Religions > Bible > Creationism, or as it's often referred to by science: the theory of natural selection
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"John P. Boatwright" |
| Date: |
07 Jun 2005 12:26:13 AM |
| Object: |
Creationism, or as it's often referred to by science: the theory of natural selection |
They LIED to you more than once.
Not only does the theory of Natural Selection allow them
to generate THOUSANDS of FALSE gods: "the river god forming
the species in the river"... but they also are claiming
"creationism" is only if you mention God, but not if you
say the "river god" is forming the species in the river.
See what they've said?
They LIED more than once, two different aspects were LIED about.
1. They generated THOUSANDS of FALSE gods, then claimed
they weren't "gods", yet also:
2. said those "gods" have the power to create or FORM species
Notice what happened?
They LIED in claiming they don't discuss any "gods", then
turned right around, and generated THOUSANDS of them
while again LYING and saying they don't discuss "creationism"
while turning right around and saying the LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
FORMS or CREATES the species.
All the while, YOU then can't mention the ONLY God there
is, and if you do, they claim you're discussing "creationism",
what they're discussing, with THEIR FALSE gods being said
to create or FORM the species.
They said THEY can do what YOU can't do.
They can LIE and say FALSE gods do what God does, but
YOU can't say God does what he does.
You've been had.
You've been DUPED.
Many people bought into it... and it's all a LIE.
They don't know, they're making stuff up as they go along,
and then claiming they're right, and that you can't discuss
the ONLY God there is... only THEY can discuss FALSE gods
of their choosing, claiming those FALSE gods of their choosing
FORM or create... while saying YOU can't discuss God creating.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism, or as it's often referred to by science: the theory of natural selection |
07 Jun 2005 02:59:54 AM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote :
They LIED to you more than once.
And you are deceitfully trying to avoid addressing the points that are
made to you in other threads - hence the need you feel to continue
starting new ones on the same subject.
You have so far failed to reference your preferred definition of natural
selection (that definition which involves 'river gods' and the direct
formation of species by the local environment). In what dictionary or
encyclopaedia can we find it?
Not only does the theory of Natural Selection allow them
to generate THOUSANDS of FALSE gods
There are no gods postulated by the theory of natural selection.
Furthermore, the principle of natural selection does not require that the
Christian God did NOT "do it".
"the river god forming the species in the river"...
You repeatedly make this claim, yet, as I said above, you have not
referenced the definition of natural selection which says this. Please
do so. I have already provided a number of recognised definitions which
you have failed to acknowledge - none of which says what you claim the
principle says. Have the honesty to provide your own definition with
suitable references.
See what they've said?
They have said nothing that bears any resemblance to what you are saying.
You are simply being dishonest in order to protect what has become an
irrational prejudice for you.
1. They generated THOUSANDS of FALSE gods, then claimed
they weren't "gods", yet also:
There are no gods required by natural selection. The so-called "gods" of
evolution exist only in YOUR mind - which in itself is odd for a claimed
monotheist.
They LIED in claiming they don't discuss any "gods"
Then all you need to do, John, is show us where they do. But you cannot,
of course, because you know full well that no gods are discussed, and
that your own God is not denied by natural selection.
Yet you feel, for some reason, that you must protest natural selection as
being 'against God'.
They said THEY can do what YOU can't do.
No-one has said any such thing. In fact I encourage you to discuss your
beliefs - but it appears instead you prefer to scurry away and simply
repeat yourself in new threads.
They don't know, they're making stuff up as they go along,
and then claiming they're right, and that you can't discuss
the ONLY God there is... only THEY can discuss FALSE gods
of their choosing, claiming those FALSE gods of their choosing
FORM or create... while saying YOU can't discuss God creating.
You're the one placing restrictions on your God, John - not science. You
object to evolution only because of your personal insistence that He
cannot have done it that way - yet you happily try to tell us that in
every other respect the Bible has already proved what science is
discovering. But for evolution alone you've a distaste that leads you to
deny it outright, and create straw man arguments to attack.
Why, I wonder?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism, or as it's often referred to by science: the theory of natural selection |
07 Jun 2005 08:26:21 PM |
|
|
Midjis wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote :
They LIED to you more than once.
And you are deceitfully trying to avoid addressing the points that are
made to you in other threads - hence the need you feel to continue
starting new ones on the same subject.
I addressed the points, and brought up further ones.
You have AVOIDED this point though, that SCIENCE is saying
they can invent THOUSANDS of creators, FALSE gods of their
choosing, and they can say their own version of CREATIONISM
with those FALSE gods they invented... yet someone else
comes along saying the ONLY God there is, is creating, and
they claim:
"No, no, no... we didn't actually claim our creators
were gods, we just named them 'river' and left out
the 'god' term. And instead of saying creationism,
we say 'forms'... so what about it? We're privilaged
and can deny that we're claiming the same thing
yet also pumping up FALSE gods... so what of it?
You lost in that you kept saying God, and you kept
saying creationism... you should have changed words
like we did... ha ha ha... losers! Uneducated losers!"
In essense, that's what they say.
They DUPED so many people in simply REMOVING the term
'god' while making up FALSE gods.
They DUPED so many people in simply CHANGING the term
'creationism' into the word 'forms'.
They DUPED so many people in removing the term 'god'
by simply using the name of the item they're making
into a god, and then NOT mentioning the term 'god'
while discussing it being such.
They LIED, they DUPED, and they WON.
They can mention their FALSE gods, but you can't mention
the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
They can mention their version of CREATIONISM with their
claimed FALSE gods (while leaving out the term 'god'), but
you can't mention God's version.
You have so far failed to reference your preferred definition of natural
selection (that definition which involves 'river gods' and the direct
formation of species by the local environment). In what dictionary or
encyclopaedia can we find it?
I already posted it:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theory of Natural Selection says: "The river forms the species
in the river".
FALSE gods religion X says: "The river god forms the species
in the river".
---------------------------------------------------------------
The ONLY difference between the FALSE gods religion, and what
science says in the theory of Natural Selection, is that science
intentionally leaves out the term 'gods', yet then claims the
item being such, is doing what a god would do in religion saying
the SAME THING.
They LIED and YOU ate it up.
Not only does the theory of Natural Selection allow them
to generate THOUSANDS of FALSE gods
There are no gods postulated by the theory of natural selection.
See just above, they say the SAME THING. Both science and
religion X claiming false gods do it all, they BOTH say
the SAME THING... they say there is a CREATOR, a river,
forming the species in the river.
LIE TO ME and say it doesn't say that in the theory of Natural
Selection.
Go on... start LYING to prove your point.
It's the SAME THING... sciences version of CREATIONISM is
all they want promoted... with THEIR claimed FALSE gods
creating everything.
"the river forms the species in the river"
NO, it does NOT.
God forms the species in the river.
Furthermore, the principle of natural selection does not require that the
Christian God did NOT "do it".
Yes it does, 'cuz they said the RIVER forms the species in
the river.
God said HE forms the species in the river, and that HE is NOT
the river, or the species.
"the river god forming the species in the river"...
You repeatedly make this claim, yet, as I said above, you have not
referenced the definition of natural selection which says this. Please
do so. I have already provided a number of recognised definitions which
you have failed to acknowledge - none of which says what you claim the
principle says. Have the honesty to provide your own definition with
suitable references.
See above.
Or:
From Websters 2nd College Edition:
---------------------------------------------------------------
natural selection: in evolution, the process by which those
individuals (of a species) with characters that help them
to become adapted to their specific environment tend to
leave more progeny and transmit their characters, while
those less able to become adapted tend to leave
fewer progeny or die out, so that in the course of generations
there is a progressive tendencey in the species to a greater
degree of adaptation: see also Darwinian Theory
----------------------------------------------------------------
See what it said?
Notice the "specific environment", the species is being said
to adapt to that specific environment, what ever it is,
the ocean, the river, etc... and if that river or ocean, etc...
is harsh in some characteristic manner... the weaker ones die...
and the stronger ones are said to live on based on some
character that helps them survive that environment... whatever
that environment is that the characters are better suited
for.
See it?
The LOCAL ENVIRONMENT became a FALSE god, that FORMS the species
in the theory of Natural Selection.
They've tossed out God, and replaced him with FALSE gods, of
their choice... any gods they want to pick and claim did it...
they do so, without ANYONE saying otherwise, even claiming
that God set up those FALSE gods, to do his creation for him.
It's the same old FALSE gods their ancestors taught them,
and they're being taught as if it's the truth.
See what they've said?
They have said nothing that bears any resemblance to what you are saying.
You are simply being dishonest in order to protect what has become an
irrational prejudice for you.
Tell me the difference between these two:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theory of Natural Selection says: "The river forms the species
in the river".
FALSE gods religion X says: "The river god forms the species
in the river".
---------------------------------------------------------------
The ONLY difference is that science left out the 'god' term.
They STILL claim the RIVER is forming the species in the river.
The RIVER is an implied CREATOR, or god in science's claim
of what is creating the species in the theory of Natural
Selection.
1. They generated THOUSANDS of FALSE gods, then claimed
they weren't "gods", yet also:
There are no gods required by natural selection.
See the definition.
The definition claims the ENVIRONMENT is FORMING the species.
That's a LIE... it doesn't happen.
God forms the species.
You're the one placing restrictions on your God, John - not science. You
object to evolution only because of your personal insistence that He
cannot have done it that way - yet you happily try to tell us that in
every other respect the Bible has already proved what science is
discovering. But for evolution alone you've a distaste that leads you to
deny it outright, and create straw man arguments to attack.
Why did Jesus say all the hairs of your head are numbered?
Why didn't he say the environment forms hair, and removes it?
That the numbers of hairs on heads, over all history, is too
much bother for God to worry about... that ONLY the environment
worries about it... making hair, and removing it... that's all
part of the enviroment's job, right? So why's God got them
all, new and old, all hairs numbered?
???
I thought you were insisting that the evironment does it all?
Given this, either Jesus lied, or you and/or science did.
So who is lying?
You tell me.
Jesus said a sparrow does not fall, without God knowing it.
Same thing again... you tell me, WHO lied.
The environment does NOTHING, God creates his creation.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism, or as it's often referred to by science: the theory of natural selection |
08 Jun 2005 02:24:25 AM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote :
You have AVOIDED this point though, that SCIENCE is saying
they can invent THOUSANDS of creators, FALSE gods of their
choosing, and they can say their own version of CREATIONISM
with those FALSE gods they invented...
I rarely resort to simply calling someone a liar, John - but in your case
the cap fits so very well.
Your claim here is simply a lie. I say that because you have been told
time and time again that it is not correct - yet you make no effort to
educate yourself and continue to recite your misconceptions.
The only conclusion is that you are dishonestly trying to pass your
misconceptions off as truth. You are therefore ignorant, in that you do
not understand what you are arguing about, and you are a liar, in that
your fantasies are preferable to you over truth.
yet someone else
comes along saying the ONLY God there is, is creating, and
they claim:
"No, no, no... we didn't actually claim our creators
were gods, we just named them 'river' and left out
the 'god' term. And instead of saying creationism,
we say 'forms'... so what about it? We're privilaged
and can deny that we're claiming the same thing
yet also pumping up FALSE gods... so what of it?
You lost in that you kept saying God, and you kept
saying creationism... you should have changed words
like we did... ha ha ha... losers! Uneducated losers!"
In essense, that's what they say.
Never mind "in essence", John. You have presented this as a quotation.
Please cite the source of this quotation.
They LIED, they DUPED, and they WON.
If they 'won', then why are you still fighting?
The problem here is not some supposed fight between evolution and
religion. It's the eternal battle between education and ignorance. Most
religious people are educated. You, despite your claims of great
knowledge, simply do not understand your subject. That makes you
ignorant. And you refuse to learn but continue to deliberately make
arguments based on your ignorance. That makes you dishonest.
You have so far failed to reference your preferred definition of
natural selection (that definition which involves 'river gods' and
the direct formation of species by the local environment). In what
dictionary or encyclopaedia can we find it?
I already posted it:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theory of Natural Selection says: "The river forms the species
in the river".
FALSE gods religion X says: "The river god forms the species
in the river".
---------------------------------------------------------------
And the source? I have provided several definitions, and given the
source for each, as you demanded. What is the source for this quotations
of yours, John?
There are no gods postulated by the theory of natural selection.
See just above
Irrelevant. Until you cite a source for this definition I must assume
you have fabricated it, since I have never seen a definition of natural
selection that corresponds with what you have written here.
LIE TO ME and say it doesn't say that in the theory of Natural
Selection.
Go on... start LYING to prove your point.
So the dictionary definitions I provided for the term were all lies, were
they? Have you even bothered to check, John? I guarantee you, I
GUARANTEE, you will not find a definition in ANY book that corresponds to
yours above, unless that book is written by you.
You haven't bothered to check because you don't want your delusions
challenged. You remain, to borrow a phrase from another thread, wilfully
ignorant. In this context this equates to simple dishonesty.
It's the SAME THING... sciences version of CREATIONISM is
all they want promoted... with THEIR claimed FALSE gods
creating everything.
"the river forms the species in the river"
NO, it does NOT.
No. It does not. How many times must I tell you this?
See above.
Irrelevant. Your own fabricated definition does not qualify.
Or:
From Websters 2nd College Edition:
---------------------------------------------------------------
natural selection: in evolution, the process by which those
individuals (of a species) with characters that help them
to become adapted to their specific environment tend to
leave more progeny and transmit their characters, while
those less able to become adapted tend to leave
fewer progeny or die out, so that in the course of generations
there is a progressive tendencey in the species to a greater
degree of adaptation: see also Darwinian Theory
----------------------------------------------------------------
See what it said?
I do see it, yes. The shame is that you do not. I cannot begin to
imagine quite how you must see the world, John, if you can find
correspondence between this informed definition from Websters and the
absolute rubbish you posted in the first place above.
I am beginning to realise the true futility of arguing this matter with
you. You post an item you have clearly not read, or, if you have read
it, that you apparently do not understand, and claim it proves your own
nonsensical preconceptions rather than, as is actually the case,
destroying them.
Notice the "specific environment", the species is being said
to adapt to that specific environment, what ever it is
No, it is not. The environment does not tell the species to do anything.
the ocean, the river, etc... and if that river or ocean, etc...
is harsh in some characteristic manner... the weaker ones die...
Correct.
and the stronger ones are said to live on based on some
character that helps them survive that environment...
Correct. Ish.
See it?
Two out of three, yes. The problem is, as I said, you insert gods where
the definition does not. You only know how to deal with gods, so
everything has to involve them for you.
They've tossed out God, and replaced him with FALSE gods, of
their choice...
Not at all. Again, the theory of evolution and the principle of natural
selection do not require that we reject God. Many scientists working in
this field are Christians. Why can they do what you cannot?
Tell me the difference between these two:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theory of Natural Selection says: "The river forms the species
in the river".
FALSE gods religion X says: "The river god forms the species
in the river".
---------------------------------------------------------------
The ONLY difference is that science left out the 'god' term.
Irrelevant. The crucial point here is that these definitions are
straight out of your head. They are not from textbooks or dictionaries,
and they are not accurate statements as to what the principle of natural
selection actually says.
The RIVER is an implied CREATOR, or god in science's claim
of what is creating the species in the theory of Natural
Selection.
But the only person doing the implying here is you. Natural selection as
a principle does not address the existence or otherwise of God.
There are no gods required by natural selection.
See the definition.
The definition is YOUR definition - and it is incorrect.
You're the one placing restrictions on your God, John - not science.
You object to evolution only because of your personal insistence that
He cannot have done it that way - yet you happily try to tell us that
in every other respect the Bible has already proved what science is
discovering. But for evolution alone you've a distaste that leads
you to deny it outright, and create straw man arguments to attack.
Why did Jesus say all the hairs of your head are numbered?
His statement was intended to indicate that God is in control. And so He
well may be. Again (YET again), neither evolution nor the principle of
natural selection denies this possibility.
You simply fear this principle, for reasons I cannot understand.
Why didn't he say the environment forms hair, and removes it?
Why did he not say it didn't?
That the numbers of hairs on heads, over all history, is too
much bother for God to worry about...
I doubt it. God is all-knowing, is He not?
I thought you were insisting that the evironment does it all?
No, not at all. That claim is yours, and yours alone.
Given this, either Jesus lied, or you and/or science did.
So who is lying?
That would be you, John. The question is whether or not you realise it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism, or as it's often referred to by science: the theory of natural selection |
07 Jun 2005 11:14:40 PM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in
news:42A64853.719E@For-God.net:
Midjis wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote :
They LIED to you more than once.
And you are deceitfully trying to avoid addressing the points that
are made to you in other threads - hence the need you feel to
continue starting new ones on the same subject.
I addressed the points, and brought up further ones.
You have AVOIDED this point though, that SCIENCE is saying
they can invent THOUSANDS of creators, FALSE gods of their
choosing, and they can say their own version of CREATIONISM
with those FALSE gods they invented... yet someone else
comes along saying the ONLY God there is, is creating, and
they claim:
The only false god operating here, John is the father of lies. And he is
clearly your inspiration.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism, or as it's often referred to by science: the theory ofnatural selection |
07 Jun 2005 03:04:12 PM |
|
|
Midjis wrote:
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote :
They LIED to you more than once.
And you are deceitfully trying to avoid addressing the points that are
made to you in other threads - hence the need you feel to continue
starting new ones on the same subject.
You have so far failed to reference your preferred definition of natural
selection (that definition which involves 'river gods' and the direct
formation of species by the local environment). In what dictionary or
encyclopaedia can we find it?
===>It is just his idiotic, infantile invention.
He's trying to cover the fact that he worships an idol, a product
of his own imagination. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Creationism, or as it's often referred to by science: the theory of natural selection |
07 Jun 2005 07:54:42 AM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in news:42A52F0D.1B5A@For-
God.net:
They LIED to you more than once.
Not only does the theory of Natural Selection allow them
to generate THOUSANDS of FALSE gods: "the river god forming
the species in the river"... but they also are claiming
"creationism" is only if you mention God, but not if you
say the "river god" is forming the species in the river.
See what they've said?
They LIED more than once, two different aspects were LIED about.
You are bearing false witness. God commands you to stop immediately.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
