| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Davey" |
| Date: |
03 Jan 2004 09:07:00 PM |
| Object: |
This didn't get through earlier, so I'm sending again... |
Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
R.Schenck wrote:
btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the "navel of the
world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian or
philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i got a bit
on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what you have in
mind.
He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is "really"
only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions of years
old.
WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way, Davey
probably won't tell us.
He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are the
functional things, like the lights in the sky.
The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and the
ensuing tectonics.
God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major religions of
the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how he made
the world.
Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good one, so they
say. And I know a Balance Sheet when I see one. This Universe is not
infinite, it is a finite amount of light, energy and matter, time and space.
These things are all linked together into one equation, as shown in Hawkings
'Brief History of Time and in Einstein's relativity equation. When God drew
up an opening balance sheet at the time of creation some ten thousand say
years ago, some of each of these things was there, exactly the right
proportions so that everything else would be held in balance.
Instead of just having 'debit cash, credit shares', as in a Company's
opening balance sheet, this opening balance sheet was far more complex,
encompassing every unit of energy and matter than exists. And since that
time, no energy has been lost, it is transferred from one type to another in
this finite system that is Creation so that the balance sheet always
balances. His plan of accounts are all the planets and kinds, his accounting
policies are the laws of thermodynamics, the cycle of respiration vs
photosynthesis, planck's quantum theory, and others that we haven't even
understood yet, and this is all the backdrop for the salvation project which
is what this entire universe is all about.
Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history actually to
run its lengthy course? The Universal Balance Sheet balances at all times
anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start the real
action when Man starts on the scene. Nothing in the notional evolutionary
chain up to man was an animal of any reasonable intelligence, capable of
making the choices Man could make, capable of personality, of self
understanding, of analysing and enquiring into the world.
Man has been set here to see if he will accept salvation based on faith on
what Christ did. Either by pagan religions, which as has been hammered home
here often enough when not thought of as a point in our side, even pagan
religions had an unnamed christ figure, so they were not without hope, and
the times of their ignorance God winked at, but all these have disappeared
when the true Christ's name is known, as so now there is no name given under
heaven, by which we must be saved, but in the name of Jesus Christ. And so
now no other God-men figures are taken seriously by the elect of these days
any more, and the Gospel is gone unto every tribe and nation.
Salvation by faith, and not through works of our own, this is the essential
reason we are here, we are created so that we could be to the praise of HIS
glory, those whose first trust is in Christ. Who trusts in his own work for
righteousness, glorifies himslef. This will not glorify god in heaven, and
of course there are none righteous enough to go to heaven, so if they trust
their own work they will be shut out of God's kingdom, and shown how the
many sins they made could not be overlooked, they deceived themselves. Those
who come by faith are saved, and that is the only way the righteousness of
God the son can be applied without the need for a work. Everything beyond
the purity of faith, even the obedience to Christ that Charles Casey has
talked about, is works, if it doesn't flow naturally out of the love of the
forgiven sinner, who is completely justified by faith, and given a new
heart, a new spirit within him, and presented with spiritual armour. So
whilst obedience to Christ is good and right, it is not a prerequisite for
salvation, as we see by the thief on the cross, who received unconditional
salvation at the moment of faith as he died.
When we see that all the world revolves around people getting saved by faith
in Christ so that they can be resurrected and live with God as one for ever,
in a communion the like of which even glorious perfect angels are unequipped
to enjoy, then it is clear that there is no reason why factual evolution
needs to have happened. It would have been a mere distraction from the main
event - what the humans were going to do. Evolutionism and natural selection
do not presuppose that Man is the object of the world arising by the
algorithm of DNA and so there is nothing special about us. We are no
'better' than fish or molluscs. Theistic evolution believed by Christians
somehow believes that we are the planned aim in mind for all this DNA
replication, and that's why God the Son came for us although he didn't come
for the earlier stages in evolution, such as the first mammals or the eryops
or whatever that half coelacanth half newt thing is called. Tom, if you're
reading, I'd be interested to know whether you think the coming of Christ
into the world was uniquely for man, and if so why, when the algorithm that
got us here according to evolutionary thought is so impersonal (referencing
Dennet's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea pages 42 through 60.)
So if the gentle reader (I'm not addressing Tom specifically from this
point) believes that man is not special, is a bit of an accident, a freak of
the algorithm, can you really square this idea with your whole inner being,
your secret identity, your thoughts, your ideas, your hopes, your loves,
your understandings? This that you have, and you see other man and women
have, it is so unlike anything that other animals have. We talk of chimps
and dolphins being brighter than some other animals, but the difference
between a chimp or a dolphin and an octopus is not probably not as great as
between a bonobo chimp, with its 95% or whatever DNA similarity and a
perticipant in this discussion, as far as intelligent and sapient world view
goes. Why? Why didn't any more evolve? WHY didn't any demonstrably come from
other planets, when you say there are so many planets and so much available
time? Why haven't we been visited by people from the future telling us to
discard the silly religions? You can't answer these questions, and
actually you should be able to answer them, for you to be certain your world
view is correct. Mine certainly doesn't have such gaping holes in it.
The reason you are here on this planet, whether you like it or not, is to
accept Christ on FAITH. That means no man, even if he has faith that simply
knows Christ is Lord, and wholly trusts him very waking moment and in his
dreams as well, is able to prove to you the truth about this world in such a
way that you will believe the truth by logical persuasion, by peer pressure,
and the like. There were times in the past when peer pressure existed to
believe a form of Christianity, with the result that things went totally
wrong and the Church became a power block, ran by a blasphemous office, and
was Antichrist for a thousand years. Soon the form of Christianity that
people were to believe became a works religion, and that is the essence of
Antichrist. And Roman catholicism is not out of the woods yet by a long
chalk, although it has it's positive sides also. They are still mainly
playing the works game, and that doesn't work.
I have now probably given one of the most comprehensive, though highly
summarised arguments as to what my position is and why we are not going to
persuade one another by logic. The just shall live by faith. That means - no
proof. No science of Creation. Only if you hear the voice of God saying,
'maybe what he's saying is true, then ask God saying as one Man said to
Christ 'O Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief!' and read the Bible,
especially about Christ and about faith. These things are absolutely
crucial. The Cross is crucial, that's why the word crucial exists, it refers
to the Cross. God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of Christ,
through which the world is crucified unto me, and I, unto the world.
I'm not asking you to join my Church, where I go is independent anyway and
all the services are in Polish. Or even any Church. One time I didn't go for
seven years. It's good to go, but sometimes we are more strengthened alone,
sometimes we go to the promised land via a wilderness. Nor do I want your
money. Give it to the poor or keep it for whatever you need it for, if
giving it away is a problem. I'm asking you to understand the most important
thing in life, and that is WHY we are here, and what Jesus did and why, and
to cleave to Him and obtain great blessings from Him, and be to the praise
of His glory.
Now unto Him that is the triune Holy God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the
Creator of all, the Redeemer, the Good Shepherd of the sheep, the Almighty
Lord of Hosts who is One LORD worthy of the love of all our hearts and all
our minds and all that is in us, the only Wise God, to him be G L O R Y, H
O N O U R, D O M I N I O N and P O W E R unrivalled and unsurpassed in
everlasting eternity, and may he call from among you such as He Himself
would have with Him, for His own name's sake.
Amen.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
| User: "Clayton the Transitional Fossil Wannabe" |
|
| Title: Re: This didn't get through earlier, so I'm sending again... |
04 Jan 2004 12:44:18 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
Thanks...gives me a chance to <plonk> your moronic *****.
bye bye
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: This didn't get through earlier, so I'm sending again... |
04 Jan 2004 12:55:13 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:bt804s$6r4$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
: Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> napisał w
: wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
: > R.Schenck wrote:
: >
: > >
: > > btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the "navel of the
: > > world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian or
: > > philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i got a bit
: > > on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what you have in
: > > mind.
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is "really"
: > only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions of years
: old.
: >
: >
: > WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way, Davey
: > probably won't tell us.
: >
:
: He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are the
: functional things, like the lights in the sky.
: The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and the
: ensuing tectonics.
:
: God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major religions
of
: the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how he made
: the world.
: Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
: happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
:
: Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good one, so they
: say. And I know a Balance Sheet when I see one. This Universe is not
: infinite, it is a finite amount of light, energy and matter, time and
space.
: These things are all linked together into one equation, as shown in
Hawkings
: 'Brief History of Time and in Einstein's relativity equation. When God
drew
: up an opening balance sheet at the time of creation some ten thousand say
: years ago, some of each of these things was there, exactly the right
: proportions so that everything else would be held in balance.
:
: Instead of just having 'debit cash, credit shares', as in a Company's
: opening balance sheet, this opening balance sheet was far more complex,
: encompassing every unit of energy and matter than exists. And since that
: time, no energy has been lost, it is transferred from one type to another
in
: this finite system that is Creation so that the balance sheet always
: balances. His plan of accounts are all the planets and kinds, his
accounting
: policies are the laws of thermodynamics, the cycle of respiration vs
: photosynthesis, planck's quantum theory, and others that we haven't even
: understood yet, and this is all the backdrop for the salvation project
which
: is what this entire universe is all about.
talk about overkill.... billions upon billions of galaxies etc.etc all
so some ape like creatures on an obscure rock on the edge of an unimportant
galaxy can be >>>> saved..we must be *real* important
: Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history actually
to
: run its lengthy course? The Universal Balance Sheet balances at all times
: anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start the real
: action when Man starts on the scene. Nothing in the notional evolutionary
: chain up to man was an animal of any reasonable intelligence, capable of
: making the choices Man could make, capable of personality, of self
: understanding, of analysing and enquiring into the world.
talk about arrogant...we are the pinnacle...all this is for us...we
are just so damn important to your god...(who needs lots of continual
confirmation of how >>>>> great he is)
: Man has been set here to see if he will accept salvation based on faith on
: what Christ did. Either by pagan religions, which as has been hammered
home
: here often enough when not thought of as a point in our side, even pagan
: religions had an unnamed christ figure, so they were not without hope, and
: the times of their ignorance God winked at, but all these have disappeared
: when the true Christ's name is known, as so now there is no name given
under
: heaven, by which we must be saved, but in the name of Jesus Christ. And so
: now no other God-men figures are taken seriously by the elect of these
days
: any more, and the Gospel is gone unto every tribe and nation.
and world is just perfect now aint it...not more killing or moral
decay...yep...its just jim dandy now your book is around and about
: Salvation by faith, and not through works of our own, this is the
essential
: reason we are here, we are created so that we could be to the praise of
HIS
: glory, those whose first trust is in Christ. Who trusts in his own work
for
: righteousness, glorifies himslef. This will not glorify god in heaven, and
: of course there are none righteous enough to go to heaven, so if they
trust
: their own work they will be shut out of God's kingdom, and shown how the
: many sins they made could not be overlooked, they deceived themselves.
Those
: who come by faith are saved, and that is the only way the righteousness of
: God the son can be applied without the need for a work. Everything beyond
: the purity of faith, even the obedience to Christ that Charles Casey has
: talked about, is works, if it doesn't flow naturally out of the love of
the
: forgiven sinner, who is completely justified by faith, and given a new
: heart, a new spirit within him, and presented with spiritual armour. So
: whilst obedience to Christ is good and right, it is not a prerequisite for
: salvation, as we see by the thief on the cross, who received unconditional
: salvation at the moment of faith as he died.
your mtto seems to be believe everything and check nothing...
:
: When we see that all the world revolves around people getting saved by
faith
: in Christ so that they can be resurrected and live with God as one for
ever,
: in a communion the like of which even glorious perfect angels are
unequipped
: to enjoy, then it is clear that there is no reason why factual evolution
: needs to have happened. It would have been a mere distraction from the
main
: event - what the humans were going to do. Evolutionism and natural
selection
: do not presuppose that Man is the object of the world arising by the
: algorithm of DNA and so there is nothing special about us. We are no
: 'better' than fish or molluscs. Theistic evolution believed by Christians
: somehow believes that we are the planned aim in mind for all this DNA
: replication, and that's why God the Son came for us although he didn't
come
: for the earlier stages in evolution, such as the first mammals or the
eryops
: or whatever that half coelacanth half newt thing is called. Tom, if you're
: reading, I'd be interested to know whether you think the coming of Christ
: into the world was uniquely for man, and if so why, when the algorithm
that
: got us here according to evolutionary thought is so impersonal
(referencing
: Dennet's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea pages 42 through 60.)
your assuming your christ actually came into the world and did all the
things you believe he did... ever notice there are no comtemporary accounts
of >>>>> him?? ..mm...all those miracles and masses of people...and everyone
forgot to write anything about it...curious
: So if the gentle reader (I'm not addressing Tom specifically from this
: point) believes that man is not special, is a bit of an accident, a freak
of
: the algorithm, can you really square this idea with your whole inner
being,
: your secret identity, your thoughts, your ideas, your hopes, your loves,
: your understandings?
yep...now what ?
This that you have, and you see other man and women
: have, it is so unlike anything that other animals have. We talk of chimps
: and dolphins being brighter than some other animals, but the difference
: between a chimp or a dolphin and an octopus is not probably not as great
as
: between a bonobo chimp, with its 95% or whatever DNA similarity and a
: perticipant in this discussion, as far as intelligent and sapient world
view
: goes. Why? Why didn't any more evolve? WHY didn't any demonstrably come
from
: other planets,
if they are there they are too far away...or havent you bothered to
check that....and besides..one planet has to be first with intelligence and
i guess it could >>>>> be ours (although this is not obvious upon close
scrutiny of the news broadcasts)
when you say there are so many planets and so much available
: time? Why haven't we been visited by people from the future telling us to
: discard the silly religions?
time travel ?.. you seriously consider time travel as proof of your
beliefs ??...now that is a first
You can't answer these questions, and
: actually you should be able to answer them, for you to be certain your
world
: view is correct. Mine certainly doesn't have such gaping holes in it.
your answer to all questions is "goddidit"...wow...what a challenge
: The reason you are here on this planet, whether you like it or not, is to
: accept Christ on FAITH.
your assumption..not a reason
That means no man, even if he has faith that simply
: knows Christ is Lord, and wholly trusts him very waking moment and in his
: dreams as well, is able to prove to you the truth about this world in such
a
: way that you will believe the truth by logical persuasion, by peer
pressure,
: and the like. There were times in the past when peer pressure existed to
: believe a form of Christianity, with the result that things went totally
: wrong and the Church became a power block, ran by a blasphemous office,
and
: was Antichrist for a thousand years. Soon the form of Christianity that
: people were to believe became a works religion, and that is the essence of
: Antichrist. And Roman catholicism is not out of the woods yet by a long
: chalk, although it has it's positive sides also. They are still mainly
: playing the works game, and that doesn't work.
:
: I have now probably given one of the most comprehensive, though highly
: summarised arguments as to what my position is and why we are not going to
: persuade one another by logic.
the reason being you have used absolutely no logic...its all based on
your belief system
The just shall live by faith. That means - no
: proof. No science of Creation. Only if you hear the voice of God saying,
: 'maybe what he's saying is true, then ask God saying as one Man said to
: Christ 'O Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief!' and read the Bible,
: especially about Christ and about faith. These things are absolutely
: crucial. The Cross is crucial, that's why the word crucial exists, it
refers
: to the Cross. God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of Christ,
: through which the world is crucified unto me, and I, unto the world.
:
: I'm not asking you to join my Church, where I go is independent anyway and
: all the services are in Polish. Or even any Church. One time I didn't go
for
: seven years. It's good to go, but sometimes we are more strengthened
alone,
: sometimes we go to the promised land via a wilderness. Nor do I want your
: money. Give it to the poor or keep it for whatever you need it for, if
: giving it away is a problem. I'm asking you to understand the most
important
: thing in life, and that is WHY we are here, and what Jesus did and why,
and
: to cleave to Him and obtain great blessings from Him, and be to the praise
: of His glory.
:
: Now unto Him that is the triune Holy God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the
: Creator of all, the Redeemer, the Good Shepherd of the sheep, the Almighty
: Lord of Hosts who is One LORD worthy of the love of all our hearts and all
: our minds and all that is in us, the only Wise God, to him be G L O R Y,
H
: O N O U R, D O M I N I O N and P O W E R unrivalled and unsurpassed in
: everlasting eternity, and may he call from among you such as He Himself
: would have with Him, for His own name's sake.
:
: Amen.
:
: Uncle Davey
:
Well thanks for taking the effort to type all that and make it abundantly
clear how you have arrived at your position
In closing i can only say that your post actually made me feel ill - how can
a rational person have such a mind numbingly arrogant view of our place in
the universe.
Hope you have a pleasant day anyway
steve
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ross Langerak" |
|
| Title: Re: This didn't get through earlier, so I'm sending again... |
04 Jan 2004 03:02:49 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:bt804s$6r4$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
R.Schenck wrote:
btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the "navel
of the
world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian or
philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i got
a bit
on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what you
have in
mind.
He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is
"really"
only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions of
years
old.
WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way, Davey
probably won't tell us.
He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are
the
functional things, like the lights in the sky.
Why would the "lights in the sky" need to look mature? What do you
mean by "mature". Is the movement of massive, hot stars off of the
main sequence in globular clusters done to make them look mature? If
so, why aren't they all the same maturity? If the Universe is young,
does "maturity" include evidence of events that never happened, like
supernova and galactic collisions?
Last Thursdayism?
The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and
the
ensuing tectonics.
Not even possible, for so many reasons, I'm just not going to get into
it right now. Instead, check out the links, and when you are done
ignoring them, we can dig deeper into the subject : )
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html
http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_intro.html
God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major
religions of
the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how
he made
the world.
Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
Billions of years isn't actual time? Is it fake time?
Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good one, so
they
say. And I know a Balance Sheet when I see one.
And I know a really bad analogy when I see one. Suppose you were to
meet someone and they decided to tell you all about the problems with
accounting. It would quickly become pretty obvious whether or not
they knew anything about accounting, wouldn't it?
I have a degree in physics. When I hear creationists talking about
the second law of thermodynamics, it's obvious to me that they don't
know what they are talking about. They know just enough to think they
have an argument, but not enough to realize how meaningless their
statements are.
How do you think your arguments regarding evolution sound to people
who are really familiar with the evidence? To paleontologists? To
geologists? To biochemists? I know enough about evolution to
recognize that the creationist argument are bad. How do you think
they look to the real experts?
This Universe is not
infinite, it is a finite amount of light, energy
Isn't "light" energy? Electromagnetic energy?
and matter, time
Isn't 13.6 billion years finite?
and space.
These things are all linked together into one equation, as shown in
Hawkings
'Brief History of Time and in Einstein's relativity equation.
What is that equation?
When God drew
up an opening balance sheet at the time of creation some ten
thousand say
years ago, some of each of these things was there, exactly the right
proportions so that everything else would be held in balance.
Why would massive, hot stars have to be moved off of the main sequence
in globular clusters in order for things to be in balance? Why are
not all globular clusters in the same balance?? Why is evidence of
events that never happened, like supernova and galactic collisions,
required for balance??? What do they balance????
Instead of just having 'debit cash, credit shares', as in a
Company's
opening balance sheet, this opening balance sheet was far more
complex,
encompassing every unit of energy and matter than exists.
Both Metric and English units? That really is complex!!!
And since that
time, no energy has been lost, it is transferred from one type to
another in
this finite system that is Creation so that the balance sheet always
balances.
This is called conservation of energy. Why is this a problem for
evolution?
His plan of accounts are all the planets and kinds, his accounting
policies are the laws of thermodynamics,
The zeroth law of thermodynamics is the basis for measuring
temperature with a thermometer.
The first law of thermodynamics deals with energy crossing a boundary.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't require balance; it requires
an imbalance.
The third law of thermodynamics defines entropy at absolute zero.
The fourth law of thermodynamics tells us to close the door so the
heat won't get out.
the cycle of respiration vs
photosynthesis,
Isn't photosynthesis part of the respiration of plants? In goes the
bad air and out goes the good?
planck's quantum theory, and others that we haven't even
understood yet, and this is all the backdrop for the salvation
project which
is what this entire universe is all about.
According to Genesis, didn't the creation of the Universe predate the
need for salvation?
Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history
actually to
run its lengthy course? The Universal Balance Sheet balances at all
times
anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start the
real
action when Man starts on the scene.
Or, he could start with a Big Bang: an expansion of pure energy that
produced all that exists.
Nothing in the notional evolutionary
chain up to man was an animal of any reasonable intelligence,
capable of
making the choices Man could make, capable of personality, of self
understanding, of analysing and enquiring into the world.
My cat can make choices that man can make. My cat has a personality.
My cat has enough self understanding to wash his face after dinner.
My cat is curious and at least somewhat analytical.
On the other hand, your statement was that before man evolved, there
were no creatures with all of the characteristics of man. Does the
term "Duh" mean anything to you?
Man has been set here
[snip religious sermon, which is what creationism is really about.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: This didn't get through earlier, so I'm sending again... |
04 Jan 2004 02:08:48 PM |
|
|
Użytkownik "Ross Langerak" <rlangerakBOGUS@earthlink.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:5HQJb.36411$Pg1.358@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:bt804s$6r4$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
R.Schenck wrote:
btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the "navel
of the
world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian or
philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i got
a bit
on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what you
have in
mind.
He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is
"really"
only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions of
years
old.
WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way, Davey
probably won't tell us.
He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are
the
functional things, like the lights in the sky.
Why would the "lights in the sky" need to look mature? What do you
mean by "mature". Is the movement of massive, hot stars off of the
main sequence in globular clusters done to make them look mature? If
so, why aren't they all the same maturity? If the Universe is young,
does "maturity" include evidence of events that never happened, like
supernova and galactic collisions?
They are only lights in the sky to shed light on the earth.
Some of them may be only a stream of light, with no star actually behind
them at all.
Last Thursdayism?
Last Thursdayism would imply a deceptive God, as we would have false
memories and everything. Any creation of men after Adam other than the
preparation of a special body for Christ would make nonsense of the whole.
The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and
the
ensuing tectonics.
Not even possible, for so many reasons, I'm just not going to get into
it right now. Instead, check out the links, and when you are done
ignoring them, we can dig deeper into the subject : )
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html
http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_intro.html
I won't ignore tham, but I'll deal with them later on. I take it those faq's
aren't gonna go away.
God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major
religions of
the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how
he made
the world.
Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
Billions of years isn't actual time? Is it fake time?
First you tell me what time is, in your understanding, and how it relates to
matter and energy.
Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good one, so
they
say. And I know a Balance Sheet when I see one.
And I know a really bad analogy when I see one. Suppose you were to
meet someone and they decided to tell you all about the problems with
accounting. It would quickly become pretty obvious whether or not
they knew anything about accounting, wouldn't it?
I would have several management letter points for the end of the audit ready
by the end of the conversation.
I have a degree in physics. When I hear creationists talking about
the second law of thermodynamics, it's obvious to me that they don't
know what they are talking about. They know just enough to think they
have an argument, but not enough to realize how meaningless their
statements are.
The problem with physicits is that they don't see how the laws of
thermodynamics carry over into other fields of life. Even literature, see
Evgeniy Zamyatin's essays about Revolution and Entropy in literature.
How do you think your arguments regarding evolution sound to people
who are really familiar with the evidence? To paleontologists? To
geologists? To biochemists? I know enough about evolution to
recognize that the creationist argument are bad. How do you think
they look to the real experts?
There is an authority in accounting that we can refer to, once we have
agreed what framework we are using. If we are using US GAAP, then we use one
set of statements, UK GAAP another, Polish GAAP another, German HB2 another,
IAS yet another. But each has a codex which bears authority. In evolution we
have about 14 different models for the ascent of man (some evolutionists
will even take exception to the phrase 'ascent' of man, but other
evolutionists coined it, as it is hardly the thing a Creationist will come
up with. So I wonder whether there are experts available really, in that
field, everyone seems to be groping in the dark.
Or, if not, please can someone give me the definitive family tree of
hominids and australopithecids that every evolutionist on here is happy to
sign up to?
This Universe is not
infinite, it is a finite amount of light, energy
Isn't "light" energy? Electromagnetic energy?
It is, but I just wanted to emphasise that part of the elctromagnetic
spectrum, because the constant C is referred to as the speed of light, not
the speed of energy.
and matter, time
Isn't 13.6 billion years finite?
Yes.
and space.
These things are all linked together into one equation, as shown in
Hawkings
'Brief History of Time and in Einstein's relativity equation.
What is that equation?
E = MC^2.
You gonna tell me that's overruled now?
When God drew
up an opening balance sheet at the time of creation some ten
thousand say
years ago, some of each of these things was there, exactly the right
proportions so that everything else would be held in balance.
Why would massive, hot stars have to be moved off of the main sequence
in globular clusters in order for things to be in balance? Why are
not all globular clusters in the same balance?? Why is evidence of
events that never happened, like supernova and galactic collisions,
required for balance??? What do they balance????
They balance the amount of matter and energy there is.
Instead of just having 'debit cash, credit shares', as in a
Company's
opening balance sheet, this opening balance sheet was far more
complex,
encompassing every unit of energy and matter than exists.
Both Metric and English units? That really is complex!!!
You should have seen the accounting for exchange rate differences!
And since that
time, no energy has been lost, it is transferred from one type to
another in
this finite system that is Creation so that the balance sheet always
balances.
This is called conservation of energy. Why is this a problem for
evolution?
Let evolution answer where this fixed sum of conserved energy came from in
the first place, prior to the putative Big Bang.
His plan of accounts are all the planets and kinds, his accounting
policies are the laws of thermodynamics,
The zeroth law of thermodynamics is the basis for measuring
temperature with a thermometer.
The first law of thermodynamics deals with energy crossing a boundary.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't require balance; it requires
an imbalance.
The third law of thermodynamics defines entropy at absolute zero.
The fourth law of thermodynamics tells us to close the door so the
heat won't get out.
Those are simplifications.
the cycle of respiration vs
photosynthesis,
Isn't photosynthesis part of the respiration of plants? In goes the
bad air and out goes the good?
Plants respire as well as photosynthesise. And it is all about taking the
sun's energy, and transferring it to carbohydrates, which are then burned in
all lioving cells to release that energy where it is needed. Photosynthesis
and respiration are opposites. And I don't employ economics graduates as
auditors who can't recite the basic chemical equations for both from their
memory.
planck's quantum theory, and others that we haven't even
understood yet, and this is all the backdrop for the salvation
project which
is what this entire universe is all about.
According to Genesis, didn't the creation of the Universe predate the
need for salvation?
Not all truth is in Genesis.
The new Testament also shows that we were foreknown and predestinated to be
redeemed.
This is a tough doctrine, but if you can get your head around the doctrine
of predestination it will help at this point.
Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history
actually to
run its lengthy course? The Universal Balance Sheet balances at all
times
anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start the
real
action when Man starts on the scene.
Or, he could start with a Big Bang: an expansion of pure energy that
produced all that exists.
Could have.
In which case he probably would have told us so.
Nothing in the notional evolutionary
chain up to man was an animal of any reasonable intelligence,
capable of
making the choices Man could make, capable of personality, of self
understanding, of analysing and enquiring into the world.
My cat can make choices that man can make. My cat has a personality.
My cat has enough self understanding to wash his face after dinner.
My cat is curious and at least somewhat analytical.
On the other hand, your statement was that before man evolved, there
were no creatures with all of the characteristics of man. Does the
term "Duh" mean anything to you?
I think you are being intentionally obtuse, here. Obviously you know the
difference between the mind of a human and of a cat. I have fish in my tank
whose intelligence differential with your cat is less than between your cat
and you. My female Pseudorinelepis genibarbus tells me what the weather's
gonna be like. I don't know if your cat can do that.
Man has been set here
[snip religious sermon, which is what creationism is really about.]
It's what life's really about.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross Langerak" |
|
| Title: Re: This didn't get through earlier, so I'm sending again... |
04 Jan 2004 07:48:10 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:bt9s3q$4sd$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...
Użytkownik "Ross Langerak" <rlangerakBOGUS@earthlink.net> napisał w
wiadomości
news:5HQJb.36411$Pg1.358@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:bt804s$6r4$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> napisał
w
wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
R.Schenck wrote:
btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the
"navel
of the
world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian
or
philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i
got
a bit
on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what
you
have in
mind.
He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is
"really"
only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions
of
years
old.
WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way,
Davey
probably won't tell us.
He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature
are
the
functional things, like the lights in the sky.
Why would the "lights in the sky" need to look mature? What do
you
mean by "mature". Is the movement of massive, hot stars off of
the
main sequence in globular clusters done to make them look mature?
If
so, why aren't they all the same maturity? If the Universe is
young,
does "maturity" include evidence of events that never happened,
like
supernova and galactic collisions?
They are only lights in the sky to shed light on the earth.
Some of them may be only a stream of light, with no star actually
behind
them at all.
Last Thursdayism?
Last Thursdayism would imply a deceptive God, as we would have false
memories and everything. Any creation of men after Adam other than
the
preparation of a special body for Christ would make nonsense of the
whole.
No more deceptive than producing light with no star behind it. BTW,
could you point out which of those lights has no star behind it?
The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood
and
the
ensuing tectonics.
Not even possible, for so many reasons, I'm just not going to get
into
it right now. Instead, check out the links, and when you are done
ignoring them, we can dig deeper into the subject : )
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html
http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_intro.html
I won't ignore tham, but I'll deal with them later on. I take it
those faq's
aren't gonna go away.
God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major
religions of
the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account,
how
he made
the world.
Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would
have
happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
Billions of years isn't actual time? Is it fake time?
First you tell me what time is, in your understanding, and how it
relates to
matter and energy.
You implied that billions of years wasn't "actual time". You need to
defend your statement. I'm not required to define your terms for you.
That's your responsibility. What do you think time is and how do you
think it relates to matter and energy?
Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good
one, so
they
say. And I know a Balance Sheet when I see one.
And I know a really bad analogy when I see one. Suppose you were
to
meet someone and they decided to tell you all about the problems
with
accounting. It would quickly become pretty obvious whether or not
they knew anything about accounting, wouldn't it?
I would have several management letter points for the end of the
audit ready
by the end of the conversation.
I have a degree in physics. When I hear creationists talking
about
the second law of thermodynamics, it's obvious to me that they
don't
know what they are talking about. They know just enough to think
they
have an argument, but not enough to realize how meaningless their
statements are.
The problem with physicits is that they don't see how the laws of
thermodynamics carry over into other fields of life.
And an accountant does? "Other fields of life"? What are these
"other fields of life"? What are the errors that physicists make?
Please explain.
Even literature, see
Evgeniy Zamyatin's essays about Revolution and Entropy in
literature.
How do you think your arguments regarding evolution sound to
people
who are really familiar with the evidence? To paleontologists?
To
geologists? To biochemists? I know enough about evolution to
recognize that the creationist argument are bad. How do you think
they look to the real experts?
There is an authority in accounting that we can refer to, once we
have
agreed what framework we are using. If we are using US GAAP, then we
use one
set of statements, UK GAAP another, Polish GAAP another, German HB2
another,
IAS yet another. But each has a codex which bears authority. In
evolution we
have about 14 different models for the ascent of man (some
evolutionists
will even take exception to the phrase 'ascent' of man, but other
evolutionists coined it, as it is hardly the thing a Creationist
will come
up with. So I wonder whether there are experts available really, in
that
field, everyone seems to be groping in the dark.
These experts are the ones who are familiar with the evidence, not the
ones who developed the models. The evidence is the ultimate authority
in science, not the developers. My analogy was presented to give you
a perspective on how your arguments appear to people who are actually
familiar with the evidence. Your paragraph above only reinforces that
appearance.
Or, if not, please can someone give me the definitive family tree of
hominids and australopithecids that every evolutionist on here is
happy to
sign up to?
We sign up to the evidence, in science, not to any particular family
tree. As new evidence becomes available, our views on how humans
evolved may need to be modified. There is no authority, other than
the evidence, that tells us how to look at human evolution. To look
at that authority, see
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
This Universe is not
infinite, it is a finite amount of light, energy
Isn't "light" energy? Electromagnetic energy?
It is, but I just wanted to emphasise that part of the
elctromagnetic
spectrum, because the constant C is referred to as the speed of
light, not
the speed of energy.
What does this have to do with anything other than trying to cover
your forepaw? Isn't the speed of light the same, whether or not the
Universe is finite? And why is the letter we use for the speed of
light significant? Would you want to emphasize it, if we used the
constant "g" for the speed of light? (Other than that it would cause
a lot of confusion with the acceleration due to gravity at the surface
of the Earth.)
and matter, time
Isn't 13.6 billion years finite?
Yes.
Good. I just wanted to make sure you weren't suggesting that
evolution proposed an infinite amount of time.
and space.
These things are all linked together into one equation, as shown
in
Hawkings
'Brief History of Time and in Einstein's relativity equation.
What is that equation?
E = MC^2.
You gonna tell me that's overruled now?
How is time and space linked with (the speed of) light, energy, and
matter with this equation? (Other than that velocity and energy use
the units of time and distance?) It seems that you are trying to
attribute far more to this equation than is actually there.
When God drew
up an opening balance sheet at the time of creation some ten
thousand say
years ago, some of each of these things was there, exactly the
right
proportions so that everything else would be held in balance.
Why would massive, hot stars have to be moved off of the main
sequence
in globular clusters in order for things to be in balance? Why
are
not all globular clusters in the same balance?? Why is evidence
of
events that never happened, like supernova and galactic
collisions,
required for balance??? What do they balance????
They balance the amount of matter and energy there is.
Why couldn't this be done by having all of the stars on the main
sequence? Why couldn't some stars of all sizes be off of the main
sequence? Do you even understand the significance of massive, bright
stars moving off of the main sequence?
Instead of just having 'debit cash, credit shares', as in a
Company's
opening balance sheet, this opening balance sheet was far more
complex,
encompassing every unit of energy and matter than exists.
Both Metric and English units? That really is complex!!!
You should have seen the accounting for exchange rate differences!
And since that
time, no energy has been lost, it is transferred from one type
to
another in
this finite system that is Creation so that the balance sheet
always
balances.
This is called conservation of energy. Why is this a problem for
evolution?
Let evolution answer where this fixed sum of conserved energy came
from in
the first place, prior to the putative Big Bang.
The question was, why is conservation of energy a problem for
evolution? I assume, by your response, that it isn't.
The Universe is expanding. This is something we are reasonably
certain about. If we follow that expansion back in time, there comes
a point where the Universe is so small that quantum effects become
significant. It is possible that the entire Universe is the result of
a quantum fluctuation. Or maybe not. The origin of the Universe is a
difficult subject to study. Our current understanding of physics
takes us to within a tiny fraction of a second of the Big Bang, but it
doesn't take us all the way. The energy densities involved are far
too high to be reproduced in the laboratory. So we are left with
trying to figure out how something happened based upon almost no
information. It isn't surprising that we don't have an answer. We
have some ideas, but no definite answer. Does that mean that the Big
Bang didn't happen, or does it just mean that we don't know how it
happened?
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
His plan of accounts are all the planets and kinds, his
accounting
policies are the laws of thermodynamics,
The zeroth law of thermodynamics is the basis for measuring
temperature with a thermometer.
The first law of thermodynamics deals with energy crossing a
boundary.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't require balance; it
requires
an imbalance.
The third law of thermodynamics defines entropy at absolute zero.
The fourth law of thermodynamics tells us to close the door so the
heat won't get out.
Those are simplifications.
Of course they are. That doesn't change the fact that most of them
have nothing to do with conservation of energy, and none of them take
into account mass-energy equivalence.
the cycle of respiration vs
photosynthesis,
Isn't photosynthesis part of the respiration of plants? In goes
the
bad air and out goes the good?
Plants respire as well as photosynthesise. And it is all about
taking the
sun's energy, and transferring it to carbohydrates, which are then
burned in
all lioving cells to release that energy where it is needed.
Photosynthesis
and respiration are opposites. And I don't employ economics
graduates as
auditors who can't recite the basic chemical equations for both from
their
memory.
And how does this put respiration in competition with photosynthesis?
planck's quantum theory, and others that we haven't even
understood yet, and this is all the backdrop for the salvation
project which
is what this entire universe is all about.
According to Genesis, didn't the creation of the Universe predate
the
need for salvation?
Not all truth is in Genesis.
The new Testament also shows that we were foreknown and
predestinated to be
redeemed.
Did that apply to Adam and Eve as well? Or was it just the people
living at the time the New Testament was written? Adam and Eve were
created to live perfect lives forever. There was no need for
salvation. How could the Universe have been created as a backdrop for
salvation, when there was not yet a need for salvation? There had to
be some other purpose for the Universe other than as a backdrop for
salvation.
This is a tough doctrine, but if you can get your head around the
doctrine
of predestination it will help at this point.
Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history
actually to
run its lengthy course? The Universal Balance Sheet balances at
all
times
anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start
the
real
action when Man starts on the scene.
Or, he could start with a Big Bang: an expansion of pure energy
that
produced all that exists.
Could have.
In which case he probably would have told us so.
Nothing in the notional evolutionary
chain up to man was an animal of any reasonable intelligence,
capable of
making the choices Man could make, capable of personality, of
self
understanding, of analysing and enquiring into the world.
My cat can make choices that man can make. My cat has a
personality.
My cat has enough self understanding to wash his face after
dinner.
My cat is curious and at least somewhat analytical.
On the other hand, your statement was that before man evolved,
there
were no creatures with all of the characteristics of man. Does
the
term "Duh" mean anything to you?
I think you are being intentionally obtuse, here. Obviously you know
the
difference between the mind of a human and of a cat. I have fish in
my tank
whose intelligence differential with your cat is less than between
your cat
and you. My female Pseudorinelepis genibarbus tells me what the
weather's
gonna be like. I don't know if your cat can do that.
What about chimpanzees? Where do they fall on the intelligence scale?
What about Australopithecus afarensis? Where does it fall on the
intelligence scale? What about Homo habilis? Homo erectus? Homo
heidelbergensis? See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
This series of species, except for chimpanzees, provides an excellent
series of fossils documenting the recent evolution of humans. Since
each of these species is essentially a waypoint on the journey to
become human, why would you expect any of them to actually have all of
the characteristics of humans? Each species gets a little closer.
Isn't that all that is required?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: This didn't get through earlier, so I'm sending again... |
04 Jan 2004 11:10:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:08:48 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
<noway@jose.com> posted to alt.atheism:
U?ytkownik "Ross Langerak" <rlangerakBOGUS@earthlink.net> napisa? w
wiadomo?ci news:5HQJb.36411$Pg1.358@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Why would the "lights in the sky" need to look mature? What do you
mean by "mature". Is the movement of massive, hot stars off of the
main sequence in globular clusters done to make them look mature? If
so, why aren't they all the same maturity? If the Universe is young,
does "maturity" include evidence of events that never happened, like
supernova and galactic collisions?
They are only lights in the sky to shed light on the earth.
Wrong - they're stars, pretty much like the sun. We've even found
some that have planets circling them.
Some of them may be only a stream of light, with no star actually behind
them at all.
Wrong - they're stars, pretty much like the sun.
I have a degree in physics. When I hear creationists talking about
the second law of thermodynamics, it's obvious to me that they don't
know what they are talking about. They know just enough to think they
have an argument, but not enough to realize how meaningless their
statements are.
The problem with physicits is that they don't see how the laws of
thermodynamics carry over into other fields of life.
Claiming that the second law of thermodynamics precludes evolution
isn't "how the laws of thermodynamics carry over into other fields of
life", it's showing that you don't understand the second law of
thermodynamics.
Would you accept a claim that a credit never creates an equivalent
debit?
There is an authority in accounting that we can refer to
There are authorities in physics that we can refer to also.
Or, if not, please can someone give me the definitive family tree of
hominids and australopithecids that every evolutionist on here is happy to
sign up to?
Since not all Christians agree on everything, Christianity is a crock?
That's what you're saying. All paleontologists agree on the important
points, like the fact that evolution occurs. And that speciation
occurs.
This Universe is not
infinite, it is a finite amount of light, energy
Isn't "light" energy? Electromagnetic energy?
It is, but I just wanted to emphasise that part of the elctromagnetic
spectrum, because the constant C is referred to as the speed of light, not
the speed of energy.
As childish as saying that you specified that 1 dollar + 1dollar = 2
dollars, instead of 1 + 1 = 2, because most of us aren't in Germany.
and space.
These things are all linked together into one equation, as shown in Hawkings
'Brief History of Time and in Einstein's relativity equation.
What is that equation?
E = MC^2.
Special or general? Or don't you know the difference?
Why would massive, hot stars have to be moved off of the main sequence
in globular clusters in order for things to be in balance? Why are
not all globular clusters in the same balance?? Why is evidence of
events that never happened, like supernova and galactic collisions,
required for balance??? What do they balance????
They balance the amount of matter and energy there is.
Nope. As silly as claiming that there's no difference between a debit
and a credit.
And since that
time, no energy has been lost, it is transferred from one type to another in
this finite system that is Creation so that the balance sheet always balances.
This is called conservation of energy. Why is this a problem for
evolution?
Let evolution answer where this fixed sum of conserved energy came from in
the first place, prior to the putative Big Bang.
The total amount of matter/energy before there was a universe was 0.
The total amount of matter/energy now is 0. Where did /what/ come
from? Last time I looked you didn't have to add anything to 0 to get
0. (Oh, the big bang was just a phase change, not the "creation" of
anything. "The" universe existed before the big bang, it just wasn't
"this" universe.)
His plan of accounts are all the planets and kinds, his accounting
policies are the laws of thermodynamics,
The zeroth law of thermodynamics is the basis for measuring
temperature with a thermometer.
The first law of thermodynamics deals with energy crossing a boundary.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't require balance; it requires
an imbalance.
The third law of thermodynamics defines entropy at absolute zero.
The fourth law of thermodynamics tells us to close the door so the
heat won't get out.
Those are simplifications.
But accurate enough to work.
planck's quantum theory, and others that we haven't even
understood yet, and this is all the backdrop for the salvation project which
is what this entire universe is all about.
According to Genesis, didn't the creation of the Universe predate the
need for salvation?
Not all truth is in Genesis.
But Genesis isn't all true? All of Genesis isn't true?
The new Testament also shows that we were foreknown and predestinated to be
redeemed.
The Old Testament says that nothing shall be changed or added to, so
the New Testament is a violation of your god's orders.
On the other hand, your statement was that before man evolved, there
were no creatures with all of the characteristics of man. Does the
term "Duh" mean anything to you?
I think you are being intentionally obtuse, here. Obviously you know the
difference between the mind of a human and of a cat.
But what of the difference between the mind of man and the mind of
gorilla. There's a gorilla who would tell you that your religious
beliefs are nonsense. And she can create a much better logical
argument than you can.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: This didn't get through earlier, so I'm sending again... |
04 Jan 2004 05:31:46 PM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
They are only lights in the sky to shed light on the earth.
Uh, what about the ones that are so far away they cannot be seen from
earth . . . . .
Some of them may be only a stream of light, with no star actually behind
them at all.
Really. Which ones. How can you tell.
Is it your view that God is lying to us by making us THINK there is
really a star there when actually there IS NONE. . . . ?
Last Thursdayism?
Last Thursdayism would imply a deceptive God
Kind of like "I made it APPEAR that this star is there, but really it's
not"?
, as we would have false
memories and everything. Any creation of men after Adam other than the
preparation of a special body for Christ would make nonsense of the whole.
Says you. <shrug> Fortunately, your religious opinion on the matter
doesn't mean any more than that of my veterinarian's. <shrug>
Or are you now once again back to pretending that you are an infallible
messenger of God . . . ?
The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and
the
ensuing tectonics.
Not even possible, for so many reasons, I'm just not going to get into
it right now. Instead, check out the links, and when you are done
ignoring them, we can dig deeper into the subject : )
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html
http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_intro.html
I won't ignore tham, but I'll deal with them later on.
Maybe, just maybe you should have dealt with them BEFORE you decided to
yammer stupidly about yet another topic that you don't know anything
about . . . .?
Billions of years isn't actual time? Is it fake time?
First you tell me what time is, in your understanding, and how it relates to
matter and energy.
Are you a cosmologist now, in addition to your other many talents, Davey?
The problem with physicits is that they don't see how the laws of
thermodynamics carry over into other fields of life.
What the ***** are you blithering about.
Or, if not, please can someone give me the definitive family tree of
hominids and australopithecids that every evolutionist on here is happy to
sign up to?
No, we can't. Not until all the data is in (and all the data is never
in). >shrug>
But please, would YOU mind giving us a theory of creation that all the
creationists (ODers, old-earthers, day-agers, gap-theorists) are happy
to sign up to? No? why not -- is God too stupid to communciate this
simple thing to all of His followers?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: This didn't get through earlier, so I'm sending again... |
05 Jan 2004 06:50:34 AM |
|
|
Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:3ff8a2cf_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
They are only lights in the sky to shed light on the earth.
Uh, what about the ones that are so far away they cannot be seen from
earth . . . . .
Some of them may be only a stream of light, with no star actually behind
them at all.
Really. Which ones. How can you tell.
Is it your view that God is lying to us by making us THINK there is
really a star there when actually there IS NONE. . . . ?
It's not crucial whether we think there's one or not, we're not gonna get
there anyway.
Last Thursdayism?
Last Thursdayism would imply a deceptive God
Kind of like "I made it APPEAR that this star is there, but really it's
not"?
More like 'I told you the stars were there as lights, and that's all the
benefit you'll get out of them. Don't read anything more into them than
that.'.
, as we would have false
memories and everything. Any creation of men after Adam other than the
preparation of a special body for Christ would make nonsense of the
whole.
Says you. <shrug> Fortunately, your religious opinion on the matter
doesn't mean any more than that of my veterinarian's. <shrug>
Or are you now once again back to pretending that you are an infallible
messenger of God . . . ?
I've never said that.
You keep on ascribing those words to me.
The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and
the
ensuing tectonics.
Not even possible, for so many reasons, I'm just not going to get into
it right now. Instead, check out the links, and when you are done
ignoring them, we can dig deeper into the subject : )
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html
http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_intro.html
I won't ignore tham, but I'll deal with them later on.
Maybe, just maybe you should have dealt with them BEFORE you decided to
yammer stupidly about yet another topic that you don't know anything
about . . . .?
The order is not unimportant. I achieved the links precisely BY yammering
stupidly, as you put it, so how
could I have looked at them before?
Evolutionists' logic, you've got.
Billions of years isn't actual time? Is it fake time?
First you tell me what time is, in your understanding, and how it
relates to
matter and energy.
Are you a cosmologist now, in addition to your other many talents, Davey?
No, Lenny. I'm not even an armchair cosmologist.
Even my herpetology is better than my cosmology, but the question is fine
anyway.
The problem with physicits is that they don't see how the laws of
thermodynamics carry over into other fields of life.
What the ***** are you blithering about.
I see some entropy's gotten into your manners.
Or, if not, please can someone give me the definitive family tree of
hominids and australopithecids that every evolutionist on here is happy
to
sign up to?
No, we can't. Not until all the data is in (and all the data is never
in). >shrug>
But please, would YOU mind giving us a theory of creation that all the
creationists (ODers, old-earthers, day-agers, gap-theorists) are happy
to sign up to? No? why not -- is God too stupid to communciate this
simple thing to all of His followers?
It's alright for us to have differences on secondary issues.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: This didn't get through earlier, so I'm sending again... |
05 Jan 2004 05:50:04 PM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:3ff8a2cf_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
Uncle Davey wrote:
They are only lights in the sky to shed light on the earth.
Uh, what about the ones that are so far away they cannot be seen from
earth . . . . .
Some of them may be only a stream of light, with no star actually behind
them at all.
Really. Which ones. How can you tell.
Is it your view that God is lying to us by making us THINK there is
really a star there when actually there IS NONE. . . . ?
It's not crucial whether we think there's one or not, we're not gonna get
there anyway.
I seeeeee. So it makes no difference whether God is a liar or not . . . .?
Kind of like "I made it APPEAR that this star is there, but really it's
not"?
More like 'I told you the stars were there as lights, and that's all the
benefit you'll get out of them. Don't read anything more into them than
that.'.
But Davey, you DID "read more into them than that". You read into them"
the starlight doesn't really come from a star". I don't see those words
anywhere in the Bible. Did you decide to correct God on that point all
by yourself and add those words on your own? Ever read Deuteronomy 4:2?
How about Proverbs 30:6? Revelation 22:18?
Says you. <shrug> Fortunately, your religious opinion on the matter
doesn't mean any more than that of my veterinarian's. <shrug>
Or are you now once again back to pretending that you are an infallible
messenger of God . . . ?
I've never said that.
You keep on ascribing those words to me.
You keep acting like one.
Or is there some other reason why you are regaling us with your
religious opinions as if they had some sort of authority and actually
answered anything.
But please, would YOU mind giving us a theory of creation that all the
creationists (ODers, old-earthers, day-agers, gap-theorists) are happy
to sign up to? No? why not -- is God too stupid to communciate this
simple thing to all of His followers?
It's alright for us to have differences on secondary issues.
But not alright for "evolutionists", right?
Goose, say hello to gander.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Reichenbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: This didn't get through earlier, so I'm sending again... |
04 Jan 2004 11:30:18 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:bt804s$6r4$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
R.Schenck wrote:
btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the "navel of the
world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian or
philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i got a bit
on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what you have in
mind.
He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is "really"
only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions of years
old.
WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way, Davey
probably won't tell us.
He made it mature,
"Mature" is a euphemism for "fully formed as if it were actually billions of
years old." In other words, God was intentionally deceptive exactly as the
Reverend Dr. Lenny proposed.
but the things which needed to look mature are the
functional things, like the lights in the sky.
These lights are called 'stars.' The evolution of stars is well-known and
throughly studied.
The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and the
ensuing tectonics.
Please tell us how these "ensuing tectonics" you so casually refer to, did
not parboil Noah and his little band.
God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major religions
of
the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how he made
the world.
Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
It did take billions of years, the evidence for billions of years is
overwhelming.
Now I may not be a scientist,
Duh!
but I am an accountant, a good one, so they
say.
So?
And I know a Balance Sheet when I see one.
God is a bean counter?
This Universe is not
infinite, it is a finite amount of light, energy and matter, time and
space.
These things are all linked together into one equation, as shown in
Hawkings
'Brief History of Time and in Einstein's relativity equation. When God
drew
up an opening balance sheet at the time of creation some ten thousand say
years ago, some of each of these things was there, exactly the right
proportions so that everything else would be held in balance.
Instead of just having 'debit cash, credit shares', as in a Company's
opening balance sheet, this opening balance sheet was far more complex,
encompassing every unit of energy and matter than exists. And since that
time, no energy has been lost, it is transferred from one type to another
in
this finite system that is Creation so that the balance sheet always
balances. His plan of accounts are all the planets and kinds, his
accounting
policies are the laws of thermodynamics, the cycle of respiration vs
photosynthesis, planck's quantum theory, and others that we haven't even
understood yet, and this is all the backdrop for the salvation project
which
is what this entire universe is all about.
Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history actually
to
run its lengthy course? The Universal Balance Sheet balances at all times
anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start the real
action when Man starts on the scene. Nothing in the notional evolutionary
chain up to man was an animal of any reasonable intelligence, capable of
making the choices Man could make, capable of personality, of self
understanding, of analysing and enquiring into the world.
Man has been set here to see if he will accept salvation based on faith on
what Christ did. Either by pagan religions, which as has been hammered
home
here often enough when not thought of as a point in our side, even pagan
religions had an unnamed christ figure, so they were not without hope, and
the times of their ignorance God winked at, but all these have disappeared
when the true Christ's name is known, as so now there is no name given
under
heaven, by which we must be saved, but in the name of Jesus Christ. And so
now no other God-men figures are taken seriously by the elect of these
days
any more, and the Gospel is gone unto every tribe and nation.
Salvation by faith, and not through works of our own, this is the
essential
reason we are here, we are created so that we could be to the praise of
HIS
glory, those whose first trust is in Christ. Who trusts in his own work
for
righteousness, glorifies himslef. This will not glorify god in heaven, and
of course there are none righteous enough to go to heaven, so if they
trust
their own work they will be shut out of God's kingdom, and shown how the
many sins they made could not be overlooked, they deceived themselves.
Those
who come by faith are saved, and that is the only way the righteousness of
God the son can be applied without the need for a work. Everything beyond
the purity of faith, even the obedience to Christ that Charles Casey has
talked about, is works, if it doesn't flow naturally out of the love of
the
forgiven sinner, who is completely justified by faith, and given a new
heart, a new spirit within him, and presented with spiritual armour. So
whilst obedience to Christ is good and right, it is not a prerequisite for
salvation, as we see by the thief on the cross, who received unconditional
salvation at the moment of faith as he died.
How quaint.
When we see that all the world revolves around people getting saved by
faith
in Christ so that they can be resurrected and live with God as one for
ever,
in a communion the like of which even glorious perfect angels are
unequipped
to enjoy, then it is clear that there is no reason why factual evolution
needs to have happened.
The logical connection between Point A and Point B in this little story does
not exist, except in the minds of the willfully ignorant.
It would have been a mere distraction from the main
event - what the humans were going to do. Evolutionism and natural
selection
do not presuppose that Man is the object of the world arising by the
algorithm of DNA and so there is nothing special about us.
There isn't anything special.
We are no
'better' than fish or molluscs.
We're not.
Theistic evolution believed by Christians
somehow believes that we are the planned aim in mind for all this DNA
replication, and that's why God the Son came for us although he didn't
come
for the earlier stages in evolution, such as the first mammals or the
eryops
or whatever that half coelacanth half newt thing is called. Tom, if you're
reading, I'd be interested to know whether you think the coming of Christ
into the world was uniquely for man, and if so why, when the algorithm
that
got us here according to evolutionary thought is so impersonal
(referencing
Dennet's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea pages 42 through 60.)
So if the gentle reader (I'm not addressing Tom specifically from this
point) believes that man is not special, is a bit of an accident,
There is an element of chance in the history of everything.
a freak of
the algorithm, can you really square this idea with your whole inner
being,
your secret identity, your thoughts, your ideas, your hopes, your loves,
your understandings?
Absolutely. I need to base my worldview on evidence, not wishful thinking.
This that you have, and you see other man and women
have, it is so unlike anything that other animals have. We talk of chimps
and dolphins being brighter than some other animals, but the difference
between a chimp or a dolphin and an octopus is not probably not as great
as
between a bonobo chimp, with its 95% or whatever DNA similarity and a
perticipant in this discussion, as far as intelligent and sapient world
view
goes. Why? Why didn't any more evolve?
They *are* evolving. It is possible that one of the species you mentioned
will be the ancestor of a fully sentient species sometime in the future.
That humans got there before them could simply be a matter of luck. Mammals
have been around for about 100 million years and modern humans for only a
few tens of thousands of years. If a descendant of dolphins becomes sentient
in, say, a hundred thousand years from now, so what?
WHY didn't any demonstrably come from
other planets,
Maybe they did? Maybe it will turn out that interstellar space travel will
always be limited to speeds below the speed of light severely limiting
interstellar space travel?
when you say there are so many planets and so much available
time? Why haven't we been visited by people from the future telling us to
discard the silly religions?
Maybe we have?
You can't answer these questions, and
actually you should be able to answer them, for you to be certain your
world
view is correct. Mine certainly doesn't have such gaping holes in it.
No, your worldview has no such difficulty, does it?
The reason you are here on this planet, whether you like it or not, is to
accept Christ on FAITH. That means no man, even if he has faith that
simply
knows Christ is Lord, and wholly trusts him very waking moment and in his
dreams as well, is able to prove to you the truth about this world in such
a
way that you will believe the truth by logical persuasion, by peer
pressure,
and the like. There were times in the past when peer pressure existed to
believe a form of Christianity, with the result that things went totally
wrong and the Church became a power block, ran by a blasphemous office,
and
was Antichrist for a thousand years. Soon the form of Christianity that
people were to believe became a works religion, and that is the essence of
Antichrist. And Roman catholicism is not out of the woods yet by a long
chalk, although it has it's positive sides also. They are still mainly
playing the works game, and that doesn't work.
I have now probably given one of the most comprehensive, though highly
summarised arguments as to what my position is and why we are not going to
persuade one another by logic.
I was hoping that evidence would do the trick.
The just shall live by faith. That means - no
proof. No science of Creation. Only if you hear the voice of God saying,
'maybe what he's saying is true, then ask God saying as one Man said to
Christ 'O Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief!' and read the Bible,
especially about Christ and about faith. These things are absolutely
crucial. The Cross is crucial, that's why the word crucial exists, it
refers
to the Cross. God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of Christ,
through which the world is crucified unto me, and I, unto the world.
I'm not asking you to join my Church, where I go is independent anyway and
all the services are in Polish. Or even any Church. One time I didn't go
for
seven years. It's good to go, but sometimes we are more strengthened
alone,
sometimes we go to the promised land via a wilderness. Nor do I want your
money. Give it to the poor or keep it for whatever you need it for, if
giving it away is a problem. I'm asking you to understand the most
important
thing in life, and that is WHY we are here, and what Jesus did and why,
and
to cleave to Him and obtain great blessings from Him, and be to the praise
of His glory.
Now unto Him that is the triune Holy God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the
Creator of all, the Redeemer, the Good Shepherd of the sheep, the Almighty
Lord of Hosts who is One LORD worthy of the love of all our hearts and all
our minds and all that is in us, the only Wise God, to him be G L O R Y,
H
O N O U R, D O M I N I O N and P O W E R unrivalled and unsurpassed in
everlasting eternity, and may he call from among you such as He Himself
would have with Him, for His own name's sake.
Amen.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "eyelessgame" |
|
| Title: Re: This didn't get through earlier, so I'm sending again... |
04 Jan 2004 01:51:10 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<bt804s$6r4$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are the
functional things, like the lights in the sky.
"Functional". Heh. What was the function of SN1987A?
The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and the
ensuing tectonics.
No, they're not; no flood and no tectonics would arrange them in the
way they are arranged. Fossils, like the rocks in which they're
embedded and the DNA in the cells of their apparent descendents, tell
a consistent *history* that does not include a global flood.
The age, and origin, and history of the Universe, the Earth, and life
on Earth are written in the spectra of light from the stars, in the
isotope ratios of the rocks beneath our feet, and in the DNA of the
cells within our bodies. If you believe God wrote this story instead
of letting it happen, then so be it; but don't pretend the story isn't
there, for you then show contempt for the Creation whose Creator you
say you worship.
God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major religions of
the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how he made
the world.
Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
Not just a bit, but exactly. There need be no conflict between
omphalos creationists and mainstream science, and to the extent there
is it's because the omphalos creationist dishonestly shies away from
the implications of his claim-of-convenience. To the honest omphalos
creationist, the apparent history of the universe and earth and life
is not a "lie", it is a *fiction* -- but only if the universe was
created "mature" IN EVERY DETAIL.
An analogy. There is no conflict, for many religious people, in seeing
the fortuitous hand of God in many events for which there is *also* a
mundane explanation. A thunderstorm may postpone a trip and turn out
to have some fortuitous side effect, and this is attributed to God,
but few people would deny the science of meteorology. If God created
the universe as a creationist would say, he did so in a way that *also
presents a non-supernatural explanation*, whether you accept the
non-supernatural explanation or not.
Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good one, so they
say.
I am not an accountant, but I am a computer programmer, and a good
one, so they say. So I should trust my convictions on taxes instead
of believing what accountants say, if my convictions on taxes are
religiously based?
A distrust of science coupled with ignorance of science is simple
stupid arrogance.
Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history actually to
run its lengthy course?
Indeed. You may think so if you like. You may equivalently think
that all history up to your own birth was a fiction, as a solipsist
does. But to pretend the history *isn't there* is insanity and
willful disregard of reality -- it is a lie.
The Universal Balance Sheet balances at all times
anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start the real
action when Man starts on the scene.
Perhaps god is more important than Man, and has other interests
besides Us. Does this enter into your equation, | |
