"Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" <Llanzlan@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote in
message news:Xns94D7882CD3E1ELlanzlanLlurdiaxorbn@203.97.37.6...

"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
news:x8Vic.13337$NG2.1668@edtnps84:

"VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c4d0eab.0404250954.3defef3b@posting.google.com...

"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in message

news:<sNPic.12098$NG2.5551@edtnps84>...

"scott" <BySSpam@nonoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:46WdnSVW8oQ5KhbdRVn-sQ@intertex.net...

"VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c4d0eab.0404242046.59b7f1b1@posting.google.com...

"scott" <BySSpam@nonoSpam.com> wrote in message

news:<ib6dnZJWZOCoUxfdRVn-uA@intertex.net>...

"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in
message
news:IKnowHim-2404040846420001@pm8-40.kalama.com...

Skepticism Defined

"Whenever we find someone saying that no one can know
anything,

it

is
only

natural to wonder whether[or how] the skeptic or atheist
knows

that".

Ronald Nash

This then means that skepticism and it's brother atheism
are self-defeating human philosophies.

The Bible is clear that people are willingly ignorant of
the

reality

of
God,

because they prefer to go their own way (Romans 1:18-20).
But

according
to

the atheist Richard Dawkins, it was impossible to be an

'intellectually

fulfilled atheist' until they had an alternative to
creation to

explain
the

wonders of life-an alternative which Darwin supposedly
provided.

As

most

historians agree, Darwin's main aim was to explain the
world

without

God.

Absolute hogwash. Darwin's aim was to propose a mechanism
that

could

explain how species were evolving. The fact that species
evolved

was

known long before Darwin wrote On The Origin Of Species.

To learn something about what evolution is *really* about,
try the FAQs at the talk.origins archive
(http://www.talkorigins.org).

To be fair here, you should note that talk.origins is a place
made by

those

who believe in evolution.

More accurately, the web site is made by those who understand
science.

Perhaps they do. But the belief in evolution is based upon
evolutionary science.

Oh no! You don't mean to say that they accept a scientific theory
based on the evidence. How shocking. The next thing you know, people
will start believing in that electricity stuff!

How did your arrive at that summary of what I said?
Listen, we all have the same evidence. Data is data. It's how the
data is interpreted that's at issue.

Most of the site is based upon the faulty premise
that evolution has occurred.

Perfect example of someone who needs to read the FAQs. Evolution
has and does occur. That is as much a fact as the fact that
gravity exists.

Gravity is repeatable and observable and testable. Evolution is
not.

Sure it is. The theory of evolution states that the alelle frequency
of a reproducing population changes over time. In what way is this
not observable and or testable?

Ok one question for you. How much time?

Whether or not someone "believes" that gravity occurs doesn't

change the fact. The same is true of evolution.

The belief in evolution is based upon a philosophical world view.
The knowledge of gravity is based upon operational science.

The theory of evolution is based on direct observation and inferences
made from those observations. That is how science is done.

That is how belief systems are done. Computers and trips to the moon
are not made based on inferences.

By the way cretinism is not just at odds with evolution, it is pretty
much against all science.

It is at odds with evolutionary science.

The theory of gravity for example has recently

been used to do long range extrapolations of the orbits of asteroid
families back in time. The analysis shows that a particular asteroid
family has it's source in a collision driven breakup occuring nearly
six million years ago. Therefore the theory of gravity is directly at
odds with cretinism's six thousand year old universe.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. And BTW, how do they
know it was 6 millon years?

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020603/020603-19.html

It is based upon philosophical evolutionary
science which is very different from operational puts us on the
moon and gives us computers science.

Please explain your definition of "philosophical" vs.
"operational" science. Science is science. Were you aware that
the science that proves the guilt of murderers based upon their
DNA is the same science that proves how closely related we are to
chimpanzees?

There is much more evidence there of a common designer than common
decent.

The fossil record is very good evidence of common descent as is the
genetic makeup of living organisms. There are many features in the
genes - particularly the non coding areas where common design does
not make any sense of the data but common descent does. See part 4 on
this page:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Fossils are not very good evidence for evolution. Most current
evolutionists do not use them as evidence.

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html
"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the
fossil record with most definitive features already present, and
practically no known stem-group forms."

Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford
Uni Press, p246, 1999)

"[There is not] enough evidence from fossil material to take
theorising out of the realms of fantasy." New Scientist August 1972 p
259

Hopefully you

don't propose "believing" the science until it says something
unpopular?

No, just when it disguises itself as science, which evolution does.

You have sure swallowed the cretinist lies hook line and sinker.

I have looked at the evidence for evolution and found it to be very
inadequate.

A good article here.
http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0405response.asp


A

couple of the "must-reads" include the Misconceptions About

Evolution

FAQ and the God And Evolution FAQ. And if you're
interested, they even have a copy of Darwin's work (though
it's a little dry - scientific writings can be that way.)

Or try the talk.origins newsgroup. Note that discussions
can be a little heated at times. :-) It's better to read
the FAQs first.

Thank you VoiceOfReason, I go there sometimes.

A good site to lurk. I do all the time, it is clear that
anything

related

to God is persecuted mercilessly in a barrage of childlike
mannerisms. For a moderated group, they sure seem to allow a lot
of vitriol.

There are quite a number of posters to the talk.origins newsgroup
who are practicing Christians and understand the science as well.
But it's true that anyone who posts with an arrogant attitude of,
"my belief is xyz, so all of science must be wrong," had better be
prepared for some heated exchanges. I have no problem combining
my religious faith with science. One is physical, based on
evidence; the other is metaphysical, based on faith. They're
apples and oranges.

Very interesting. What sort of faith do you have?

No religious faith.

The God And Evolution FAQ is a good place to start.

And here.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html

What about Bhuddist or Jainist answers. Why should science care what
a particular religious cult believes. In science, nature does the
talking and the walking.

The historical evidence of Christianity is overwhelming. And it is a
reasonable faith based upon good evidence.