creationist lie.

Evolutionists will not touch the wonderful moment when non-living
became living.

They already did.

Modern day experiements will not conclusively solve that
problem because living persons (scientists) have to be involved.

Lie.

Creationists say that the creation of living organisms (ex nihilo - out
of nothing) by the Almighty - Omnipotent - God is an extremely
important fact, because it gives glory to Whom it is due.

Lie.

Both Creation and Evolutionary scientists are exploring / assessing the
scientific evidence.

Lie. The only **SCIENCE** that is being done is by the evolutionists.
The creaitonists are doingnothing but whining about evolution. If they
had science, if they were doing science, if they had evidence, if they
had a valid theory, they would not be in the humilating position of
having to try and force their beliefs on others through the courts.

Both are providing new discoveries that are
helping the peoples of the world.

Lie. Creationsits are doing nothing but lying as has been demonstrated
to you several times.
Now support your blind assertions or have the common decency to
withdraw these lies.
Budikka
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	08 Oct 2005 05:56:47 AM

Budikka666, In your posting, Oct 7, 10:53 am, you stated, The fact
that you and all creationists keep running from the truth is very
revealing. **EVOLUTIONISTS USE THE SAME SCIENTIFIC METHOD THAT ALL
SCIENTISTS USE. CREATIONISTS DON'T! "
It was Bible-believing Scientists (Sir Isaac Newton and Sir Robert
Boyle) who established the scientific method originally.
Today Bible-believing Creationist scientists are using the same methods
in their own scientific disciplines.
Can creationists be scientists?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/newsletters/0405lead.asp
21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/304.asp
The man who turned chemistry into science
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i1/chemistry.asp
Science Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/science.asp
Gladys Swager
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	08 Oct 2005 06:06:16 AM

wrote:

What happened 400 years ago is irrelevant to what is happening today
with regard to using the scientific method. The creationists cannot
use it because **THEY DO NO SCIENCE**.
The creationists' idea of doing science is to be parasites on the babck
of real scientists - to take their work, twist it, warp it, lie about
it, misquote it, and pretend it supports their own creationist
position.
For the last time, **CREATIONISTS DO NOT PUBLISH WORK IN PEER-REVIEWED
SCIENCE JOURNALS, ERGO THEY DO NOT DO SCIENCE ERGO THEY DO NOT USE THE
SCIENTIFIC METHOD**.

Can creationists be scientists?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/newsletters/0405lead.asp

I am going to completely ignore all of your references to this
discredited religious web site which does not do science and is not a
refereed science journal.
Budikka
.

User: "TJT2"
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	08 Oct 2005 02:00:59 PM

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128769576.822286.298250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

The creationists' idea of doing science is to be parasites on the
babck of real scientists - to take their work, twist it, warp it, lie
about it, misquote it, and pretend it supports their own creationist
position.

1. Please explain how this
x x x
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html
"NOTE: In this paper, Dr. Humphreys makes predictions for the strengths
of the magnetic fields for Uranus and Neptune, well before these
magnetic fields were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. His predictions
were "right on," whereas the predictions of evolutionists were not."
x x x
fits to your claims.
2. Please explain what work they take and from who, when they
a) dated diamonds
b) measured amount of helium in zirkons?
3. Please explain why you evolutionists are still repeating old claim
"gains in non-dipole compensates loss of dipole" when your own stats
says that it don't?
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm

For the last time, **CREATIONISTS DO NOT PUBLISH WORK IN PEER-REVIEWED
SCIENCE JOURNALS, ERGO THEY DO NOT DO SCIENCE ERGO THEY DO NOT USE THE
SCIENTIFIC METHOD**.

Last time you lie? I hope you keep your promise.
x x x clip from af0605.pdf x x x
PEER REVIEW OF CREATIONIST RESEARCH
by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.
As new creationist research is completed at ICR and elsewhere, major
findings need to be reported in journals, magazines, and newsletters.
However,
before the results are released to the general public, they need to be
reviewed for
accuracy by fellow scientists who are knowledgeable in that field.
Scientific research is normally published first in technical journals.
It goes
through a full peer review process whereby several scientists are asked
to read and comment on its quality. Suggested revisions are submitted to
an editor who functions as a referee. The names of the reviewers are
typically
held in confidence by the editor to encourage greater candor.
This process is used by both conventional and creationist journals. When
creationist
research is submitted to journals like Science and Nature, however, the
manuscripts
are almost always rejected, most often by the editor without peer
review. The
reason given is typically based on some arbitrary or minor issue
unrelated to
the quality or thrust of the results. Although rarely admitted,
the reason is most often due to bias against the concept of creation.
The
simple association of an article with a known creationist or creationist
organization
is sufficient grounds for rejection.
Even if a reviewer agrees with the quality of the research by a
creationist, he will
often turn down a paper for publication because he personally disagrees
with the
creationist perspective. Or he may be reluctant to recommend acceptance
for fear
of recrimination from his peers. Not only are the majority of
reviewers and conventional scientific journal editors antagonistic to
creationists
and their research, many journals have adopted formal statements
which discriminate against creation-science. It is almost impossible for
creationists
to receive a fair review in conventional journals.
Consequently, most creationist research must be published in creationist
journals
and conferences like the Creation Research Society Quarterly, the TJ,
or the International Conference on Creationism which have been
established
as alternatives to the conventional scientific societies. These
creationist journals
and conferences arrange for expert reviewers from a wide number of
different
technical fields to peer review prospective articles. Typically, the
reviewers
have degrees from the same universities as those for conventional
journals.
Since they have identified themselves as creationists, however, reviews
of papers
submitted to a creationist journal are often still criticized by the
conventional
scientific community because they believe only non-creationists can
evaluate
scientific quality. Critics will often state that creationists cannot
function as
scientists.
The RATE project faced this dilemma when it began to report the results
of its
research. Although a few of the findings were reported in
the American Geophysical Union,
some still criticized RATE for informing its supporters of the
conclusions before they were published in conventional journals. Yet,
without
informing its supporters, the necessary funding would not have
continued. So, the
policy of RATE was to publish in creationist journals and conferences,
informing
its supporters of the results, with or without secular outlets.
The battle Dr. Henry Morris spoke of in his book, The Long War Against
God,
continues behind the scenes in creationist research. Please continue
to pray for the creation scientists who wage this battle for the mind
every
day.
x x x clip.end x x x

Can creationists be scientists?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/newsletters/0405lead.asp

I am going to completely ignore all of your references to this
discredited religious web site which does not do science and is not a
refereed science journal.

"Published continuously since 1964
Peer-reviewed by degreed scientists
World-wide circulation
Scholarly articles representing the major scientific disciplines
Fresh perspectives on science and society as impacted by origins
Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: intelligent design, a recent
creation, and a catastrophic worldwide flood"
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html
Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatpub.asp
Correspondence w Science Journals (Michael Behe)
a first-hand look at how the "peer-review process" handles challenges to
Darwinian orthodoxy.
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp
--
--TJT--
Kreationismia vastaan on taisteltava, tarpeen vaatiessa valehtelun
avulla
- ateisti ja evolutionisti Seppo Hannukainen, 12.11.2001
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	09 Oct 2005 01:49:46 PM

TJT2 wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128769576.822286.298250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

Evolutionists do not make predictions about planetary magnetic fields.
Which part of that don't you grasp? Evolutionists deal with and only
with the diversity and distribution of life on Earth.
When you can get your sciences sorted out, then please do get back to
me.
Secondly, creationist web sites are not the organ for publishing
scientific research. The organ for publishing scientific research is
one of the standard science journals in which work is published after
relevant peer-review. Until and unless creationists begin publishing
in those journals, they will never be real scientists.
Thirdly, Humphrey's "work" allows himself so much room to maneuver that
it is meaningless, and it is refuted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

fits to your claims.
2. Please explain what work they take and from who, when they
a) dated diamonds
b) measured amount of helium in zirkons?
3. Please explain why you evolutionists are still repeating old claim
"gains in non-dipole compensates loss of dipole" when your own stats
says that it don't?
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm

Refuted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

For the last time, **CREATIONISTS DO NOT PUBLISH WORK IN PEER-REVIEWED
SCIENCE JOURNALS, ERGO THEY DO NOT DO SCIENCE ERGO THEY DO NOT USE THE
SCIENTIFIC METHOD**.

Last time you lie? I hope you keep your promise.

Then tell me the names of the papers and the names of the **REFEREED
STANDARD SCIENCE JOURNALS** in which the creationists have published:
1. Their theory of creation, supported with 150 years of solid
science.
2. Their refutation of the Theory of Evolution, supported with
scientific evidence.
because you're apparently yet another in an endless and tedious parade
of creationists who don't have the first clue about what science really
is, about the scientific method, and about peer-review.
[Rest of creationist trash flushed where it belongs until and unless
you produce the goods that I asked for]
While you're at it, define two things for me, without which,
creationism falls flat on its face:
1. What is the **SCIENTIFIC** definition of the Biblical "kind"?
2. What is the **SCIENTIFIC** explanation of the mechanism which
prevents two separate "kinds" from evolving out of one original
ancestor "kind"?
Budikka
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	09 Oct 2005 01:00:27 AM

Budikka, In your posting.Oct 8, 9: 06 pm, you stated that Creationists
do not publish in peer-reviewed science journals.
The following are two articles from the Answers in Genesis website
which you can choose to read or not. Others following this discussion
may like to read them.
Creation Question - Do creation scientist publish in secular journals?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp
Do Creationists Publish in Notable Referred Journals?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp
I have started to read the article 'Plagiarized Errors and Molecular
Genetics' from the Talk Origins Archive.
I am aware that other links have been given.
I'll give an opinion later.
Gladys Swager
..
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	09 Oct 2005 02:01:28 PM

wrote:
Thanks for refuting the standard creationist lie that the evil
evolutionists deliberately prevent creationists from publishing papers
in the science journals. Now that we've established that it is a lie,
let me redirect your attention to what we're discussing here. The
topic in this thread has never been aerodynamics, or hydrology, or
electrical engineering. The topic has been evolution.
I'm not talking about a creationist hydrologist publishing a paper on
hydrology where the word "god" or "creation" never enters into the
matter. of course they get those papers published, because they work
within the accepted scientific method.
I'm talking about publishing papers on the so-called "theory" of
creation - papers which either provide a solid refutation of some
accepted aspect of evolution science or which establish positive
evidence that there was a creator. Those are the papers they never
publish. They don't do this because they do not have the science to
support them. This is why they're reduced to writing books that are
snapped up by gullible believers, and posting sour-grapes diatribes on
creationist web sites. If they had the science, then creation would be
taught in schools and they would not have to file lawsuits to try and
force their unsupported beliefs on children.
Tell me the names of the papers and the names of the **REFEREED
STANDARD SCIENCE JOURNALS** in which the creationists have published:
1. Their theory of creation, supported with 150 years of solid
science.
2. Their refutation of the Theory of Evolution, supported with
scientific evidence.
I'll bet you cannot.
Budikka
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	08 Oct 2005 06:32:47 AM

On 8 Oct 2005 03:56:47 -0700,

wrote:

:
We can go back even further into the irrelevant distraction of the
past, and come up with the following rather smart chappies, whom
Newton, et al, based their natural philosophy on.
(You will, of course know, that the term "scientist", is a 19th
century invention)
Anaxagoras, Socrates, Democritus, Epicurus, etc etc.
Newton and Boyle explicitly honour these people as the founders of
their methods.
"On the shoulders of Giants"
These ancient scientists most definitely did not believe in a god, nor
the bible.
Anaxagoras, in particular, is often termed as "the first Atheist".
What's sauce for the goose, and so on....
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	08 Oct 2005 04:38:52 PM

Michael Gray wrote:

On 8 Oct 2005 03:56:47 -0700,

wrote:

:

We can go back even further into the irrelevant distraction of the
past, and come up with the following rather smart chappies, whom
Newton, et al, based their natural philosophy on.
(You will, of course know, that the term "scientist", is a 19th
century invention)

Anaxagoras, Socrates, Democritus, Epicurus, etc etc.
Newton and Boyle explicitly honour these people as the founders of
their methods.
"On the shoulders of Giants"

These ancient scientists most definitely did not believe in a god, nor
the bible.
Anaxagoras, in particular, is often termed as "the first Atheist".

What's sauce for the goose, and so on....

I missed one important word in respect of Newton and that was 'modern'.
He established the modern scientific method along with Boyle.
In respect of the Greek philosophers. While a lot of good came from
their thinking - Pythagoras is known for his theory of the square on
the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the
squares on the other two sides which is used today in Surveying and
navigation, it is not generally recognised today that Ptolemy (although
very clever) was responsible for delaying astronomical thinking by
about 1200 years when he rejected Aristarchus' acceptance that the sun
was the centre of our solar system.
So there were right and wrong ideas through the centuries. Even Newton,
great thinker, that he was, dabbled in alchemy - the idea of turning
baser metals into gold. He had to hide that work from the authorities.

From an Internet search, the words 'standing on the shoulders of

giants' did not originate with Newton, but came from earlier sources -
possibly from a Christian thinker and theologian and author John of
Cleaves, most probably from Bernard of Chartes, under whom John
studied.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0162b.shtml
It is also of interest that from 1997 onwards the British 2 pound coin
has the inscription on its edge, 'STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS'.
http://www.24carat.co.uk/standingontheshouldersofgiants.html
Gladys Swager
.

User: "maff"
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	06 Oct 2005 07:27:43 PM

wrote:

maff wrote:

Mr. Bla wrote:

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128118597.234981.233200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

This article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4292426.stm
reports that bird flu, once it gets loose among the human

population,

could conceivably kill anywhere between 2 million and 150 million.
Even 2 million would make the 9/11 death toll look paltry.
If and when this happens, who or what is going to save most lives?
Will it be:
A. Creation science? B.Intelligent design? C. Prayers of believers
D. The hard work of scientists whose understanding of the virus is
grounded in the science of evolution? Support answer with evidence.

<snip>

Nah. That's not what the evolutionary biologists say. They are too busy
healing the sick and feeding the world using their knowledge of
evolutionary biology instead of racketeering.

Practical Applications of Evolutionary Biology
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/ad05bd62e37d7bdc

But they weren't scientifically illiterate inbred Bible Belt
fundamentalists.
"1 That religion & Philosophy are to be preserved distinct. We are not
to introduce divine revelations into Philosophy, nor philosophical
opinions into religion."
http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/texts/keynes006_n.html
The Principia : Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
(Paperback)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520088174/
by Isaac Newton, I. Bernard Cohen (Translator), Anne Whitman
(Translator)
Isaac Newton
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/dcdc955a5bf978a0
Nicolaus Copernicus
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0f6db5889c90252f

http://answersingenesis.org In 'Search' type 'Christian Scientists'.
I'll list more specific websites in my next posting.

AIG isn't a scientific organization. It's Bible Belt fundamentalist
racketeering organization. How many Nobels in science have they
received?
No Answers in Genesis
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

So how many Nobel Prizes in science have they received for Biology?

Evolutionists will not touch the wonderful moment when non-living
became living. Modern day experiements will not conclusively solve that
problem because living persons (scientists) have to be involved.
Creationists say that the creation of living organisms (ex nihilo - out
of nothing) by the Almighty - Omnipotent - God is an extremely
important fact, because it gives glory to Whom it is due.

Both Creation and Evolutionary scientists are exploring / assessing the
scientific evidence. Both are providing new discoveries that are
helping the peoples of the world.

That's what Jefferson Davis also thought.
Jefferson Davis
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7db7fa663cb9ed
Constitution of the Confederate States of America
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/confederate_constitution.html
March 11,1861
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent
federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity~invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God~do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

Gladys Swager

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	03 Oct 2005 04:55:55 PM

Mr. Bla wrote:

That is an absolutely foolish question.

Thank you for admitting, through your cowardice, that prayer is
worthless and the so-called "science" of creation has no practical
value whatsoever. Religion will not save us, it will not cure our
ills. It cannot.

Will anthropology save lives
if this flu strikes?

No, but medicine, based on biology and genetics and evolution will save
lives as it always does. Or did you think medicine wasn't science?

Will geology save lives if this flu strikes?

No, but medicine, based on biology and genetics and evolution will save
lives as it always does. Or did you think medicine wasn't science?

Creation science is not a field of study/philosophy/theology which has
as its purpose the idea of saving lives from viruses.

It doesn't have any idea, period.

It is a field of endeavor

No it isn't. Endeavor indicates work. All that creationists do is
whine about evolution. They do no science. They do no work.

which tries to explain our existence and the existence of
things around us as being of sufficient complexity as to have required
a designer/builder.

No it doesn't. All that creationists do is whine about evolution.
They do no science. They do no work.

Up until a few years ago there were 2 interesting rock formations in
America; The Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire and Mount
Rushmore.

Lie.

The evolutionist looks at both of them and supposes that Mount
Rushmore MUST be older as it would have taken longer for the erosive
processes to smooth the exact contours of each face.

Lie.

The creation
science believer looks at them and says "Mount Rushmore was
CONSTRUCTED, but The Old Man is a random occurrence.

And then when you ask them for evidence supporting their blind
assertion, they run away. All that creationists do is whine about
evolution. They do no science. They do no work.

The strange irony
is that "evolution" has taken the Old Man away! His features didn't
become sharper and he didn't become more human appearing.

Since when did the Theory of Evolution predict that human carvings on a
mountain would evolve? Do you have even the remotest *clue* what
you're blathering about, becuase right now you;re looking like a
complete idiot. In public. One the world-wide web.

( I realize
geologic erosion and evolutionary biology are not the same but the
analogy stands)

Lie.

As to your question; The answer is E, none of the above!

That wasn't an option. Your cluelessness is your weakness. You're
another limp Peter at the passion.

What will
save the majority of people will be the human immune system. (the
irony is that this brings us back to square one: did the human immune
system evolve to its current state or was it designed to function this
way?)

Evidence published by people of all nationalities and all faiths in
peer-reviewed science journals the world over shows that it evolved.
Creationists whine that it didn't. When they're asked for supportive
evidence, they run away. If the immune system had *truly* been
designed, it would work a lot better than it does.

Just for the sake of knowledge how are we supposed to support our
opinion of what will happen in the future with "solid evidence"?

I never asked you for evidence, I asked you to answer a simple question
and agve you the answer. You failed.
But on the topic of evidence, since you brought it up, the Theory of
Evolution has almost 150 years of solid science published in refereed
science journals. What does creation have? Nothing. End of story.
The Theory of Evolution predicted that humans and chimpanzees would
have very similar genomes. It predicted this before the genome was
even heard of, long before any comparison was amde.
It turns out, now that we know the answer, that chimpanzees and humans
differ only by 4% out of **THREE BILLION BASE PAIRS**. They differ by
less than 2% on genomes that specify proteins. Darwin was right.

to humor you, It wont be A or B for the above stated reason. It may be
B but that cannot be proved or disproved without a controlled blinded
study.

If so-called intelligent so-called design so-called creationists ever
do any science, **that will be a miracle**.

It will almost definitely not be D as it is unlikely that an
immunization will arrive rapidly enough and the current anti-virals
are not that great, and it is unlikely that any new ones will be
available anytime soon.( just for the sake of argument, I doubt this
will be the pandemic it is purported to become, remember swine flu
from the 70s? what ever became of it?)

Keep tucking your head in the sand. it's what beleivers are expert at.
Sooner or later, flu is going to kick us all in the ***** and the only
thing which will stand between it and us is science. Intelligent
design hasn't anything to offer. creationism hasn't anything to offer.
Prayer does not work.
Flue can be fought on scientific knowledge alone even in the absence of
any immunization.

There is room enough for everyone on this wee ball of mud we inhabit.
You are not the end-all be-all of truth.

I never said I was. I implied that science was. Can't you tell the
difference?

A massive amount of people
on this world are theists.

No! Go on! You're pulling my leg! Do you ahve any clue at all how
many of them are ont he side of the real scientists?

The surgeon who repairs the damage done to
your body in a trauma may well be a believer,

But they don't pray to fix people up, they use science, because they
know that science works and prayer doesn't.

the aerodynamicist who
designed the aircraft in which you fly may be.

But they don't pray that their aircraft will fly and be safe, they use
science, because they know that science works and prayer doesn't.

You, unfortunately like
many Christians, seem to be a man who believes that all you profess
MUST be and all others are morons for not believing as you
do.

It was a simple quiz and you blew it. Your thoroughly misguided
whining is no excuse and serves you ill.

( I realize that playing with Jabriol here you must get the
impression that he is representative of theists.

He's definitely representative of all too many theists, unfortunately,
but he is irrelevant.

That would be akin to
believing that a special Olympian is a good representation of the
caliber of athlete who competes in the regular Olympic games)

Irrelevant. I asked you to support your answer with evidence and all
you can do is tell just-so stories. It's rather sad, really.

I am a repulsively conservative republican type person.

Like I didn't see that coming a mile away. I hope you're thrilled with
the way George is representing Christianity in Iraq.

What I hate
most about people like me is that they tend to act as if all Democrats
are evil morons. This is absurd.

What does politics have to do with any of this? This is about science
versus lies, not politics.

How can nearly 1/2 of a large
population group be so wrong that their perspective/opinion can be
thrown out immediately? It makes no sense.

Then how much less sense does it make to throw out the scientific
perspective which is supported by a dramatically larger population
size? How much less sense does it make to pretend evolution doesn't
exist when the entire scientific community, save a few ignoramuses,
supports it?

Republicans have a
perspective and Democrats have a perspective. There is no right or
wrong in that debate,

The murder of literally thousands of Iraqis is neither right nor wrong?

it is a question of opinions.

Children dying is a question of opinions?

I look at the world, the complexity of the Human Immune system and the
miracle of conception/embryology/birth/development and I see the hand
of a designer.

But you cannot support your answer. You lose. The argument from
design was overthrown decades if not centuries ago. Dressing it up in
ill-fiting scientific terminlogy cannot change that.

You see biological processes. Who is right?

The one with 150 years of supportive evidence and a series of fulfilled
predictions.

For now
that question CANNOT be answered no matter what you may think.

It already has been.
Budikka
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	03 Oct 2005 09:26:31 PM

<snip>

Thank you for admitting, <snip>, that prayer is
worthless and the so-called "science" of creation has no practical
value whatsoever. Religion will not save us, it will not cure our
ills. It cannot.

Prayer does have a place in healing and in living a healthier life.
Research studies have proved that.
As a teacher, when I became distressed, stressed and exhausted I was
treated Psychiatrically with medications to which I was allergic, but
the Psychiatrist did not question and administered Shock Treatments.
When I prayed that cures and preventive methods would be found I was
able to work out more natural means of managing such situations. Now
there is a greater emphasis on the points I made. The Psychiatrist who
gave me the clues from the history of the Middle Ages did not take his
understandings further, so that prevention could become available to
everyone..

No, but medicine, based on biology and genetics and evolution will save
lives as it always does. Or did you think medicine wasn't science?

Creation science is not a field of study/philosophy/theology which has
as its purpose the idea of saving lives from viruses.

<snip> ..... No it doesn't. All that creationists do is whine about
evolution. They do no science. They do no work.

You have the wrong information about Creation scientists. Yes, their
scientific research is involved in proving that micro-to-macro
evolution
(molecules to man) could not happen. But they are working within their
own scientific disciplines on research to discover better ways for
living whenever that is appropriate.

<snip>

What will save the majority of people will be the human immune
system. (the
irony is that this brings us back to square one: did the human immune
system evolve to its current state or was it designed to function this
way?)

Evidence published by people of all nationalities and all faiths in
peer-reviewed science journals the world over shows that it evolved.

The human immune system can change in its ability to fight off
illnesses, but that depends on the health or otherwise of the
individual involved.

Creationists whine that it didn't. When they're asked for supportive
evidence, they run away. If the immune system had *truly* been
designed, it would work a lot better than it does.

Creationists believe that God created perfectly, but as the first
humans sinned they lost that God-breathed perfection. That's why living
organisms do not work perfectly. However, God has given a consciousness
that allows humans to reason through to solutions. That reasoning can
be done by both Christians and secularists based on the research of
about the last 500 years

<snip>

But on the topic of evidence, since you brought it up, the Theory of
Evolution has almost 150 years of solid science published in refereed
science journals. What does creation have? Nothing. End of story.

Creationists have their journals - peer-reviewed. Some Christians in
England debated Darwin's work from soon after it was published.
Christians - Creationists - have been some of the leaders in scientific
advancements. Simpson who invented chloroform said that he was thinking
God's thoughts after Him, as other scientists have alo said.
The Theory of Evolution predicted that humans and chimpanzees would

have very similar genomes. It predicted this before the genome was
even heard of, long before any comparison was amde.
It turns out, now that we know the answer, that chimpanzees and humans
differ only by 4% out of **THREE BILLION BASE PAIRS**. They differ by
less than 2% on genomes that specify proteins. Darwin was right.

Similarities do not necessarily prove evolution. They can also prove a
common Creator, but many evolutionists do not like the idea of an
Almighty God.

<snip>

The surgeon who repairs the damage done to
your body in a trauma may well be a believer,

But they don't pray to fix people up, they use science, because they
know that science works and prayer doesn't.

How do you know that a Christian surgeon does not pray when he is doing
his work? Do you know if the Christian patient prays that the surgeon
will be guided in his work

the aerodynamicist who
designed the aircraft in which you fly may be.

But they don't pray that their aircraft will fly and be safe, they use
science, because they know that science works and prayer doesn't.

The Wright brothers who invented the first plane that flew were
Christians and no doubt they prayed that they would be guided in
working out solutions.
<snip> Hope you're thrilled with

the way George is representing Christianity in Iraq.

The Iraq situation is not just George Bush. Look at Saddam Hussein.
Look at the minority extremist Moslems who had power under that
dictator who
murdered many to maintain his position and now are are not willing for
democratic elections to be held.

They may not be the ignoramuses that you make them out to be.
Evolution, in the sense of change within a species, does exist. But
evolutionists have not proved that change from one family of living
organisms to another family ever happened. What proof have you that it
did?
Evolution has been indoctrinated in schools and through the media. The
secularists supporting it do not want the teaching of other views.

I look at the world, the complexity of the Human Immune system and the
miracle of conception/embryology/birth/development and I see the hand
of a designer.

Why aren't you prepared to say that Designer is God Almighty?
Gladys Swager
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	04 Oct 2005 04:57:59 AM

wrote:

<snip>

Thank you for admitting, <snip>, that prayer is
worthless and the so-called "science" of creation has no practical
value whatsoever. Religion will not save us, it will not cure our
ills. It cannot.

Prayer does have a place in healing and in living a healthier life.
Research studies have proved that.

Yet you cannot name a single one. I'm tired of these pathetic lies.
Either support your blather or silence it.
It is a fact that since the majority of the US population beleives in a
god that the majority of them pray their lives will be spared when
their lives are in danger yet every single day lives are lost.

As a teacher, when I became distressed, stressed and exhausted I was
treated Psychiatrically with medications to which I was allergic, but
the Psychiatrist did not question and administered Shock Treatments.

This is nothing whatsoever to do with the quiz, nothing to do with the
point i made. You're seeking to generalize from your own specific "bad
day". If you cannot see the huge fallacy in your "argument" you're
seriously deluded.

You have the wrong information about Creation scientists.

Liar.

Yes, their
scientific research is involved in proving that micro-to-macro
evolution

**THEY DO NO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH**. Once agian, either support your
claims **WITH REFERENCES TO PAPERS THE CREATIONISTS HAVE PUBLISHED IN
PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE JOURTNALS** or withdraw the lie.

(molecules to man) could not happen.

Support your claim or withdraw the lie.
[Rest of your lies flushed where they belong]

The human immune system can change in its ability to fight off
illnesses, but that depends on the health or otherwise of the
individual involved.

But the human immune system does not even have the efficiency of that
of a crocodile. So once again, **EITHER SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR
WITHDRAW YOUR LIES**.

Creationists believe that God created perfectly, but as the first
humans sinned they lost that God-breathed perfection. That's why living
organisms do not work perfectly.

Once again, **EITHER SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR WITHDRAW YOUR LIES**.

However, God has given a consciousness
that allows humans to reason through to solutions. That reasoning can
be done by both Christians and secularists based on the research of
about the last 500 years

Once again, **EITHER SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OR WITHDRAW YOUR LIES**.

Creationists have their journals - peer-reviewed.

Liar.
.. Some Christians in

England debated Darwin's work from soon after it was published.
Christians - Creationists - have been some of the leaders in scientific
advancements. Simpson who invented chloroform said that he was thinking
God's thoughts after Him, as other scientists have alo said.

This is entirely irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution in 2005. Either
support your claims or weithdraw your lies.

Similarities do not necessarily prove evolution.

Andf the fact that the human genome and the chimpanxzee genopme **HAVE
THE SAME MISTAKES** is also irrelvant, I suppose?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

How do you know that a Christian surgeon does not pray when he is doing
his work? Do you know if the Christian patient prays that the surgeon
will be guided in his work

It's the work that works, not the prayer. If prayer was of any value
as the Bible claims, prayer alone should do the job. It *never* does.

The Wright brothers who invented the first plane that flew were
Christians and no doubt they prayed that they would be guided in
working out solutions.

Then prove it's prayers that enable planes to fly rather than
aerodynamics.

The Iraq situation is not just George Bush.

Is he president or not?

Look at Saddam Hussein.

He was the one invaded, not the one invading.

Look at the minority extremist Moslems who had power under that
dictator who
murdered many to maintain his position and now are are not willing for
democratic elections to be held.

They are the ones complaining, not the ones invading.

They may not be the ignoramuses that you make them out to be.

Oh, they are.

Evolution, in the sense of change within a species, does exist. But
evolutionists have not proved that change from one family of living
organisms to another family ever happened. What proof have you that it
did?

Then answer two questions that the chickenshit liars have fled every
single time they're asked:
1. What is rthe **SCIENTIFIC** definition of "kind"
2. What is the mechanism which rpevetns one "kind" from changing into
another "kind"

Evolution has been indoctrinated in schools and through the media.

Evolution is supported by 150 years of solid science. What were the
creationists doing with zero evidence before evolution is taught?
Theyw ere teaching lies to innocent children, that's what they were
doing.

The
secularists supporting it do not want the teaching of other views.

Not if they have no science to back them. it;s not a "view" moron,
it's what the weight of the evidence supports. Get that right.

Why aren't you prepared to say that Designer is God Almighty?

There is no god (and the intelligent design advocates insist it doesn't
have to be a god. Thanks for admitting what those liars daren't):
Parts 1-5 of this series is at: http://tinyurl.com/6uhnl
Part 6 at: http://tinyurl.com/3ms66
Parts 7-11 at: http://tinyurl.com/5yhjn
Part 12 at: http://tinyurl.com/5ndow
Parts 13-15 at: http://tinyurl.com/65x6g
Parts 16-25 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jmrq
Parts 26-42 at: http://tinyurl.com/4569y
Parts 43-50 at: http://tinyurl.com/6hkax
Parts 51-55 at: http://tinyurl.com/48abq
Parts 56-65 at: http://tinyurl.com/4a95v
Parts 66-70 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 70-78 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 79-90 at: http://tinyurl.com/6aa8l
Parts 91-99 at: http://tinyurl.com/6xnhh
Parts 100-119 at: http://tinyurl.com/9fcsw
Parts 120-139 at: http://tinyurl.com/bp8za
Parts 140-155 at: http://tinyurl.com/72vlr
Parts 156-170 at: http://tinyurl.com/d3ubb
Parts 171-174 at: http://tinyurl.com/8jcja
Parts 175-189 at: http://tinyurl.com/cuvxb
Parts 190-199 at: http://tinyurl.com/9uo6f
Parts 200-219 at: http://tinyurl.com/8tsrg
Parts 220-235 at: http://tinyurl.com/a9rc2
Parts 236-245 at: http://tinyurl.com/b9of7
Parts 246-254 at: http://tinyurl.com/cz9yq
Parts 255-280 at: http://tinyurl.com/aze8x
Parts 281-299 at: http://tinyurl.com/7dn3s
Parts 300-325 at: http://tinyurl.com/bj4mu
Budikka
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	05 Oct 2005 12:01:20 AM

Budikka666 wrote:

swager@ozemail.com.au wrote:

<snip> You will notice as you go through that I have snipped othe rof your comments, but I have not asknowledged it.

Prayer does have a place in healing and in living a healthier life.
Research studies have proved that.

<snip>
I wrote from the knowledge of an article I read in a newspaper. There
is research now on this matter which you can find in the Internet.
One of them is:-
http://www.rednova.com/modules/news/tools.php
The Importance of Prayer for Mind/Body Healing

It is a fact that since the majority of the US population believes in a
god that the majority of them pray their lives will be spared when
their lives are in danger yet every single day lives are lost.

There is a lifespan for everyone of us. Prayer can be answered
positively, or negatively. God is not bound to do just what we might
want.

This is nothing whatsoever to do with the quiz, nothing to do with the
point I made. <snip>

It has a lot to do with your quiz, for my work came after I had prayed
that cures and preventitive knowledge would be found. Now health
scientists are presenting research to show that the generalisations I
had made could give positive outcomes for myself and others.
<snip>

Peer-reviewed science magazines that have a staff of evolutionists will
not publish the work of scientists who have another view of origins and
the research in other areas.
http://answersingenesis.org
will give you many articles on Creationist work. There are other
Creation sites as well on the Internet.

The human immune system can change in its ability to fight off
illnesses, but that depends on the health or otherwise of the
individual involved.

Creationists believe that God created perfectly, but as the first
humans sinned they lost that God-breathed perfection. That's why living
organisms do not work perfectly.

That is a faith position, in the same way that the evolutionists'
believe that non-living became living is a belief position. Neither can
be proved by science.

However, God has given a consciousness
that allows humans to reason through to solutions. That reasoning can
be done by both Christians and secularists based on the scientific
research of about the last 500 years

and much of that was done by Bible-believing Christians

Some Christians in England debated Darwin's work from soon after it was
published.

Christians - Creationists - have been some of the leaders in scientific
advancements. Simpson who invented chloroform said that he was thinking
God's thoughts after Him, as other scientists have alo said.

This is entirely irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution in 2005.

It has nothing to do with evolution. BUT it has a lot to do with the
contribution of Christians to science.

And the fact that the human genome and the chimpanzee genome **HAVE
THE SAME MISTAKES** is also irrelvant, I suppose?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

The print-out of that article is too long for me to mentally process at
this time.

How do you know that a Christian surgeon does not pray when he is doing
his work? Do you know if the Christian patient prays that the surgeon
will be guided in his work

It's the work that works, not the prayer. If prayer was of any value
as the Bible claims, prayer alone should do the job. It *never* does.

How do you know? Have you had contact with everyone, throughout the
whole world, who has had an experience of prayer being beneficial?
Prayer and work can work better than no prayer and work.

The Wright brothers who invented the first plane that flew were
Christians and no doubt they prayed that they would be guided in
working out solutions.

Then prove it's prayers that enable planes to fly rather than
aerodynamics.

You are missing the point because you do not want to acknowledge the
guidance of an Almighty God in today's affairs.
<snip>

Then answer two questions that the <snip> liars have fled every
single time they're asked:
1. What is the **SCIENTIFIC** definition of "kind"

I would say it means 'family'- dog family, cat family etc

2. What is the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from changing into
another "kind"

Donkey (male), mare (female) can produce a mule, but it is sterile - it
cannot produce offspring like it. beyond that I cannot say. There must
be an incompatibily of the genes.

Evolution has been indoctrinated in schools and through the media.

Evolution is supported by 150 years of solid science.

It hasn't been all solid science? You might call it hoaxes and
deceptions at times. You was research to prove an idea that there could
not be an Almighty God in the process. Other scientists contend with
evolutionists on that.
What were the

creationists doing with zero evidence before evolution is taught?
They were teaching lies to innocent children, that's what they were
doing.

They were NOT teaching lies to children.
Christians, who later would have been known as Creationists, were
setting the ground rules of scientific research.
Christians were teaching that God created.
Secularists were not teachng evolution as it was not part of the
syllabus in General Science until 1962 in NSW, although earlier, I have
been informed, in Biology, Botany and Geology in some High Schools, but
not at the Primary level. Now, the yougest children are taught
evolution through their fascination with dinosaurs. It is easy to tell
them that millions of years ago they became extinct. But did they? The
Bible has information about Behemoth and Leviathan that could be
dinosaurs. Job 41.
What about reading it?

The
secularists supporting it do not want the teaching of other views.

Not if they have no science to back them.
It's what the weight of the evidence supports.

Do you say that the weight of evidence supports non-life becoming life?
supports that stage by stage life increased its own genetic information
to change to more complex organisms over millions of years?

Why aren't you prepared to say that Designer is God Almighty?

There is no god (and the intelligent design advocates insist it doesn't
have to be a god. Thanks for admitting what those liars daren't):

That is the opinion of the Intelligent Design advocates.
Why not admit that the Creationists have amassed an amazing amount of
information and you do not like that because it opposes your views. In
the schools you only want your views. You do not care if you are giving
teachings their parents may not accept. You and those who agree with
you just ride rough-shod over others as long as you can control the
children - the next generation - and feed them the lies that you hold
that Christian Creationists did not provide anything of scientific
merit - that godless secularism (humanistic-atheism) has made all the
advancements.
Let me tell you that my schooling was through the depression and the
war-years. I was taught secular educational psychology in my Teaching
training. That increased Behaviour problems in schools, but I can
assure you that there were manipulations of the Inspection system so
there were no offical records. I was even told that if I ever said what
I had been told of one Inspection that it would be said that it didn't
happen - ie I was paranoid and I could be held responsible for the
intense problems.
John Dewey - named as the Father of Progressive Education in America -
died in 1952 - caused increased failures in literacy. numeracy and
behaviour problems. (The Children's Encyclopedia Britannica). Could it
have been that the Columbine High School (USA) Tragedy was due to his
influence?
Gladys Swager
.

User: "Del"
Title: Re: Simple Quiz For Creationists	05 Oct 2005 03:07:56 PM

wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

wrote:

[...]

Peer-reviewed science magazines that have a staff of evolutionists will
not publish the work of scientists who have another view of origins and
the research in other areas.

What papers have been turned down?

http://answersingenesis.org
will give you many articles on Creationist work. There are other
Creation sites as well on the Internet.

Creationism isn't science. It is religion.

The human immune system can change in its ability to fight off
illnesses, but that depends on the health or otherwise of the
individual involved.

Creationists believe that God created perfectly, but as the first
humans sinned they lost that God-breathed perfection.

How does a perfect being "sin?" Sinning is a flaw, is it not?
That's why living

organisms do not work perfectly.

That is a faith position, in the same way that the evolutionists'
believe that non-living became living is a belief position.

Not quite.

Neither can
be proved by science.

Science doesn't "prove" anything. You really should learn
a little bit about what you presume to criticize.

However, God has given a consciousness
that allows humans to reason through to solutions.

And reasoning says you are begging the question, a logical fallacy.
That reasoning can

be done by both Christians and secularists based on the scientific
research of about the last 500 years

One wouldn't think so, going by your example.

and much of that was done by Bible-believing Christians

So what?

Some Christians in England debated Darwin's work from soon after it was
published.

In the 1830's before Darwin published Origin.

This is entirely irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution in 2005.

It has nothing to do with evolution. BUT it has a lot to do with the
contribution of Christians to science.

And of course the subject is whatever you want to talk about.

And the fact that the human genome and the chimpanzee genome **HAVE
THE SAME MISTAKES** is also irrelvant, I suppose?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

The print-out of that article is too long for me to mentally process at
this time.

How convenient for your beliefs.

How do you know that a Christian surgeon do es not pray when he is doing
his work? Do you know if the Christian patient prays that the surgeon
will be guided in his work

It's the work that works, not the prayer. If prayer was of any value
as the Bible claims, prayer alone should do the job. It *never* does.

How do you know? Have you had contact with everyone, throughout the
whole world, who has had an experience of prayer being beneficial?

Prayer and work can work better than no prayer and work.

How do you know? Have you had contact with everyone,
throughout the whole world, who has had an experience
of prayer being useless?
Hypocrite.

The Wright brothers who invented the first plane that flew were
Christians and no doubt they prayed that they would be guided in
working out solutions.

Then prove it's prayers that enable planes to fly rather than
aerodynamics.

You are missing the point because you do not want to acknowledge the
guidance of an Almighty God in today's affairs.

Actually you are making claims you can't support while
complaining bitterly about the claims of others.
"We believe even in the best studies that the evidence of a
relationship
between religion, spirituality and health is weak and inconsistent . .
.. and
provides no empirical justification for the introduction of religious
activities into clinical medicine." -- The Lancet 3/99

<snip>

Evolution, in the sense of change within a species, does exist. But
evolutionists have not proved that change from one family of living
organisms to another family ever happened.

Sure they have.
What proof have you that it

did?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
But it will probably be too long for you "to mentally process at
this time."

Then answer two questions that the <snip> liars have fled every
single time they're asked:
1. What is the **SCIENTIFIC** de finition of "kind"

I would say it means 'family'- dog family, cat family etc

Are you trying to say "species"?

2. What is the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from changing into
another "kind"

Donkey (male), mare (female) can produce a mule, but it is sterile - i t
cannot produce offspring like it. beyond that I cannot say.

Evolution doesn't say that one species gives birth to a
completely different species! Why don't you learn something
about the subject?
There must

be an incompatibily of the genes.

I'm sure your ignorance gives you special insight into
the subject that those who have spent their lives
working in the field just don't have.

Evolution has been indoctrinated in schools and through the media.

That must be a typo. You said "evolution" instead of
"religion."

Evolution is supported by 150 years of solid science.

It hasn't been all solid science?

Oh please. You don't have a clue.
You might call it hoaxes and

deceptions at times. You was research to prove an idea that there could
not be an Almighty God in the process.

"You was research..."

Other scientists contend with
evolutionists on that.

What were the

creationists doing with zero evidence before evolution is taught?
They were teaching lies to innocent children, that's what they were
doing.

They were NOT teaching lies to children.

Noah's ark? Adam and Eve? Talking Donkeys?

Christians, who later would have been known as Creationists, were
setting the ground rules of scientific research.
Christians were teaching that God created.

Secularists were not teachng evolution as it was not part of the
syllabus in General Science until 1962 in NSW, although earlier, I have
been informed, in Biology, Botany and Geology in some High Schools, but
not at the Primary level. Now, the yougest children are taught
evolution through their fascination with dinosaurs. It is easy to tell
them that millions of years ago they became exti nct. But did they?

Yeah.
The

Bible has information about Behemoth and Leviathan that could be
dinosaurs. Job 41.
What about reading it?

Out of his mouth go burning lamps, [and] sparks of fire leap out.
Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as [out] of a seething pot or caldron.
His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
So you believe in dragons but you don't believe in evolution.

The
secularists supporting it do not want the teaching of other views.

Not if they have no scien ce to back them.
It's what the weight of the evidence supports.

Do you say that the weight of evidence supports non-life becoming life?

Don't change the subject. Respond to the statement. He said
" they have no science to back them." If you don't want evolution
taught then your statement: "secularists supporting it do not
want the teaching of other views" is hypocritically dishonest.
It is you who don't don't want other views taught.

supports that stage by stage life increased its own genetic information
to change to more complex organism s over millions of years?

Why doyou pretend to want evidence when you just
say it is too long for you to read when you are given
it? Because you are dishonest?

Why aren't you prepared to say that Designer is God Almighty?

There is no god (and the intelligent design advocates insist it doesn't
have to be a god. Thanks for admitting what those liars daren't):

That is the opinion of the Intelligent Design advocates.

Why not admit that the Creationists have amassed an amazing amount of
information and you do not like that because it opposes your views.

You are the one who refuses to look at the evidence. Creationism
is debunked. You just refuse to sit still for the evidence. You are
afraid to look at it. On the other hand I know more about creationism
than you do by a long shot. Not only that I know the refuta