Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
Evolution-deniers help to REMIND everyone of what complete
DOLTS the RRR Cult lemmings are.
Not ALL RRR Cult lemmings are THAT moronic, but they qualify
as dolts nevertheless, if they qualify as BIGOTS.
ALL of the RRR Cultists hatefully and irrationally desire to see
millions of girls' and women's future opportunities disrupted as a
result of their being FORCED to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to
term against their will. That is the *primary* litmus test for BEING
an RRR Cultist.
And almost all of those SAME bigoted loons irrationally oppose
same-sex marriage, too, despite the fact that same-sex marriage
is 100% HARMLESS.
They are *quite* the collection of LOSERS!
America's worst infestation. And causing this country to be
an embarrassment before those other countries of the world
which have been FORTUNATE enough to have AVOIDED and
REJECTED such infestations.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� Rest in Peace ���
��� George Richard Tiller, MD ���
��� A True American HERO! ���
��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
��� Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
bam
BAM
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote in
message news:4bdpf5trv8l498aqi...@4ax.com...
>
> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>
> Evolution-deniers help to REMIND everyone of what complete
> DOLTS the RRR Cult lemmings are.
>
> Not ALL RRR Cult lemmings are THAT moronic, but they qualify
> as dolts nevertheless, if they qualify as BIGOTS.
>
> ALL of the RRR Cultists hatefully and irrationally desire to see
> millions of girls' and women's future opportunities disrupted as a
> result of their being FORCED to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to
> term against their will. That is the *primary* litmus test for BEING
> an RRR Cultist.
>
> And almost all of those SAME bigoted loons irrationally oppose
> same-sex marriage, too, despite the fact that same-sex marriage
> is 100% HARMLESS.
>
> They are *quite* the collection of LOSERS!
>
> America's worst infestation. And causing this country to be
> an embarrassment before those other countries of the world
> which have been FORTUNATE enough to have AVOIDED and
> REJECTED such infestations.
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> ... Rest in Peace ...
> ... George Richard Tiller, MD ...
> ... A True American HERO! ...
> ... August 8, 1941 - May 31, 2009 ...
> ... Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ...
Ted L
" <x...@m.com> wrote:
> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
In comparing the physical law of gravity to the faith of evolution,
one sees that gravity was created in circa 4000 BC, probably on the
first day of Creation, certainly by the third anyway (Genesis 1:1-13)
by a holy, righteous, and Just, Creator God.
The theory of evolution, on the other hand, was thought up in, and is
maintained by, the vain imaginations of sinners who, when he knew God,
glorified him not as God. Thus Darwin's foolish heart became
darkened, and became a dark beacon of hope to all others who,
professing themselves wise, become fools. (Romans 1:19-21)
Wild Bill
"Ted L" <spamta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c78a3e5-cfcf-4955...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
I've been known to sling a little B.S. myself, but every now & then it's
good to watch a real expert at it. So, please continue, Ted!
Shalom,
Bill
Ike E 11/05/09
"Wild Bill" <bils...@daytonwa.net> wrote in message
news:hdkelo$65s$1...@news.parasun.com...
>
> "Ted L" <spamta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4c78a3e5-cfcf-4955...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 12, 7:26 pm, "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
> " <x...@m.com> wrote:
>> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
>> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>
> In comparing the physical law of gravity to the faith of evolution,
> one sees that gravity was created in circa 4000 BC, probably on the
> first day of Creation, certainly by the third anyway (Genesis 1:1-13)
> by a holy, righteous, and Just, Creator God.
>
> The theory of evolution, on the other hand, was thought up in, and is
> maintained by, the vain imaginations of sinners who, when he knew God,
> glorified him not as God. Thus Darwin's foolish heart became
> darkened, and became a dark beacon of hope to all others who,
> professing themselves wise, become fools. (Romans 1:19-21)
LOL
Better go back and read those parallel creation stories again--they teach
evolution AND the distinct creation of Adam as TWO DIFFERENT EVENTS.
"Man," generic and plural at the END of the natural string.
"Adam," specific and singular, BEFORE all the other "living things."
And then God used the same symbols to describe the things created and Adam
"named"--"cattle," "beasts of the field," "fowls of the air," and, later
"creeping things"--that He used to tell Peter to preach the Gospel to the
Gentiles.
:-o
Ike
Ike
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 12, 7:26�pm, "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
>" <x...@m.com> wrote:
>> � � � � � Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
>> � � � � � � � � � would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>
>In comparing the physical law of gravity to the faith of evolution,
>one sees that gravity was created in circa 4000 BC, probably on the
>first day of Creation, certainly by the third anyway (Genesis 1:1-13)
>by a holy, righteous, and Just, Creator God.
Kook.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
VoiceOfReason
Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. It's only ignorant
fundies who don't.
Kenny McCormack
VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
...
>Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. It's only ignorant
>fundies who don't.
30% of Republican Presidential candidates don't.
bam
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote in
message news:4bdpf5trv8l498aqi...@4ax.com...
>
> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
Then what *is* Darwinism?
BAM
Ted L
wrote:
> Better go back and read those parallel creation stories again--they teach
> evolution AND the distinct creation of Adam as TWO DIFFERENT EVENTS.
>
The theory (or faith as it is) of evolution is incompatible with the
Bible. God declared the Creation good, then Adam corrupted it with
sin, thereby causing death and suffering to come into the world.
Rather than immediately subjecting the creation to fervent, element-
melting heat, God implemented a damage-control plan of redemption. In
the fulness of time, He sent his only begotten son to pay the penalty
for Adam's sin, such that whosoever will believe that God raised Jesus
from the dead may be saved.
Evolutionary therory is antithetical to a Biblical world view by
holding that death and suffering is a life-creating force. But death
and suffering is the byproduct of sin. There can't be millions of
years of death and suffering terminating with the declaration by a
holy, Just, and righteous Creator that it is 'good'. No child of God
can hold such a nonsensical view of our Heavenly Father; albeit it is
he whom God commends that gets his approval. And that approval is by
faith in his Son Jesus to deliver you from eternal destruction.
VoiceOfReason
wrote:
> In article <b3d1e46e-5ffd-42d9-8cc2-efcad1cd7...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. It's only ignorant
> >fundies who don't.
>
> 30% of Republican Presidential candidates don't.
A - Politicians frequently pay lip service to their base.
B - 100% of Republican Presidential candidates lost the election.
VoiceOfReason
> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote in
>
>
>
> > Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
> > would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>
> Then what *is* Darwinism?
It depends upon context really. In the context of creationist
materials, it's usually a pejorative term meant to imply that it's a
belief system.
In biology, it's usually meant to describe the original set of
theories that Darwin hypothesized 150 years ago.
The Talk.Origins archive has a good article describing the biological
concept in detail.
--------------------------------
In both scholarly and popular literature one frequently finds
references to "Darwin's theory of evolution", as though it were a
unitary entity. In reality, Darwin's "theory" of evolution was a whole
bundle of theories, and it is impossible to discuss Darwin's
evolutionary thought constructively if one does not distinguish its
various components.
...
The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary
theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis,
effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later
authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination
of some of the following five theories in mind:
1. Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not
constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is
steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2. Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms
descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms,
including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a
single origin of life on earth.
3. Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of
the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply,
either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by
the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that
evolve into new species.
4. Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes
place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden
(saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5. Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change
comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in
every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to
a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters,
give rise to the next generation.
...
Read the rest at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 14, 12:47�am, "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> Better go back and read those parallel creation stories again--they teach
>> evolution AND the distinct creation of Adam as TWO DIFFERENT EVENTS.
>>
>> Ike
>
>The theory (or faith as it is) of evolution is incompatible with the
>Bible.
Nonsense.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
bam
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:dd7bd2b2-ddae-4665...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 14, 11:37 am, "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote in
> messagenews:4bdpf5trv8l498aqi...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
> > would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>
> Then what *is* Darwinism?
>It depends upon context really. In the context of creationist
>materials, it's usually a pejorative term meant to imply that it's a
<belief system.
>In biology, it's usually meant to describe the original set of
>theories that Darwin hypothesized 150 years ago.
And how are the two different? Sounds like cigarettes - some like them and
some don't - but the definition is fixed.
>The Talk.Origins archive has a good article describing the biological
>concept in detail.
Ummmmm.....regarding your definition below. I've have never in my entire
life, encountered a definition that left so much wiggle room for
interpretation. It sounds more like a sermon.
BAM
VoiceOfReason
bam wrote:
> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
> news:dd7bd2b2-ddae-4665...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 14, 11:37 am, "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:4bdpf5trv8l498aqi...@4ax.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
> > > would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
> >
> > Then what *is* Darwinism?
>
> >It depends upon context really. In the context of creationist
> >materials, it's usually a pejorative term meant to imply that it's a
> <belief system.
>
> >In biology, it's usually meant to describe the original set of
> >theories that Darwin hypothesized 150 years ago.
>
> And how are the two different? Sounds like cigarettes - some like them and
> some don't - but the definition is fixed.
Do you mean to say that you don't know the difference between science
and religion?
> >The Talk.Origins archive has a good article describing the biological
> >concept in detail.
>
>
> Ummmmm.....regarding your definition below. I've have never in my entire
> life, encountered a definition that left so much wiggle room for
> interpretation. It sounds more like a sermon.
So in other words you've never had a science class (or didn't pay much
attention if you did). Sorry, but science can't be reduced to
gradeschool-level sound bites. To understand science, you have to
study.... which explains why there's a strong correlation between
educational level and acceptance of evolution.
But it appears I misunderstood you original question. When you wrote,
"Then what *is* Darwinism", I assumed you were asking an honest
question. It appears I was mistaken.
<snip pearls>
VoiceOfReason
> On Nov 14, 12:47 am, "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Better go back and read those parallel creation stories again--they teach
> > evolution AND the distinct creation of Adam as TWO DIFFERENT EVENTS.
>
> > Ike
>
> The theory (or faith as it is) of evolution is incompatible with the
> Bible.
Here's 12,000+ Christian Clergy who prove you wrong.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions,
believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of
modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of
evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to
rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and
achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory
among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and
transmit such ignorance to our children."
Ike E 11/05/09
> On Nov 14, 12:47 am, "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Better go back and read those parallel creation stories again--they teach
>> evolution AND the distinct creation of Adam as TWO DIFFERENT EVENTS.
>
>> Ike
>
> The theory (or faith as it is) of evolution is incompatible with the
> Bible.
Somebody forgot to tell Ezekiel: He knew the whole Garden of Eden thing was
a metaphor (because he probably WROTE the second Genesis account).
Ike
bam
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote
>Do you mean to say that you don't know the difference between science
>and religion?
No, I was not having any difficulty articulating myself, but thanks for the
effort. Science and religion are two separate words, with two separate
definitions.
>> Ummmmm.....regarding your definition below. I've have never in my entire
> >life, encountered a definition that left so much wiggle room for
> >interpretation. It sounds more like a sermon.
>So in other words you've never had a science class (or didn't pay much
>attention if you did). Sorry, but science can't be reduced to
>gradeschool-level sound bites. To understand science, you have to
>study.... which explains why there's a strong correlation between
>educational level and acceptance of evolution.
There he goes again, mistranslating me. And just like the atheist who can't
resist patting himself on the back for having a superior scientific
background to any Christian. What a deluded person. Perhaps he should google
Catholic scientists before he shoots his mouth off.
BAM
VoiceOfReason
> "VoiceOfReason" <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote
Nice try, but I'm no atheist. And there's not much point in Googling
Catholic scientists. The RCC accepted the fact of evolution long ago,
as have most mainstream Protestants.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
>> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>>
>> Evolution-deniers help to REMIND everyone of what complete
>> DOLTS the RRR Cult lemmings are.
>>
>> Not ALL RRR Cult lemmings are THAT moronic, but they qualify
>> as dolts nevertheless, if they qualify as BIGOTS.
>>
>> ALL of the RRR Cultists hatefully and irrationally desire to see
>> millions of girls' and women's future opportunities disrupted as a
>> result of their being FORCED to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to
>> term against their will. That is the *primary* litmus test for BEING
>> an RRR Cultist.
>>
>> And almost all of those SAME bigoted loons irrationally oppose
>> same-sex marriage, too, despite the fact that same-sex marriage
>> is 100% HARMLESS.
> Chilton never met...
...an egalitarian...
> ...he didn't like.
JUST as I've never met a mindless BIGOT that I didn't LOATHE.
Very justifiably. ALL bigots are loathsome lowlifes.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Ted L <spamta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> � � � � � Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
>> � � � � � � � � � would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
> In comparing the physical law of gravity to the...
...obviously-PROVEN process of evolution, for which the evidence
ABOUNDS in sedimentary rock strata the world over, is something that
INTELLIGENT people have NO problem understanding.
<clueless IDIOCY flushed>
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
>> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
> the distinct creation of Adam...
...is total bullcrap. The "Garden of Eden" story is obviously
allegorical, and only DIMWITS (with the exception of little kids
who don't know any better) would EVER take it literally.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Ted L <spamta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...evolution is incompatible with the Bible.
Wrong. Evolution is an ACTUALITY. Well-PROVEN science.
And...MY God is omniscient and omnipotent, and therefore
would have had NO problem creating an evolutionary process to
go along with everything else in the universe.
Too bad about YOURS.
Ike E 11/05/09
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:47:07 -0600,
> "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
>>> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>
>
>> the distinct creation of Adam...
>
> ...is total bullcrap.
"You say."
> The "Garden of Eden" story is obviously
> allegorical, and only DIMWITS (with the exception of little kids
> who don't know any better) would EVER take it literally.
OH, it's prophetic, and prophecy uses allegory, but the end result IS
"literal:" God had two lines of creation--the natural line of the first
account, and the supernatural line of the second account.
And when the two ran into each other, all "hell" (literally) broke loose.
[snip and move on]
Ike
bam
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote
> JUST as I've never met a mindless BIGOT that I didn't LOATHE.
Right. Saving infants is the lowest from of bigotry. They deserve the death
penalty, at the very least!
> Very justifiably. ALL bigots are loathsome lowlifes.
I'm surprised you would use such a word as "lowlife". It's a criticism that
implies a standard. I wonder what a "highlife" is, according to Chilton?
BAM
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> JUST as I've never met a mindless BIGOT that I didn't LOATHE.
> Right. Saving infants is the lowest from of bigotry. They deserve
> the death penalty, at the very least!
Unless you're a doctor or pediatrician, or have been on the scene of
an accident, you have probably NEVER saved the life of ANY infant, loon!
>> Very justifiably. ALL bigots are loathsome lowlifes.
> I'm surprised you would use such a word as "lowlife".
You shouldn't be, since you ARE one. Sewer rat turds are more
beneficial to society than bigoted losers like you. At least THEY can be
used for fertilizer.
-- (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <xana...@mchsi.com>
��� REMEMBER DR. TILLER!! ���
��� REJECT All RRR & LDS Cult Agendas NOW! ���
www.LayoffRemedy.com.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
When PERSONHOOD **Begins**
"ProfQ" wrote, on 9-15-08:
> ...a fetus [is] a HUMAN LIFE. Life starts at conception,
> not at birth.
To which I responded with the FACTS:
That's abjectly ignorant bullcrap!
(1) Human life is a CONTINUUM. It started just ONCE,
several million years ago, at the moment the first
organism existed that had *human* DNA. It has
been self-sustaining ever since, with every single
entity in it, from skin cells to gametes to already-
born PEOPLE (i.e., *human beings*) being ALIVE.
(2) Try and combine a DEAD sperm with a DEAD egg
and see what you get. Life does NOT begin at
fertilization, and in light of Point #1, the word
"conception" as commonly used in this regard, is
total nonsense.
(3) ALL FOUR reproductive-process entities (RPEs;
gametes, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses) are:
-- Human
-- Alive
-- Unique
-- *Potential* people
-- indispensable to all births
... and more than a QUADRILLION such potential
people are electively aborted *daily*, worldwide --
by men. (While the hateful louses of ANTI-Choice
hypocritically look the other way and whistle a tune.)
(4) PERSONHOOD -- that point at which a human entity
becomes defensible -- begins at BIRTH. Even the
Bible makes that *very* clear:
-- The Bible NEVER defends RPEs as PEOPLE.
-- ALL human life the Bible defends has/had been BORN.
-- The Bible make it very CLEAR that personhood begins
at BIRTH, in is passages that emphasize the importance
of ---
-- BIRTHrights
-- First-BORNS
-- BIRTH order.
So -- a fetus (particularly an UNwanted one that a woman
has NO desire to gestate -- does NOT qualify. For anything.
And as I said before, intelligent people usually should KNOW
better than to lend any support to loathsome, hateful and bigoted
agendas of ignorant sociopaths who seek to do such things as
FORCE girls and women to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to term
against their will.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Ike E <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>>> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
>>>> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>>> the distinct creation of Adam...
>> ...is total bullcrap.
> "You say."
No. Intelligent people have no problem recognizing FABLES when they
see them. Which usually include talking animals, just like that one does.
>> The "Garden of Eden" story is obviously allegorical, and only
>> DIMWITS (with the exception of little kids who don't know any better)
>> would EVER take it literally.
> OH, it's prophetic, and prophecy uses allegory, but the end result IS
> "literal:" God had two lines of creation--the natural line of the first
> account, and the supernatural line of the second account.
>
> And when the two ran into each other, all "hell" (literally) broke loose.
With an imagination like that, you should have a go at writing SCI-FI.
You missed your calling. LOL!!!
Original post follows:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
Evolution-deniers help to REMIND everyone of what complete
Ted L
God is their judge, too!
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming
themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of
light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as
the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their
works." (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
Ike E 11/16/09
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:31:15 -0600,
> "Ike E <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>> "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
>>>>> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>
>>>> the distinct creation of Adam...
>
>>> ...is total bullcrap.
>
>> "You say."
>
> No. Intelligent people have no problem recognizing FABLES when they
> see them. Which usually include talking animals, just like that one does.
>
>>> The "Garden of Eden" story is obviously allegorical, and only
>>> DIMWITS (with the exception of little kids who don't know any better)
>>> would EVER take it literally.
>
>> OH, it's prophetic, and prophecy uses allegory, but the end result
>> IS
>> "literal:" God had two lines of creation--the natural line of the first
>> account, and the supernatural line of the second account.
>>
>> And when the two ran into each other, all "hell" (literally) broke
>> loose.
>
No imagination to it: Ezekiel SAID what the whole "Garden of Eden" saga was
about--the proto-Assyro-Babylonian civilization that existed in the
Mesopotamian Valley before it flooded, when the sons of men first opposed
the first son of God, Adam, through Eve.
Let me know when you have a clue.
Ike
Ted L
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:05:37 -0800 (PST), Ted L
> <4c78a3e5-cfcf-4955-96f9-f81434991...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 12, 7:26 pm, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
> >" <x...@m.com> wrote:
> >> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
> >> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>
> >one sees that gravity was created in circa 4000 BC, probably on the
> >first day of Creation, certainly by the third anyway (Genesis 1:1-13)
> >by a holy, righteous, and Just, Creator God.
>
> Prove that.
The creation...
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the
face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God
saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the
darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God
said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it
divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and
divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters
which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning
were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together
unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God
called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters
called he Seas: and God saw that it was good..." (Genesis 1:1-10)
The warning...
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat
of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
The result of disobedience...
"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of
thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee,
saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also
and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb
of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou
return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou
art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Genesis 3:17-19)
The first shedding of blood as a type of Christ, a covering for sin:
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins,
and clothed them." (Genesis 3:21)
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved (Acts
16:31).
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Ike E. <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
> ...the first son of God, Adam...
You LOST the interest of INTELLIGENT people with that
BOGUS nonsense.
VoiceOfReason
Ted L wrote:
> On Nov 14, 9:04 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 12:41 pm, Ted L <spamtaddl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here's 12,000+ Christian Clergy who prove you wrong.
> >
> > http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
> >
> > "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions,
> > believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of
> > modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of
> > evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to
> > rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and
> > achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory
> > among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and
> > transmit such ignorance to our children."
>
> God is their judge, too!
Quite so. Anyone who would willingly transmit ignorance to our
children, or deny the full beauty of God's creation, will most
certainly be judged.
> "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming
> themselves into the apostles of Christ.
> And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of
> light.
> Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as
> the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their
> works." (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
Peruse a few creationist web sites and see that most are based on
lies. Like the lie that Christians can't accept the fact of
evolution. The fact remains that most Christians DO accept
evolution.
Ted L
> Peruse a few creationist web sites and see that most are based on
> lies. Like the lie that Christians can't accept the fact of
> evolution. The fact remains that most Christians DO accept
> evolution.
I wouldn't dispute that many, maybe a majority, of people who claim
the name of Christ might hold an unBiblical faith, but the "fact of
evolution" is nothing more than a false posit.
VoiceOfReason
> On Nov 16, 1:21 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > Peruse a few creationist web sites and see that most are based on
> > lies. Like the lie that Christians can't accept the fact of
> > evolution. The fact remains that most Christians DO accept
> > evolution.
>
> I wouldn't dispute that many, maybe a majority, of people who claim
> the name of Christ might hold an unBiblical faith,
And they would say the same about you. He said, she said, etc.
> but the "fact of
> evolution" is nothing more than a false posit.
Evolution is a fact because it's directly observed, both in the lab
and in the wild.
Theories that describe evolution explain our understanding of the
mechanisms that drive evolution.
bam
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:17:56 -0500,
> "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> JUST as I've never met a mindless BIGOT that I didn't LOATHE.
>
>> Right. Saving infants is the lowest from of bigotry. They deserve
>> the death penalty, at the very least!
>
> Unless you're a doctor or pediatrician, or have been on the scene of
> an accident, you have probably NEVER saved the life of ANY infant, loon!
>
>>> Very justifiably. ALL bigots are loathsome lowlifes.
>
>> I'm surprised you would use such a word as "lowlife".
>
> You shouldn't be, since you ARE one. Sewer rat turds are more
> beneficial to society than bigoted losers like you. At least THEY can be
> used for fertilizer.
And food for you.
BAM
Ted L
> On Nov 16, 4:06 pm, Ted L <spamtaddl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 16, 1:21 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > > Peruse a few creationist web sites and see that most are based on
> > > lies. Like the lie that Christians can't accept the fact of
> > > evolution. The fact remains that most Christians DO accept
> > > evolution.
>
> > I wouldn't dispute that many, maybe a majority, of people who claim
> > the name of Christ might hold an unBiblical faith,
>
> And they would say the same about you. He said, she said, etc.
>
> > but the "fact of
> > evolution" is nothing more than a false posit.
>
> Evolution is a fact because it's directly observed, both in the lab
> and in the wild.
Inductive reasoning from an a priori basis serves only to beg the
question rather than explain anything.
> Theories that describe evolution explain our understanding of the
> mechanisms that drive evolution.
Evolutionary theory, assuming that you mean a descent-with-
modification, life-emoting force, has never been observed nor could it
ever be observed. Because things only spawn after their own kind.
"...God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his
kind: and it was so." (Genesis 1:24)
Dogs after the dog kind, monkey after the monkey kind, gorilla after
the gorilla kind, baboon after the baboon kind, and man after man
kind, being made in the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26).
Similarities between kinds only point to the common designer, not a
common ancestor, like it says in the Bible.
VoiceOfReason
Ted L wrote:
> On Nov 16, 4:38 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 4:06 pm, Ted L <spamtaddl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 16, 1:21 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Peruse a few creationist web sites and see that most are based on
> > > > lies. Like the lie that Christians can't accept the fact of
> > > > evolution. The fact remains that most Christians DO accept
> > > > evolution.
> >
> > > I wouldn't dispute that many, maybe a majority, of people who claim
> > > the name of Christ might hold an unBiblical faith,
> >
> > And they would say the same about you. He said, she said, etc.
> >
> > > but the "fact of
> > > evolution" is nothing more than a false posit.
> >
> > Evolution is a fact because it's directly observed, both in the lab
> > and in the wild.
>
> Inductive reasoning from an a priori basis serves only to beg the
> question rather than explain anything.
We're talking about direct observation here. Evolution is directly
observed.
> > Theories that describe evolution explain our understanding of the
> > mechanisms that drive evolution.
>
> Evolutionary theory, assuming that you mean a descent-with-
> modification, life-emoting force, has never been observed nor could it
> ever be observed.
Hogwash. We directly observe descent with modification every day,
such as in evolution of flu viruses.
And descent with modification is only one of a number of theories that
describe our understanding of how evolution operates.
> Because things only spawn after their own kind.
> "...God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
> kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his
> kind: and it was so." (Genesis 1:24)
>
> Dogs after the dog kind, monkey after the monkey kind, gorilla after
> the gorilla kind, baboon after the baboon kind, and man after man
> kind, being made in the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26).
>
> Similarities between kinds only point to the common designer, not a
> common ancestor, like it says in the Bible.
The Bible is not a science book. Treating it as one is silly.
The Chief Instigator
> On Nov 16, 4:38?pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 4:06?pm, Ted L <spamtaddl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 16, 1:21?pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Peruse a few creationist web sites and see that most are based on
>> > > evolution. ?The fact remains that most Christians DO accept
>> > > evolution.
>>
>> > I wouldn't dispute that many, maybe a majority, of people who claim
>> > the name of Christ might hold an unBiblical faith,
>>
>>
>> > but the "fact of
>> > evolution" is nothing more than a false posit.
>>
>> Evolution is a fact because it's directly observed, both in the lab
>> and in the wild.
>
> Inductive reasoning from an a priori basis serves only to beg the
> question rather than explain anything.
You might want to consider extricating your head from your ass and learning
how evolution occurs. Denying it doesn't slow it down in the least.
>> Theories that describe evolution explain our understanding of the
>> mechanisms that drive evolution.
>
> Evolutionary theory, assuming that you mean a descent-with-
> modification, life-emoting force, has never been observed nor could it
> ever be observed. Because things only spawn after their own kind.
Never mind that mutations will occur (like the one that made you a babbling
idiot), and if it's a mutation favorable to survival, the species will
change over time. You don't have any say in it, any more than anyone else.
> "...God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
> kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his
> kind: and it was so." (Genesis 1:24)
>
> Dogs after the dog kind, monkey after the monkey kind, gorilla after
> the gorilla kind, baboon after the baboon kind, and man after man
> kind, being made in the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26).
>
> Similarities between kinds only point to the common designer, not a
> common ancestor, like it says in the Bible.
Is that why the critters all around us have evolved over the millennia?
None of your invisible sky pixies have a say in it, or anything else. The
world will ignore your delusion, as organized religion is some idiot's wish
to gain power over others by threatening them with moronic fantasies. I
sussed that a half-century ago, watching that circus freak Oral Roberts on a
Sunday morning, and it didn't help that we lived in the same city as that
asshole: Tulsa. That's my take on the whole sorry scam.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Chicago 2, Houston 1 (November 15)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 18 vs. Peoria, 7:05
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>>> JUST as I've never met a mindless BIGOT that I didn't LOATHE.
>>> Right. Saving infants is the lowest from of bigotry. They deserve
>>> the death penalty, at the very least!
>> Unless you're a doctor or pediatrician, or have been on the scene of
>> an accident, you have probably NEVER saved the life of ANY infant, loon!
>>>> Very justifiably. ALL bigots are loathsome lowlifes.
>>> I'm surprised you would use such a word as "lowlife".
>> You shouldn't be, since you ARE one. Sewer rat turds are more
>> beneficial to society than bigoted losers like you. At least THEY can be
>> used for fertilizer.
> And food for you.
Nope -- I'm not one of YOUR relatives!
Ted L
> Hogwash. We directly observe descent with modification every day,
> such as in evolution of flu viruses.
Viruses taking after their kind. Mutation and natural selection
within a kind isn't unbiblical.
> The Bible is not a science book. Treating it as one is silly.
Agreed. It's rather the source of all truth, by the very word and
truth Jesus, by whom and for whom all things were created. If a vain
imagination--such as that owned by Darwin after he rejected God in his
knowledge--clearly contradicts what is given by God's word, then it's
best to reject the vain thing and start at the point of truth. That's
requisite to fruitful scientific inquiry. It would be a far better
use of good research dollars currently being thrown after bad to
entertain the vain thoughts and imaginations of any research that
requires an unbiblical premise.
--
Praying for the scientists...and one special one in particular:
"(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through
God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations,
and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of
God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of
Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when
your obedience is fulfilled." (2Cor 10:4-6)
Ike E 11/16/09
"Ted L" <spamta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a274ef5d-1d9d-4fc7...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> I wouldn't dispute that many, maybe a majority, of people who claim
> the name of Christ might hold an unBiblical faith, but the "fact of
> evolution" is nothing more than a false posit.
LOL
It's YOUR doctrines that are "unbiblical."
I already told you, you better go back and look at those Genesis accounts
again, because they do NOT support the fundaliteralist position. Ezekiel
even SAID what the "Garden of Eden" saga was about, and it wern't 'bout a
couple of lively customers looking to pick up some fruit from no snake.
<chuckle>
The Bible STARTED as a "two tree" story, it CONTINUES as a "two tree" story,
and it ENDS with a "two tree" story.
Ike
Ike E 11/16/09
[snip]
> Evolutionary theory, assuming that you mean a descent-with-
> modification, life-emoting force, has never been observed nor could it
> ever be observed. Because things only spawn after their own kind.
> "...God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
> kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his
> kind: and it was so." (Genesis 1:24)
LOL
What are "cattle, creeping things, beasts of the earth" and "fowls of the
air" in the sense of prophecy (as they are used in the SECOND Genesis
account), oh, clueless one?
Ask Luke. He'll tell you. It's in Act 10.
You could also ask Ezekiel, John, and the other prophets, too--when they
used the terms prophetically, they used them the same way.
[snip]
Ike
Ike E 11/16/09
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:03:56 -0600,
> "Ike E. <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> ...the first son of God, Adam...
>
> You LOST the interest of INTELLIGENT people with that
> BOGUS nonsense.
Thanks for establishing that you don't believe Jesus. He treated the
historical characters as REAL.
Lu 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished
between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be
required of this generation.
Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of
man be.
Mt 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and
drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered
into the ark,
Mt 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our
father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up
children unto Abraham.
[snicker and snip]
Ike
VoiceOfReason
Ted L wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:04 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > Hogwash. We directly observe descent with modification every day,
> > such as in evolution of flu viruses.
>
> Viruses taking after their kind. Mutation and natural selection
> within a kind isn't unbiblical.
There are quite a number of observed speciation events in the lab and
in the wild. Would you tell these organisms that they are being
"unbiblical" in their actions? Will you weasel-word around the term
"kind" so that you can't be nailed down on it?
> > The Bible is not a science book. Treating it as one is silly.
>
> Agreed. It's rather the source of all truth, by the very word and
> truth Jesus, by whom and for whom all things were created.
That applies to those who are believers in one of many Christian
denominations. They are religious truths, not scientific truths.
> If a vain
> imagination--such as that owned by Darwin after he rejected God in his
> knowledge--clearly contradicts what is given by God's word, then it's
> best to reject the vain thing and start at the point of truth.
Such as the way US-based evangelicals claim that the world is a few
thousand years old, despite clear evidence to the contrary. They give
all Christians a bad name.
You seem to be unaware that the age of the earth, evolution, the size
of the cosmos, the big bang, etc, were all discovered by theists.
> That's
> requisite to fruitful scientific inquiry. It would be a far better
> use of good research dollars currently being thrown after bad to
> entertain the vain thoughts and imaginations of any research that
> requires an unbiblical premise.
It sounds like you propose a return to the Dark Ages. Sorry, but
mankind and Christianity have moved on.
VoiceOfReason
Attila wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:49:59 -0800 (PST), VoiceOfReason
> <papa...@cybertown.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <06891fe6-ae89-44a1...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> >That applies to those who are believers in one of many Christian
> >denominations. They are religious truths, not scientific truths.
>
> Religious beliefs. There are no religious truths.
You say tomato, I say tomahto... :-)
Ted L
wrote:
...
> I already told you, you better go back and look at those Genesis accounts
> again, because they do NOT support the fundaliteralist position. Ezekiel
> even SAID what the "Garden of Eden" saga was about, and it wern't 'bout a
> couple of lively customers looking to pick up some fruit from no snake.
> The Bible STARTED as a "two tree" story, it CONTINUES as a "two tree" story,
> and it ENDS with a "two tree" story.
>
> Ike
If you are serious about wanting to know the savior and creator, I
recommend that you try reading his word in prayer. Like it or not, by
your own testimony in light of his word (as I understand it), you've
chosen not to retain him in your knowledge, which has caused you to
fall off the deep end chasing a god that may be easier for you to
follow but in no way able to save.
Ike E 11/23/9
Yeah, right.
Let me know when you have a clue.
First Genesis account: Mankind, generic and plural, comes at the END of the
sequence.
Second Genesis account: Adam, specific and singular, come BEFORE every other
living thing.
Read Ezekiel 31: He'll tell you what the "Garden of Eden" saga was actually
about.
Ike