| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Dr Tam" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2005 10:02:18 PM |
| Object: |
Creation |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4408187.stm
A European team claims to have obtained the first direct image of a planet
beyond our own Solar System.
The "extrasolar planet" is said to orbit a star called GQ Lup - thought to
be like a young version of our Sun.
Similar claims have been made in the past, but sceptical scientists believe
the pictures merely show objects that share the same view in the sky.
The GQ Lup object is far more certain claims Ralph Neuhaeuser's team in the
journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.
GQ Lup and its companion are located in a star-forming region about 400
light-years away.
Dr Tam
.
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 09:06:32 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 22:54:39 +0100, while wishing I
would go away, Jochen Lueg <jl@argonet.co.uk> said:
In article <o5lg51hfa6046ghptldd5jb7kqssn3tl8s@4ax.com>,
Life does not come from non-life, all by itself.
There is no evidence one way or the other
Yes, there is. It is well known in science. But the
contradiction never bothers you people.
This is non-sense. Why do you make statements without any proof at all?
Please stop. My stomach can't take any more laughing.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jochen Lueg" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 08:33:21 AM |
|
|
In article <6mci511lhjg6hbuidpftqaa82prsni9vld@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
This is non-sense. Why do you make statements without any proof at all?
Please stop. My stomach can't take any more laughing.
I finally get it. You spend your time laughing without any particular
reason and hence can't give any intelligent replies.
Fair enough little one, giggle some more.
Jochen
--
------------------------------------
Try:
http://www.binevenagh.com
for some local history, photographs and laughs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 02:49:47 PM |
|
|
In article <6mci511lhjg6hbuidpftqaa82prsni9vld@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 22:54:39 +0100, while wishing I
would go away, Jochen Lueg <jl@argonet.co.uk> said:
In article <o5lg51hfa6046ghptldd5jb7kqssn3tl8s@4ax.com>,
Life does not come from non-life, all by itself.
There is no evidence one way or the other
Yes, there is. It is well known in science. But the
contradiction never bothers you people.
This is non-sense. Why do you make statements without any proof at all?
Please stop. My stomach can't take any more laughing.
Hysteria is not evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chuckie R. Cash" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 11:22:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 22:19:17 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
There is no evidence one way or the other
Yes, there is. It is well known in science. But the
contradiction never bothers you people.
As you are so knowledgeable on the subject, perhaps you might be
willing to cite some academic references to back up your statements?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 01:45:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:22:05 +0100, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Chuckie R. Cash
<chuckie.r@cash.flow> spake thusly:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 22:19:17 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
There is no evidence one way or the other
Yes, there is. It is well known in science. But the
contradiction never bothers you people.
As you are so knowledgeable on the subject, perhaps you might be
willing to cite some academic references to back up your statements?
You want me to post references that biogenesis is
reality and that abiogenesis never been observed?
Surely you jest.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 05:26:08 PM |
|
|
In article <hm5o51t1js6erta1vldkvcmchfvvgejh9r@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
You want me to post references that biogenesis is
reality and that abiogenesis never been observed?
Surely you jest.
You imply, without evidence, that abiogenesis has never occured and
cannot occur.
If so then there is no life in the universe.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 04:38:36 PM |
|
|
In article <hm5o51t1js6erta1vldkvcmchfvvgejh9r@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
As you are so knowledgeable on the subject, perhaps you might be
willing to cite some academic references to back up your statements?
You want me to post references that biogenesis is
reality and that abiogenesis never been observed?
Surely you jest.
If you claim it, particularly when you claim that no form of naturally
occurring abiogenesis CAN occur, you owe us objective evidence to
support your claims.
Without such evidence, your claims aren't worth the electrons it takes
to post them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 08:26:56 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 23:07:43 +0100, while wishing I
would go away, "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com> said:
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a8kg51hmre1besog6hk47fa983010qufnt@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:20:53 +0100, while wishing I
It is very unlikely that Pastor Dave is going to acknowlege that God
created
a universe running purely on the natural laws that He devised, which
enabled
worlds and life to come into existence.
Life does not come from non-life, all by itself.
There is no evidence one way or the other
Yes, there is. It is well known in science. But the
contradiction never bothers you people.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
For a formal debate the premises must be clearly defined to the satisfaction of both parties. At the heart of creationists argue ments is God. Define God to the satisfaction of your opponents. All the accepted authorities in the major religous sects, maintain that God is unknowable. Shall you debate that which is unknowable? If you argue with a fool, it only proves there are two fools. Perhaps, I just did.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 04:05:49 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 23:07:43 +0100, while wishing I
would go away, "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com> said:
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a8kg51hmre1besog6hk47fa983010qufnt@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:20:53 +0100, while wishing I
It is very unlikely that Pastor Dave is going to acknowlege that God
created
a universe running purely on the natural laws that He devised, which
enabled
worlds and life to come into existence.
Life does not come from non-life, all by itself.
There is no evidence one way or the other
Yes, there is. It is well known in science. But the
contradiction never bothers you people.
We don't know exactly how it happened yet .... but we're getting close
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 10:26:32 AM |
|
|
Scríobh "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com>:
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a8kg51hmre1besog6hk47fa983010qufnt@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:20:53 +0100, while wishing I
It is very unlikely that Pastor Dave is going to acknowlege that God
created
a universe running purely on the natural laws that He devised, which
enabled
worlds and life to come into existence.
Life does not come from non-life, all by itself.
There is no evidence one way or the other
This is incorrect. There is evidence life can arise.
- but I would be wary of limiting
the power and providence of an all-powerful deity in that manner. The God
who can raise sons of Abraham from the stones beneath our feet can create
life from non-life in any way he wishes.
Evolution does not, naturally, deal with the origin of life. It's the origin
of species which concerns it.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turlough" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 10:40:14 AM |
|
|
Féachadóir wrote:
Life does not come from non-life, all by itself.
There is no evidence one way or the other
This is incorrect. There is evidence life can arise.
What is your example? Seeds and organisms in suspended or dormant states
are not examples, neither are things that were previously alive. Shoot...
Turlough
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
13 Apr 2005 01:49:40 PM |
|
|
In article Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net> writes:
Féachadóir wrote:
Evolution (micro or macro) is the change of allele frequencies over
time. The only difference between macro and micro evolution is time.
Changes in allele frequencies have been observed. If you don't
believe me, ask any doctor about penicillen resistant bacteria.
Allele frequencies, genetic variations are normal and illustrate micro
ev. Shake up the nucleotides and you can rearrange the genetic code,
resulting in variations of... the *same species.*
Or ask yourself how a bug can exist that survives by eating nylon, and
*only* nylon, when nylon didn't exist a century ago.
Because, natural adaptation is a function of *micro-evolution.*
Macro evolution is a fact.
Facts are observable in science, or at least exact results are
demonstrated each time an experiment is conducted under the same
conditions, etc. Macro Evolution is not a fact, because it has *never*
been observed in science. What has been observed in science is micro ev,
where genetic variations and natural adaptations have taken place. The
simple difference is, at the end of the day, a rabbit with blue eyes
that gives birth to rabbits with black eyes, has still given birth to
the same species. Macro Ev would certainly be proven, if those newly
born rabbits had sprouted wings, for example, *and* as definitive proof,
succeeding generations continued producing this trait or formation. In
the first case, DNA was made up of the same material, simply
re-arranged. In the second case, Material had to be *added* to the
rabbit DNA to produce the wings, thus, the evolved new species.
There's a very nice series of fossils which demonstrate the gradual
migration of bones in the jaws of reptiles to form the auditory
impedence-matching set found in the ears of mammals. This sort
of "new" structure doesn't rquire a whole new set of genes devoted
to building a new organ; it merely requires modification of the
timing of the genes which direct development. A new organ
can arise by the modification of an existing structure -- or
a duplication, followed by modification, of an existing thingie.
There's not a huge gap between the generic arhropod and the millipede;
primarily a copying stutter in the hox genes.
IMO, the obstacles to Macro proof ie., the absence of transitional
fossils, interdependencies (life forms that need other life forms to
survive), and trait dependencies (legs or wings, for example, the
absence of which that would render the species unable to feed, hunt, or
escape) may be explained away or at least rationalized. The real
stumbling block is DNA. DNA has a finite composition for each species.
It can be juggled around for variation and adaptational reasons, but the
resulting article is not a new species. To obtain a new species, as
might be attempted in a lab, new genetic material must be added to the
composition. This does not occur in nature, nor does it occur anywhere
along the route of micro evolution. A rose, is a rose, is a rose...
Actually, "new" genetic material is frequently added. "Genetic
recruitment" is one mechanism, of several: an existing gene
is "accidentally" copied twice, a common mistake. If the second
copy then mutates, you have an organism which makes both the
original protein it always made, but which may now make an
additional, and new, protein as well.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 10:44:10 AM |
|
|
Scríobh Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net>:
Féachadóir wrote:
Life does not come from non-life, all by itself.
There is no evidence one way or the other
This is incorrect. There is evidence life can arise.
What is your example?
You are. You exist. Life did not always exist, and now exists,
therefore life must have arisen.
Seeds and organisms in suspended or dormant states
are not examples, neither are things that were previously alive. Shoot...
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turlough" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 11:06:59 AM |
|
|
Féachadóir wrote:
This is incorrect. There is evidence life can arise.
What is your example?
You are. You exist. Life did not always exist, and now exists,
therefore life must have arisen.
How is that life from non life? My life rose from the lives of two
others. Pastor Dave is contending that life may not arise from an
inanimate object. The real question that evolutionists must answer is,
that of the origin of consciousness. That's where creationists point to
God and the immortal soul, and evolutionists go back to their drawing
boards...
Turlough
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 01:06:12 PM |
|
|
"Turlough" <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:m9idnQOkKZG20sTfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
Féachadóir wrote:
This is incorrect. There is evidence life can arise.
What is your example?
You are. You exist. Life did not always exist, and now exists,
therefore life must have arisen.
How is that life from non life? My life rose from the lives of two
others. Pastor Dave is contending that life may not arise from an
inanimate object. The real question that evolutionists must answer is,
that of the origin of consciousness. That's where creationists point to
God and the immortal soul, and evolutionists go back to their drawing
boards...
The ultimate origin of life and the evolution of life from the original form
are different questions. Most believers in evolution think that life arose
from non-living matter, but if God decided to introduce a single
cell/virus/strand of DNA and let evolution happen, then that wouldn't effect
evolutionary theory at all.
The reason to suppose that life arose from non-life is that we can clearly
see from the fossil record that at one point there was life, and a little
bit earlier there wasn't - or at least, none that has left any trace. Go
back a bit further and we have a planet that couldn't support any form of
life that we can imagine.
From the point of view of the sceptic, there are plenty of physical
processes that could allow life to be spontaneously created from non-living
matter. Living things convert air, water and sunlight into living matter all
the time, so we know it's possible. The boundaries are not as sharp as one
might suppose. At the level of a virus, it isn't obvious whether we are
dealing with a living thing.
From the religious/philosophical point of view, it seems to be unnecessary
for God to create a universe, and then to come back to tinker with it later.
I can't understand religious people explaining how God would find it
impossible to create a universe where life arises spontaneously. God does
difficult things, that's why they pay him the big bucks. If I were designing
a universe, I'd make it as self-sufficient as possible, because that's good
workmanship. Having to come back a few billion years after the big bang
would be an afterthought - a bit sloppy.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 06:36:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:06:12 +0100, "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Turlough" <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:m9idnQOkKZG20sTfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
Féachadóir wrote:
This is incorrect. There is evidence life can arise.
What is your example?
You are. You exist. Life did not always exist, and now exists,
therefore life must have arisen.
How is that life from non life? My life rose from the lives of two
others. Pastor Dave is contending that life may not arise from an
inanimate object. The real question that evolutionists must answer is,
that of the origin of consciousness. That's where creationists point to
God and the immortal soul, and evolutionists go back to their drawing
boards...
The ultimate origin of life and the evolution of life from the original form
are different questions. Most believers in evolution think that life arose
from non-living matter, but if God decided to introduce a single
cell/virus/strand of DNA and let evolution happen, then that wouldn't effect
evolutionary theory at all.
The reason to suppose that life arose from non-life is that we can clearly
see from the fossil record that at one point there was life, and a little
bit earlier there wasn't - or at least, none that has left any trace. Go
back a bit further and we have a planet that couldn't support any form of
life that we can imagine.
From the point of view of the sceptic, there are plenty of physical
processes that could allow life to be spontaneously created from non-living
matter. Living things convert air, water and sunlight into living matter all
the time, so we know it's possible. The boundaries are not as sharp as one
might suppose. At the level of a virus, it isn't obvious whether we are
dealing with a living thing.
From the religious/philosophical point of view, it seems to be unnecessary
for God to create a universe, and then to come back to tinker with it later.
I can't understand religious people explaining how God would find it
impossible to create a universe where life arises spontaneously. God does
difficult things, that's why they pay him the big bucks. If I were designing
a universe, I'd make it as self-sufficient as possible, because that's good
workmanship. Having to come back a few billion years after the big bang
would be an afterthought - a bit sloppy.
For once I agree entirely. The issue here is Pastor Dave's adherence
to the literal meaning of the words in his family Bible. To my mind,
clearly, assuming the existence of God for the sake of argument, God
would speak/send messages to us in a manner that we could understand.
Plainly "Gods" "worldview" is much vaster than ours and, I would
suggest, we are not capable of seeing all of it. Human understanding,
though, has progressed significantly in the last 2000 years and its
Pastor Dave's inability to grasp the consequences of that fact thats
leading to the debate we're having with him right now.
PCB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
10 Apr 2005 09:38:38 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:36:12 +1200, while wishing I
would go away, Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz>
said:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:06:12 +0100, "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Turlough" <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:m9idnQOkKZG20sTfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
Féachadóir wrote:
This is incorrect. There is evidence life can arise.
What is your example?
You are. You exist. Life did not always exist, and now exists,
therefore life must have arisen.
How is that life from non life? My life rose from the lives of two
others. Pastor Dave is contending that life may not arise from an
inanimate object. The real question that evolutionists must answer is,
that of the origin of consciousness. That's where creationists point to
God and the immortal soul, and evolutionists go back to their drawing
boards...
The ultimate origin of life and the evolution of life from the original form
are different questions. Most believers in evolution think that life arose
from non-living matter, but if God decided to introduce a single
cell/virus/strand of DNA and let evolution happen, then that wouldn't effect
evolutionary theory at all.
The reason to suppose that life arose from non-life is that we can clearly
see from the fossil record that at one point there was life, and a little
bit earlier there wasn't - or at least, none that has left any trace. Go
back a bit further and we have a planet that couldn't support any form of
life that we can imagine.
From the point of view of the sceptic, there are plenty of physical
processes that could allow life to be spontaneously created from non-living
matter. Living things convert air, water and sunlight into living matter all
the time, so we know it's possible. The boundaries are not as sharp as one
might suppose. At the level of a virus, it isn't obvious whether we are
dealing with a living thing.
From the religious/philosophical point of view, it seems to be unnecessary
for God to create a universe, and then to come back to tinker with it later.
I can't understand religious people explaining how God would find it
impossible to create a universe where life arises spontaneously. God does
difficult things, that's why they pay him the big bucks. If I were designing
a universe, I'd make it as self-sufficient as possible, because that's good
workmanship. Having to come back a few billion years after the big bang
would be an afterthought - a bit sloppy.
For once I agree entirely. The issue here is Pastor Dave's adherence
to the literal meaning of the words in his family Bible.
No son, the issue here is that life does not come from
non-living matter, all by itself. YOU PEOPLE raised
the issue of the Bible, not I.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
11 Apr 2005 12:06:47 AM |
|
|
In article <fnoj51d5fuedlhp55bletfpel4pme4o0me@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
YOU PEOPLE raised
the issue of the Bible, not I.
Those who live by the Bible have to defend it. What is your take on it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
11 Apr 2005 04:02:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 02:38:38 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:36:12 +1200, while wishing I
would go away, Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz>
said:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:06:12 +0100, "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Turlough" <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:m9idnQOkKZG20sTfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
Féachadóir wrote:
This is incorrect. There is evidence life can arise.
What is your example?
You are. You exist. Life did not always exist, and now exists,
therefore life must have arisen.
How is that life from non life? My life rose from the lives of two
others. Pastor Dave is contending that life may not arise from an
inanimate object. The real question that evolutionists must answer is,
that of the origin of consciousness. That's where creationists point to
God and the immortal soul, and evolutionists go back to their drawing
boards...
The ultimate origin of life and the evolution of life from the original form
are different questions. Most believers in evolution think that life arose
from non-living matter, but if God decided to introduce a single
cell/virus/strand of DNA and let evolution happen, then that wouldn't effect
evolutionary theory at all.
The reason to suppose that life arose from non-life is that we can clearly
see from the fossil record that at one point there was life, and a little
bit earlier there wasn't - or at least, none that has left any trace. Go
back a bit further and we have a planet that couldn't support any form of
life that we can imagine.
From the point of view of the sceptic, there are plenty of physical
processes that could allow life to be spontaneously created from non-living
matter. Living things convert air, water and sunlight into living matter all
the time, so we know it's possible. The boundaries are not as sharp as one
might suppose. At the level of a virus, it isn't obvious whether we are
dealing with a living thing.
From the religious/philosophical point of view, it seems to be unnecessary
for God to create a universe, and then to come back to tinker with it later.
I can't understand religious people explaining how God would find it
impossible to create a universe where life arises spontaneously. God does
difficult things, that's why they pay him the big bucks. If I were designing
a universe, I'd make it as self-sufficient as possible, because that's good
workmanship. Having to come back a few billion years after the big bang
would be an afterthought - a bit sloppy.
For once I agree entirely. The issue here is Pastor Dave's adherence
to the literal meaning of the words in his family Bible.
No son,
I'm 37. Don't stoop to being patronising in an attempt to dodge the
hard questions.
the issue here is that life does not come from
non-living matter, all by itself. YOU PEOPLE raised
the issue of the Bible, not I.
*You* have said, in this newsgroup that you believe the Universe was
created in, literally, a week. That is Biblical in origin. It is quite
reasonable for us to call you on it.
PCB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
11 Apr 2005 05:17:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:02:11 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
For once I agree entirely. The issue here is Pastor Dave's adherence
to the literal meaning of the words in his family Bible.
No son,
I'm 37. Don't stoop to being patronising in an attempt to dodge the
hard questions.
You are a liar. YOU brought up the Bible in a
scientific discussion, NOT I.
the issue here is that life does not come from
non-living matter, all by itself. YOU PEOPLE raised
the issue of the Bible, not I.
*You* have said, in this newsgroup that you believe the Universe was
created in, literally, a week. That is Biblical in origin. It is quite
reasonable for us to call you on it.
It is only proper once you answer to the problem
already presented before that. We both know why you're
ignoring the issue and we both know why you're ignoring
the part when I said I believe it by faith and could
not demonstrate a 7 day creation scientifically. What
you fail to admit, is that you cannot support the idea
SCIENTIFICALLY that life arose from non-living matter,
all by itself, even though you call it SCIENCE.
This is the last time I will respond to you, unless you
start being honest.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
11 Apr 2005 08:09:29 PM |
|
|
In article <8otl51tob845r4rv6ug5v5jfoqltqi7vrg@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
What
you fail to admit, is that you cannot support the idea
SCIENTIFICALLY that life arose from non-living matter,
all by itself, even though you call it SCIENCE.
We can support the notions
(1) that the hypothesis that life arose from non-living matter has not
been scientifically falsified, and
(2) that it is the scientific hypothesis that best accords with all the
available scientific evidence.
No scientist will reject a scientific hypothesis unless either
(a) it has been falsified by scientific observations that could not
occur if it were true , OR
(b) there is a scientific hypothesis that better fits to the evidence
available, OR
(c) there is a simpler scientific hypothesis which fitls the evidence
available as well (Occam's Razor).
What scientifically valid reasons can Pastor Dave put forward why the
scientific hypothesis that life arose naturally from non-living matter
should be rejected?
Unless PD can do so, why should science reject the best it has for
anything so anti-science as IDiocy or Creatinism.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 01:44:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:17:56 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:02:11 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
For once I agree entirely. The issue here is Pastor Dave's adherence
to the literal meaning of the words in his family Bible.
No son,
I'm 37. Don't stoop to being patronising in an attempt to dodge the
hard questions.
You are a liar.
Where did I lie. I challenge you to quote it...whilst you're doing it
remember:
Exodus 20:16
Thou shalt not bear false witness..
YOU brought up the Bible in a
scientific discussion, NOT I.
So?
Did Noah discover New Zealand so that he may rescue the native flora
and fauna of New Zealand or not?
the issue here is that life does not come from
non-living matter, all by itself. YOU PEOPLE raised
the issue of the Bible, not I.
*You* have said, in this newsgroup that you believe the Universe was
created in, literally, a week. That is Biblical in origin. It is quite
reasonable for us to call you on it.
It is only proper once you answer to the problem
already presented before that.
Why is that the case?
We both know why you're ignoring the issue
I'm not ignoring it. Tomorrow, I'm going to consult a professional
astronomer and get his/her take on your question.
and we both know why you're ignoring
the part
We "both know" nothing of the sort...
when I said I believe it by faith and could
not demonstrate a 7 day creation scientifically.
I accept that you believe this by faith...I however am suggesting that
this is factually incorrect...I would go on to say that no matter how
strongly one believes something that belief does nothing to make it
more or less factual.
What you fail to admit, is that you cannot support the idea
SCIENTIFICALLY that life arose from non-living matter,
Errr...I've posted a link indicating that exactly this has happened...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
all by itself, even though you call it SCIENCE.
Science provides theories. Theories stand as explanation until
counter-examples are found...when there are counter examples are found
they are investigated to see if they are indeed in conflict with
current theory...if the investigation finds that they are then the
theory gets reworked...thats Science...
This is the last time I will respond to you, unless you
start being honest.
In what way am I being dishonest?
Please feel completely free to quote me.
<laughter>
So you can't answer my question about Noah then?
You're not doing a very good job of defending a literal interpretation
of the Bible...what is God going to say to you when you stand before
him explaining why you couldn't tell someone whether Noah discovered
New Zealand or not?
Its a *very* simple question...did he or didn't he?
PCB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 10:07:24 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:44:14 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:17:56 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:02:11 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
For once I agree entirely. The issue here is Pastor Dave's adherence
to the literal meaning of the words in his family Bible.
No son,
I'm 37. Don't stoop to being patronising in an attempt to dodge the
hard questions.
You are a liar.
Where did I lie. I challenge you to quote it...whilst you're doing it
remember:
Exodus 20:16
Thou shalt not bear false witness..
YOU brought up the Bible in a
scientific discussion, NOT I.
So?
Did Noah discover New Zealand so that he may rescue the native flora
and fauna of New Zealand or not?
the issue here is that life does not come from
non-living matter, all by itself. YOU PEOPLE raised
the issue of the Bible, not I.
*You* have said, in this newsgroup that you believe the Universe was
created in, literally, a week. That is Biblical in origin. It is quite
reasonable for us to call you on it.
It is only proper once you answer to the problem
already presented before that.
Why is that the case?
We both know why you're ignoring the issue
I'm not ignoring it. Tomorrow, I'm going to consult a professional
astronomer and get his/her take on your question.
and we both know why you're ignoring
the part
We "both know" nothing of the sort...
when I said I believe it by faith and could
not demonstrate a 7 day creation scientifically.
I accept that you believe this by faith...I however am suggesting that
this is factually incorrect...I would go on to say that no matter how
strongly one believes something that belief does nothing to make it
more or less factual.
What you fail to admit, is that you cannot support the idea
SCIENTIFICALLY that life arose from non-living matter,
Errr...I've posted a link indicating that exactly this has happened...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
all by itself, even though you call it SCIENCE.
Science provides theories. Theories stand as explanation until
counter-examples are found...when there are counter examples are found
they are investigated to see if they are indeed in conflict with
current theory...if the investigation finds that they are then the
theory gets reworked...thats Science...
This is the last time I will respond to you, unless you
start being honest.
In what way am I being dishonest?
Please feel completely free to quote me.
<laughter>
So you can't answer my question about Noah then?
You're not doing a very good job of defending a literal interpretation
of the Bible...what is God going to say to you when you stand before
him explaining why you couldn't tell someone whether Noah discovered
New Zealand or not?
Its a *very* simple question...did he or didn't he?
That's it. Goodbye.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "T N Nurse" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 10:18:08 AM |
|
|
In article <0von51tgmdgfi5q6vrbvn0d334ki6aodsq@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:44:14 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:17:56 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
all by itself, even though you call it SCIENCE.
Science provides theories. Theories stand as explanation until
counter-examples are found...when there are counter examples are found
they are investigated to see if they are indeed in conflict with
current theory...if the investigation finds that they are then the
theory gets reworked...thats Science...
This is the last time I will respond to you, unless you
start being honest.
In what way am I being dishonest?
Please feel completely free to quote me.
<laughter>
So you can't answer my question about Noah then?
You're not doing a very good job of defending a literal interpretation
of the Bible...what is God going to say to you when you stand before
him explaining why you couldn't tell someone whether Noah discovered
New Zealand or not?
Its a *very* simple question...did he or didn't he?
That's it. Goodbye.
That Noah question is a killer, isn't it? Best to get out whilst you're
behind.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 05:06:54 PM |
|
|
In article <0von51tgmdgfi5q6vrbvn0d334ki6aodsq@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
You're not doing a very good job of defending a literal interpretation
of the Bible...what is God going to say to you when you stand before
him explaining why you couldn't tell someone whether Noah discovered
New Zealand or not?
Its a *very* simple question...did he or didn't he?
That's it. Goodbye.
Can't answer?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 03:55:30 PM |
|
|
In article <0von51tgmdgfi5q6vrbvn0d334ki6aodsq@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
You're not doing a very good job of defending a literal interpretation
of the Bible...what is God going to say to you when you stand before
him explaining why you couldn't tell someone whether Noah discovered
New Zealand or not?
Its a *very* simple question...did he or didn't he?
That's it. Goodbye.
Promises, promises,...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 02:12:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:07:24 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:44:14 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:17:56 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:02:11 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
For once I agree entirely. The issue here is Pastor Dave's adherence
to the literal meaning of the words in his family Bible.
No son,
I'm 37. Don't stoop to being patronising in an attempt to dodge the
hard questions.
You are a liar.
Where did I lie. I challenge you to quote it...whilst you're doing it
remember:
Exodus 20:16
Thou shalt not bear false witness..
YOU brought up the Bible in a
scientific discussion, NOT I.
So?
Did Noah discover New Zealand so that he may rescue the native flora
and fauna of New Zealand or not?
the issue here is that life does not come from
non-living matter, all by itself. YOU PEOPLE raised
the issue of the Bible, not I.
*You* have said, in this newsgroup that you believe the Universe was
created in, literally, a week. That is Biblical in origin. It is quite
reasonable for us to call you on it.
It is only proper once you answer to the problem
already presented before that.
Why is that the case?
We both know why you're ignoring the issue
I'm not ignoring it. Tomorrow, I'm going to consult a professional
astronomer and get his/her take on your question.
and we both know why you're ignoring
the part
We "both know" nothing of the sort...
when I said I believe it by faith and could
not demonstrate a 7 day creation scientifically.
I accept that you believe this by faith...I however am suggesting that
this is factually incorrect...I would go on to say that no matter how
strongly one believes something that belief does nothing to make it
more or less factual.
What you fail to admit, is that you cannot support the idea
SCIENTIFICALLY that life arose from non-living matter,
Errr...I've posted a link indicating that exactly this has happened...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
all by itself, even though you call it SCIENCE.
Science provides theories. Theories stand as explanation until
counter-examples are found...when there are counter examples are found
they are investigated to see if they are indeed in conflict with
current theory...if the investigation finds that they are then the
theory gets reworked...thats Science...
This is the last time I will respond to you, unless you
start being honest.
In what way am I being dishonest?
Please feel completely free to quote me.
<laughter>
So you can't answer my question about Noah then?
You're not doing a very good job of defending a literal interpretation
of the Bible...what is God going to say to you when you stand before
him explaining why you couldn't tell someone whether Noah discovered
New Zealand or not?
Its a *very* simple question...did he or didn't he?
That's it. Goodbye.
So you can't answer the question then?
In the absense of further debate I claim victory.
I am right and Dave is wrong.
Come on Dave...come on down...have the strength of your
convictions...answer the question.
Did Noah discover New Zealand in order to save the native flora and
fauna here or not?
PCB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chuckie R. Cash" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 11:24:59 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:07:24 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
That's it. Goodbye.
Can't take the heat, eh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 11:43:35 AM |
|
|
"Chuckie R. Cash" <chuckie.r@cash.flow> wrote in message
news:nhtn51ll716d3ksfqndmlo9p99upnnmgsk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:07:24 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
That's it. Goodbye.
Can't take the heat, eh?
Imagine asking Dave to dinner. He'd get upset over the soup course, jump up
to get his coat, and he'd still be in the hall long after everyone else had
gone home. These are goodbyes on a Sinatra scale.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 12:40:34 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:36:12 +1200, while wishing I
would go away, Post Colonial Boy <mimir@iconz.co.nz>
said:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:06:12 +0100, "westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Turlough" <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:m9idnQOkKZG20sTfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
Féachadóir wrote:
This is incorrect. There is evidence life can arise.
What is your example?
You are. You exist. Life did not always exist, and now exists,
therefore life must have arisen.
How is that life from non life? My life rose from the lives of two
others. Pastor Dave is contending that life may not arise from an
inanimate object. The real question that evolutionists must answer is,
that of the origin of consciousness. That's where creationists point to
God and the immortal soul, and evolutionists go back to their drawing
boards...
The ultimate origin of life and the evolution of life from the original form
are different questions. Most believers in evolution think that life arose
from non-living matter, but if God decided to introduce a single
cell/virus/strand of DNA and let evolution happen, then that wouldn't effect
evolutionary theory at all.
The reason to suppose that life arose from non-life is that we can clearly
see from the fossil record that at one point there was life, and a little
bit earlier there wasn't - or at least, none that has left any trace. Go
back a bit further and we have a planet that couldn't support any form of
life that we can imagine.
From the point of view of the sceptic, there are plenty of physical
processes that could allow life to be spontaneously created from non-living
matter. Living things convert air, water and sunlight into living matter all
the time, so we know it's possible. The boundaries are not as sharp as one
might suppose. At the level of a virus, it isn't obvious whether we are
dealing with a living thing.
From the religious/philosophical point of view, it seems to be unnecessary
for God to create a universe, and then to come back to tinker with it later.
I can't understand religious people explaining how God would find it
impossible to create a universe where life arises spontaneously. God does
difficult things, that's why they pay him the big bucks. If I were designing
a universe, I'd make it as self-sufficient as possible, because that's good
workmanship. Having to come back a few billion years after the big bang
would be an afterthought - a bit sloppy.
For once I agree entirely. The issue here is Pastor Dave's adherence
to the literal meaning of the words in his family Bible.
No son, the issue here is that life does not come from
non-living matter, all by itself. YOU PEOPLE raised
the issue of the Bible, not I.
You *do* raise the issue all the time. I've read the whole thread.
BTW, life is only chemistry. Life did not have to wait for us to create
self-replicating molecules.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
