| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IknowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
21 Dec 2003 11:55:09 AM |
| Object: |
God's Creation |
God's Creation
The creation record in Genesis 1 and 2 shows three distinct events of ex
nihilo(out of nothing) creation:
1. creation of the space/mass(energy)/time universe with "matter" in
elemental form(Gen 1:1);
2. creation of the "life" principle, referring not to mere preprogrammed
genetic replication but to the entity of consciousness, as in animals(Gen
1:21;
3. creation of man and woman in the "image of God," clearly a reference to
the "godlike" qualities of mankind not shared with animals, especially the
moral and spiritual attributes of human nature(Gen 1:27.
The Bible teaches that creation was completed in the past, but also that
it was essentially an instantaneous act; more precisely, a series of acts,
spread over a six-day period. Some pseudo-creationists have tried to call
evolution the "method of creation," alleging that the entire evolutionary
cosmogonic history is somehow equivalent to creation. However, the Bible
teaches unequivocally, that creation is in no way evolution.
Creation was accomplished by the spoken word of God the Creator. Hebrews
11:3 says:
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of
God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do
appear."
and that Word was in human form in Hebrews 1:3;
"Who[the Lord Jesus Christ-the Word] being the brightness of His glory,
and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the Word
of His power, when He had Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right
hand of the Magesty on high;"
And that God[the Lord Jesus Christ-the Word] is also found in Acts 17:24-25;
"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of
heaven and earth. dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is
worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed any thing, seeing He
giveth to all life, and breath, and all things."
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
.
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
21 Dec 2003 02:25:42 PM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2112030955090001@pm1-41.kalama.com...
God's Creation
The creation record in Genesis 1 and 2 shows three distinct events of ex
nihilo(out of nothing) creation:
1. creation of the space/mass(energy)/time universe with "matter" in
elemental form(Gen 1:1);
2. creation of the "life" principle, referring not to mere preprogrammed
genetic replication but to the entity of consciousness, as in animals(Gen
1:21;
3. creation of man and woman in the "image of God," clearly a reference to
the "godlike" qualities of mankind not shared with animals, especially the
moral and spiritual attributes of human nature(Gen 1:27.
The Bible teaches that creation was completed in the past, but also that
it was essentially an instantaneous act; more precisely, a series of acts,
spread over a six-day period. Some pseudo-creationists have tried to call
evolution the "method of creation," alleging that the entire evolutionary
cosmogonic history is somehow equivalent to creation.
There is a reason for this. The scam must be kept up in one
way or another. The devil operates on lies as do his servants.
It has been the most succesful way of keeping people from
salvation since the fall of satan and is still working today.
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
21 Dec 2003 09:01:17 PM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:vuc02prk1nqre1@corp.supernews.com:
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2112030955090001@pm1-41.kalama.com...
God's Creation
The creation record in Genesis 1 and 2 shows three distinct events of
ex nihilo(out of nothing) creation:
1. creation of the space/mass(energy)/time universe with "matter" in
elemental form(Gen 1:1);
2. creation of the "life" principle, referring not to mere
preprogrammed genetic replication but to the entity of consciousness,
as in animals(Gen 1:21;
3. creation of man and woman in the "image of God," clearly a
reference to the "godlike" qualities of mankind not shared with
animals, especially the moral and spiritual attributes of human
nature(Gen 1:27.
The Bible teaches that creation was completed in the past, but also
that it was essentially an instantaneous act; more precisely, a
series of acts, spread over a six-day period. Some
pseudo-creationists have tried to call evolution the "method of
creation," alleging that the entire evolutionary cosmogonic history
is somehow equivalent to creation.
There is a reason for this. The scam must be kept up in one
way or another. The devil operates on lies as do his servants.
It has been the most succesful way of keeping people from
salvation since the fall of satan and is still working today.
Yep...that's why young-earth creationism is one of his best tools. It
divides the Church by having some of its members deny physical evidence
known to others, then it insists that only the liars will be saved.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midwinter" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
22 Dec 2003 11:00:38 AM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote:
There is a reason for this. The scam must be kept up in one
way or another. The devil operates on lies as do his servants.
It has been the most succesful way of keeping people from
salvation since the fall of satan and is still working today.
Have you noticed, Og, how this perfectly defines 'IKnowHim' and the rest
of the priesthood who have sought to keep people obedient to their power
through the years by denying them the ability to discover the world, the
universe, around them? Of course you have noticed. It is one of the last
ditch tactics of the Creationist - and I must admit it is a pretty good
one - to label evolution and other scientific theories as 'religion'.
This is a good tactic because any argument made by those of a scientific
bent against the superstition of the religious Creationists and others can
immediately be turned around and flung straight back. It is akin to the
playground exchange, "you're a <selected insult>"; "I know you are." Not,
perhaps, the height of Wildean wit, but adequate for schoolchildren and,
evidently, those who endorse Creationism.
The universe is as it is, whether by the hand of God or through natural
processes. But times have changed. In days gone by, people would look,
and see how things worked, but they might not understand. So they would
come up with ideas as to why a thing worked as it did. Where their
circumstances forced a limit on their discoveries, they filled in the gaps
with stories of Creation and godly magic.
Now, we no longer look. Well, some of us choose not to. Because now,
God's work - if such it is - cannot simply be accepted for what it is. It
has to conform to what a religious group say it is. We do not look at
what is there and seek explanations, as those who wrote the Bible would
have been doing. We do not even accept what is there and praise God for
Its ingenuity. Now, we have the Bible, and so in the minds of the
fundamentalists, reality must be forced to conform with what the Bible
says. And if God's work proves inconsistent with what the Bible says,
well, clearly it is nature, it is God, that is wrong - because the Bible
cannot be so. In essence, if there is conflict between the unspoken word
of God (ie Creation as it is around us) and the eternally-quoted word of
Man (Creation as it is described in the Bible), it is clearly Man who must
be right. Makes sense, no? Who, I wonder, is REALLY in the service of
the Devil, literally or metaphorically? Who works to keep mankind from
appreciating the true wonder of creation? How many of the Devil's
servants count the Bible amongst the most essential tools for their work?
It is a shame that, if there is indeed a God, Its work will go
unappreciated thanks to the fearfulness of the fundamentalist. Scared
that his power base might be undermined, or that someone might discover he
does not know everything, he becomes insistent and domineering. "You WILL
believe". But the universe is there whether we believe in it or not. Who
knows, perhaps God is there, whether we believe in It or not. Whatever
the truth, the universe can no longer be contained between the pages of
the Bible. It is there for us to discover - IF we can throw off the
centuries-old yoke of religious dictatorship.
--
Midwinter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
22 Dec 2003 06:01:42 PM |
|
|
"Midwinter" <solstice688@TAKEYOURSPAMANDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9459AD3C8EAF9solstice688TAKEYOURS@217.32.252.50...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote:
There is a reason for this. The scam must be kept up in one
way or another. The devil operates on lies as do his servants.
It has been the most succesful way of keeping people from
salvation since the fall of satan and is still working today.
Have you noticed, Og, how this perfectly defines 'IKnowHim' and the rest
of the priesthood who have sought to keep people obedient to their power
through the years by denying them the ability to discover the world, the
universe, around them? Of course you have noticed. It is one of the last
ditch tactics of the Creationist - and I must admit it is a pretty good
one - to label evolution and other scientific theories as 'religion'.
This is a good tactic because any argument made by those of a scientific
bent against the superstition of the religious Creationists and others can
immediately be turned around and flung straight back. It is akin to the
playground exchange, "you're a <selected insult>"; "I know you are." Not,
perhaps, the height of Wildean wit, but adequate for schoolchildren and,
evidently, those who endorse Creationism.
The universe is as it is, whether by the hand of God or through natural
processes. But times have changed. In days gone by, people would look,
and see how things worked, but they might not understand. So they would
come up with ideas as to why a thing worked as it did. Where their
circumstances forced a limit on their discoveries, they filled in the gaps
with stories of Creation and godly magic.
Now, we no longer look. Well, some of us choose not to. Because now,
God's work - if such it is - cannot simply be accepted for what it is. It
has to conform to what a religious group say it is. We do not look at
what is there and seek explanations, as those who wrote the Bible would
have been doing. We do not even accept what is there and praise God for
Its ingenuity. Now, we have the Bible, and so in the minds of the
fundamentalists, reality must be forced to conform with what the Bible
says. And if God's work proves inconsistent with what the Bible says,
well, clearly it is nature, it is God, that is wrong - because the Bible
cannot be so. In essence, if there is conflict between the unspoken word
of God (ie Creation as it is around us) and the eternally-quoted word of
Man (Creation as it is described in the Bible), it is clearly Man who must
be right. Makes sense, no? Who, I wonder, is REALLY in the service of
the Devil, literally or metaphorically? Who works to keep mankind from
appreciating the true wonder of creation? How many of the Devil's
servants count the Bible amongst the most essential tools for their work?
It is a shame that, if there is indeed a God, Its work will go
unappreciated thanks to the fearfulness of the fundamentalist. Scared
that his power base might be undermined, or that someone might discover he
does not know everything, he becomes insistent and domineering. "You WILL
believe". But the universe is there whether we believe in it or not. Who
knows, perhaps God is there, whether we believe in It or not. Whatever
the truth, the universe can no longer be contained between the pages of
the Bible. It is there for us to discover - IF we can throw off the
centuries-old yoke of religious dictatorship.
--
Midwinter
Actually when I said "the scam must be preserved"
I was reffering to the evolution scam. Cmon man
use your head a bug can't slowly turn into a goat.
Look at the precambrian explosion, it's a smoking gun.
There wasn't enough time for random changes to account
for all that sudden diversity of life. It had to be created.
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
23 Dec 2003 01:13:13 AM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:vuf13o5gn7gge1@corp.supernews.com:
"Midwinter" <solstice688@TAKEYOURSPAMANDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9459AD3C8EAF9solstice688TAKEYOURS@217.32.252.50...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote:
There is a reason for this. The scam must be kept up in one
way or another. The devil operates on lies as do his servants.
It has been the most succesful way of keeping people from
salvation since the fall of satan and is still working today.
Have you noticed, Og, how this perfectly defines 'IKnowHim' and the
rest of the priesthood who have sought to keep people obedient to
their power through the years by denying them the ability to discover
the world, the universe, around them? Of course you have noticed.
It is one of the last ditch tactics of the Creationist - and I must
admit it is a pretty good one - to label evolution and other
scientific theories as 'religion'. This is a good tactic because any
argument made by those of a scientific bent against the superstition
of the religious Creationists and others can immediately be turned
around and flung straight back. It is akin to the playground
exchange, "you're a <selected insult>"; "I know you are." Not,
perhaps, the height of Wildean wit, but adequate for schoolchildren
and, evidently, those who endorse Creationism.
The universe is as it is, whether by the hand of God or through
natural processes. But times have changed. In days gone by, people
would look, and see how things worked, but they might not understand.
So they would come up with ideas as to why a thing worked as it did.
Where their circumstances forced a limit on their discoveries, they
filled in the gaps with stories of Creation and godly magic.
Now, we no longer look. Well, some of us choose not to. Because
now, God's work - if such it is - cannot simply be accepted for what
it is. It has to conform to what a religious group say it is. We do
not look at what is there and seek explanations, as those who wrote
the Bible would have been doing. We do not even accept what is there
and praise God for Its ingenuity. Now, we have the Bible, and so in
the minds of the fundamentalists, reality must be forced to conform
with what the Bible says. And if God's work proves inconsistent with
what the Bible says, well, clearly it is nature, it is God, that is
wrong - because the Bible cannot be so. In essence, if there is
conflict between the unspoken word of God (ie Creation as it is
around us) and the eternally-quoted word of Man (Creation as it is
described in the Bible), it is clearly Man who must be right. Makes
sense, no? Who, I wonder, is REALLY in the service of the Devil,
literally or metaphorically? Who works to keep mankind from
appreciating the true wonder of creation? How many of the Devil's
servants count the Bible amongst the most essential tools for their
work?
It is a shame that, if there is indeed a God, Its work will go
unappreciated thanks to the fearfulness of the fundamentalist.
Scared that his power base might be undermined, or that someone might
discover he does not know everything, he becomes insistent and
domineering. "You WILL believe". But the universe is there whether
we believe in it or not. Who knows, perhaps God is there, whether we
believe in It or not. Whatever the truth, the universe can no longer
be contained between the pages of the Bible. It is there for us to
discover - IF we can throw off the centuries-old yoke of religious
dictatorship.
--
Midwinter
Actually when I said "the scam must be preserved"
I was reffering to the evolution scam. Cmon man
There is no evolution scam. There is a creationism scam, though and it's
fairly profitable and just about impossible to get prosecuted for.
use your head a bug can't slowly turn into a goat.
Nobody has claimed that a bug turns into a goat. What is said is that
the very remote common ancestor of bugs and goats (a grub-like thing that
resembled an insect larva as much as anything living today) turned into
BOTH bugs and goats. Bugs are highly evolved organisms and so are goats.
In fact ALL organisms here now have been evolving for the same length of
time.
Look at the precambrian explosion, it's a smoking gun.
You mean the "Cambrian explosion" don't you? And it's not as sudden as
you would like. In a period of around 50 million years, most of the
modern phyla appear in the fossil record. But there ARE some precursors
back in the Vendian. Not many, but SOME.
There wasn't enough time for random changes to account
for all that sudden diversity of life. It had to be created.
Ah, but you see there WAS enough time. In fact, the measured rate of
morphological change among species generally and that found in the fossil
record are the same.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midwinter" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
22 Dec 2003 07:11:53 PM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:vuf13o5gn7gge1@corp.supernews.com:
Actually when I said "the scam must be preserved"
I was reffering to the evolution scam.
Yes. My post was made on that basis.
Cmon man
use your head a bug can't slowly turn into a goat.
But it can be created with a snap of the finger by the great bearded pixie
who lives in the sky? Never mind "cmon man" - if you are going to apply
the "because it just is" argument to this problem then you must accept
that it works in both directions. You cannot accept the idea of evolution
because you do not understand it, but magic creation is easy. And because
you are willing to believe in the idea of magic creation, and because you
are afraid of the idea of a natural process being responsible, so your
idea of what makes sense and what does not is skewed.
Feel free to reverse my points here and throw them back, in accordance
with Creationism's last resort approach as mentioned previously.
Look at the precambrian explosion, it's a smoking gun.
There wasn't enough time for random changes to account
for all that sudden diversity of life. It had to be created.
On the contrary: that life did indeed expand within that time frame
indicates that there was enough time for it to occur. The argument, from
my point of view, that there was 'not enough time' makes as little sense
as it would make to you were I to claim that God could not have created
the Earth in six days because it takes at least twelve to do the job. Do
you see what I mean?
--
Midwinter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
22 Dec 2003 08:25:43 PM |
|
|
"Midwinter" <solstice688@TAKEYOURSPAMANDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945AC61B6972solstice688TAKEYOURS@217.32.252.50...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote in news:vuf13o5gn7gge1@corp.supernews.com:
Actually when I said "the scam must be preserved"
I was reffering to the evolution scam.
Yes. My post was made on that basis.
Cmon man
use your head a bug can't slowly turn into a goat.
But it can be created with a snap of the finger by the great bearded pixie
who lives in the sky? Never mind "cmon man" - if you are going to apply
the "because it just is" argument to this problem then you must accept
that it works in both directions. You cannot accept the idea of evolution
because you do not understand it, but magic creation is easy. And because
you are willing to believe in the idea of magic creation, and because you
are afraid of the idea of a natural process being responsible, so your
idea of what makes sense and what does not is skewed.
Your assumptions are incorrect. But it was a nice spiel.
Feel free to reverse my points here and throw them back, in accordance
with Creationism's last resort approach as mentioned previously.
Look at the precambrian explosion, it's a smoking gun.
There wasn't enough time for random changes to account
for all that sudden diversity of life. It had to be created.
On the contrary: that life did indeed expand within that time frame
indicates that there was enough time for it to occur. The argument, from
my point of view, that there was 'not enough time' makes as little sense
as it would make to you were I to claim that God could not have created
the Earth in six days because it takes at least twelve to do the job. Do
you see what I mean?
--
Midwinter
Depends on the situation I suppose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midwinter" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
23 Dec 2003 10:12:22 AM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote :
But it can be created with a snap of the finger by the great bearded
pixie who lives in the sky? Never mind "cmon man" - if you are going
to apply the "because it just is" argument to this problem then you
must accept that it works in both directions. You cannot accept the
idea of evolution because you do not understand it, but magic
creation is easy. And because you are willing to believe in the idea
of magic creation, and because you are afraid of the idea of a
natural process being responsible, so your idea of what makes sense
and what does not is skewed.
Your assumptions are incorrect. But it was a nice spiel.
My assumptions are incorrect? Oh. Well, that sorts that out then. Come
on, folks, close down the labs, stop the experiments. Thow away the
measuring gear. Science has been proven wrong because apparently my
assumptions are incorrect.
Do you think it possible, Og, that a little elaboration on "your
assumptions are incorrect" might perhaps make for a more convincing case?
On the contrary: that life did indeed expand within that time frame
indicates that there was enough time for it to occur. The argument,
from my point of view, that there was 'not enough time' makes as
little sense as it would make to you were I to claim that God could
not have created the Earth in six days because it takes at least
twelve to do the job. Do you see what I mean?
Depends on the situation I suppose.
The situation is that the Creationist argues not for God but for the
Bible. If we assume for the sake of argument that God is the creator of
the universe, then science looks at, admires and appreciates His work. It
studies it, and tries to learn about it - and what higher compliment can
be paid to a craftsman than that his work is appreciated? The Bible,
however, or rather than fundamentalist Creationist, denies His work. The
Creationist tells God that He is wrong. It tells Him he cannot have used
this method or that method to achieve His Creation, because some humans
writing a book thousands of years ago said He did it in a way that they
would have understood, and so He cannot have done it in any other way.
That is the situation. Your claim is invalid - that life cannot have
evolved because there was not enough time for it to have evolved in. Yet
your only measure of how much time is required is fabricated for the
purposes of disproving evolution - that it should have taken longer than
it did actually take. It is no different from a claim that the Earth
cannot possibly be round because it should be flat. You could make that
claim until the cows came home and the Earth would just carry on being
round (ish).
--
Midwinter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
23 Dec 2003 04:11:52 PM |
|
|
"Midwinter" <solstice688@TAKEYOURSPAMANDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945AA50D862C9solstice688TAKEYOURS@217.32.252.50...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote :
But it can be created with a snap of the finger by the great bearded
pixie who lives in the sky? Never mind "cmon man" - if you are going
to apply the "because it just is" argument to this problem then you
must accept that it works in both directions. You cannot accept the
idea of evolution because you do not understand it, but magic
creation is easy. And because you are willing to believe in the idea
of magic creation, and because you are afraid of the idea of a
natural process being responsible, so your idea of what makes sense
and what does not is skewed.
Your assumptions are incorrect. But it was a nice spiel.
My assumptions are incorrect? Oh. Well, that sorts that out then. Come
on, folks, close down the labs, stop the experiments. Thow away the
measuring gear. Science has been proven wrong because apparently my
assumptions are incorrect.
Do you think it possible, Og, that a little elaboration on "your
assumptions are incorrect" might perhaps make for a more convincing case?
If you like.
Your assumption that I don't understand
the theory of evolution is incorrect. I understand
the theory quite well. I used to think that it was
possibly correct. But the proof has not been
forthcoming. At this point it is just being pushed
too hard for a theory without solid evidence.
When we see that happening it's a good sign
that somethings up.
On the contrary: that life did indeed expand within that time frame
indicates that there was enough time for it to occur. The argument,
from my point of view, that there was 'not enough time' makes as
little sense as it would make to you were I to claim that God could
not have created the Earth in six days because it takes at least
twelve to do the job. Do you see what I mean?
Depends on the situation I suppose.
The situation is that the Creationist
argues not for God but for the
Bible.
I haven't heard that particular creationist yet. What's his name ?
If we assume for the sake of argument that God is the creator of
the universe, then science looks at, admires and appreciates His work. It
studies it, and tries to learn about it - and what higher compliment can
be paid to a craftsman than that his work is appreciated? The Bible,
however, or rather than fundamentalist Creationist, denies His work. The
Creationist tells God that He is wrong. It tells Him he cannot have used
this method or that method to achieve His Creation, because some humans
writing a book thousands of years ago said He did it in a way that they
would have understood, and so He cannot have done it in any other way.
I have listened to a lot of creationists, but I have never heard
any of them say anything like that. Which one are you reffering to?
That is the situation. Your claim is invalid - that life cannot have
evolved because there was not enough time for it to have evolved in. Yet
your only measure of how much time is required is fabricated for the
purposes of disproving evolution - that it should have taken longer than
it did actually take.
Actually the time frame used by evolutionists themselves
doesn't allow for it. So a new twist had to be added to
mislead people. So now, the claim is that evolution
happens in quick bursts instead of slowly over millions
of years. There are still no transitional species but that
little inconsistency doesn't even faze the true believers.
Evolution requires a lot of blind faith but there seems
to be no shortage of it in the ranks of the believers.
It is no different from a claim that the Earth
cannot possibly be round because it should be flat. You could make that
claim until the cows came home and the Earth would just carry on being
round (ish).
Good point. Universities in the 15th century dilligently
stood by the claim that the earth was flat even though
evidence to the contrary was mounting. Much the same way
evolutionists today dilligently stand by the theory of evolution
even though the evidence indicates that it probably never happened.
Maybe one day we will find some rock solid evidence to settle the
dispute once and for all. But I wonder if the evolutionists would
accept it even if it were flawless. Probably not.
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midwinter" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
23 Dec 2003 06:31:27 PM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote:
If you like.
Your assumption that I don't understand
the theory of evolution is incorrect. I understand
the theory quite well. I used to think that it was
possibly correct. But the proof has not been
forthcoming.
And yet what proof there is outweighs the proof for six-day (sorry, six
MILLENIUM) Creation by several orders of magnitude. So where is YOUR
proof? Scientists - "evolutionists", if you like - and the
scientifically-minded regularly provide evidence supporting the idea of
biological change over time whenever it is demanded by the Creationists.
The Creationists invariably laugh at it, discard it and demand more. But
where is YOUR evidence? The contents of some book? That is all you have.
And it does not dawn on you, even for a moment, that your fight to
'disprove' evolution might not in the process 'prove' Creation.
Evolution, like all scientific theories, has flaws. But what makes you
think yours is the only alternative? That if today's life-forms did not
develop in quite the way we think, then they must have been created in six
days with a snap of a god's mighty fingers? What if - shock horror -
there is another, better theory of evolution out there that we have yet to
find?
That is the point. Science adapts. Reluctantly, in some cases, I admit -
but it does adapt. How many scientists now believe the world is flat?
And how much has the Creationist position changed in that time?
But the major point is that you Creationists have ignored and laughed off
an enormous amount of evidence from the scientific - yet you have produced
none yourselves. The prevailing assumption - inexplicably accepted by
scientists in this forum and in others - seems to be that Creationists
somehow have the logical high ground, and that it is up to evolutionists
to provide evidence while the Creationists mock. Where, I ask yet again,
is yours?
At this point it is just being pushed
too hard for a theory without solid evidence.
Again - where is your evidence? You consider yourselves adept at proving
evolution wrong, but that is not the point. Prove Creationism right. Do
it, if it is so obvious!
The situation is that the Creationist
argues not for God but for the
Bible.
I haven't heard that particular creationist yet. What's his name ?
You must know him - that fella who claims that the Earth MUST have been
created in six days (or at best six thousand years - another casual re-
write of convenience) because the Bible says it was and to hell with any
paleontologist, geologist or astronomer who says otherwise.
Actually the time frame used by evolutionists themselves
doesn't allow for it. So a new twist had to be added to
mislead people. So now, the claim is that evolution
happens in quick bursts instead of slowly over millions
of years.
All right - I am not a scientist, so let us assume the theory of evolution
is entirely wrong. That is a small part of your battle. Now you have the
stage - do your thing. You not only have to convince me that evolution as
it is currently explained is wrong, you also have to convince me that the
Bible - the BIBLE, mark you - is the correct explanation of the Creation
of the Universe.
Go to it.
There are still no transitional species but that
little inconsistency doesn't even faze the true believers.
That little inconsistency can be as little as you want it to be for the
convenience of your attacks on the notion of biological change over time.
If there is an observed gap of forty thousand years, or four million
years, then that gap is all you need to ridicule the idea. If that gap is
narrowed to a day, then no doubt that day would become all the evidence
you needed. I would not be surprised if a Creationist one day bleats on a
group like this that some future model of evolution cannot be correct
because they have not been able to identify any fossils from just after
tea time on 14 October 47,000,000BCE.
How much transition does your position require? Do you still believe in a
discrete 'missing link'?
Good point. Universities in the 15th century dilligently
stood by the claim that the earth was flat even though
evidence to the contrary was mounting.
And ultimately they changed their minds - much in the same way that
Creationists today are utterly unable to do.
Maybe one day we will find some rock solid evidence to settle the
dispute once and for all. But I wonder if the evolutionists would
accept it even if it were flawless. Probably not.
Did science accept the idea of a round world? Yes. Science adapts.
Nevertheless, the major point is STILL unanswered. If it is your claim
that Creationism is the correct account, then show evidence -
incontrovertible evidence - to support it. Come on - let us see this
'scientific theory of Creation' that we keep hearing so much about.
--
Midwinter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Og" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
23 Dec 2003 07:13:13 PM |
|
|
Snipped--------it was getting too long---------------
Maybe one day we will find some rock solid evidence to settle the
dispute once and for all. But I wonder if the evolutionists would
accept it even if it were flawless. Probably not.
Did science accept the idea of a round world? Yes. Science adapts.
First off, lets not confuse science with evolution. Remember
evolution has never been any more than a theory. It was worth
looking into but hasn't panned out. My only problem with
evolution is that it is taught as fact which it has not proven to
be. If evolution were taught as an unproven theory, which
it is, I wouldn't even complain.
Nevertheless, the major point is STILL unanswered. If it is your claim
that Creationism is the correct account, then show evidence -
incontrovertible evidence - to support it. Come on - let us see this
'scientific theory of Creation' that we keep hearing so much about.
I never said that I could prove anything to you. There is no
concrete proof for Creation or evolution. But what little
evidence there is fits nicely with the Genesis account.
Og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midwinter" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
24 Dec 2003 06:35:42 AM |
|
|
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote :
First off, lets not confuse science with evolution. Remember
evolution has never been any more than a theory.
All scientific principles are just theories. One could say the same for
gravitation. Science is about destruct-testing ideas. Until they can be
disproved, they are presumed to hold. Gravitation as we currently
understand it holds - but that does not mean we know exactly how
gravitation works. Nevertheless, that lack of full understanding does not
mean we must throw the whole thing out and assume that it is all done by
magic. Neither is this the case with evolution. Life forms today are
different from what they were ten or twenty million years ago - that tells
us enough to know that life forms change over time. Scientists have
mapped a considerable amount of DNA, and understand how it replicates and
passes information through the generations - that tells us that there is a
changing link between parents and offspring. There is an abundance of
evidence for some form of evolution - that there are questions it has not
yet answered means only that we do not have a full understanding of it.
It does not therefore follow that the sensible thing to do is abandon it
and go back to a superstitious belief in magic Creation.
My only problem with
evolution is that it is taught as fact which it has not proven to
be.
And, worryingly, in the Bible Belt - amongst other locations - magic
Creation is taught as fact, yet is supported by far less evidence.
If evolution were taught as an unproven theory, which
it is, I wouldn't even complain.
Are we using the word 'prove' in the colloquial sense of 'demonstrated to
be true', or in the true scientific sense of 'tested'? If the former,
then nothing can be 'proved' scientifically. If the latter, then
evolution IS proven - although that still does not make it true and
complete. The point is that it has undergone rigorous scientific testing.
What tests has Creationism survived? None.
(Incidentally, and entirely off-topic, this confusion over the word
'prove' is relied upon a great deal by cosmetic companies. The claims
featured on many adverts that such-and-such a product is 'proven to reduce
signs of ageing' rely on the fact that most viewers will assume this means
the product has been scientifically demonstrated to do so. In fact it is
a get-out: any complaints that it does not work can be answered in that
'proven' only mean that the product was tested to see if it worked, and no
claim is made that it actually does.)
I never said that I could prove anything to you. There is no
concrete proof for Creation or evolution. But what little
evidence there is fits nicely with the Genesis account.
In the eyes of the believer, who is willing to interpret matters in the
appropriate way, then of course it does. A good example of this is John P
Boatwright's '4 God' website at http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/
Mr Boatwright has convinced himself that he can reconcile science and the
Bible, and his site is an excellent model of how the willing believer can
weld the two together. Of course this relies on a certain flexibility in
terms of rationality, but it can be done, and done quite comprehensively.
--
Midwinter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
24 Dec 2003 11:09:46 AM |
|
|
"Midwinter" <solstice688@TAKEYOURSPAMANDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945B80525F5DEsolstice688TAKEYOURS@217.32.252.50...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote :
First off, lets not confuse science with evolution. Remember
evolution has never been any more than a theory.
All scientific principles are just theories.
No, they are principles. Principles are not facts.
One could say the same for
gravitation. Science is about destruct-testing ideas. Until they can be
disproved, they are presumed to hold. Gravitation as we currently
understand it holds - but that does not mean we know exactly how
gravitation works. Nevertheless, that lack of full understanding does not
mean we must throw the whole thing out and assume that it is all done by
magic.
No, the attraction of one body toward another in an unknown media called
space is defined as gravity. I don't know of any scientist who states that
gravity is a fact. It is a currently observable phenomenon and describable
to a limit with mathematics.
Neither is this the case with evolution. Life forms today are
different from what they were ten or twenty million years ago - that tells
us enough to know that life forms change over time.
No, it tells us that some forms are not as prolific as they once were.
Other atmospheric or environmental conditions make for certain life forms to
survive.
Scientists have
mapped a considerable amount of DNA, and understand how it replicates and
passes information through the generations - that tells us that there is a
changing link between parents and offspring. There is an abundance of
evidence for some form of evolution - that there are questions it has not
yet answered means only that we do not have a full understanding of it.
It does not therefore follow that the sensible thing to do is abandon it
and go back to a superstitious belief in magic Creation.
1. Einstein stated that one cannot observe the universe in any deapth with
coming to the conclusion that some form of intelligence formed it.
2. No evidence (to date) exists of one primary species transforming or
evolving into another species has ever occured.
Honesty dictates that we do not know.
All religion, even the religion of evolution, dictates and is the precursor
of error.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
24 Dec 2003 01:04:50 PM |
|
|
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in
news:uLjGb.13409$i55.6954@fed1read06:
"Midwinter" <solstice688@TAKEYOURSPAMANDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945B80525F5DEsolstice688TAKEYOURS@217.32.252.50...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote :
First off, lets not confuse science with evolution. Remember
evolution has never been any more than a theory.
All scientific principles are just theories.
No, they are principles. Principles are not facts.
One could say the same for
gravitation. Science is about destruct-testing ideas. Until they
can be disproved, they are presumed to hold. Gravitation as we
currently understand it holds - but that does not mean we know
exactly how gravitation works. Nevertheless, that lack of full
understanding does not mean we must throw the whole thing out and
assume that it is all done by magic.
No, the attraction of one body toward another in an unknown media
called space is defined as gravity. I don't know of any scientist who
states that gravity is a fact. It is a currently observable
phenomenon and describable to a limit with mathematics.
Neither is this the case with evolution. Life forms today are
different from what they were ten or twenty million years ago - that
tells us enough to know that life forms change over time.
No, it tells us that some forms are not as prolific as they once were.
Other atmospheric or environmental conditions make for certain life
forms to survive.
It tells us much more than that. It depicts a changing ecological
landscape punctuated by huge, catastrophic collapses. Take any two
geologic strata more than 20 million years apart and you will see largely
different ecosystems, especially at the species level, but even at the
generic. Look at the boundaries that mark the K-T extinction or the
Permian extinction and you will see that a radically different ecology
replaces an earlier one that was killed off.
Scientists have
mapped a considerable amount of DNA, and understand how it replicates
and passes information through the generations - that tells us that
there is a changing link between parents and offspring. There is an
abundance of evidence for some form of evolution - that there are
questions it has not yet answered means only that we do not have a
full understanding of it. It does not therefore follow that the
sensible thing to do is abandon it and go back to a superstitious
belief in magic Creation.
1. Einstein stated that one cannot observe the universe in any deapth
with coming to the conclusion that some form of intelligence formed
it.
That's nice and is not really disputed (or dealt with at all) by science.
2. No evidence (to date) exists of one primary species transforming or
evolving into another species has ever occured.
This is simply incorrect...a lie, since there is AMPLE evidence in the
genetics of humans and chimps that the two species share a common genetic
ancestor. In order for this to be so, then we must rigorously infer that
two species have evolved from a single ancestral species.
Honesty dictates that we do not know.
Honesty dictates that we should not reject out of hand cogent evidence of
what we DO know.
All religion, even the religion of evolution, dictates and is the
precursor of error.
Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific fact and a body of theory
that attempts to explain this fact and its significance.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
24 Dec 2003 02:53:22 PM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns945B70B889531doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211...
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in
news:uLjGb.13409$i55.6954@fed1read06:
"Midwinter" <solstice688@TAKEYOURSPAMANDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945B80525F5DEsolstice688TAKEYOURS@217.32.252.50...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote :
First off, lets not confuse science with evolution. Remember
evolution has never been any more than a theory.
All scientific principles are just theories.
No, they are principles. Principles are not facts.
One could say the same for
gravitation. Science is about destruct-testing ideas. Until they
can be disproved, they are presumed to hold. Gravitation as we
currently understand it holds - but that does not mean we know
exactly how gravitation works. Nevertheless, that lack of full
understanding does not mean we must throw the whole thing out and
assume that it is all done by magic.
No, the attraction of one body toward another in an unknown media
called space is defined as gravity. I don't know of any scientist who
states that gravity is a fact. It is a currently observable
phenomenon and describable to a limit with mathematics.
Neither is this the case with evolution. Life forms today are
different from what they were ten or twenty million years ago - that
tells us enough to know that life forms change over time.
No, it tells us that some forms are not as prolific as they once were.
Other atmospheric or environmental conditions make for certain life
forms to survive.
It tells us much more than that. It depicts a changing ecological
landscape punctuated by huge, catastrophic collapses. Take any two
geologic strata more than 20 million years apart and you will see largely
different ecosystems, especially at the species level, but even at the
generic. Look at the boundaries that mark the K-T extinction or the
Permian extinction and you will see that a radically different ecology
replaces an earlier one that was killed off.
Scientists have
mapped a considerable amount of DNA, and understand how it replicates
and passes information through the generations - that tells us that
there is a changing link between parents and offspring. There is an
abundance of evidence for some form of evolution - that there are
questions it has not yet answered means only that we do not have a
full understanding of it. It does not therefore follow that the
sensible thing to do is abandon it and go back to a superstitious
belief in magic Creation.
1. Einstein stated that one cannot observe the universe in any deapth
with coming to the conclusion that some form of intelligence formed
it.
That's nice and is not really disputed (or dealt with at all) by science.
2. No evidence (to date) exists of one primary species transforming or
evolving into another species has ever occured.
This is simply incorrect...a lie, since there is AMPLE evidence in the
genetics of humans and chimps that the two species share a common genetic
ancestor. In order for this to be so, then we must rigorously infer that
two species have evolved from a single ancestral species.
Honesty dictates that we do not know.
Honesty dictates that we should not reject out of hand cogent evidence of
what we DO know.
All religion, even the religion of evolution, dictates and is the
precursor of error.
Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific fact and a body of theory
that attempts to explain this fact and its significance.
Some people MAKE a religion of it.
Christianity is not a religion either.
A belief system becomes a religion when one obscures all input which might
alter one's belief within that system.
Evolution is a theory.
Saying it is fact makes it one's religion.
The existance of God or a God is theory.
Saying it is fact makes it one's religion.
Changing the meaning of words such as variablity within species to "define"
or "prove" evolution makes it the religion of evolution. It becomes their
little god.
To some the Democratic Party or Republican Party is their driving force
(god) and their religion.
The ABSOLUTE proof that a construct is one's religion is their adamant
denial of such.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
24 Dec 2003 09:25:05 PM |
|
|
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in
news:61nGb.13433$i55.10563@fed1read06:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns945B70B889531doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211...
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in
news:uLjGb.13409$i55.6954@fed1read06:
"Midwinter" <solstice688@TAKEYOURSPAMANDhotmail.com> wrote in
message news:Xns945B80525F5DEsolstice688TAKEYOURS@217.32.252.50...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote :
First off, lets not confuse science with evolution. Remember
evolution has never been any more than a theory.
All scientific principles are just theories.
No, they are principles. Principles are not facts.
One could say the same for
gravitation. Science is about destruct-testing ideas. Until they
can be disproved, they are presumed to hold. Gravitation as we
currently understand it holds - but that does not mean we know
exactly how gravitation works. Nevertheless, that lack of full
understanding does not mean we must throw the whole thing out and
assume that it is all done by magic.
No, the attraction of one body toward another in an unknown media
called space is defined as gravity. I don't know of any scientist
who states that gravity is a fact. It is a currently observable
phenomenon and describable to a limit with mathematics.
Neither is this the case with evolution. Life forms today are
different from what they were ten or twenty million years ago -
that tells us enough to know that life forms change over time.
No, it tells us that some forms are not as prolific as they once
were. Other atmospheric or environmental conditions make for
certain life forms to survive.
It tells us much more than that. It depicts a changing ecological
landscape punctuated by huge, catastrophic collapses. Take any two
geologic strata more than 20 million years apart and you will see
largely different ecosystems, especially at the species level, but
even at the generic. Look at the boundaries that mark the K-T
extinction or the Permian extinction and you will see that a
radically different ecology replaces an earlier one that was killed
off.
Scientists have
mapped a considerable amount of DNA, and understand how it
replicates and passes information through the generations - that
tells us that there is a changing link between parents and
offspring. There is an abundance of evidence for some form of
evolution - that there are questions it has not yet answered means
only that we do not have a full understanding of it. It does not
therefore follow that the sensible thing to do is abandon it and
go back to a superstitious belief in magic Creation.
1. Einstein stated that one cannot observe the universe in any
deapth with coming to the conclusion that some form of intelligence
formed it.
That's nice and is not really disputed (or dealt with at all) by
science.
2. No evidence (to date) exists of one primary species transforming
or evolving into another species has ever occured.
This is simply incorrect...a lie, since there is AMPLE evidence in
the genetics of humans and chimps that the two species share a common
genetic ancestor. In order for this to be so, then we must
rigorously infer that two species have evolved from a single
ancestral species.
Honesty dictates that we do not know.
Honesty dictates that we should not reject out of hand cogent
evidence of what we DO know.
All religion, even the religion of evolution, dictates and is the
precursor of error.
Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific fact and a body of
theory that attempts to explain this fact and its significance.
Some people MAKE a religion of it.
Christianity is not a religion either.
A belief system becomes a religion when one obscures all input which
might alter one's belief within that system.
Evolution is a theory.
And an observed fact.
Saying it is fact makes it one's religion.
Nope. Saying rain is a fact means we know it rains. Then there is the
meteorological theory of WHY it rains.
The existance of God or a God is theory.
Saying it is fact makes it one's religion.
Evolution's existence can be observed. God's cannot be directly
ascertained by any physical observation, but only through faith and
divine revelation.
Changing the meaning of words such as variablity within species to
"define" or "prove" evolution makes it the religion of evolution. It
becomes their little god.
Now you're simply playing word games. Either the changes in ecology in
the fossil record really happened or did not. Those changes represent
the FACT of evolution. As do the observations of new species forming.
To some the Democratic Party or Republican Party is their driving
force (god) and their religion.
The ABSOLUTE proof that a construct is one's religion is their adamant
denial of such.
People also deny the truth of what they know is a lie. Quite adamantly,
too.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
25 Dec 2003 07:49:10 AM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns945BC58A15A39doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211...
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in
news:61nGb.13433$i55.10563@fed1read06:
Evolution's existence can be observed.
In your dreams.
BTW
Do you attend the universal church of evolution?
Only the completely uneducated make statements like " Evolution's existence
can be observed. "
It isn't even a linguistically logical statement.
What a dunce you are. I guess it is to be expected from the fundamentalist
evolutionist. They have no scientific knowledge or logic capacity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
25 Dec 2003 09:44:08 AM |
|
|
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in
news:qVBGb.13911$i55.6750@fed1read06:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns945BC58A15A39doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211...
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in
news:61nGb.13433$i55.10563@fed1read06:
Evolution's existence can be observed.
In your dreams.
And in reality.
BTW
Do you attend the universal church of evolution?
Nope. There is no such church.
Only the completely uneducated make statements like " Evolution's
existence can be observed. "
Only the completely uneducated (or thoroughly brainwashed) repeat lies
like the above.
It isn't even a linguistically logical statement.
Uh, let's see. It has a subject: "existence." Modified by
"Evolution's" to make it particular.
It has a verb "can be"
It has an obeject "observed" the past participle of the verb to observe.
Looks linguistically OK to me.
What a dunce you are. I guess it is to be expected from the
fundamentalist evolutionist. They have no scientific knowledge or
logic capacity.
What a totally depraveb "moron for Jesus" you are. I guess it is what we
can expect from fundamentalist so-called Christians who have given up
their brains to the brain-rot of anti-intellectualism done in God's name.
What a vicious pack of libellers, slanderers and frauds you all are.
Is there really a sincere, HONEST YEC anywhere? Or have they all been
faced with the ultimate decision and joined the devil's brigades of false
Christian hatemongers?
Heretics! No wonder our ancestors were tempted to burn them!
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
25 Dec 2003 11:45:35 AM |
|
|
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns945C4EB23451Edoldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211...
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in
news:qVBGb.13911$i55.6750@fed1read06:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns945BC58A15A39doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211...
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in
news:61nGb.13433$i55.10563@fed1read06:
Evolution's existence can be observed.
In your dreams.
And in reality.
BTW
Do you attend the universal church of evolution?
Nope. There is no such church.
Really??? Gosh.
Only the completely uneducated make statements like " Evolution's
existence can be observed. "
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
25 Dec 2003 11:52:31 AM |
|
|
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in message
news:2nFGb.13924$i55.512@fed1read06...
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns945C4EB23451Edoldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211...
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in
news:qVBGb.13911$i55.6750@fed1read06:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns945BC58A15A39doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211...
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in
news:61nGb.13433$i55.10563@fed1read06:
Evolution's existence can be observed.
In your dreams.
And in reality.
BTW
Do you attend the universal church of evolution?
Nope. There is no such church.
Icon: Really??? Gosh.
Tom: And this is the best that you have to offer??? LOL!
Only the completely uneducated make statements like " Evolution's
existence can be observed. "
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midwinter" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
25 Dec 2003 05:01:37 PM |
|
|
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote:
Do you attend the universal church of evolution?
Nope. There is no such church.
Really??? Gosh.
You use clumsy sarcasm here as though it is no surprise to you that no
church of evolution exists. You are confused. You state you believe
'evolutionism' to be a fundamentalist religion - this reply, such as it is,
indicates that you are aware of the difference between your religion of
Magic Creation and the scientific principle of evolution.
--
Midwinter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
26 Dec 2003 02:35:06 AM |
|
|
"Midwinter" <solstice688@TAKEYOURSPAMANDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945CEA70EB72Esolstice688TAKEYOURS@217.32.252.50...
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote:
Do you attend the universal church of evolution?
Nope. There is no such church.
Really??? Gosh.
You use clumsy sarcasm
Oh to be as simple as you.
Unbelievable, simply unbelievable
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midwinter" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
26 Dec 2003 08:53:01 AM |
|
|
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote:
Oh to be as simple as you.
Unbelievable, simply unbelievable
Do you have anything worthwhile left with which to defend yourself? By all
means put forward your argument, if you have one. On current evidence it
is fairly clear that you do not - your posts so far appear thoroughly
confused.
--
Midwinter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
25 Dec 2003 01:31:09 PM |
|
|
Do you attend the universal church of evolution?
Nope. There is no such church.
Really??? Gosh.
Truth hurts, eh?
--
"From the fury of the Northmen, o lord, deliver us!"
(Desperate prayer of christian monks when the Viking dragon ships were sighted. Obviously the lord was not listening.)
Greetings from Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
Emails to commoner AT carcosa DOT de will need a "HI-AK 523" in the subject or go down the drain!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
25 Dec 2003 08:26:32 AM |
|
|
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in message
news:qVBGb.13911$i55.6750@fed1read06...
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns945BC58A15A39doldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211...
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in
news:61nGb.13433$i55.10563@fed1read06:
Evolution's existence can be observed.
In your dreams.
BTW
Do you attend the universal church of evolution?
Only the completely uneducated make statements like " Evolution's
existence
can be observed. "
It isn't even a linguistically logical statement.
What a dunce you are. I guess it is to be expected from the
fundamentalist
evolutionist. They have no scientific knowledge or logic capacity.
Tom: I find it to be rather ironic that a fool like Icon calls Dave O.
uneducated. I believe that Icon is "whistling in the dark" :-).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midwinter" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
25 Dec 2003 04:56:45 PM |
|
|
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote:
Evolution's existence can be observed.
In your dreams.
BTW
Do you attend the universal church of evolution?
Only the completely uneducated make statements like " Evolution's
existence can be observed. "
It isn't even a linguistically logical statement.
Rubbish. On both counts. Evolution, like the other scientific phenomenon
we have mentioned, can be observed, measured and tested. Magic Creation
cannot be tested so. Again, it suits you to claim that evolution is as
much a religion as Magic Creation is, but regardless of your bleating,
evolution is by far the logically superior theory - it BEING a theory
whereas Creationism is nothing more than blind faith and desperate wishful
thinking.
Secondly, there is nothing wrong with the sentence linguistically:
"Evolution's existence can be observed" is grammatically correct,
logically correct, and is a true statement. Your ability to assess such
comments appears as badly flawed as your knowledge of science, which leads
me to wonder why you feel we should treat your declamations seriously.
What a dunce you are. I guess it is to be expected from the
fundamentalist evolutionist. They have no scientific knowledge or
logic capacity.
And presumably you, who one moment attacks science as being
'fundamentalist' would now claim that knowledge of science is a desirable
thing? Make your mind up. You demonstrate absolutely no logical capacity
yourself, and do not even appear to know what case you are trying to make.
--
Midwinter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
25 Dec 2003 08:46:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:49:10 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com>
wrote:
Evolution's existence can be observed.
In your dreams.
In reality.
BTW
Do you attend the universal church of evolution?
Do you attend a universal church of gravity?
Evolution isn't religion, it is a fact, like gravity.
Only the completely uneducated make statements like " Evolution's existence
can be observed. "
A good many who say so teach at the world's major universities and
engage in research projects completely beyond your comprehension.
Your claim is fatuous.
It isn't even a linguistically logical statement.
Ignorant of linguistics too are you?
What a dunce you are. I guess it is to be expected from the fundamentalist
evolutionist. They have no scientific knowledge or logic capacity.
Said he, having just demonstrated a complete lack of those
accomplishments in himself...
## The mind of the Creationist is like concrete: Mixed up and set.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
24 Dec 2003 11:45:35 PM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, "Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in
<61nGb.13433$i55.10563@fed1read06>:
....
Some people MAKE a religion of it.
Christianity is not a religion either.
Okay Humpty, what is Christianity?
A belief system becomes a religion when one obscures all input which might
alter one's belief within that system.
You may choose to make words mean what you say they mean, but that
doesn't mean that anyone else will accept your claims.
Evolution is a theory.
Saying it is fact makes it one's religion.
Misrepresenting what science knows about evolution makes you a liar. The
theory of evolution is based on the observed evidence of evolution.
The existance of God or a God is theory.
Saying it is fact makes it one's religion.
There is no scientific theory of any god.
Changing the meaning of words such as variablity within species to "define"
or "prove" evolution makes it the religion of evolution. It becomes their
little god.
No one does that.
To some the Democratic Party or Republican Party is their driving force
(god) and their religion.
The ABSOLUTE proof that a construct is one's religion is their adamant
denial of such.
Sure -- just like you denied that Christianity was a religion.
--
"... There's glory for you."
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
24 Dec 2003 12:37:49 PM |
|
|
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in message
news:uLjGb.13409$i55.6954@fed1read06...
"Midwinter" <solstice688@TAKEYOURSPAMANDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945B80525F5DEsolstice688TAKEYOURS@217.32.252.50...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote :
First off, lets not confuse science with evolution. Remember
evolution has never been any more than a theory.
All scientific principles are just theories.
Icon: No, they are principles. Principles are not facts.
Tom: Icon, again proving he doesn't understand the question much less the
answer.
One could say the same for
gravitation. Science is about destruct-testing ideas. Until they can
be
disproved, they are presumed to hold. Gravitation as we currently
understand it holds - but that does not mean we know exactly how
gravitation works. Nevertheless, that lack of full understanding does
not
mean we must throw the whole thing out and assume that it is all done by
magic.
Icon: No, the attraction of one body toward another in an unknown media
called
space is defined as gravity. I don't know of any scientist who states
that
gravity is a fact. It is a currently observable phenomenon and
describable
to a limit with mathematics.
Tom: Really? Everyone thinks gravity is a fact. perhaps you can tell me the
names on a couple of these scientists that think gravity isn't a fact.
Neither is this the case with evolution. Life forms today are
different from what they were ten or twenty million years ago - that
tells
us enough to know that life forms change over time.
Icon: No, it tells us that some forms are not as prolific as they once
were.
Other atmospheric or environmental conditions make for certain life forms
to
survive.
Tom: You're right there Icon, there are so "non-prolific they are extinct
:-).
Scientists have
mapped a considerable amount of DNA, and understand how it replicates
and
passes information through the generations - that tells us that there is
a
changing link between parents and offspring. There is an abundance of
evidence for some form of evolution - that there are questions it has
not
yet answered means only that we do not have a full understanding of it.
It does not therefore follow that the sensible thing to do is abandon it
and go back to a superstitious belief in magic Creation.
Icon: 1. Einstein stated that one cannot observe the universe in any deapth
with
coming to the conclusion that some form of intelligence formed it.
Tom: Source please.
Icon: 2. No evidence (to date) exists of one primary species transforming
or
evolving into another species has ever occured.
Tom: You need to study biology a little more. You might learn something.
Icon: Honesty dictates that we do not know.
Tom: Some things we know, some we don't. I am reading a book now entitled "
What Remains to be Discovered". It is a fascinating book that is excellent
reading both from a standpoint of what we don't know and the stand point of
what we do know. You should read it, Icon.
Icon: All religion, even the religion of evolution, dictates and is the
precursor
of error.
Tom: Yes, and your first error here is in referring to evolution as a
religion. It is amusing to see these fundie creationists all calling
evolution a religion. I guess it shows that not only do they not know
science, they don't know religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: God's Creation |
24 Dec 2003 02:44:10 PM |
|
|
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vujn83532phu69@corp.supernews.com...
"Iconoclast" <icono@homer.com> wrote in message
news:uLjGb.13409$i55.6954@fed1read06...
"Midwinter" <solstice688@TAKEYOURSPAMANDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945B80525F5DEsolstice688TAKEYOURS@217.32.252.50...
"Og" <Og@bashan.org> wrote :
First off, lets not confuse science with evolution. Remember
evolution has never been any more than a theory.
All scientific principles are just theories.
Icon: No, they are principles. Principles are not facts.
Tom: Icon, again proving he doesn't understand the question much less the
answer.
One could say the same for
gravitation. Science is about destruct-testing ideas. Until they can
be
disproved, they are presumed to hold. Gravitation as we currently
understand it holds - but that does not mean we know exactly how
gravitation works. Nevertheless, that lack of full understanding does
not
mean we must throw the whole thing out and assume that it is all done
by
magic.
Icon: No, the attraction of one body toward another in an unknown media
called
space is defined as gravity. I don't know of any scientist who states
that
gravity is a fact. It is a currently observable phenomenon and
describable
to a limit with mathematics.
Tom: Really? Everyone thinks gravity is a fact. perhaps you can tell me
the
names on a couple of these scientists that think gravity isn't a fact.
Neither is this the case with evolution. Life forms today are
different from what they were ten or twenty million years ago - that
tells
us enough to know that life forms change over time.
Icon: No, it tells us that some forms are not as prolific as they once
were.
Other atmospheric or environmental conditions make for certain life
forms
to
survive.
Tom: You're right there Icon, there are so "non-prolific they are extinct
:-).
Scientists have
mapped a considerable amount of DNA, and understand how it replicates
and
passes information through the generations - that tells us that there
is
a
changing link between parents and offspring. There is an abundance of
evidence for some form of evolution - that there are questions it has
not
yet answered means only that we do not have a full understanding of
it.
It does not therefore follow that the sensible thing to do is abandon
it
and go back to a superstitious belief | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
