| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IknowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
11 Dec 2003 06:12:20 PM |
| Object: |
Evolution and Evidence |
Evolution and Evidence
Dr. Wolfgang Smith Professor at MIT and UCLA said in 1988:
"And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution then
it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft
of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of
extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an
air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet
the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide
scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary
transformations have ever occurred."
Taken from: Teilhardism and the New Religion, Wolfgang Smith, Tan Books,
1988 pp 5-6
Now watch as the highly indoctrinated here try to disown their own high
priest and his opinion when he and his ilk are the ones who teach the
false religion of evolution...
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
.
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
11 Dec 2003 07:10:12 PM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1112031612200001@pm1-06.kalama.com:
Evolution and Evidence
Dr. Wolfgang Smith Professor at MIT and UCLA said in 1988:
"And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution
then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally
bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude
of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists
with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound
strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a
shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that
macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."
Taken from: Teilhardism and the New Religion, Wolfgang Smith, Tan
Books, 1988 pp 5-6
Now watch as the highly indoctrinated here try to disown their own
high priest and his opinion when he and his ilk are the ones who teach
the false religion of evolution...
Does the common descent of humans and chimps (if real) constitute macro-
evolution or not?
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
11 Dec 2003 10:10:29 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns944EAEAA852E0doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211>, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1112031612200001@pm1-06.kalama.com:
Evolution and Evidence
Dr. Wolfgang Smith Professor at MIT and UCLA said in 1988:
"And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution
then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally
bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude
of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists
with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound
strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a
shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that
macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."
Taken from: Teilhardism and the New Religion, Wolfgang Smith, Tan
Books, 1988 pp 5-6
Now watch as the highly indoctrinated here try to disown their own
high priest and his opinion when he and his ilk are the ones who teach
the false religion of evolution...
Does the common descent of humans and chimps (if real) constitute macro-
evolution or not?
What is the evidence with specificity and particularity that there is a
common descent of humans and chimps and not a common Creator instead?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
12 Dec 2003 01:40:23 AM |
|
|
(Michael) wrote in
news:mikeburt-1112032310280001@192.168.1.55:
In article <Xns944EAEAA852E0doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211>, Dave
Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1112031612200001@pm1-06.kalama.com:
Evolution and Evidence
Dr. Wolfgang Smith Professor at MIT and UCLA said in 1988:
"And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean
macroevolution then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the
doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be
sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution
promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific
infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact
remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide
scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary
transformations have ever occurred."
Taken from: Teilhardism and the New Religion, Wolfgang Smith, Tan
Books, 1988 pp 5-6
Now watch as the highly indoctrinated here try to disown their own
high priest and his opinion when he and his ilk are the ones who
teach the false religion of evolution...
Does the common descent of humans and chimps (if real) constitute
macro- evolution or not?
What is the evidence with specificity and particularity that there is
a common descent of humans and chimps and not a common Creator
instead?
The evidence is in the non-functional mutations that both species have in
identical places, including hundreds of viral insertions. These perform
no useful function except, perhaps, to give the viral DNA a free ride,
which it can catch on any random gene it inserts in which is what they
are still doing when observed--inserting at random.
Now science explains these commonalities as artifacts of descent from a
common genetic ancestor. YOU seem to want us to explain them as
deliberate manipulations by some sort of malicious or stupid deity.
Now, I can see where science might give you some problems with your
bibliolatrous literalist interpretation of the Bible and insistence that
it MUST be taken as literal history, but you should NOT let those
problems lead you to make claims that imply a horrible blasphemy. Or
maybe you don't care about little things like false witness and blasphemy
because you don't really believe in God.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IknowHimDoYou" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
12 Dec 2003 10:03:26 AM |
|
|
In article <mikeburt-1112032310280001@192.168.1.55>,
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) wrote:
In article <Xns944EAEAA852E0doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211>, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1112031612200001@pm1-06.kalama.com:
Evolution and Evidence
Dr. Wolfgang Smith Professor at MIT and UCLA said in 1988:
"And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution
then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally
bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude
of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists
with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound
strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a
shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that
macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."
Taken from: Teilhardism and the New Religion, Wolfgang Smith, Tan
Books, 1988 pp 5-6
Now watch as the highly indoctrinated here try to disown their own
high priest and his opinion when he and his ilk are the ones who teach
the false religion of evolution...
Does the common descent of humans and chimps (if real) constitute macro-
evolution or not?
What is the evidence with specificity and particularity that there is a
common descent of humans and chimps and not a common Creator instead?
_______________________________________________________________
These poor souls, who are super-indoctrinated into evolutionary religion,
have no evidence at all to substantiate their blind faith in coming from
monkeys. This is why they are like the fish in fish farms at feeding
times-they strike on anything....
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
12 Dec 2003 10:20:55 AM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1212030803260001@pm3-43.kalama.com:
These poor souls, who are super-indoctrinated into evolutionary
religion, have no evidence at all to substantiate their blind faith in
coming from monkeys. This is why they are like the fish in fish farms
at feeding times-they strike on anything....
These morons-for-Christ are not really Christians at all. They are liars
and they love their lies more than anything else. Witness the fact that
they keep repeating them, even long after they are exposed. They do their
puny best to try to turn the lie around on their slander victims, but in
the end, they will be judged by One to whom they cannot even HOPE to lie.
What makes them think they are fooling Almighty God? Heck, they are not
even fooling most of us who post in these echoes!
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
12 Dec 2003 03:21:57 PM |
|
|
In article <IknowHim-1212030803260001@pm3-43.kalama.com>,
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote:
In article <mikeburt-1112032310280001@192.168.1.55>,
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) wrote:
In article <Xns944EAEAA852E0doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211>, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1112031612200001@pm1-06.kalama.com:
Evolution and Evidence
Dr. Wolfgang Smith Professor at MIT and UCLA said in 1988:
"And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution
then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally
bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude
of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists
with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound
strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a
shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that
macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."
Taken from: Teilhardism and the New Religion, Wolfgang Smith, Tan
Books, 1988 pp 5-6
Now watch as the highly indoctrinated here try to disown their own
high priest and his opinion when he and his ilk are the ones who teach
the false religion of evolution...
Does the common descent of humans and chimps (if real) constitute macro-
evolution or not?
What is the evidence with specificity and particularity that there is a
common descent of humans and chimps and not a common Creator instead?
_______________________________________________________________
These poor souls, who are super-indoctrinated into evolutionary religion,
have no evidence at all to substantiate their blind faith in coming from
monkeys. This is why they are like the fish in fish farms at feeding
times-they strike on anything....
You can tell by the religious zealousness of fundie evolutionists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
12 Dec 2003 03:31:13 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-1212031621580001@192.168.1.55...
In article <IknowHim-1212030803260001@pm3-43.kalama.com>,
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote:
In article <mikeburt-1112032310280001@192.168.1.55>,
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) wrote:
In article <Xns944EAEAA852E0doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211>, Dave
Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1112031612200001@pm1-06.kalama.com:
Evolution and Evidence
Dr. Wolfgang Smith Professor at MIT and UCLA said in 1988:
"And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean
macroevolution
then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is
totally
bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the
multitude
of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists
with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound
strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day
not a
shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis
that
macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."
Taken from: Teilhardism and the New Religion, Wolfgang Smith, Tan
Books, 1988 pp 5-6
Now watch as the highly indoctrinated here try to disown their own
high priest and his opinion when he and his ilk are the ones who
teach
the false religion of evolution...
Does the common descent of humans and chimps (if real) constitute
macro-
evolution or not?
What is the evidence with specificity and particularity that there is
a
common descent of humans and chimps and not a common Creator instead?
_______________________________________________________________
These poor souls, who are super-indoctrinated into evolutionary
religion,
have no evidence at all to substantiate their blind faith in coming from
monkeys. This is why they are like the fish in fish farms at feeding
times-they strike on anything....
You can tell by the religious zealousness of fundie evolutionists.
Tom: Tee hee hee, too bad there aren't any " fundie evolutionists"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
13 Dec 2003 12:21:39 PM |
|
|
(Michael) wrote in
news:mikeburt-1212031621580001@192.168.1.55:
These poor souls, who are super-indoctrinated into evolutionary
religion, have no evidence at all to substantiate their blind faith
in coming from monkeys. This is why they are like the fish in fish
farms at feeding times-they strike on anything....
You can tell by the religious zealousness of fundie evolutionists.
Actually, Mike, it IS my religious zeal that causes me to bring you up
short. You see I'm actually a Christian and I don't like the way you are
misrepresenting my religion.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kriz" |
|
| Title: Evolution is an Anglo-Protestant hangup (Re: Evolution and Evidence) |
14 Dec 2003 11:52:50 AM |
|
|
Folks,
The whole "religious' argument over Evolution is an embarrassing
anglo-Protestant hangup.
The Catholic Church never had any problem with evolution, nor did _any_
mainline Protestant group outside of the United States and _possibly_
England.
Even the German Lutherans, remember those who _started_ the Reformation,
have had no problem with the possibility that God's plan of Creation
followed a path called scientifically Evolution.
To understand Genesis 1, one needs to understand something of the historical
context in which it was written and also its form. IT IS A POEM extolling
God's wisdom for creating an ORDERLY UNIVERSE.
The poor people who wrote Genesis 1, knew nothing of genetics or of quantum
mechanics. Yet they looked up at the stars, experienced the cycle of the
seasons, and were moved to the core by both the Greatness of God's Creation
and its ORDERLINESS.
Today we know far more about the order of the universe than the levitical
priests who wrote the Genesis 1 account. Yet we can still be awed by its
vastness and beauty.
That a bunch of ignorant hill-billies in Kentucky and their more
sophisticated techno-barbarian descendants can't recognize a poem (an
_inspired poem_ perhaps but a poem nonetheless) is not God's fault, the
Christianity's fault or the Church's fault. It just means that the teachers
at the Kentucky "madrastas" (or whatever they call the theological schools
in Pakistan) have to be better taught before they're given a bunch of kids
to teach.
But to even those two toothed Sunday School teachers' defense ... being well
versed in the details of Genetics/Evolution or Quantum Mechanics doesn't
make one a better person as the examples of Nazi eugenicists and Stalinist
psychologists ("if you don't see Soviet Russia to be a paradise, there must
by something deeply wrong with you ... here let us pump you chock full of
drugs until you see the light more clearly...") testifies.
Scientific knowledge is no substitute for fundamental morality (err a
fundamental sense of ethics to be more politically correct...).
God help this land ...
Dennis
denniskriz@yahoo.com
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9450696749315doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211...
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) wrote in
news:mikeburt-1212031621580001@192.168.1.55:
These poor souls, who are super-indoctrinated into evolutionary
religion, have no evidence at all to substantiate their blind faith
in coming from monkeys. This is why they are like the fish in fish
farms at feeding times-they strike on anything....
You can tell by the religious zealousness of fundie evolutionists.
Actually, Mike, it IS my religious zeal that causes me to bring you up
short. You see I'm actually a Christian and I don't like the way you are
misrepresenting my religion.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is an Anglo-Protestant hangup (Re: Evolution and Evidence) |
14 Dec 2003 01:02:06 PM |
|
|
"Dennis Kriz" <denniskriz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bri7ts$nro$1@news.wplus.net...
Folks,
The whole "religious' argument over Evolution is an embarrassing
anglo-Protestant hangup.
The Catholic Church never had any problem with evolution, nor did _any_
mainline Protestant group outside of the United States and _possibly_
England.
Even the German Lutherans, remember those who _started_ the Reformation,
have had no problem with the possibility that God's plan of Creation
followed a path called scientifically Evolution.
To understand Genesis 1, one needs to understand something of the
historical
context in which it was written and also its form. IT IS A POEM extolling
God's wisdom for creating an ORDERLY UNIVERSE.
The poor people who wrote Genesis 1, knew nothing of genetics or of
quantum
mechanics. Yet they looked up at the stars, experienced the cycle of the
seasons, and were moved to the core by both the Greatness of God's
Creation
and its ORDERLINESS.
Today we know far more about the order of the universe than the levitical
priests who wrote the Genesis 1 account. Yet we can still be awed by its
vastness and beauty.
That a bunch of ignorant hill-billies in Kentucky and their more
sophisticated techno-barbarian descendants can't recognize a poem (an
_inspired poem_ perhaps but a poem nonetheless) is not God's fault, the
Christianity's fault or the Church's fault. It just means that the
teachers
at the Kentucky "madrastas" (or whatever they call the theological
schools
in Pakistan) have to be better taught before they're given a bunch of kids
to teach.
But to even those two toothed Sunday School teachers' defense ... being
well
versed in the details of Genetics/Evolution or Quantum Mechanics doesn't
make one a better person as the examples of Nazi eugenicists and Stalinist
psychologists ("if you don't see Soviet Russia to be a paradise, there
must
by something deeply wrong with you ... here let us pump you chock full of
drugs until you see the light more clearly...") testifies.
and you are only slightly better - expanding you acceptance of scientific
reality, but still claiming the same, unsupported, notions.
Scientific knowledge is no substitute for fundamental morality (err a
fundamental sense of ethics to be more politically correct...).
It was never the intent of science to get involved morality.
Religion, on the other hand, while claiming such - has not done one hell of
a job improving it!
God help this land ...
Prove god - then we'll see about asking for help!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kriz" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is an Anglo-Protestant hangup (Re: Evolution and Evidence) |
14 Dec 2003 11:51:38 PM |
|
|
That a bunch of ignorant hill-billies in Kentucky and their more
sophisticated techno-barbarian descendants can't recognize a poem (an
_inspired poem_ perhaps but a poem nonetheless) is not God's fault, the
Christianity's fault or the Church's fault. It just means that the
teachers
at the Kentucky "madrastas" (or whatever they call the theological
schools
in Pakistan) have to be better taught before they're given a bunch of
kids
to teach.
But to even those two toothed Sunday School teachers' defense ...
being well versed in the details of Genetics/Evolution or Quantum
Mechanics
doesn't make one a better person as the examples of Nazi eugenicists and
Stalinist psychologists ("if you don't see Soviet Russia to be a
paradise, there
must by something deeply wrong with you ... here let us pump you chock
full of
drugs until you see the light more clearly...") testifies.
and you are only slightly better - expanding you acceptance of scientific
reality, but still claiming the same, unsupported, notions.
Scientific knowledge is no substitute for fundamental morality (err a
fundamental sense of ethics to be more politically correct...).
It was never the intent of science to get involved morality.
Religion, on the other hand, while claiming such - has not done one hell
of
a job improving it!
God help this land...
Prove God, and I'll help you pray for it ...
Look, I don't really care whether you believe in God or not. My point is
simply this: it is precisely a basic sense of morality (or ethics if you
prefer) that's going to be important for the survival of the human race.
I do not see how Stalin, an atheist, was any better, more enlightened, than
the Czar (a Christian) or Torquemada (the head of the Spanish Catholic
Inquisition) for that matter.
If we do not learn to get along with each other, we are going to destroy
each other, no matter how well versed we may become in quantum mechanics or
genetics. You yourself see it, those scientific skills are _useless_ when
it comes to learning to get along.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the world is not getting better. It is just
producing beer-swilling, gun toting techno-barbarians rather than
beer-swilling, sword-wielding barbarians of the old-fashioned kind.
Again, you yourself say it ... science is not in the morality business.
Well some folks better come to be or this whole planet is going to be an
amoral set from Road Warrior by the end of the new century.
Dennis
.
|
|
|
| User: "oldwetdog old*wet*dog@netscapeD0Tnet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is an Anglo-Protestant hangup (Re: Evolution and Evidence) |
15 Dec 2003 01:30:20 AM |
|
|
Dennis Kriz wrote:
That a bunch of ignorant hill-billies in Kentucky and their more
sophisticated techno-barbarian descendants can't recognize a poem (an
_inspired poem_ perhaps but a poem nonetheless) is not God's fault, the
Christianity's fault or the Church's fault. It just means that the
teachers
at the Kentucky "madrastas" (or whatever they call the theological
schools
in Pakistan) have to be better taught before they're given a bunch of
kids
to teach.
But to even those two toothed Sunday School teachers' defense ...
being well versed in the details of Genetics/Evolution or Quantum
Mechanics
doesn't make one a better person as the examples of Nazi eugenicists and
Stalinist psychologists ("if you don't see Soviet Russia to be a
paradise, there
must by something deeply wrong with you ... here let us pump you chock
full of
drugs until you see the light more clearly...") testifies.
and you are only slightly better - expanding you acceptance of scientific
reality, but still claiming the same, unsupported, notions.
Scientific knowledge is no substitute for fundamental morality (err a
fundamental sense of ethics to be more politically correct...).
It was never the intent of science to get involved morality.
Religion, on the other hand, while claiming such - has not done one hell
of
a job improving it!
God help this land...
Prove God, and I'll help you pray for it ...
Look, I don't really care whether you believe in God or not. My point is
simply this: it is precisely a basic sense of morality (or ethics if you
prefer) that's going to be important for the survival of the human race.
I do not see how Stalin, an atheist, was any better, more enlightened, than
the Czar (a Christian) or Torquemada (the head of the Spanish Catholic
Inquisition) for that matter.
If we do not learn to get along with each other, we are going to destroy
each other, no matter how well versed we may become in quantum mechanics or
genetics. You yourself see it, those scientific skills are _useless_ when
it comes to learning to get along.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the world is not getting better. It is just
producing beer-swilling, gun toting techno-barbarians rather than
beer-swilling, sword-wielding barbarians of the old-fashioned kind.
Again, you yourself say it ... science is not in the morality business.
Well some folks better come to be or this whole planet is going to be an
amoral set from Road Warrior by the end of the new century.
Dennis
Actually, it is already decided.
the die is cast,
the players are on the field,
it is a done deal.
Mankind cannot determine the fate of humanity,
regardless of manors, morals or ethics.
it never was up to man.
This world is a stage,
and Life is a three act play.
the major players are God and Satan,
humanity is naught but cannot fodder.
The curtain is coming down on this stage,
and this generation will see the grand finis!
Grab your socks, Dude, it's already done.
--
oldwetdog
-----
"Sophistry is not a system of ideas, but a vicious attitude of the
mind." Jacques Maritain
http://www.xpert.net/~servitum/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "flora macdonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is an Anglo-Protestant hangup (Re: Evolution and Evidence) |
16 Dec 2003 12:26:57 PM |
|
|
"Dennis Kriz" <denniskriz@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bri7ts$nro$1@news.wplus.net>...
Folks,
The whole "religious' argument over Evolution is an embarrassing
anglo-Protestant hangup.
The Catholic Church never had any problem with evolution, nor did _any_
mainline Protestant group outside of the United States and _possibly_
England.
Even the German Lutherans, remember those who _started_ the Reformation,
have had no problem with the possibility that God's plan of Creation
followed a path called scientifically Evolution.
To understand Genesis 1, one needs to understand something of the historical
context in which it was written and also its form. IT IS A POEM extolling
God's wisdom for creating an ORDERLY UNIVERSE.
The poor people who wrote Genesis 1, knew nothing of genetics or of quantum
mechanics. Yet they looked up at the stars, experienced the cycle of the
seasons, and were moved to the core by both the Greatness of God's Creation
and its ORDERLINESS.
Today we know far more about the order of the universe than the levitical
priests who wrote the Genesis 1 account. Yet we can still be awed by its
vastness and beauty.
That a bunch of ignorant hill-billies in Kentucky and their more
sophisticated techno-barbarian descendants can't recognize a poem (an
_inspired poem_ perhaps but a poem nonetheless) is not God's fault, the
Christianity's fault or the Church's fault. It just means that the teachers
at the Kentucky "madrastas" (or whatever they call the theological schools
in Pakistan) have to be better taught before they're given a bunch of kids
to teach.
But to even those two toothed Sunday School teachers' defense ... being well
versed in the details of Genetics/Evolution or Quantum Mechanics doesn't
make one a better person as the examples of Nazi eugenicists and Stalinist
psychologists ("if you don't see Soviet Russia to be a paradise, there must
by something deeply wrong with you ... here let us pump you chock full of
drugs until you see the light more clearly...") testifies.
Scientific knowledge is no substitute for fundamental morality (err a
fundamental sense of ethics to be more politically correct...).
God help this land ...
Dennis
denniskriz@yahoo.com
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9450696749315doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211...
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) wrote in
news:mikeburt-1212031621580001@192.168.1.55:
These poor souls, who are super-indoctrinated into evolutionary
religion, have no evidence at all to substantiate their blind faith
in coming from monkeys. This is why they are like the fish in fish
farms at feeding times-they strike on anything....
You can tell by the religious zealousness of fundie evolutionists.
Actually, Mike, it IS my religious zeal that causes me to bring you up
short. You see I'm actually a Christian and I don't like the way you are
misrepresenting my religion.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
You are correct. Evolution was a bigger problem for Protestants than
Catholics, as the former relied totally on the Bible as a Book written
by God, through human hands.
The Catholics regarded the Bible as a rather subversive book until
recently and only allowed extracts with footnotes to be read by laity.
The Latin Vulgate version(s) represented the ultimate truth, although
it many errors in translation from the original Greek/Hebrew.
Nevertheless, Darwin's Origin of Species remained on the Index of
Forbidden Books until ca 1960 when the Index was abolished.
Reading a forbidden book was a mortal sin which could lead to Hell.
This made life very difficult for Catholic Biologists.
Those were the days!
Flora
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
13 Dec 2003 10:58:16 PM |
|
|
Michael <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-1212031621580001@192.168.1.55...
In article <IknowHim-1212030803260001@pm3-43.kalama.com>,
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote:
In article <mikeburt-1112032310280001@192.168.1.55>,
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) wrote:
In article <Xns944EAEAA852E0doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211>, Dave
Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1112031612200001@pm1-06.kalama.com:
Evolution and Evidence
Dr. Wolfgang Smith Professor at MIT and UCLA said in 1988:
"And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution
then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is
totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the
multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by
evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may
indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to
this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of
the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever
occurred."
Taken from: Teilhardism and the New Religion, Wolfgang Smith, Tan
Books, 1988 pp 5-6
Now watch as the highly indoctrinated here try to disown their own
high priest and his opinion when he and his ilk are the ones who
teach the false religion of evolution...
Does the common descent of humans and chimps (if real) constitute
macro- evolution or not?
What is the evidence with specificity and particularity that there is a
common descent of humans and chimps and not a common Creator instead?
_______________________________________________________________
These poor souls, who are super-indoctrinated into evolutionary
religion, have no evidence at all to substantiate their blind faith in
coming from monkeys. This is why they are like the fish in fish farms
at feeding times-they strike on anything....
You can tell by the religious zealousness of fundie evolutionists.
Whereas we see not a hint of excessive zeal in people who post under names
like "IKnowHimDoYou".
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "HoundDog" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
12 Dec 2003 10:24:22 AM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IknowHim-1112031612200001@pm1-06.kalama.com>...
Evolution and Evidence
Dr. Wolfgang Smith Professor at MIT and UCLA said in 1988:
"And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution then
it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft
of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of
extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an
air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet
the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide
scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary
transformations have ever occurred."
Taken from: Teilhardism and the New Religion, Wolfgang Smith, Tan Books,
1988 pp 5-6
Now watch as the highly indoctrinated here try to disown their own high
priest and his opinion when he and his ilk are the ones who teach the
false religion of evolution...
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IknowHim-1112031612200001@pm1-06.kalama.com>...
Evolution and Evidence
Dr. Wolfgang Smith Professor at MIT and UCLA said in 1988:
"And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution then
it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft
of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of
extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an
air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet
the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide
scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary
transformations have ever occurred."
Taken from: Teilhardism and the New Religion, Wolfgang Smith, Tan Books,
1988 pp 5-6
Cool. Wolfgang Smith who is mathmatician writing about evolutionary
science. What does he know about brain surgery-if he wrote about that
subject, would you take it as truth?
Wolfgang also sells books to the fundie crowd, and maybe these types
of quotes help hype sales. Have you ever known an author to play to
his intended audience?
Whatever, lets look at another of his statements:
"Know from the start that all truth derives from the Word of God and
thus partakes of the sacred. Cultivate purity, knowing that this
constitutes a precondition to the reception of truth. Learn once more
to revere what is worthy of reverence. Cast off the profane and
irreverent persona of the modern intellectual, and cultivate the
spirit of discipleship. Learn to receive the gift of faith; know that
faith is the seed of wisdom"
From an interview with
http://www.innerexplorations.com/philtext/an.htm
Clearly he is coming any subject with this preconceived notion that
all truth is God given and is highly biased.
Interestingly, he also said this:
"I am opposed to Darwinism, or better said, to the transformist
hypothesis as such, no matter what one takes to be the mechanism or
cause (even perhaps teleological or theistic) of the postulated
macroevolutionary leaps. I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism (in
whatever form) is not in fact a scientific theory, but a
pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In
reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or
logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that
it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be
conceived within the constricted Weltanschauung (worldview)to which a
majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."
from Cosmos, Bios, Theos
Seems to suggest he rejects Darwinism no matter what, and he also
seems to reject Creationism too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seems like he
rejects any possible explanation for species.
HD
Genesis 1
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw
that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And
there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
Genesis 1
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark
seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse
of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two
great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light
to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the
expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day
and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that
it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the
fourth day
Whoa!!! Was light made on the first day or the fourth day?
This is the source creationists say is perfect?
.
|
|
|
| User: "oldwetdog old*wet*dog@netscapeD0Tnet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
12 Dec 2003 04:39:25 PM |
|
|
HoundDog wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IknowHim-1112031612200001@pm1-06.kalama.com>...
Evolution and Evidence
Dr. Wolfgang Smith Professor at MIT and UCLA said in 1988:
"And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution then
it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft
of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of
extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an
air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet
the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide
scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary
transformations have ever occurred."
Taken from: Teilhardism and the New Religion, Wolfgang Smith, Tan Books,
1988 pp 5-6
Now watch as the highly indoctrinated here try to disown their own high
priest and his opinion when he and his ilk are the ones who teach the
false religion of evolution...
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IknowHim-1112031612200001@pm1-06.kalama.com>...
Evolution and Evidence
Dr. Wolfgang Smith Professor at MIT and UCLA said in 1988:
"And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution then
it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft
of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of
extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an
air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet
the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide
scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary
transformations have ever occurred."
Taken from: Teilhardism and the New Religion, Wolfgang Smith, Tan Books,
1988 pp 5-6
Cool. Wolfgang Smith who is mathmatician writing about evolutionary
science. What does he know about brain surgery-if he wrote about that
subject, would you take it as truth?
Wolfgang also sells books to the fundie crowd, and maybe these types
of quotes help hype sales. Have you ever known an author to play to
his intended audience?
Whatever, lets look at another of his statements:
"Know from the start that all truth derives from the Word of God and
thus partakes of the sacred. Cultivate purity, knowing that this
constitutes a precondition to the reception of truth. Learn once more
to revere what is worthy of reverence. Cast off the profane and
irreverent persona of the modern intellectual, and cultivate the
spirit of discipleship. Learn to receive the gift of faith; know that
faith is the seed of wisdom"
From an interview with
http://www.innerexplorations.com/philtext/an.htm
Clearly he is coming any subject with this preconceived notion that
all truth is God given and is highly biased.
Interestingly, he also said this:
"I am opposed to Darwinism, or better said, to the transformist
hypothesis as such, no matter what one takes to be the mechanism or
cause (even perhaps teleological or theistic) of the postulated
macroevolutionary leaps. I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism (in
whatever form) is not in fact a scientific theory, but a
pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In
reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or
logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that
it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be
conceived within the constricted Weltanschauung (worldview)to which a
majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."
from Cosmos, Bios, Theos
Seems to suggest he rejects Darwinism no matter what, and he also
seems to reject Creationism too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seems like he
rejects any possible explanation for species.
HD
Genesis 1
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw
that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And
there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
Genesis 1
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark
seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse
of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two
great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light
to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the
expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day
and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that
it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the
fourth day
Whoa!!! Was light made on the first day or the fourth day?
This is the source creationists say is perfect?
Woa!!!
Fantastic to watch someone misunderstand His Word then jump to a wrong
conclusion! Damn, watching that jump almost broke my neck!
Dude! Back up! Look at the definition of the Words.... try the literal
meaning of the term first!
"Light" He created on the first Day.
"Lights" (Stars, suns --our sun) He created on the fourth day.
Your problem with understanding this scripture is that you don't know
what light is.
To get you started in the right direction, answer this.
Can an apple exist prior to the substance of which it consists?
--
oldwetdog
-----
"Sophistry is not a system of ideas, but a vicious attitude of the
mind." Jacques Maritain
http://www.xpert.net/~servitum/
.
|
|
|
| User: "HoundDog" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
15 Dec 2003 02:42:14 PM |
|
|
oldwetdog <old*wet*dog@netscapeD0Tnet> wrote in message news:<vtkgstdvffof28@corp.supernews.com>...
HoundDog wrote:
{SNIP}
Genesis 1
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw
that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And
there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
Genesis 1
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark
seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse
of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two
great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light
to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the
expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day
and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that
it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the
fourth day
Whoa!!! Was light made on the first day or the fourth day?
This is the source creationists say is perfect?
Woa!!!
Fantastic to watch someone misunderstand His Word then jump to a wrong
conclusion! Damn, watching that jump almost broke my neck!
Dude! Back up! Look at the definition of the Words.... try the literal
meaning of the term first!
"Light" He created on the first Day.
"Lights" (Stars, suns --our sun) He created on the fourth day.
Your problem with understanding this scripture is that you don't know
what light is.
To get you started in the right direction, answer this.
Can an apple exist prior to the substance of which it consists?
I read quite well. Your flawed argument left out this relevent part
of Gen1:
"5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And
there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
Clearly this refers to the day/night cycle defined by the presence of
the sun and stars, respectively; and, it was the FIRST DAY. How are
you able to have day and night without the sun and stars to define it.
It seems you left out a little detail. If there was only light as
you seem to say, there would not be a "darkness called night ."
Then,
"14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark
seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse
of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two
great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light
to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the
expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day
and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that
it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the
fourth day
Again we have day and night but a little more detailed explanation
byanother author telling the same myth but this time it is called the
FOURTH DAY.
Then again we could get into the differences in the sequence the 2
authors differ on in when man and animals were created:
In Genesis 1 it tells us that the first man and the first woman were
made at the same time and after the animals. However, Genesis 2 states
that the order of creation was as follows: man, then the animals and
then woman.
Keep believing in the perfection of the bible and coming up with cute
reasons why contradictions are not contradictions, you sound like the
spin artists employed by politicians.
The bible has 100s if not 1000s of contradictions, not surprising when
oral legends from nomadic tribes get told and retold over generations
and embellished by the oral historians of time.
We could look just at Numbers for clear examples of lack of perfection
but why bother, you know they ae there as well as I do.
Peace and happy holidays, including Kwanza, Chanukah, Christmas
(Christians even got that wrong as the real Birthday is probable in
September), and the upcoming ones: New Years, MLK's birthday, and
Chinese New Year.
HD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
15 Dec 2003 02:57:39 PM |
|
|
On 15 Dec 2003 12:42:14 -0800,
(HoundDog) spake thusly:
oldwetdog <old*wet*dog@netscapeD0Tnet> wrote in message news:<vtkgstdvffof28@corp.supernews.com>...
HoundDog wrote:
{SNIP}
Genesis 1
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw
that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And
there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
Genesis 1
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark
seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse
of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two
great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light
to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the
expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day
and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that
it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the
fourth day
Whoa!!! Was light made on the first day or the fourth day?
This is the source creationists say is perfect?
Woa!!!
Fantastic to watch someone misunderstand His Word then jump to a wrong
conclusion! Damn, watching that jump almost broke my neck!
Dude! Back up! Look at the definition of the Words.... try the literal
meaning of the term first!
"Light" He created on the first Day.
"Lights" (Stars, suns --our sun) He created on the fourth day.
Your problem with understanding this scripture is that you don't know
what light is.
To get you started in the right direction, answer this.
Can an apple exist prior to the substance of which it consists?
I read quite well. Your flawed argument left out this relevent part
of Gen1:
"5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And
there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
Clearly this refers to the day/night cycle defined by the presence of
the sun and stars, respectively; and, it was the FIRST DAY. How are
you able to have day and night without the sun and stars to define it.
It seems you left out a little detail. If there was only light as
you seem to say, there would not be a "darkness called night ."
Then,
"14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark
seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse
of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two
great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light
to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the
expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day
and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that
it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the
fourth day
Again we have day and night but a little more detailed explanation
byanother author telling the same myth but this time it is called the
FOURTH DAY.
God provided the light prior to the creation of the
Sun.
Then again we could get into the differences in the sequence the 2
authors differ on in when man and animals were created:
In Genesis 1 it tells us that the first man and the first woman were
made at the same time and after the animals. However, Genesis 2 states
that the order of creation was as follows: man, then the animals and
then woman.
Wrong. The two chapters do not contradict each other
at all. You have read atheist opinions. You have not
studied the Bible.
Keep believing in the perfection of the bible and coming up with cute
reasons why contradictions are not contradictions, you sound like the
spin artists employed by politicians.
The bible has 100s if not 1000s of contradictions, not surprising when
oral legends from nomadic tribes get told and retold over generations
and embellished by the oral historians of time.
Now you make an accusation of embellishment. Clearly
you have no idea what was involved in transmitting this
information, from generation to generation.
We could look just at Numbers for clear examples of lack of perfection
but why bother, you know they ae there as well as I do.
There are no such examples and the fact that you
reference that particular book, tells me that you
remember reading it on some web page somewhere, which
you think somehow equates to research.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Part of the message of salvation, is the Creation.
Believing in the Creator. When Paul preached to
those worshipping nature and said... "turn from
these vanities unto the living God, which made
heaven and earth and the sea and all things that
are therein:" - Acts 14:15 Paul believed it too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "HoundDog" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
16 Dec 2003 10:01:46 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<us7stvcvq354elcbeqsmgpkh3eua3lg0vr@4ax.com>...
On 15 Dec 2003 12:42:14 -0800,
(HoundDog) spake thusly:
SNIP
Now you make an accusation of embellishment. Clearly
you have no idea what was involved in transmitting this
information, from generation to generation.
Neither do you but I do know the original bible no longer exists just
translations of tranlations of oral traditions. And, any one who has
played the parlor game where the first person tells the next person
etc, and then the last person tells the "same" story that the first
person told, only it has greatly changed knows that oral history at
best carries the essentials forward.
Consider how much the biblical story of the flood changed from the
oldest written account in the Epic of Gilgamesh as an example or look
in the bible itself for the TWO stories of the Flood:
"The flood lasted forty days on the earth." Gen: 7:17)
"When the water had increased over the earth for a hundred and fifty
days, God took thought for Noah and the beasts and cattle with him in
the ark, and he caused a wind to blow over the earth, so that the
water began to subside. The springs of the deep and the windows of
heaven were stopped up, the downpour from the skies was checked." Gen:
7:24
We could look just at Numbers for clear examples of lack of perfection
but why bother, you know they ae there as well as I do.
There are no such examples and the fact that you
reference that particular book, tells me that you
remember reading it on some web page somewhere, which
you think somehow equates to research.
Actually, I read them during bible study some years ago when our
teacher told us there were many contradictions in the bible (using
Numbers many times as examples) and said not to worry as the words of
Jesus were most important and HE did not pay much attention to the OT
anyway.
For example:
Num.1:23
"Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Simeon, were
fifty and nine thousand and three hundred."
Num.26:14
"These are the families of the Simeonites, twenty and two thousand and
two hundred."
Oh, but that is not really a contradiction, the fundies cry.
Oh, then what is it, I ask? Maybe, it is just one of those
mistranslations.
Oh, but if it is a mistranslation, how is anything in the bible
reliable?
I'm now anticipating the usualy fundie circular argument that makes no
sense.
Peace and love to you during this wonderful holiday season,
HD
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Part of the message of salvation, is the Creation.
Believing in the Creator. When Paul preached to
those worshipping nature and said... "turn from
these vanities unto the living God, which made
heaven and earth and the sea and all things that
are therein:" - Acts 14:15 Paul believed it too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
16 Dec 2003 02:40:41 PM |
|
|
On 16 Dec 2003 08:01:46 -0800,
(HoundDog) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<us7stvcvq354elcbeqsmgpkh3eua3lg0vr@4ax.com>...
On 15 Dec 2003 12:42:14 -0800,
(HoundDog) spake thusly:
SNIP
Now you make an accusation of embellishment. Clearly
you have no idea what was involved in transmitting this
information, from generation to generation.
Neither do you
Yes, I do.
but I do know the original bible no longer exists just
translations of tranlations of oral traditions. And, any one who has
played the parlor game where the first person tells the next person
etc, and then the last person tells the "same" story that the first
person told, only it has greatly changed knows that oral history at
best carries the essentials forward.
It doesn't equate to said game. You believe this,
because you have no idea of what was involved. You
admit this and yet, proceed to claim that it would be
no different than some parlor game. Once again, a
common atheist opinion, which bears no fruit from
proper research.
Consider how much the biblical story of the flood changed from the
oldest written account in the Epic of Gilgamesh as an example or look
in the bible itself for the TWO stories of the Flood:
You assume that the oldest written account, is the
oldest account. That isn't very smart. But it suits
your purpose, so why bother investigating?
We could look just at Numbers for clear examples of lack of perfection
but why bother, you know they ae there as well as I do.
There are no such examples and the fact that you
reference that particular book, tells me that you
remember reading it on some web page somewhere, which
you think somehow equates to research.
Actually, I read them during bible study some years ago when our
teacher told us there were many contradictions in the bible (using
Numbers many times as examples) and said not to worry as the words of
Jesus were most important and HE did not pay much attention to the OT
anyway.
For example:
Num.1:23
"Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Simeon, were
fifty and nine thousand and three hundred."
Num.26:14
"These are the families of the Simeonites, twenty and two thousand and
two hundred."
Oh, but that is not really a contradiction, the fundies cry.
You know, lots can happen in twenty five chapters. If
you're going to try to state that it is a
contradiction, then you should at least have the
respect for proper research and documentation, to state
why you believe it is a contradiction and provide
support for your contention. After all, you also
stated as a fact, that there was a contradiction
between Genesis 1 & 2. I don't see this still quoted.
Is that because I have previously refuted your claim?
Did you post it again, figuring I wouldn't catch that
message? It really makes one curious, when it is all
of the sudden omitted from the quoting of the message
you're responding to.
What you have done here, is to simply try to change the
topic to some other portions of the Bible, knowing that
you could not support the claims which I responded to.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
rather than God. They claim to believe in a
virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?
"...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for
me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
.
|
|
|
| User: "HoundDog" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
18 Dec 2003 02:56:39 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<43rutv4f572n56p3c28er2k2c3g19d1nra@4ax.com>...
On 16 Dec 2003 08:01:46 -0800,
(HoundDog) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<us7stvcvq354elcbeqsmgpkh3eua3lg0vr@4ax.com>...
On 15 Dec 2003 12:42:14 -0800,
(HoundDog) spake thusly:
SNIP
Now you make an accusation of embellishment. Clearly
you have no idea what was involved in transmitting this
information, from generation to generation.
Neither do you
Yes, I do.
Tell us how it was done. I assume you have references for your claim.
but I do know the original bible no longer exists just
translations of tranlations of oral traditions. And, any one who has
played the parlor game where the first person tells the next person
etc, and then the last person tells the "same" story that the first
person told, only it has greatly changed knows that oral history at
best carries the essentials forward.
It doesn't equate to said game. You believe this,
because you have no idea of what was involved. You
admit this and yet, proceed to claim that it would be
no different than some parlor game. Once again, a
common atheist opinion, which bears no fruit from
proper research.
Show me the original bible and then lets compare it to the ones now in
pring and we will see which of us is right.
Consider how much the biblical story of the flood changed from the
oldest written account in the Epic of Gilgamesh as an example or look
in the bible itself for the TWO stories of the Flood:
You assume that the oldest written account, is the
oldest account. That isn't very smart. But it suits
your purpose, so why bother investigating?
I do not assume the oldest written account is the oldest account,
rather I doubt it is as the flood story/myth was IMO part of oral
tradition. It may have been the flood in the Black Sea region now
being researched. It will be interesting to see the fruits of that
research.
BTW-since the ark of Noah was so big, you would think, considering the
bible tells us where it landed that it has not been found. Do you
know where it is?
We could look just at Numbers for clear examples of lack of perfection
but why bother, you know they ae there as well as I do.
There are no such examples and the fact that you
reference that particular book, tells me that you
remember reading it on some web page somewhere, which
you think somehow equates to research.
Actually, I read them during bible study some years ago when our
teacher told us there were many contradictions in the bible (using
Numbers many times as examples) and said not to worry as the words of
Jesus were most important and HE did not pay much attention to the OT
anyway.
For example:
Num.1:23
"Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Simeon, were
fifty and nine thousand and three hundred."
Num.26:14
"These are the families of the Simeonites, twenty and two thousand and
two hundred."
You know, lots can happen in twenty five chapters. If
you're going to try to state that it is a
contradiction, then you should at least have the
respect for proper research and documentation, to state
why you believe it is a contradiction and provide
support for your contention. After all, you also
stated as a fact, that there was a contradiction
between Genesis 1 & 2. I don't see this still quoted.
Is that because I have previously refuted your claim?
Did you post it again, figuring I wouldn't catch that
message? It really makes one curious, when it is all
of the sudden omitted from the quoting of the message
you're responding to.
Gen1&2 contradict as I explained: (Actually IMO there is not a
contradiction as the accounts were written by different authors
probably as their version of oral traditions of the time:
Since I don't remember which contradiction I posted, lets look at a
few:
Gen:1:25-27:
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in
our image.... So God created man in his own image.
Gen:2:18-19:
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I
will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God
formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and
brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever
Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
In Gen1, man is "created" after the animals, while in Gen2, man is
created first and then the animals come along out of thin air to keep
him company.
NOTE: In Gen1, the diety is called "God" while in Gen2, the deity is
called Lord God, which is good evidence that two authors are at work.
Another more recent contradiction regarding the birthdate:
"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King
Herod..." (NIV) Luke 2:1
"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be
taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took
place while Quirinius was governor of Syria)." (NIV) Luke 2:1-2
What's the deal here: History shows Herod died in 6BC while the
census took place during Quirinius time in 6AD.
And recall what Luck said that the trip to Bethlehem (you know the one
with the baby in the manger, stars in the sky, wise men bringing
gifts, etc) was for this census/tax.
In summary, Luke says Jesus was born during Herod's time, that ends
6bc, but the trip to Bethlehem takes place during the census during
Quirinius's time, 10 years later.
HD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
18 Dec 2003 03:50:52 PM |
|
|
On 18 Dec 2003 12:56:39 -0800,
(HoundDog) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<43rutv4f572n56p3c28er2k2c3g19d1nra@4ax.com>...
On 16 Dec 2003 08:01:46 -0800,
(HoundDog) spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<us7stvcvq354elcbeqsmgpkh3eua3lg0vr@4ax.com>...
On 15 Dec 2003 12:42:14 -0800,
(HoundDog) spake thusly:
SNIP
Now you make an accusation of embellishment. Clearly
you have no idea what was involved in transmitting this
information, from generation to generation.
Neither do you
Yes, I do.
Tell us how it was done. I assume you have references for your claim.
Folks, from their childhood up (not all people), were
taught the Scriptures and worked at it every day, for
years and years and years, until they could remember
them and recite them, word for word, with no mistakes.
As for references, yes, I do. However, I have a
feeling you wouldn't believe whatever I pointed to, so
I would recommend that you research this for yourself.
If you fail to find anything, I will help you along and
provide some. But the journey here, is important.
but I do know the original bible no longer exists just
translations of tranlations of oral traditions. And, any one who has
played the parlor game where the first person tells the next person
etc, and then the last person tells the "same" story that the first
person told, only it has greatly changed knows that oral history at
best carries the essentials forward.
It doesn't equate to said game. You believe this,
because you have no idea of what was involved. You
admit this and yet, proceed to claim that it would be
no different than some parlor game. Once again, a
common atheist opinion, which bears no fruit from
proper research.
Show me the original bible and then lets compare it to the ones now in
pring and we will see which of us is right.
It doesn't much matter if the original is here. That
would be nice, but that's just an evasion tactic on
your part. The fact is, that over 5,000 copies of the
NT alone are in existence and people in that day, did
not have the same love of originals as we do today.
Copies were painstakingly made, with every letter
counted forward and backward, etc.. One mistake meant
the whole thing was thrown out and since a copy would
take a long time, no scribe wished to make a mistake,
since they only got paid for a completed copy. Once
certified, it was considered as good as the original.
As I said, you really should do some research into this
subject, instead of thinking that hand waving and
accusations equal proof.
Consider how much the biblical story of the flood changed from the
oldest written account in the Epic of Gilgamesh as an example or look
in the bible itself for the TWO stories of the Flood:
You assume that the oldest written account, is the
oldest account. That isn't very smart. But it suits
your purpose, so why bother investigating?
I do not assume the oldest written account is the oldest account,
rather I doubt it is as the flood story/myth was IMO part of oral
tradition. It may have been the flood in the Black Sea region now
being researched. It will be interesting to see the fruits of that
research.
BTW-since the ark of Noah was so big, you would think, considering the
bible tells us where it landed that it has not been found. Do you
know where it is?
Yea, the Ark is just so big, in relation to the area.
Sure. The fact is, that it was not a regional flood.
Why wouldn't Noah just move to another location? And
who would have survived in that area, to write the
account? And why are there close to 300 accounts of a
world wide flood, from different areas of the globe, if
there is no truth to it. They all just came up with
the same idea?
We could look just at Numbers for clear examples of lack of perfection
but why bother, you know they ae there as well as I do.
There are no such examples and the fact that you
reference that particular book, tells me that you
remember reading it on some web page somewhere, which
you think somehow equates to research.
Actually, I read them during bible study some years ago when our
teacher told us there were many contradictions in the bible (using
Numbers many times as examples) and said not to worry as the words of
Jesus were most important and HE did not pay much attention to the OT
anyway.
For example:
Num.1:23
"Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Simeon, were
fifty and nine thousand and three hundred."
Num.26:14
"These are the families of the Simeonites, twenty and two thousand and
two hundred."
You know, lots can happen in twenty five chapters. If
you're going to try to state that it is a
contradiction, then you should at least have the
respect for proper research and documentation, to state
why you believe it is a contradiction and provide
support for your contention. After all, you also
stated as a fact, that there was a contradiction
between Genesis 1 & 2. I don't see this still quoted.
Is that because I have previously refuted your claim?
Did you post it again, figuring I wouldn't catch that
message? It really makes one curious, when it is all
of the sudden omitted from the quoting of the message
you're responding to.
Gen1&2 contradict as I explained: (Actually IMO there is not a
contradiction as the accounts were written by different authors
probably as their version of oral traditions of the time:
You didn't, "explain" and they don't contradict each
other.
Since I don't remember which contradiction I posted, lets look at a
few:
Gen:1:25-27:
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in
our image.... So God created man in his own image.
Gen:2:18-19:
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I
will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God
formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and
brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever
Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
In Gen1, man is "created" after the animals, while in Gen2, man is
created first and then the animals come along out of thin air to keep
him company.
NOTE: In Gen1, the diety is called "God" while in Gen2, the deity is
called Lord God, which is good evidence that two authors are at work.
You are confused. The two chapters do NOT contradict
each other. This is proof that you have not even
sought to raise your level of education, but rather,
take joy in railing against God's word.
The fact is, that there is no contradiction between
Genesis 1 & 2 and the explanation is quite simple.
This is not two separate creation stories.
Remember that man made the chapter divisions much,
much later. There were no chapter divisions in the
original text. No verse divisions either. While
unbelievers like to claim that chapter 2 was inserted
later, they forget that it was actually one continuous
text. As I said, there were no chapter divisions, to
be able to insert a new chapter between two others.
Try this... Break the chapters of Genesis thusly...
Chapter 1 ends with 2:6. Now start chapter 2. What
you'll find, is that God made man. This is day 6. He
planted him in the Garden of Eden. Then He made the
things listed afterward, IN THE GARDEN. The trees,
etc. and the animals and brought them to Adam, to see
what he would name them. He didn't make all of the
animals, but rather, one more of each, IN THE GARDEN.
This is confirmed, by reading vs 9, 10, 16, etc., where
it says, IN THE GARDEN. Chapter 2 is discussing THE
GARDEN, not the entire Earth.
To explain further and in a bit more detail...
Therefore, we see that Genesis 1 is an overview of the
entire Creation.
Genesis 2 expands on the sixth day. It describes the
Creation in the Garden of Eden. Read the text
CAREFULLY. It describes the creation of the garden and
THEN the creation of the things within the garden. The
animals, for example, were created in the garden. Not
the original creation of animals, but simply another
one, to be put in front of Adam, for him to name.
Note: As I said, read Genesis 2:1-6 as a continuation
of Genesis 1 and you'll see it's a better fit there.
Note: Genesis 2:7, goes into the sixth day, in which
man is created.
Note: Genesis 2:8 shows that God made the Garden of
Eden.
Note: As I said, Genesis 2:9 is discussing the creation
of plants, etc., IN THE GARDEN. How do we know this?
Read Genesis 2:10. It clearly talks about the river
going into the garden. Thus, Genesis 2:9 is surrounded
(v8 + v10) by two statements about the garden.
Note: It continues to discuss the garden and then, in
v19, makes the statement about the creation of animals,
but only for the purpose of seeing what Adam will name
them and THEY ARE STILL IN THE GARDEN, which is where
the context of the verses say that this takes place.
All of this was on the sixth day, AFTER the rest of the
world and life was already created.
Opinion: This is why Eve was fooled and not Adam. Adam
saw God create. Eve didn't.
Another more recent contradiction regarding the birthdate:
It isn't recent at all. Atheists have been trying to
toss this one out as proof for many years now.
"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King
Herod..." (NIV) Luke 2:1
"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be
taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took
place while Quirinius was governor of Syria)." (NIV) Luke 2:1-2
What's the deal here: History shows Herod died in 6BC while the
census took place during Quirinius time in 6AD.
Ah, you haven't done your research. You just relied on
atheist web pages. That is obvious. Quirinius either
was in office more than once, or there were two of
them. Archaeological evidence in the form of a coin
has been found, that shows this. Look it up.
And recall what Luck said that the trip to Bethlehem (you know the one
with the baby in the manger, stars in the sky, wise men bringing
gifts, etc) was for this census/tax.
In summary, Luke says Jesus was born during Herod's time, that ends
6bc, but the trip to Bethlehem takes place during the census during
Quirinius's time, 10 years later.
See above. And btw, your dates are off.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Part of the message of salvation, is the Creation.
Believing in the Creator. When Paul preached to
those worshipping nature and said... "turn from
these vanities unto the living God, which made
heaven and earth and the sea and all things that
are therein:" - Acts 14:15 Paul believed it too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "aquaman" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
19 Dec 2003 02:17:03 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<hk74uvoflctbjdh3r534kj73ui2r714dk4@4ax.com>...
On 18 Dec 2003 12:56:39 -0800,
(HoundDog) spake thusly:
BTW-since the ark of Noah was so big, you would think, considering the
bible tells us where it landed that it has not been found. Do you
know where it is?
Yea, the Ark is just so big, in relation to the area.
Sure. The fact is, that it was not a regional flood.
Why wouldn't Noah just move to another location? And
who would have survived in that area, to write the
account? And why are there close to 300 accounts of a
world wide flood, from different areas of the globe, if
there is no truth to it. They all just came up with
the same idea?
The animals went in four by four,
Hurrah! hurrah!
The animals went in four by four,
Hurrah! hurrah!
The animals went in four by four,
the dinosaur couldn't fit through the door
aquaman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer Bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution and Evidence |
19 Dec 2003 02:27:07 PM |
|
|
aquaman wrote:
The animals went in four by four,
Hurrah! hurrah!
The animals went in four by four,
Hurrah! hurrah!
The animals went in four by four,
the dinosaur couldn't fit through the door
:-)
The only fly in the oinment for this ditty is that there were many
species of dinosuars that were small enough to fit through doors (even
| | | | | | | | | | |
