Theistic Evolutionists
Pastor Dave
Regardless of what anyone wants to claim, what I say
in this message about what evolution teaches, is indeed
what it teaches.
Now what you have to ask yourselves, is why it is that
evolutionists, especially theistic evolutionists (a person
who claims to believe the Bible and yet also claims
that "God used evolution to do it"), get so outraged
when you put forth the basic concepts of evolution
and what it means to and for man, if it is true.
It seems simple to realize that it is because they are
embarrassed by what it would actually mean if it
were true and don't want you to realize that yes,
this/that is what it would mean to and for man!
So why do they stick with it anyway then? Simple!:
Theistic evolutionists are out to please men, rather than
God. They claim to believe in a virgin birth, people
rising from the dead, water turned into wine and yet,
they don't believe that God created the heaven and
the earth in six literal days, thereby making hypocrites
of themselves. Why? Because man says it isn't so
and they would rather try to please men, instead of
choosing to believe God and stand up for Him.
And in their quest to make men happy, instead of God,
it never even occurs to them that these same men that
deny the Creation and proclaim their religion of evolution,
also deny the virgin birth, people rising from the dead
and water being turned into wine.
So the truth is, there's no difference! They're all miracles!
So why proclaim to be a Christian and then cop out on
just this one?
Jesus turned water into wine. Did He tell them to wait for
it to ferment? Or was the wine instantly ready to drink?
It was the latter.
He healed people. Did He tell them to go see a doctor and
take their antibiotics for 10 days? Or were they instantly
healed? It was the latter.
So the bottom line is, that Jesus did what He did and just
sped up the process. So why is it impossible to these same
people who claim to believe in Christ, that He created it all
in six literal days?
If evolution is true, then the Bible cannot be and Jesus cannot
be Lord. Why not? Simple. Because Jesus would then be
nothing more than a made over monkey and man could not
be the pinnacle of God's creation. After all, evolution means
that we're still evolving. So who knows what we'll end up
being, right? I.e., if evolution is true, then man is not the
end of the evolutionary process and so, man cannot be
the pinnacle of God's physical creation, as Scripture does
teach that he is and that makes all of our hopes false!
Furthermore, the Bible says that death came by sin and sin
came by Adam. If that is not true (and that's what evolution
means), then Jesus could not have come to save us from the
Fall, since it never happened, if evolution is true. And Jesus
cannot be "the last Adam". He would be "the last ape" and
even that would not be true, since there are more after Him!
And preachers who claim theistic evolution are the biggest
hypocrites of all and are in the most danger! Why? Simple.
Read Isaiah 9:16 & Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6.
So what do YOU stand for? You must decide if you stand
for God, or men who deny Him! Which side do you want
to be on? The side that says that we are animals? Because
if so, then Jesus is not our Saviour, since we cannot be
sinning if we are animals, since we would just be acting
as we were designed to, which is also what evolution
teaches. And do you hold an animal responsible for
attacking another animal? Of course not! So neither
can man be responsible under the guidelines of evolution,
for attacking other men!
So don't tell your kids, "Stop acting like animals!" and
then tell them that they're apes. You're nothing but
a hypocrite when you do.
Evolution is not even compatible with Scripture and so,
there is no way it can be read into it.
First of all, God declares it to be six literal days when
He says about each day; "and the EVENING AND
THE MORNING were the 'X' day".
Second, evolution teaches that the Earth came after
the Sun. The Bible teaches that the Sun came after
the Earth.
Now of course, in an attempt at an avoidance maneuver,
the evolutionist will demand to know; "Then what was
the light before Day 4?!".
But note, that is an avoidance maneuver! Note that
they did not (because they were not able to) dispute
that the Bible does in fact say what it says about the
Sun being created after the Earth. Rather, instead,
they try to pit one verse against another and that is
simply in no way a refutation of what I said, period!
And then there are those who claim the "Gap Theory".
That there were "gaps" between the days, which is
supposedly when all of this supposed "evolution"
took place. But that is them inserting a gap where
none is stated.
<Futurists take note here, since the same rule applies
to how you handle Daniel 9:24-27, since no gap is
stated there either and you are a hypocrite if you
put one there and argue against one in Genesis,
because, "there is no gap stated". So if you demand
one there, then you must give one here, end of story.
Or, you can foolishly try to think that you will look
honest inserting one in Daniel, when there is no more
mention of one there, than there is in Genesis 1.>
And as for these "gaps", they do not seem to be able
to explain how it is that plants and insects survived
without each other for the millions, or even billions
of years that they insert there, between the days,
considering that neither could survive without the
other being around at the same time and yet, the
Bible tells us that they were created on different days!
So how did the plants and insects survive without
each other for those "millions, or billions" of years,
when they cannot survive without each other
being present at the same time, period!
Now of course, the theistic evolutionist will try to
claim that "they were different kinds of plants then".
Huh?!? What evidence is there for that, except that
they just claimed that it's so?! And why do "Christians"
sit back and act as if the theistic evolutionist has somehow
actually come up with a scientific answer?! How is it
"scientific" to take insects and plants, that we both
know depend on each other to live and just make some
wild claim that it was only a different kind of plant that
existed then, for millions, or billions of years?! What?!?
And where and when did the plants that would have
required insects come into existence? Did they just
pop into existence all of the sudden? Isn't that indeed
contrary to what evolution teaches? No, not at all the
evolutionist would say, because you see folks, when
the evolutionist needs things to happen fast, they
just say they did and claim it's "fits and starts" and
that's that! And you are supposed to believe that!
Or they will claim that after the insects appeared,
then these other plants that depend on them began
to evolve over millions of years.
Really? So what did the insects do until that happened?!
Hello?!? :)
The fact is, they had to appear in the same time frame
and literal days allows for that. Millions of years for
each day does not!
And then we'll see the theistic evolutionists telling us
how "they were a different type of insect back then".
Huh?!? Where does it say that?! And what insects,
exactly?! Hello?!?
This is just made up fairy takes they invent on the fly
in the middle of the conversation, while they hypocritically
tell you that you believe in a fairy take, while discussing
the very same Bible that they claim to believe in! What?!?
And yet, they expect you to believe all of this! And they
try to make you look foolish if you don't. And the sad
part is, that most Christians will back down, because
they are afraid that they don't know enough about
this supposed "science". Gee, I thought the discussion
was about THE BIBLE! And let's face the truth. Making
up things on the fly that have no basis in science, is in
no way, "science"! They are pretending! And it is your
job to find that out, instead of cowering in fear because
of an "on the fly, home spun fairy tale"! So do that! :)
The sad part is, many "Christians" do just accept it,
because someone who wants to believe in evolution
says it's so! We dare not question "scientists", right?
The sad part is, that these same "Christians" accept
this mumbo jumbo which runs completely contrary
to science, from people who are not scientists and
even from atheists who have zero education in the
involved sciences, just because they say it is so!
Get the message? Educate yourself and stop claiming
to believe in the word of God and then instead, placing
whatever a God hater says above it!
"...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for me
and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
Sorry for the harsh words, but we who believe God,
get tired of those who claim to, yet in truth don't.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"The only place you find chaos in the universe
is in mans' heart." - Vume
randy
"Pastor Dave"
> Theistic evolutionists are out to please men, rather than
> God. They claim to believe in a virgin birth, people
> rising from the dead, water turned into wine and yet,
> they don't believe that God created the heaven and
> the earth in six literal days, thereby making hypocrites
> of themselves. Why? Because man says it isn't so
> and they would rather try to please men, instead of
> choosing to believe God and stand up for Him.
That is pure judgmentalism, or total naivete. I can speak for myself when I
say, I don't know enough science to be able to say absolutely what the
evidence does indicate. Many Christians want to say they believe in the
Bible and also in the scientific method. In fact, the scientific method in
modern times *began* with Christians!
I really don't care if God used evolution or not. The way evolutionists
define evolution, we can admit that some kind of evolution was in fact used
by God. We just can't say, I believe, with certainty how far God went in
making one creature out of another creature.
I don't personally believe God made all species of creatures from one
original prototype of creature. But I just can't say what the scientific
evidence says.
I can say, however, that I don't believe anything could've come about apart
from the hand of God. God may have taken a lump of earth and made man out of
it, and a lump out of Adam's rib to make Eve. He could've taken handfuls of
earth to make each species of animal, or he could've taken a lump of rib out
of each creature to make another creature. Perhaps then that would explain
why there is so much shared DNA?
Anyway, I personally will let science speak for itself. I suspect it will
make lots of mistakes. But in the end I trust the scientific method will
work out. We cannot say, however, that God made anything unless it is either
by surmise or by revelation. I believe we must live by revelation to know
with certainty that God made the universe. But it is also logical to
conclude God did it simply by reason, understanding that things do not make
themselves.
I don't believe we should force dogma down anybody's throats, or judge them
as "the Antichrist" if they don't tow the line. Let them be honest, Dave!
randy
Dave Oldridge
news:g0gvj5pob6lt2hqhl...@4ax.com:
>Regardless of what anyone wants to claim, what I say
>in this message about what evolution teaches, is indeed
>what it teaches.
>
>Now what you have to ask yourselves, is why it is that
>evolutionists, especially theistic evolutionists (a person
>who claims to believe the Bible and yet also claims
>that "God used evolution to do it"), get so outraged
>when you put forth the basic concepts of evolution
>and what it means to and for man, if it is true.
There you have it. According to this liar, the only theists in the world
are bibliolaters fixated on the Bible as interpreted by his cult.
>
>It seems simple to realize that it is because they are
>embarrassed by what it would actually mean if it
>were true and don't want you to realize that yes,
>this/that is what it would mean to and for man!
Actually, the Church, while preserving and interpreting the Bible is not
ruled by it. Your attempt to peddle it as some kind of infallible
science oracle is a transparent attempt to further your rebellion against
God and His Church.
>
>So why do they stick with it anyway then? Simple!:
>
>Theistic evolutionists are out to please men, rather than
>God. They claim to believe in a virgin birth, people
You must be out to please a different God than God the Father Almighty.
Belial, perhaps? He is certainly considered an inspirer of lies,
especially the subtle type of lie that you and your "kind" are so fond of
telling!
>rising from the dead, water turned into wine and yet,
>they don't believe that God created the heaven and
>the earth in six literal days, thereby making hypocrites
>of themselves. Why? Because man says it isn't so
>and they would rather try to please men, instead of
>choosing to believe God and stand up for Him.
I don't believe that God created the earth in such a way that the
creation lies about the way it was formed. And your bibliolatry is
showing. What authority tells you that God did this the way you say?
>
>And in their quest to make men happy, instead of God,
>it never even occurs to them that these same men that
>deny the Creation and proclaim their religion of evolution,
>also deny the virgin birth, people rising from the dead
>and water being turned into wine.
Yet you claim that God the Father Almighty is a deceiver.
Why do you make such a claim?
>So the truth is, there's no difference! They're all miracles!
>So why proclaim to be a Christian and then cop out on
>just this one?
Miracles leave evidence behind them. Mythological title deeds to pieces
of land tend to be contradicted by physical evidence.
>
>Jesus turned water into wine. Did He tell them to wait for
>it to ferment? Or was the wine instantly ready to drink?
>It was the latter.
Yet all you can do is lie about people you don't even know. YOUR god,
Belial is actually quite good at transforming well-meaning (but self-
righteous) Christians into blasphemous liars.
>He healed people. Did He tell them to go see a doctor and
>take their antibiotics for 10 days? Or were they instantly
>healed? It was the latter.
Yet He still sent the lepers to the medical authorities of that day to be
declared healed.
>So the bottom line is, that Jesus did what He did and just
>sped up the process. So why is it impossible to these same
>people who claim to believe in Christ, that He created it all
>in six literal days?
>
>If evolution is true, then the Bible cannot be and Jesus cannot
>be Lord. Why not? Simple. Because Jesus would then be
Jesus, then, according to your HERESY, was not fully human?
>nothing more than a made over monkey and man could not
>be the pinnacle of God's creation. After all, evolution means
What makes you think man IS that pinnacle? Perhaps you think you read it
in the Bible.
>that we're still evolving. So who knows what we'll end up
>being, right? I.e., if evolution is true, then man is not the
>end of the evolutionary process and so, man cannot be
>the pinnacle of God's physical creation, as Scripture does
>teach that he is and that makes all of our hopes false!
So YOUR god cannot create any more?
>
>Furthermore, the Bible says that death came by sin and sin
>came by Adam. If that is not true (and that's what evolution
>means), then Jesus could not have come to save us from the
>Fall, since it never happened, if evolution is true. And Jesus
>cannot be "the last Adam". He would be "the last ape" and
>even that would not be true, since there are more after Him!
This is why you are dead and I am alive.
>
>And preachers who claim theistic evolution are the biggest
>hypocrites of all and are in the most danger! Why? Simple.
>Read Isaiah 9:16 & Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6.
Naw, creationists are bigger hypocrites than anyone. They lie and lie
and libel and libel all in God's name. Their cults are an ABOMINATION in
the sight of the Most High and their odoour is a stench in His nostrils.
>
>So what do YOU stand for? You must decide if you stand
>for God, or men who deny Him! Which side do you want
I stand for honesty, pure and simple. And, if you worship a god that
doesn't like that and it tries to interfere with me I will, for I am an
exorcist, trained and ordained, send it to hell. If you are too attached
spiritually and emotionally to it, this could be fatal for you. Be fery
careful what you ask of a demon. Their services come at a price.
>to be on? The side that says that we are animals? Because
But we ARE animals. The Bible even says so.
We are certainly not plants or fungi. We have many cells. We are not
angels.
>if so, then Jesus is not our Saviour, since we cannot be
>sinning if we are animals, since we would just be acting
>as we were designed to, which is also what evolution
>teaches. And do you hold an animal responsible for
He probably isn't YOUR Saviour, since you clearly believe in a different
"Jesus" from the one in the Bible.
>attacking another animal? Of course not! So neither
>can man be responsible under the guidelines of evolution,
>for attacking other men!
Man is the human animal--with a human soul provided by God for each
individual.
>
>So don't tell your kids, "Stop acting like animals!" and
>then tell them that they're apes. You're nothing but
>a hypocrite when you do.
Actually, apes are better behaved than most creationists. I have rarely
seen an ape viciously slander another ape. Even when they fight, they
rarely murder one another and never do it in the name of a false god.
>
>Evolution is not even compatible with Scripture and so,
>there is no way it can be read into it.
>
>First of all, God declares it to be six literal days when
>He says about each day; "and the EVENING AND
>THE MORNING were the 'X' day".
Genesis wasn't written by any god(s).
>
>Second, evolution teaches that the Earth came after
>the Sun. The Bible teaches that the Sun came after
>the Earth.
The physical evidence shows us that the earth formed somewhat after the
sun did. Genesis is part of our tradition because it is part of Jewish
tradition and therefore part of the history of our own. But it is not an
infallible science text and was never intended by its real authors to be
one. Instead, it was intended to provide a mythological underpinning for
the Israelites claim to the Holy Land. And no part of it was written
much before about BC, as far as anyone can show.
>Now of course, in an attempt at an avoidance maneuver,
>the evolutionist will demand to know; "Then what was
>the light before Day 4?!".
>
>But note, that is an avoidance maneuver! Note that
>they did not (because they were not able to) dispute
>that the Bible does in fact say what it says about the
>Sun being created after the Earth. Rather, instead,
>they try to pit one verse against another and that is
>simply in no way a refutation of what I said, period!
Again, WHO CARES?
You are, of course, fully entitled to say (even honestly if you actually
believe the crap) that the Bible teaches what you say it teaches. But,
the moment you cross the line and insist that the STATE is supposed to
promote this cult teaching as SCIENCE in the public school system, you
start lying in God's name and become thereby a blasphemer. You should
thank your false god that you are inspired to these ILLEGAL acts in a
country that has great tolerance for deviant religion. Because in Bible
times, such deviations were punished by stoning the rebel to death.
>And then there are those who claim the "Gap Theory".
>That there were "gaps" between the days, which is
>supposedly when all of this supposed "evolution"
>took place. But that is them inserting a gap where
>none is stated.
A foolish compromise with literalism. God's sovereignty is universal,
but only blasphemers such as your cult and its leaders claim that He
chooses to lie.
>
><Futurists take note here, since the same rule applies
> to how you handle Daniel 9:24-27, since no gap is
> stated there either and you are a hypocrite if you
> put one there and argue against one in Genesis,
> because, "there is no gap stated". So if you demand
> one there, then you must give one here, end of story.
> Or, you can foolishly try to think that you will look
> honest inserting one in Daniel, when there is no more
> mention of one there, than there is in Genesis 1.>
>
>And as for these "gaps", they do not seem to be able
>to explain how it is that plants and insects survived
>without each other for the millions, or even billions
>of years that they insert there, between the days,
>considering that neither could survive without the
>other being around at the same time and yet, the
>Bible tells us that they were created on different days!
>
>So how did the plants and insects survive without
>each other for those "millions, or billions" of years,
>when they cannot survive without each other
>being present at the same time, period!
>
>Now of course, the theistic evolutionist will try to
>claim that "they were different kinds of plants then".
And there were. The fossil record amply demonstrates this.
>
>Huh?!? What evidence is there for that, except that
>they just claimed that it's so?! And why do "Christians"
>sit back and act as if the theistic evolutionist has somehow
>actually come up with a scientific answer?! How is it
>"scientific" to take insects and plants, that we both
>know depend on each other to live and just make some
>wild claim that it was only a different kind of plant that
>existed then, for millions, or billions of years?! What?!?
Actually, prior to 475 million years ago there wasn't much of anything
happening on the land. That's when the first fossil land plants show up.
And they were quite different from most modern flora. Arthropods were
already inhabiting the shorelines and gave rise to insects about 50-75
million years after the plants invaded.
>And where and when did the plants that would have
>required insects come into existence? Did they just
>pop into existence all of the sudden? Isn't that indeed
>contrary to what evolution teaches? No, not at all the
Nope, species evolve together in a kind of dynamic dance. Of course it
requires a bit of real imagination to actually comprehend it--something
you cult probably stamped out of you fairly early.
>evolutionist would say, because you see folks, when
>the evolutionist needs things to happen fast, they
>just say they did and claim it's "fits and starts" and
>that's that! And you are supposed to believe that!
>
>Or they will claim that after the insects appeared,
>then these other plants that depend on them began
>to evolve over millions of years.
>
>Really? So what did the insects do until that happened?!
Evolved.
>
>Hello?!? :)
You need to wake YOURSELF up before you try shaking other people.
>
>The fact is, they had to appear in the same time frame
>and literal days allows for that. Millions of years for
>each day does not!
Uh, no, the fact is they did not.
>
>And then we'll see the theistic evolutionists telling us
>how "they were a different type of insect back then".
They were. The first arthropods on land were ocean shoreline dwellers
who spent most of their time under water.
>
>Huh?!? Where does it say that?! And what insects,
>exactly?! Hello?!?
In all those science books you never read.
>
>This is just made up fairy takes they invent on the fly
>in the middle of the conversation, while they hypocritically
>tell you that you believe in a fairy take, while discussing
>the very same Bible that they claim to believe in! What?!?
You are a liar and a libeller. But, like all the creationist sons of
Belial, you are bad at it. Your "god" will punish you forever in a lake
of fire for being such a poor deceiver!
>And yet, they expect you to believe all of this! And they
And yet you expect us to believe that you know what you are talking about
when your every word betrays your ignorance as well as your hatred of
truth.
>try to make you look foolish if you don't. And the sad
>part is, that most Christians will back down, because
Most Christians don't even get in the fight in the forst place. It is
only sons of Belial such as you who get all in a snit about it and yell
lies louder and louder when you are cornered.
>they are afraid that they don't know enough about
>this supposed "science". Gee, I thought the discussion
>was about THE BIBLE! And let's face the truth. Making
That's what the echo is supposed to be about. But there is nothing in
that statement that means we have to think about the Bible in the
heretical terms promulgated by your cult.
>up things on the fly that have no basis in science, is in
>no way, "science"! They are pretending! And it is your
YOU are pretending--and LYING. Tell me, son, which scripture says, "Thou
shalt not bear false witness except when defending thy private
interpretations of scripture while attacking honest Christians?"
I must have missed that verse in my Bible.
>job to find that out, instead of cowering in fear because
>of an "on the fly, home spun fairy tale"! So do that! :)
I did and I came to the conclusion that the only spinners of fairy tales
in this story were the creationist heretics who teach and preach that
lying to children is good.
>
>The sad part is, many "Christians" do just accept it,
>because someone who wants to believe in evolution
>says it's so! We dare not question "scientists", right?
The sad part is that many Christians who are ignorant of the depths of
depravity to which you sons of Belial have descended actually believe you
when you claim to be Christians.
>The sad part is, that these same "Christians" accept
>this mumbo jumbo which runs completely contrary
>to science, from people who are not scientists and
>even from atheists who have zero education in the
>involved sciences, just because they say it is so!
Again, youu lie in God's name about other Christians. I would say that
this makes you a voluntary self-professed excommunicate. Why should
anyone seek spiritual guidance from such a reprobate liar?
>Get the message? Educate yourself and stop claiming
>to believe in the word of God and then instead, placing
>whatever a God hater says above it!
I got the message. You hate God and you hate His Church and are doing
your utmost to subvert it to the service of your god, Belial.
>
>"...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for me
> and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
>
>Sorry for the harsh words, but we who believe God,
>get tired of those who claim to, yet in truth don't.
You don't believe God. That is manifest by the fact that you doi all in
your power to disobey Him.
Pardon MY harsh words, but you stand condemned by your own lies.
Now, since you obviously love Belial, how about telling us how you feel
about Moloch? Do you believe it's OK to kill someone if they don't agree
to let you steal state funds to spread your false witness?
Just wondering how deep into hell you're reaching these days...
--
Dave Oldridge+
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> Theistic evolutionists are out to please men, rather than
>> God. They claim to believe in a virgin birth, people
>> rising from the dead, water turned into wine and yet,
>> they don't believe that God created the heaven and
>> the earth in six literal days, thereby making hypocrites
>> of themselves. Why? Because man says it isn't so
>> and they would rather try to please men, instead of
>> choosing to believe God and stand up for Him.
>
> That is pure judgmentalism, or total naivete.
It is a fact.
> I can speak for myself when I say, I don't know enough
> science to be able to say absolutely what the evidence
> does indicate.
And your ignorance is your fault.
Isn't it interesting that people like you who admit
they don't know enough about the sciences will
just default to the atheistic view, instead of the
Biblical view, while they claim to be Christians
who believe the word of God?
> Many Christians want to say they believe in
> the Bible and also in the scientific method.
> In fact, the scientific method in modern times
> *began* with Christians!
This is where your stupidity shows (note that
I didn't just say "ignorance"). You assume
that "evolution = the scientific method".
Has it occurred to you to assume that God's
word is truth? Nope! You're a hypocrite!
Now I'm going to tell you something and you
won't believe it, because it comes from someone
who believes God's word and you prefer to give
the weight to the atheists.
The fact is, there is no scientific evidence of
macroevolution. The scientific method requires
at least one of two methods:
1) Direct observation.
There is no such thing as direct observation
of macroevolution.
2) Repeatable testing.
There is no way to test for macroevolution.
There is no test you can conduct that shows
that macroevolution occurs.
Now, since one of those two IS REQUIRED
for something to be considered "science"
and since neither occurs for macroevolution,
macroevolution is not science, period!
Now you go ahead and argue that it is anyway.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The Last Days were in the first century:
Revelation 1:1,3
1) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God
gave unto him, to show unto his servants things
WHICH MUST SHORTLY COME TO PASS;
and he sent and signified it by his angel unto
his servant John:
2) Who bare record of the word of God, and of
the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things
that he saw.
3) Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear
the words of this prophecy, and keep those things
which are written therein: for THE TIME IS AT HAND.
Ike E 1/2/2010
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g0gvj5pob6lt2hqhl...@4ax.com...
>
> Regardless of what anyone wants to claim, what I say
> in this message about what evolution teaches, is indeed
> what it teaches.
Idiot: The Bible teaches both evolution and the distinct creation of Adam as
parallel events, one at the END of the biological sequence, and one at the
BEGINNING.
<chuckle>
Ike
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> I can speak for myself when I say, I don't know enough
>> science to be able to say absolutely what the evidence
>> does indicate.
> And your ignorance is your fault.
> Isn't it interesting that people like you who admit
> they don't know enough about the sciences will
> just default to the atheistic view, instead of the
> Biblical view, while they claim to be Christians
> who believe the word of God?
I have not defaulted to the athetistic view. Your saying I do so is what's
"ignorant." What I said is that I'm not sure what the scientific method has
determined about human origins, or about the origins of species. But I do
know that dogmatic Christianity has given Christianity a bad name. In the
name of dogmatic Christianity the earth has been declared to be the center
of the universe, which was proven wrong by the telescope, by the scientific
method.
I don't want to defend an ultra-dogmatic Christianity, completed separated
from human reason. This just gives Christianity a "black eye." We need to
use reason when we look at Scriptures. If we just say we follow Scripture
blindly, we will find ourselves declaring bibical inaccuracies "inspired of
God." Yes, there have been errors in transmitting the Scriptures from one
generation to another, and it is our common sense that recognizes that.
So let's use reason together with our trust in Scriptures. Then we won't
look so much like "blind adherants to religion" in the eyes of the world. As
far as determining what Scriptures actually say about our origins, we must,
I think, recognize that Moses had no intention of explaining creation in
scientific terms. We don't in the least know how God actually formed man
from the dust. We just know that He did so. Nor do we know how God brought
forth animals on earth. We just know He did so. We are actually showing our
ignorance when we declare our knowledge of creation based on Scriptures.
Moses did not intend to go that deep into the "how" of what God did in
creation.
But I certainly do not subscribe to anything "atheistic," nor do I
necessarily equate some aspects of evolution to atheism. I'm not sure what
you think you can dismiss in the name of religious dogmatism? Are you
denying the earth is old? Are you denying there is an order of the
appearance of species on earth? Or are you just dismissing scientific
theories altogether, because they don't seem to conform with your
preconceived beliefs?
randy
Dave Oldridge
news:If6dncG2CZN7-N7W...@wavecable.com:
Scratch their underlying belief system and it quickly reveals that
adamant creationists are often operating on the assumption that God's
sovereignty isn't universal.
--
Dave Oldridge+
In My Fathers House
wrote:
> "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote innews:If6dncG2CZN7-N7W...@wavecable.com:
Could you expand on that please? How does their UBS -> GS not U.
Thanks,
House
Dave Oldridge
news:ee26e3d5-d497-47e8...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>On Jan 5, 10:19�am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
>wrote:
>> "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote
>> innews:If6dncG2CZN7-N7WnZ2dnUVZ_g2dn
>Z...@wavecable.com:
Because, if God's sovereignty IS universal, then all "random" events,
such as mutations and the vagaries of chance demise are all under His
ultimate control. In fact, creationists often accuse Christians who
accept evolution on the evidence of accepting the power of these events
which the creationists deem to be beyond God's control. Their limited,
pagan deity cannot control dice, (or at least mutations) you see!
The fact that WE cannot detect such control does not prove that it is not
there, only that it is quite subtle if it is. But the faithless
creationists cannot believe in the power of such subtle control, so they
make up a god in their own image and even impute to it an etreme
deceptiveness.
--
Dave Oldridge+
randy
"Dave Oldridge"
randy
> Because, if God's sovereignty IS universal, then all "random" events,
> such as mutations and the vagaries of chance demise are all under His
> ultimate control. In fact, creationists often accuse Christians who
> accept evolution on the evidence of accepting the power of these events
> which the creationists deem to be beyond God's control. Their limited,
> pagan deity cannot control dice, (or at least mutations) you see!
> The fact that WE cannot detect such control does not prove that it is not
> there, only that it is quite subtle if it is. But the faithless
> creationists cannot believe in the power of such subtle control, so they
> make up a god in their own image and even impute to it an etreme
> deceptiveness.
Well yes, *some* creationists may reject mutations and changes that lead
towards positive change. (They might argue that most mutations are basically
destructive.) So I agree, if we cannot conceive of *positive* mutations,
producing variations in species, then we may in fact be limiting our God,
and limiting His ability to use such small changes for a greater purpose.
But that isn't, I think, the only issue. The greater issue for me regards
*dogmatism.* When *some* creationists insist that science conform to their
preconceived notions of what the Bible says, then they are actually imposing
their view upon the biblical authors, and worse, refusing to believe people
can err in their representation of what God did in creation.
I'm not at all suggesting that Moses erred in his story of creation. Nor am
I arguing that translators of the text erred by misrepresenting what Moses
believed. But I am suggesting that human beings can err by reading too much
into a text that had no intention of speaking in a scientific sense. There
was nothing in the account to explain precisely how God may have actually
done the creating. All we know from the text is that God used elements
derived from a certain location to make a creature, which we must assume
contain those elements.
Dogmatism will claim to know whether God used evolution or not. Honesty will
not be afraid of the scientific method, and honestly consider its theories.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> randy
>>
>>> I can speak for myself when I say, I don't know enough
>>> science to be able to say absolutely what the evidence
>>> does indicate.
>
>> And your ignorance is your fault.
>> Isn't it interesting that people like you who admit
>> they don't know enough about the sciences will
>> just default to the atheistic view, instead of the
>> Biblical view, while they claim to be Christians
>> who believe the word of God?
>
> I have not defaulted to the athetistic view.
Evolution is the atheistic view. But don't worry!
There will be some Futurists who will pat you
on the back, who also claimed that evolution
is from Satan. But they will do so, just because
you decided to give ME a hard time! So again,
don't worry! They'll back you! <chuckle>
Here are the facts that you snipped, STUPID:
The fact is, there is no scientific evidence of
macroevolution. The scientific method requires
at least one of two methods:
1) Direct observation.
There is no such thing as direct observation
of macroevolution.
2) Repeatable testing.
There is no way to test for macroevolution.
There is no test you can conduct that shows
that macroevolution occurs.
Now, since one of those two IS REQUIRED
for something to be considered "science"
and since neither occurs for macroevolution,
macroevolution is not science, period!
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
When Christianity becomes religion it leaves the heart hungry.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> Well yes, *some* creationists may reject mutations
> and changes that lead towards positive change.
There is no record of one single "positive change"
for humans in a mutation. But what do you care?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in
the world believed that the world was flat? And
up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought
the atom was the smallest thing, until you split
it open and this like, whole mess of crap came out.
Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably
arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny
tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?"
- Phoebe from Friends, regarding evolution
Dave Oldridge
news:rfydnYS1go8codnW...@wavecable.com:
>"Dave Oldridge"
>randy
>
>> Because, if God's sovereignty IS universal, then all "random" events,
>> such as mutations and the vagaries of chance demise are all under His
>> ultimate control. In fact, creationists often accuse Christians who
>> accept evolution on the evidence of accepting the power of these
>> events which the creationists deem to be beyond God's control. Their
>> limited, pagan deity cannot control dice, (or at least mutations) you
>> see! The fact that WE cannot detect such control does not prove that
>> it is not there, only that it is quite subtle if it is. But the
>> faithless creationists cannot believe in the power of such subtle
>> control, so they make up a god in their own image and even impute to
>> it an etreme deceptiveness.
>
>Well yes, *some* creationists may reject mutations and changes that
>lead towards positive change. (They might argue that most mutations are
>basically destructive.) So I agree, if we cannot conceive of *positive*
>mutations, producing variations in species, then we may in fact be
>limiting our God, and limiting His ability to use such small changes
>for a greater purpose.
Well, that's the other half of it--I have yet to meet any adamant
creationist who wasn't also a devout narcissist,
>
>But that isn't, I think, the only issue. The greater issue for me
>regards *dogmatism.* When *some* creationists insist that science
>conform to their preconceived notions of what the Bible says, then they
>are actually imposing their view upon the biblical authors, and worse,
>refusing to believe people can err in their representation of what God
>did in creation.
>
>I'm not at all suggesting that Moses erred in his story of creation.
Well, since the story wasn't committed to writing until about 400 years
after Moses was said to have died, was written for political, not
historic or scientific reasons, there isn't really any need for actual
Christians to get bent out of shape if it doesn't square with the
scientific or historic evidence. The trouble with fundamentalist
interpretations is that they reify and then deify the text, falling into
a type of idolatry whereby they worship, not God, but a book THEY claim
God wrote (when GOD claims no such thing).
>Nor am I arguing that translators of the text erred by misrepresenting
>what Moses believed. But I am suggesting that human beings can err by
>reading too much into a text that had no intention of speaking in a
>scientific sense. There was nothing in the account to explain precisely
>how God may have actually done the creating. All we know from the text
>is that God used elements derived from a certain location to make a
>creature, which we must assume contain those elements.
Yes, actually, if we just look at its underlying message, Genesis 1
sounds a lot like it says God "spoke" and the sea and the earth brought
forth all the different types of living things.
>
>Dogmatism will claim to know whether God used evolution or not. Honesty
>will not be afraid of the scientific method, and honestly consider its
>theories. randy
Exactly. The Nicene Creed begins with the words "We believe in one God,
the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth and all things seen and
unseen. Since evolution is seen, I prefer to think God is creating it
(the scriptures generally speak of creation in the present tense).
--
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
news:ndgak59sq1dh1p6h8...@4ax.com:
>On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 23:32:11 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
>spake thusly:
>
>
>> Well yes, *some* creationists may reject mutations
>> and changes that lead towards positive change.
>
>There is no record of one single "positive change"
>for humans in a mutation. But what do you care?
That's actually wrong.
First of all, the common virus insertions and the GULO gene (among other
evidence) prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that humans and chimps share a
common genetic ancestor. Thus the current differences between the species
are the result of mutations.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
>On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:16:35 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
>spake thusly:
>
>
>> "Pastor Dave"
>>
>>> randy
>>>
>>>> I can speak for myself when I say, I don't know enough
>>>> science to be able to say absolutely what the evidence
>>>> does indicate.
>>
>>> And your ignorance is your fault.
>>> Isn't it interesting that people like you who admit
>>> they don't know enough about the sciences will
>>> just default to the atheistic view, instead of the
>>> Biblical view, while they claim to be Christians
>>> who believe the word of God?
>>
>> I have not defaulted to the athetistic view.
>
>Evolution is the atheistic view. But don't worry!
Nope. Evolution says nothing about any gods except the false ones that
claim reality is different from what it manifestly is.
>There will be some Futurists who will pat you
>on the back, who also claimed that evolution
>is from Satan. But they will do so, just because
>you decided to give ME a hard time! So again,
>don't worry! They'll back you! <chuckle>
Naw, Satan can bother to tempt scientists, but there are a lot better
targets than evolutionary biologists and paleontologists. The boys that
research weapons of mass destruction can be much more easily snared.
Now pompous fake Christians who run around libelling scientists they
don't even know--they are the devil's savory meat!
>Here are the facts that you snipped, STUPID:
>
>The fact is, there is no scientific evidence of
>macroevolution. The scientific method requires
>at least one of two methods:
Define macroevolution. Would chimps and humans descending from a single
ancestor be an example?
>
>1) Direct observation.
>
>There is no such thing as direct observation
>of macroevolution.
We have lab protocols that will produce species of fruit flies as
different from each other as you are from a gorilla. Is that macro-
evolution? Would your descent and the gorilla's from a common genetic
ancestor be macroevolution?
>2) Repeatable testing.
>
>There is no way to test for macroevolution.
This is a lie. Sequenced genomes can easily be examined to reveal
relationships.
>There is no test you can conduct that shows
>that macroevolution occurs.
Again false. But then creationist apologists are addicted to the lies
they tell.
>
>Now, since one of those two IS REQUIRED
>for something to be considered "science"
>and since neither occurs for macroevolution,
>macroevolution is not science, period!
And since both of these can be DEMONSTRATED to any RATIONAL critic, you
are left simply telling lies for their political value. I am here to
tell you that doing this is a SIN, against God and agains the scientists
you libel. Therefore you have NOT repented your sins but insist that
Jesus has given you a plenary indulgence to repeat them over and over
again. That, sir, is HERESY, by definitions that go back to the apostles
and before.
Consider yourself admonished, or not. Your choice, but I warn you, hell
is no fun at all!
--
Dave Oldridge+
randy
"Dave Oldridge"
randy
> Well, that's the other half of it--I have yet to meet any adamant
> creationist who wasn't also a devout narcissist,
Creationists are not narcissistic because they believe they are a special
creation. They simply want to believe God made the species of creatures
distinct, including man, because they think that is what the Biblical
account implies.
>>I'm not at all suggesting that Moses erred in his story of creation.
> Well, since the story wasn't committed to writing until about 400 years
> after Moses was said to have died, was written for political, not
> historic or scientific reasons, there isn't really any need for actual
> Christians to get bent out of shape if it doesn't square with the
> scientific or historic evidence. The trouble with fundamentalist
> interpretations is that they reify and then deify the text, falling into
> a type of idolatry whereby they worship, not God, but a book THEY claim
> God wrote (when GOD claims no such thing).
I agree that some place the Bible in the category of virtually "worship."
They end up in cabbalism, thinking even the number of letters mean
something, and each word somehow relates to another word in an entirely
different context.
But that is not how "fundamentalists" view Scriptures. They are just
summarizing the belief that the Scriptures can be trusted as a Jewish
document, and as a Christian interpretation of that document. There are
varying shades of fundamentalist belief, everything from belief that every
word is inspired to belief merely that the records are trustworthy as a
testimony to the truth. I tend to believe the latter. Christians were
imperfect, even when they wrote the Scriptures. They were letters, and not
always spoken prophetically, by the command of God.
While it is true that some of the Scriptures were prophecy, much more of it
was history, poetry, and religious instruction. The point is, God reliably
communicates to man limited amounts of revelation that each man can make use
of if he so chooses.
>>Nor am I arguing that translators of the text erred by misrepresenting
>>what Moses believed. But I am suggesting that human beings can err by
>>reading too much into a text that had no intention of speaking in a
>>scientific sense. There was nothing in the account to explain precisely
>>how God may have actually done the creating. All we know from the text
>>is that God used elements derived from a certain location to make a
>>creature, which we must assume contain those elements.
> Yes, actually, if we just look at its underlying message, Genesis 1
> sounds a lot like it says God "spoke" and the sea and the earth brought
> forth all the different types of living things.
Yes, Moses was just a prophet, and not a scientist. But I believe he
conveyed an order that he felt was expressive of a divine order, an order of
importance in some respects.
>>Dogmatism will claim to know whether God used evolution or not. Honesty
>>will not be afraid of the scientific method, and honestly consider its
>>theories. randy
> Exactly. The Nicene Creed begins with the words "We believe in one God,
> the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth and all things seen and
> unseen. Since evolution is seen, I prefer to think God is creating it
> (the scriptures generally speak of creation in the present tense).
Okay. I don't know to what extent "evolution" takes place. But I'm convinced
there was certainly at least some evolution. And maybe it can be considered
part of God's works of creation.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> Well yes, *some* creationists may reject mutations
>> and changes that lead towards positive change.
> There is no record of one single "positive change"
> for humans in a mutation. But what do you care?
You are "begging the question." Indeed, if evolution has taken place,
creating new species, then there has definitely been positive change. We do
not fully understand the process of conception and growth, let alone all of
the changes that take place to create diversity.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> I have not defaulted to the athetistic view.
Have you heard of "theistic evolutionists?"
randy
Dave Oldridge
news:BfSdnYtzHIRpydTW...@wavecable.com:
That's my point. Scientists who study these matter observe evolution
occurring everywhere in nature and see the signs that it has occurred
throughout the deep past. Therefore, according to the Creed, God created
it.
Few traditional, sacramental Christian theologians have any problem with
that idea.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
news:k7adnbzbqItAmNfW...@wavecable.com:
He has, but he claims we are all atheists at heart. But then, when it
comes to his god, Belial, I *AM* an atheist. I do not believe Belial to be
a real god. He's an evil spirit that sometimes masquerades as one.
You can spot him by all the lying he inspires!
--
Dave Oldridge+
randy
"Dave Oldridge"
randy
>>Have you heard of "theistic evolutionists?"
> He has, but he claims we are all atheists at heart. But then, when it
> comes to his god, Belial, I *AM* an atheist. I do not believe Belial to
> be
> a real god. He's an evil spirit that sometimes masquerades as one.
> You can spot him by all the lying he inspires!
I know what you mean, but let me just say that Dave can do no better than
create an impression of who he really is. If he wants to portray himself as
a Christian, and then accuse people falsely, he only exposes himself as a
lousy Christian. If he seeks to disprove you as an evil atheist, his lack of
evidence, and judgmental spirit, make his accusations pointless and
malicious. I have no problem with a person who believes God created the
universe, and likely used evolution as a tool. I just don't know the
*degree* to which God likely used evolution. He certainly seems to have used
some.
randy
Terry Cross
Evolution cannot develop anything, no more than water can be made to
run uphill or pure chance sort a deck of cards by shuffling. The
argument for Evolution is ALWAYS an atheistic argument, as the
literature shows. The payoff in the whole doctrine is abiogenesis, as
every Evolution text demonstrates.
Without a non-material intelligent agency driving the process,
Evolution is a dead letter.
TCross
In My Fathers House
[...]
> Evolution cannot develop anything, no more than water can be made to
> run uphill or pure chance sort a deck of cards by shuffling.
This has been shown to be false by every type of animal and plant
domesticated or developed by humans.
> The
> argument for Evolution is ALWAYS an atheistic argument, as the
> literature shows.
Also not true, as there are those who believe God invented and uses
evolution.
> The payoff in the whole doctrine is abiogenesis, as
> every Evolution text demonstrates.
Abiogenesis is it's own theory, separate from evolution.
> Without a non-material intelligent agency driving the process,
> Evolution is a dead letter.
The process does not require intelligence in the drive. Success
drives it.
Do you have any substance behind these claims or are you going to just
assert your beliefs?
Terry Cross
> On Jan 11, 9:39 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Evolution cannot develop anything, no more than water can be made to
> > run uphill or pure chance sort a deck of cards by shuffling.
>
> This has been shown to be false by every type of animal and plant
> domesticated or developed by humans.
No, it has not. No one has demonstrated Evolution without including
living organisms.
> > The
> > argument for Evolution is ALWAYS an atheistic argument, as the
> > literature shows.
>
> Also not true, as there are those who believe God invented and uses
> evolution.
It matters not what some "believers" may rationalize. Every argument
for Evolution includes pure chance and random occurrence -- else
Evolution has no significance.
> > The payoff in the whole doctrine is abiogenesis, as
> > every Evolution text demonstrates.
>
> Abiogenesis is it's own theory, separate from evolution.
Right -- all the dirty work is done by the evil twin. We've heard the
excuse before. But those two allegedly separate subjects rarely
appear separately. They are always between the covers of the same
books.
> > Without a non-material intelligent agency driving the process,
> > Evolution is a dead letter.
>
> The process does not require intelligence in the drive. Success
> drives it.
You are arguing from the unproven premise.
> Do you have any substance behind these claims or are you going to just
> assert your beliefs?
Heh -- ! No one has shown that Evolution can escape the Jaws of
Entropy long enough to develop anything. Entropy wins in all other
cases. And you ask us to believe that favorable mutations will outrun
unfavorable mutations? By factors of multimillions to one? I have
been to Harrah's, and I wouldn't bet a nickle on those odds.
TCross
In My Fathers House
> On Jan 11, 4:02 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 9:39 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > Evolution cannot develop anything, no more than water can be made to
> > > run uphill or pure chance sort a deck of cards by shuffling.
>
> > This has been shown to be false by every type of animal and plant
> > domesticated or developed by humans.
>
> No, it has not. No one has demonstrated Evolution without including
> living organisms.
Of course evolution uses living organisms. This is not your other
claim "Evolution cannot develop anything . . .". That was the one I
disputed. I do not claim that biological evolution involved non-
living things. Evolution of human technology is a different topic
that covers changes in non-living things. We know for a fact
evolution works on the small scale. There is no reason to think it
wouldn't work on larger scales.
> > > The
> > > argument for Evolution is ALWAYS an atheistic argument, as the
> > > literature shows.
>
> > Also not true, as there are those who believe God invented and uses
> > evolution.
>
> It matters not what some "believers" may rationalize. Every argument
> for Evolution includes pure chance and random occurrence -- else
> Evolution has no significance.
That is not what "atheistic" means. Your claim does not follow from
your argument.
> > > The payoff in the whole doctrine is abiogenesis, as
> > > every Evolution text demonstrates.
>
> > Abiogenesis is it's own theory, separate from evolution.
>
> Right -- all the dirty work is done by the evil twin.
Loaded words do not advance your argument.
> We've heard the
> excuse before. But those two allegedly separate subjects rarely
> appear separately.
False, we can have evolution if the start was from some other
mechanism. In time the evidence from that other mechanism may turn
up.
> They are always between the covers of the same
> books.
Your claims have no substance so instead you mischaracterize the
issues.
> > > Without a non-material intelligent agency driving the process,
> > > Evolution is a dead letter.
>
> > The process does not require intelligence in the drive. Success
> > drives it.
>
> You are arguing from the unproven premise.
False. We know this for a fact. It is proven that, apart from
interference, those who die before they pro-create do not pass their
genes on to the next generation.
> > Do you have any substance behind these claims or are you going to just
> > assert your beliefs?
>
> Heh -- ! No one has shown that Evolution can escape the Jaws of
> Entropy long enough to develop anything.
Earth is not a closed system. Entropy does not apply.
> Entropy wins in all other
> cases. And you ask us to believe that favorable mutations will outrun
> unfavorable mutations?
Of course they will.
> By factors of multimillions to one? I have
> been to Harrah's, and I wouldn't bet a nickle on those odds.
What odds? Whenever there is a race you see a few contestants are the
first few the completed it and some are in the middle of the pack and
some are at the end. It's self evident. What are the odds - yet it
happens that way every time.
Terry Cross
> On Jan 11, 4:15 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 4:02 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 11, 9:39 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
>
> > > > Evolution cannot develop anything, no more than water can be made to
> > > > run uphill or pure chance sort a deck of cards by shuffling.
>
> > > This has been shown to be false by every type of animal and plant
> > > domesticated or developed by humans.
>
> > No, it has not. No one has demonstrated Evolution without including
> > living organisms.
>
> Of course evolution uses living organisms. This is not your other
> claim "Evolution cannot develop anything . . .". That was the one I
> disputed.
You don't get it, do you.
Diapers don't have babies -- mothers do. Nests don't lay eggs -- hens
do. Evolution does not give life -- life does. Should I try to make
it simpler?
Life brings life -- Evolution does not. No one has demonstrated
Evolution without including living organisms.
> I do not claim that biological evolution involved non-
> living things. Evolution of human technology is a different topic
> that covers changes in non-living things.
That is not Evolution, except in poetry. Nest you will be telling me
that the buildings in the downtown core weren't built, they "evolved".
> We know for a fact
> evolution works on the small scale. There is no reason to think it
> wouldn't work on larger scales.
Evolution does not "work" -- life does all the magic. Without life,
there is no Evolution.
> > > > The
> > > > argument for Evolution is ALWAYS an atheistic argument, as the
> > > > literature shows.
>
> > > Also not true, as there are those who believe God invented and uses
> > > evolution.
>
> > It matters not what some "believers" may rationalize. Every argument
> > for Evolution includes pure chance and random occurrence -- else
> > Evolution has no significance.
>
> That is not what "atheistic" means. Your claim does not follow from
> your argument.
Absolutely. Evolution -- including abiogenesis -- is the argument
that random chance and chance alone produced all the wonders of life
-- without the influence of any non-material agency. That IS the
argument of evolution. It is the essence of Atheism.
> > > > The payoff in the whole doctrine is abiogenesis, as
> > > > every Evolution text demonstrates.
>
> > > Abiogenesis is it's own theory, separate from evolution.
>
> > Right -- all the dirty work is done by the evil twin.
>
> Loaded words do not advance your argument.
The statement is as silly as asserting that Aeronautics does not
include the leading edge of the wing.
> > We've heard the
> > excuse before. But those two allegedly separate subjects rarely
> > appear separately.
>
> False, we can have evolution if the start was from some other
> mechanism. In time the evidence from that other mechanism may turn
> up.
In point of fact, from the moment of the occurrence of the first life
molecule, the subject suddenly becomes Evolution. The subject of
Abiogenesis is as thin as the first molecule on the leading edge of
the wing. It is hardly interesting, and it is a deliberate dodge.
> > They are always between the covers of the same
> > books.
>
> Your claims have no substance so instead you mischaracterize the
> issues.
Since you have not noticed, I make no claims. I simply assail,
attack, and deprecate the claims of Evolutionists.
> > > > Without a non-material intelligent agency driving the process,
> > > > Evolution is a dead letter.
>
> > > The process does not require intelligence in the drive. Success
> > > drives it.
>
> > You are arguing from the unproven premise.
>
> False. We know this for a fact.
Sorry to shake your certainty, dude, but anything known "for a fact"
is just a measure of saliva spray -- it has nothing to do with the
truth.
> It is proven that, apart from
> interference, those who die before they pro-create do not pass their
> genes on to the next generation.
Well, duh. Those who die before they procreate don't have a "next
generation."
> > > Do you have any substance behind these claims or are you going to just
> > > assert your beliefs?
>
> > Heh -- ! No one has shown that Evolution can escape the Jaws of
> > Entropy long enough to develop anything.
>
> Earth is not a closed system. Entropy does not apply.
Entropy rules.
> > Entropy wins in all other
> > cases. And you ask us to believe that favorable mutations will outrun
> > unfavorable mutations?
>
> Of course they will.
I forgot about the saliva. Don't get your prayer shawl wet.
> > By factors of multimillions to one? I have
> > been to Harrah's, and I wouldn't bet a nickle on those odds.
>
> What odds? Whenever there is a race you see a few contestants are the
> first few the completed it and some are in the middle of the pack and
> some are at the end. It's self evident. What are the odds - yet it
> happens that way every time.
Such faith. Who can shake it? If it gets you through your day and
does not kill any Palestinians, I don't mind.
TCross
Dave Oldridge
news:5d83a595-d061-4010...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
This is the kind of rhetoric that, for me. proves that creationism is
really a latter-day heresy. We never hear you arguing this kind of
rhetoric against universal gravitation or any other aspect of science.
The real problem, of course, is that you are afraid that, if the
scientists are right, then so was the Preacher. We are, from a corporeal
standpoint, no different from other animals. Our bodies consist of
cells, grown according to a set of instructions contained in DNA
molecules. That much is the same for all plants, animals, fungi, etc.
>Without a non-material intelligent agency driving the process,
>Evolution is a dead letter.
God's sovereignty is universal, therefore no process in nature exists
that is not subject to His will. The problem is, you don't really
believe that. You keep seeking scientific evidence for it, even if you
have to lie to yourself and others.
The thing is, you have to take some things on faith and God will not hand
you scientific evidence of those things. Nor will you get that evidence
by attacking honest science with lies and rhetoric.
Incidentally, sunlight causes water to move uphill all the time.
--
Dave Oldridge+
In My Fathers House
[...]
> > Ofcourse evolution uses living organisms. This is not your other
> > claim "Evolution cannot develop anything . . .". That was the one I
> > disputed.
>
> You don't get it, do you.
It's called the bait and switch. You critique abiogenesis and pretend
that is a critique of evolution. Yet it isn't.
> Diapers don't have babies -- mothers do. Nests don't lay eggs -- hens
> do. Evolution does not give life -- life does. Should I try to make
> it simpler?
>
> Life brings life -- Evolution does not.
Evolution doesn't claim to be a source of life. It's a mechanism for
adaptation of already existing life.
> No one has demonstrated
> Evolution without including living organisms.
I agree with you on this point.
[...]
> . . . you will be telling me
> that the buildings in the downtown core weren't built, they "evolved".
Like I said - a different subject.
> > We know for a fact
> > evolution works on the small scale. There is no reason to think it
> > wouldn't work on larger scales.
>
> Evolution does not "work" -- life does all the magic. Without life,
> there is no Evolution.
That life is required does not negate the fact that evolution is the
method by which that life adapts.
[...]
> Evolution -- including abiogenesis -- is the argument
> that random chance and chance alone produced all the wonders of life
> -- without the influence of any non-material agency. That IS the
> argument of evolution. It is the essence of Atheism.
You are mixing three different concepts. Evolution has a great deal
of supporting evidence. Abiogenesis has very little. Atheism is a
religious position (none) rather than science.
> > > > > The payoff in the whole doctrine is abiogenesis, as
> > > > > every Evolution text demonstrates.
>
> > > > Abiogenesis is it's own theory, separate from evolution.
>
> > > Right -- all the dirty work is done by the evil twin.
>
> > Loaded words do not advance your argument.
>
> The statement is as silly as asserting that Aeronautics does not
> include the leading edge of the wing.
You are using fallacies to mix topics. That will not advance your
argument. You are free, of course, to pretend it does if you wish.
These things are separate.
> > > We've heard the
> > > excuse before. But those two allegedly separate subjects rarely
> > > appear separately.
>
> > False, we can have evolution if the start was from some other
> > mechanism. In time the evidence from that other mechanism may turn
> > up.
>
> In point of fact, from the moment of the occurrence of the first life
> molecule, the subject suddenly becomes Evolution. The subject of
> Abiogenesis is as thin as the first molecule on the leading edge of
> the wing. It is hardly interesting, and it is a deliberate dodge.
Dodge of what? Fallacies prove nothing. There is nothing ~to~
dodge. Using your analogy the leading edge is not the rest of the
wing. Should that first molecule not exist it doesn't mean the rest
of the wing does not exist.
> > > They are always between the covers of the same
> > > books.
>
> > Your claims have no substance so instead you mischaracterize the
> > issues.
>
> Since you have not noticed, I make no claims. I simply assail,
> attack, and deprecate the claims of Evolutionists.
Whatever. This seems to be going nowhere.
> > > > > Without a non-material intelligent agency driving the process,
> > > > > Evolution is a dead letter.
>
> > > > The process does not require intelligence in the drive. Success
> > > > drives it.
>
> > > You are arguing from the unproven premise.
>
> > False. We know this for a fact.
>
> Sorry to shake your certainty, dude, but anything known "for a fact"
> is just a measure of saliva spray -- it has nothing to do with the
> truth.
LOL! Don't worry - you shake nothing.
> > It is proven that, apart from
> > interference, those who die before they pro-create do not pass their
> > genes on to the next generation.
>
> Well, duh.
Them facts that got nothing to do with truth are "duh".
> Those who die before they procreate don't have a "next
> generation."
Which is evolution plain and simple.
> > > > Do you have any substance behind these claims or are you going to just
> > > > assert your beliefs?
>
> > > Heh -- ! No one has shown that Evolution can escape the Jaws of
> > > Entropy long enough to develop anything.
>
> > Earth is not a closed system. Entropy does not apply.
>
> Entropy rules.
But you didn't say this because you make no claims. =)
> > > Entropy wins in all other
> > > cases. And you ask us to believe that favorable mutations will outrun
> > > unfavorable mutations?
>
> > Of course they will.
>
> I forgot about the saliva. Don't get your prayer shawl wet.
What in the world is a prayer shawl?
> > > By factors of multimillions to one? I have
> > > been to Harrah's, and I wouldn't bet a nickle on those odds.
>
> > What odds? Whenever there is a race you see a few contestants are the
> > first few the completed it and some are in the middle of the pack and
> > some are at the end. It's self evident. What are the odds - yet it
> > happens that way every time.
>
> Such faith.
This has nothing to do with my faith. I'm not talking about religion.
> Who can shake it? If it gets you through your day and
> does not kill any Palestinians, I don't mind.
It's data.
Run a race. One or two people will come in first. Then a few more.
Then a few more. Eventually one or two will come in last. Yet how is
this possible? What are the odds? Yet it happens nearly every time.
But in the wild the one or two coming in last are eaten by a predator
and don't pass their genes on to the next generation so the population
gets faster.
Dave Oldridge
c9a476...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:
>On Jan 11, 4:02�pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 9:39�am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> > Evolution cannot develop anything, no more than water can be made to
>> > run uphill or pure chance sort a deck of cards by shuffling.
>>
>> This has been shown to be false by every type of animal and plant
>> domesticated or developed by humans.
>
>
>No, it has not. No one has demonstrated Evolution without including
>living organisms.
Strange, nobody has demonstrated gravity without including objects with
mass.
Did you actually have a point, or where you just making noises to impress
yourself and anyone ignorant enought to not know that evolution is about
the diversification of life, not its origin.
>
>
>> >�The
>> > argument for Evolution is ALWAYS an atheistic argument, as the
>> > literature shows.
>>
>> Also not true, as there are those who believe God invented and uses
>> evolution.
>
>
>It matters not what some "believers" may rationalize. Every argument
>for Evolution includes pure chance and random occurrence -- else
>Evolution has no significance.
>
Got says not to bear false witness.
Creationist apologists always insist that I must bear false witness to be
"saved." Saved from what?
>
>> >�The payoff in the whole doctrine is abiogenesis, as
>> > every Evolution text demonstrates.
>>
>> Abiogenesis is it's own theory, separate from evolution.
>
>
>Right -- all the dirty work is done by the evil twin. We've heard the
>excuse before. But those two allegedly separate subjects rarely
>appear separately. They are always between the covers of the same
>books.
Abiogenesis is a branch of biochemistry. The fact that we do not yet
understand the chemical pathway does not mean that life needed a special
miracle to begin. Once more, your abject lack of faith in the
universality of God's sovereignty is poking through your rhetorical
cloak.
>> > Without a non-material intelligent agency driving the process,
>> > Evolution is a dead letter.
>>
>> The process does not require intelligence in the drive. �Success
>> drives it.
>
>
>You are arguing from the unproven premise.
No, actually he is arguing from the parts of the process that are visible
and testable. We cannot test for the effect of God's will. How would
you isolate a control group?
>
>
>> Do you have any substance behind these claims or are you going to just
>> assert your beliefs?
>
>
>Heh -- ! No one has shown that Evolution can escape the Jaws of
>Entropy long enough to develop anything. Entropy wins in all other
>cases. And you ask us to believe that favorable mutations will outrun
>unfavorable mutations? By factors of multimillions to one? I have
>been to Harrah's, and I wouldn't bet a nickle on those odds.
Entropy will eventually win in the solar system, too. But I challenge
you to name any single step in the evolution of molecules to man that
would necessitate a decrease in the entropy of the universe.
Sunspots and weather systems represent local decreases in entropy. So do
living systems. But all such local decreases exist at the expense of a
larger increase somewhere.
Special miracles have been recorded. But there is no evidence that they
have played any major part in the natural history of our planet. They
MAY have, but we have no evidence of it.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
>On Jan 11, 4:38�pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 4:15�pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 11, 4:02�pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 11, 9:39�am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > [...]
>>
>> > > > Evolution cannot develop anything, no more than water can be
>> > > > made t
>o
>> > > > run uphill or pure chance sort a deck of cards by shuffling.
>>
>> > > This has been shown to be false by every type of animal and plant
>> > > domesticated or developed by humans.
>>
>> > No, it has not. �No one has demonstrated Evolution without
>> > including living organisms.
>>
>> Of course evolution uses living organisms. �This is not your other
>> claim "Evolution cannot develop anything . . .". �That was the one I
>> disputed. �
>
>You don't get it, do you.
YOU don't get it.
>
>Diapers don't have babies -- mothers do. Nests don't lay eggs -- hens
>do. Evolution does not give life -- life does. Should I try to make
>it simpler?
>
>Life brings life -- Evolution does not. No one has demonstrated
>Evolution without including living organisms.
Life evolves. Chemistry, sunlight and heat from the earth's interior are
the probable cause of the first life. By the way, how do we know if
something is alive or not? Are bacteria alive? Viruses and phages?
Prions? Artificially synthesized self-replicating molecules?
If yes, why? If not, why not? Show your work.
>
>> I do not claim that biological evolution involved non-
>> living things. �Evolution of human technology is a different topic
>> that covers changes in non-living things. �
>
>
>That is not Evolution, except in poetry. Nest you will be telling me
>that the buildings in the downtown core weren't built, they "evolved".
Every species of cellular life, all viruses and phages and some synthetic
self-replicating molecules are OBSERVED to evolve.
>
>
>> We know for a fact
>> evolution works on the small scale. �There is no reason to think it
>> wouldn't work on larger scales.
>
>
>Evolution does not "work" -- life does all the magic. Without life,
>there is no Evolution.
Life IS evolution. From an observational standpoint, they are
synonymous.
>> > > >�The
>> > > > argument for Evolution is ALWAYS an atheistic argument, as the
>> > > > literature shows.
>>
>> > > Also not true, as there are those who believe God invented and
>> > > uses evolution.
>>
>> > It matters not what some "believers" may rationalize. �Every
>> > argument for Evolution includes pure chance and random occurrence
>> > -- else Evolution has no significance.
>>
>> That is not what "atheistic" means. �Your claim does not follow from
>> your argument.
>
>
>Absolutely. Evolution -- including abiogenesis -- is the argument
>that random chance and chance alone produced all the wonders of life
>-- without the influence of any non-material agency. That IS the
>argument of evolution. It is the essence of Atheism.
Ahh, I see. YOUR godlet is paralyzed by the "random chance" mantra. I
am certainly an atheist where THAT godlet is concerned. It's probably
some demon masquerading as the real thing. The Holy Trinity is not
circumscribed by human limitations like "random chance," which, if you
analyze the semantics are simply a description of events too complex to
predict. Of course when it comes to quantum uncertainty....which does
govern the causes of some mutations...
>> > > >�The payoff in the whole doctrine is abiogenesis, as
>> > > > every Evolution text demonstrates.
>>
>> > > Abiogenesis is it's own theory, separate from evolution.
>>
>> > Right -- all the dirty work is done by the evil twin.
>>
>> Loaded words do not advance your argument.
>
>The statement is as silly as asserting that Aeronautics does not
>include the leading edge of the wing.
Huh? YOUR statement is as absurd as saying that we must demonstrate
refining aluminum before flight can be considered possible, even though
birds are seen to fly.
>
>> > �We've heard the
>> > excuse before. �But those two allegedly separate subjects rarely
>> > appear separately.
>>
>> False, we can have evolution if the start was from some other
>> mechanism. �In time the evidence from that other mechanism may turn
>> up.
>
>In point of fact, from the moment of the occurrence of the first life
>molecule, the subject suddenly becomes Evolution. The subject of
>Abiogenesis is as thin as the first molecule on the leading edge of
>the wing. It is hardly interesting, and it is a deliberate dodge.
Well, duh, since life is evolution, abiogenesis is required to advance
hypotheses as to how evolution got started. We SEE it going on so it is
quite apparent that it got started somehow.
>> > �They are always between the covers of the same
>> > books.
>>
>> Your claims have no substance so instead you mischaracterize the
>> issues.
>
>
>Since you have not noticed, I make no claims. I simply assail,
>attack, and deprecate the claims of Evolutionists.
In typical creqationist fashion, you seem to believe that your heresy is
demonstrated to be true if you can mount a good enough attack on
evolution (despite the fact that your attacks are always spurious).
Christians are honest folk (at least we try ot be). Creationists,
especially the more adamant kind, insist that I must tell lies to be
"saved." I continually pray to God that they will abandon these sins and
turn to Jesus Christ for real salvation, but the worst of the lot would
rather go to hell than repent even one lie.
>
>
>> > > > Without a non-material intelligent agency driving the process,
>> > > > Evolution is a dead letter.
>>
>> > > The process does not require intelligence in the drive. �Success
>> > > drives it.
>>
>> > You are arguing from the unproven premise.
>>
>> False. �We know this for a fact. �
>
>Sorry to shake your certainty, dude, but anything known "for a fact"
>is just a measure of saliva spray -- it has nothing to do with the
>truth.
>
>> It is proven that, apart from
>> interference, those who die before they pro-create do not pass their
>> genes on to the next generation.
>
>
>Well, duh. Those who die before they procreate don't have a "next
>generation."
Exactly, and any characteristic that reduces the chances of those
possessing it relative to others in the population will result in the
genetics that produce that characteristic becoming less and less
ubiquitous until they die out altogether. This happens faster for
dominant alleles than for recessive ones. And, of course, changes in the
environment can result in these "pressures" changing relative to one
another.
>
>
>> > > Do you have any substance behind these claims or are you going to
>> > > jus
>t
>> > > assert your beliefs?
>>
>> > Heh -- ! �No one has shown that Evolution can escape the Jaws of
>> > Entropy long enough to develop anything.
>>
>> Earth is not a closed system. �Entropy does not apply.
>
>Entropy rules.
It does, but nobody has shown that it precludes evolution, which occurs
at the expense of an overall increase in entropy.
[snip gratuitous insult]
>
>
>> >�By factors of multimillions to one? �I have
>> > been to Harrah's, and I wouldn't bet a nickle on those odds.
>>
>> What odds? �Whenever there is a race you see a few contestants are
>> the first few the completed it and some are in the middle of the pack
>> and some are at the end. �It's self evident. �What are the odds - yet
>> it happens that way every time.
>
>
>Such faith. Who can shake it? If it gets you through your day and
>does not kill any Palestinians, I don't mind.
Science does require faith in empirical observation and in logical
inference, but if you think these compete with faith in God, then your
faith in God must be very weak indeed.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Terry Cross
>
> Run a race. One or two people will come in first. Then a few more.
> Then a few more. Eventually one or two will come in last. Yet how is
> this possible? What are the odds? Yet it happens nearly every time.
> But in the wild the one or two coming in last are eaten by a predator
> and don't pass their genes on to the next generation so the population
> gets faster.
That's the easy part. But the part up your sleeve, the one
Evolutionists cannot discuss, is the presumption that genes and
chromosomes randomly interact and have imperfections that somehow
produce some offspring that are more perfect than the parents.
That is the goofiness of the gaps, the math that can't be figured.
Nobody buying a B&W TeeVee set got a color set by accident. Nobody
even got a better set by accident. In a delicate highly complex
system, accidents go only one way -- degradation. Never accidentally
better, accidents are always worse.
That is the ghoul of the gaps: It just don't work. Not even in
billions and billions and billions of years.
TCross
In My Fathers House
> On Jan 11, 10:19 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Run a race. One or two people will come in first. Then a few more.
> > Then a few more. Eventually one or two will come in last. Yet how is
> > this possible? What are the odds? Yet it happens nearly every time.
> > But in the wild the one or two coming in last are eaten by a predator
> > and don't pass their genes on to the next generation so the population
> > gets faster.
>
> That's the easy part. But the part up your sleeve, the one
> Evolutionists cannot discuss, is the presumption that genes and
> chromosomes randomly interact and have imperfections that somehow
> produce some offspring that are more perfect than the parents.
Einstein was not smarter than his parents? His scientific theories
were not better than that of his parents?
Beethoven's symphonies were not better than those of his parents?
Newton's invention of Calculus was not better than his parents (non)
invention of Calculus?
We see this happen on a regular basis. Two ordinary people get
together and they have an offspring who is extraordinary. The odds of
it happening for any given individual are very rare but as an entire
species it happens fairly often.
> That is the goofiness of the gaps, the math that can't be figured.
Pardon?
> Nobody buying a B&W TeeVee set got a color set by accident.
Yet from time to time two ordinary people have an extraordinary child.
> Nobody
> even got a better set by accident.
It's a silly analogy and of course someone somewhere got a color TV by
mistake. Human mistakes happen too often for that to have never taken
place.
> In a delicate highly complex
> system, accidents go only one way -- degradation. Never accidentally
> better, accidents are always worse.
You color it by calling it an accident. It's just change. Change can
be good or bad. You do not live in a cave, eating only the raw meat
and berries your immediate family can gather. The good changes were
kept and expanded upon. You try something and you don't like it - so
if you survive you don't do it again. You try something else and like
it so you do it more. Evolution works much the same way.
> That is the ghoul of the gaps: It just don't work. Not even in
> billions and billions and billions of years.
You are not making any sense.
Terry Cross
> On Jan 11, 11:59 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 10:19 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Run a race. One or two people will come in first. Then a few more.
> > > Then a few more. Eventually one or two will come in last. Yet how is
> > > this possible? What are the odds? Yet it happens nearly every time.
> > > But in the wild the one or two coming in last are eaten by a predator
> > > and don't pass their genes on to the next generation so the population
> > > gets faster.
>
> > That's the easy part. But the part up your sleeve, the one
> > Evolutionists cannot discuss, is the presumption that genes and
> > chromosomes randomly interact and have imperfections that somehow
> > produce some offspring that are more perfect than the parents.
>
> Einstein was not smarter than his parents? His scientific theories
> were not better than that of his parents?
The subject is random accidents.
> Beethoven's symphonies were not better than those of his parents?
>
> Newton's invention of Calculus was not better than his parents (non)
> invention of Calculus?
>
> We see this happen on a regular basis.
No you don't. You presume it on a regular basis. The regularity of
your presumption is not evidence or proof.
> Two ordinary people get
> together and they have an offspring who is extraordinary. The odds of
> it happening for any given individual are very rare but as an entire
> species it happens fairly often.
Then I fear you are incapable of common sense.
> > That is the goofiness of the gaps, the math that can't be figured.
>
> Pardon?
>
> > Nobody buying a B&W TeeVee set got a color set by accident.
>
> Yet from time to time two ordinary people have an extraordinary child.
And with the hidden presumption that it is all an accident of genes,
you have your magic. If not one deus ex machina, it is another, and
you are able to arrive at your starting presumptions, knowing the
place for the first time.
> > Nobody
> > even got a better set by accident.
>
> It's a silly analogy and of course someone somewhere got a color TV by
> mistake. Human mistakes happen too often for that to have never taken
> place.
Not from a B&W production line, it didn't.
> > In a delicate highly complex
> > system, accidents go only one way -- degradation. Never accidentally
> > better, accidents are always worse.
>
> You color it by calling it an accident. It's just change. Change can
> be good or bad. You do not live in a cave, eating only the raw meat
> and berries your immediate family can gather. The good changes were
> kept and expanded upon. You try something and you don't like it - so
> if you survive you don't do it again. You try something else and like
> it so you do it more. Evolution works much the same way.
I am familiar with your liturgy.
> > That is the ghoul of the gaps: It just don't work. Not even in
> > billions and billions and billions of years.
>
> You are not making any sense.
Of course not. Nothing in disagreement with your dogma will "make
sense" to you.
TCross
In My Fathers House
> > > > Then a few more. Eventually one or two will come in last. Yet how is
> > > > this possible? What are the odds? Yet it happens nearly every time.
> > > > But in the wild the one or two coming in last are eaten by a predator
> > > > and don't pass their genes on to the next generation so the population
> > > > gets faster.
>
> > > That's the easy part. But the part up your sleeve, the one
> > > Evolutionists cannot discuss, is the presumption that genes and
> > > chromosomes randomly interact and have imperfections that somehow
> > > produce some offspring that are more perfect than the parents.
>
> > Einstein was not smarter than his parents? His scientific theories
> > were not better than that of his parents?
>
> The subject is random accidents.
And random accidents produce examples like Einstein. It's very low
probability for an individual but for a large population these happen
at a certain rate.
> > Beethoven's symphonies were not better than those of his parents?
>
> > Newton's invention of Calculus was not better than his parents (non)
> > invention of Calculus?
>
> > We see this happen on a regular basis.
>
> No you don't. You presume it on a regular basis.
You dispute the examples I cited historically existed?
> The regularity of
> your presumption is not evidence or proof.
They existed yes or no? They were better than what came before them
yes or no?
We can look at the history of Baseball and Football prior to
steroids. There are Olympic records prior to steroids. All these
great athletes pop up over time even if their parents were not
athletes. Do you think these records were falsified or forged as part
of a conspiracy?
> > Two ordinary people get
> > together and they have an offspring who is extraordinary. The odds of
> > it happening for any given individual are very rare but as an entire
> > species it happens fairly often.
>
> Then I fear you are incapable of common sense.
>
> > > That is the goofiness of the gaps, the math that can't be figured.
>
> > Pardon?
You did not explain you comment. What did you mean by "the goofiness
of the gaps, the math that can't be figured"?
> > > Nobody buying a B&W TeeVee set got a color set by accident.
>
> > Yet from time to time two ordinary people have an extraordinary child.
>
> And with the hidden presumption that it is all an accident of genes,
> you have your magic.
What magic? The presumption is yours.
> If not one deus ex machina, it is another, and
> you are able to arrive at your starting presumptions, knowing the
> place for the first time.
What do you mean? It seems you are presuming something about me that
is not the case.
> > > Nobody
> > > even got a better set by accident.
>
> > It's a silly analogy and of course someone somewhere got a color TV by
> > mistake. Human mistakes happen too often for that to have never taken
> > place.
>
> Not from a B&W production line, it didn't.
Ah, the stuff you didn't say might help your analogy.
> > > In a delicate highly complex
> > > system, accidents go only one way -- degradation. Never accidentally
> > > better, accidents are always worse.
>
> > You color it by calling it an accident. It's just change. Change can
> > be good or bad. You do not live in a cave, eating only the raw meat
> > and berries your immediate family can gather. The good changes were
> > kept and expanded upon. You try something and you don't like it - so
> > if you survive you don't do it again. You try something else and like
> > it so you do it more. Evolution works much the same way.
>
> I am familiar with your liturgy.
Oh? What would that be? Please fill me in.
> > > That is the ghoul of the gaps: It just don't work. Not even in
> > > billions and billions and billions of years.
>
> > You are not making any sense.
>
> Of course not. Nothing in disagreement with your dogma will "make
> sense" to you.
Completely false. I often learn from internet debates and have been
persuaded from time to time to change my views on many different
issues. It requires a valid argument.
Your vague comments about ghouls in the gaps doesn't quite do it.
Terry Cross
> On Jan 12, 9:58 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>
> > > > > Run a race. One or two people will come in first. Then a few more.
> > > > > Then a few more. Eventually one or two will come in last. Yet how is
> > > > > this possible? What are the odds? Yet it happens nearly every time.
> > > > > But in the wild the one or two coming in last are eaten by a predator
> > > > > and don't pass their genes on to the next generation so the population
> > > > > gets faster.
>
> > > > That's the easy part. But the part up your sleeve, the one
> > > > Evolutionists cannot discuss, is the presumption that genes and
> > > > chromosomes randomly interact and have imperfections that somehow
> > > > produce some offspring that are more perfect than the parents.
>
> > > Einstein was not smarter than his parents? His scientific theories
> > > were not better than that of his parents?
>
> > The subject is random accidents.
>
> And random accidents produce examples like Einstein.
You are operating on two unfounded presumptions in this line of
argument:
a) you presume that the characteristics of all individuals --
including intelligence -- are the product of genetics. I do not agree
with this position.
b) you are presuming that Einstein was a genetic mutation, and your
presumption is not supported by anything in conventional literature.
If I am wrong, cite.
> It's very low
> probability for an individual but for a large population these happen
> at a certain rate.
Nonsense. Before you speculate in the incidence of occurrence, you
must prove the occurrence.
>
> > > Beethoven's symphonies were not better than those of his parents?
>
> > > Newton's invention of Calculus was not better than his parents (non)
> > > invention of Calculus?
>
> > > We see this happen on a regular basis.
>
> > No you don't. You presume it on a regular basis.
>
> You dispute the examples I cited historically existed?
I dispute your unfounded presumptions that a) all individual
attributes are the product of genetics, and that b) the individuals
you name were genetic mutations.
I also suspect that you do not believe they were genetic mutations.
TCross
In My Fathers House
> > > > > Evolutionists cannot discuss, is the presumption that genes and
> > > > > chromosomes randomly interact and have imperfections that somehow
> > > > > produce some offspring that are more perfect than the parents.
>
> > > > Einstein was not smarter than his parents? His scientific theories
> > > > were not better than that of his parents?
>
> > > The subject is random accidents.
>
> > And random accidents produce examples like Einstein.
>
> You are operating on two unfounded presumptions in this line of
> argument:
>
> a) you presume that the characteristics of all individuals --
> including intelligence -- are the product of genetics.
No I do not. Certainly many characteristics are the product of
genetics and intelligence has a strong genetic component. But that
does not mean all characteristics are the product of genetics. I did
not say, imply or presume this.
> I do not agree
> with this position.
No do I. Now that we have that out of the way we may continue.
> b) you are presuming that Einstein was a genetic mutation, and your
> presumption is not supported by anything in conventional literature.
> If I am wrong, cite.
Nope. You wrote "chromosomes randomly interact". Some random
interactions between chromosomes made Einstein an outlier. I do not
presume it was a direct mutation in him. It may have been a sum of
mutations in his recent ancestors. It may have been a complex cause.
> > It's very low
> > probability for an individual but for a large population these happen
> > at a certain rate.
>
> Nonsense. Before you speculate in the incidence of occurrence, you
> must prove the occurrence.
The existence of these individuals and what made them unique is well
established.
> > > > Beethoven's symphonies were not better than those of his parents?
>
> > > > Newton's invention of Calculus was not better than his parents (non)
> > > > invention of Calculus?
>
> > > > We see this happen on a regular basis.
>
> > > No you don't. You presume it on a regular basis.
>
> > You dispute the examples I cited historically existed?
>
> I dispute your unfounded presumptions that a) all individual
> attributes are the product of genetics, and that b) the individuals
> you name were genetic mutations.
They are not my presumptions and I have already pointed out.
> I also suspect that you do not believe they were genetic mutations.
The people I named were not chimpanzees. The difference, 2%, is due
to mutations.
You have not answered my questions regarding my liturgy. What would
that be? Please fill me in
You also did not explain your comments regarding "deus ex machina".
Were you able to correctly perceive any of my starting presumptions?
You seem to get them wrong.
Terry Cross
> On Jan 12, 11:06 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>
> > > > > > But the part up your sleeve, the one
> > > > > > Evolutionists cannot discuss, is the presumption that genes and
> > > > > > chromosomes randomly interact and have imperfections that somehow
> > > > > > produce some offspring that are more perfect than the parents.
>
> > > > > Einstein was not smarter than his parents? His scientific theories
> > > > > were not better than that of his parents?
>
> > > > The subject is random accidents.
>
> > > And random accidents produce examples like Einstein.
>
> > You are operating on two unfounded presumptions in this line of
> > argument:
>
> > a) you presume that the characteristics of all individuals --
> > including intelligence -- are the product of genetics.
>
> No I do not. Certainly many characteristics are the product of
> genetics and intelligence has a strong genetic component.
"Certainly"? Is this the pope of Materialism speaking out again? You
have no foundation for the statement.
> But that
> does not mean all characteristics are the product of genetics. I did
> not say, imply or presume this.
But you presume Einstein's intelligence was the product of genetics --
else you would not use him as an example.
> > I do not agree
> > with this position.
>
> No do I. Now that we have that out of the way we may continue.
>
> > b) you are presuming that Einstein was a genetic mutation, and your
> > presumption is not supported by anything in conventional literature.
> > If I am wrong, cite.
>
> Nope. You wrote "chromosomes randomly interact".
My quote is as follows:
> > > > > > "chromosomes randomly interact and have imperfections that somehow
> > > > > > produce some offspring that are more perfect than the parents.
> Some random
> interactions between chromosomes made Einstein an outlier.
Now you resume your previous presumption about intelligence and
genetics.
I don't think this conversation is going well.
TCross
In My Fathers House
> > > argument:
>
> > > a) you presume that the characteristics of all individuals --
> > > including intelligence -- are the product of genetics.
>
> > No I do not. Certainly many characteristics are the product of
> > genetics and intelligence has a strong genetic component.
>
> "Certainly"? Is this the pope of Materialism speaking out again? You
> have no foundation for the statement.
I don't even get to define my own position? Maybe you should tell me
what you want me say.
> > But that
> > does not mean all characteristics are the product of genetics. I did
> > not say, imply or presume this.
>
> But you presume Einstein's intelligence was the product of genetics --
> else you would not use him as an example.
But from that you jump to a specific.
> > > I do not agree
> > > with this position.
>
> > No do I. Now that we have that out of the way we may continue.
>
> > > b) you are presuming that Einstein was a genetic mutation, and your
> > > presumption is not supported by anything in conventional literature.
> > > If I am wrong, cite.
>
> > Nope. You wrote "chromosomes randomly interact".
>
> My quote is as follows:
>
> > > > > > > "chromosomes randomly interact and have imperfections that somehow
> > > > > > > produce some offspring that are more perfect than the parents.
So you see what is wrong with your objection. You wrote "chromosomes
randomly interact" but now jump strait to Einstein must be a mutation
in my position.
> > Some random
> > interactions between chromosomes made Einstein an outlier.
>
> Now you resume your previous presumption about intelligence and
> genetics.
You mean the presumption that was never mine?
> I don't think this conversation is going well.
The problem is on your end. I guess you are not going to answer the
questions you keep sniping.
randy
"Terry Cross"
randy
> ...I have no problem with a person who believes God created the
> universe, and likely used evolution as a tool. I just don't know the
> *degree* to which God likely used evolution. He certainly seems to have
> used
> some.
"Evolution cannot develop anything, no more than water can be made to
run uphill or pure chance sort a deck of cards by shuffling. The
argument for Evolution is ALWAYS an atheistic argument, as the
literature shows. The payoff in the whole doctrine is abiogenesis, as
every Evolution text demonstrates.
Without a non-material intelligent agency driving the process,
Evolution is a dead letter."
The existence of *theistic evolutionists* prove that evolutionary theory is
not always atheistic. In fact, evolution is now considered synonymous with
*any science* having to do with origins. Even if God created man from
nothing over a 24 hour period of time, science would consider the
development of man within this timeframe "evolution."
Otherwise, I completely agree with you. God must've been the "uncaused
Cause."
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave"
>randy
>
>>> Well yes, *some* creationists may reject mutations
>>> and changes that lead towards positive change.
>
>> There is no record of one single "positive change"
>> for humans in a mutation. But what do you care?
>
> You are "begging the question."
I'm stating a fact.
> Indeed, if evolution has taken place, creating new species,
> then there has definitely been positive change.
That's circular reasoning. Assume the theory is true
and then claim it happened in a certain way. When
proof is asked for, just tell them to assume the theory.
1) We're talking about humans.
2) New species are not "positive mutations".
3) There is not one recorded "positive mutation".
4) You need to prove the theory before anyone
will assume it.
5) Why do you readily assume something that
has faltered as a theory at every turn, while
rejecting God's word and then hypocritically
claim to believe God's word, which directly
contradicts evolution and then think that
people will think you're being honest?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
When you get tangled up in your problems, be still.
God wants us to be still, so he can untangle the knot.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
An oxymoron. :)
I started this thread, remember? I started it with this:
Regardless of what anyone wants to claim, what I say
in this message about what evolution teaches, is indeed
what it teaches.
Now what you have to ask yourselves, is why it is that
evolutionists, especially theistic evolutionists (a person
who claims to believe the Bible and yet also claims
that "God used evolution to do it"), get so outraged
when you put forth the basic concepts of evolution
and what it means to and for man, if it is true.
It seems simple to realize that it is because they are
embarrassed by what it would actually mean if it
were true and don't want you to realize that yes,
this/that is what it would mean to and for man!
So why do they stick with it anyway then? Simple!:
Theistic evolutionists are out to please men, rather than
God. They claim to believe in a virgin birth, people
rising from the dead, water turned into wine and yet,
they don't believe that God created the heaven and
the earth in six literal days, thereby making hypocrites
of themselves. Why? Because man says it isn't so
and they would rather try to please men, instead of
choosing to believe God and stand up for Him.
And in their quest to make men happy, instead of God,
it never even occurs to them that these same men that
deny the Creation and proclaim their religion of evolution,
also deny the virgin birth, people rising from the dead
and water being turned into wine.
So the truth is, there's no difference! They're all miracles!
So why proclaim to be a Christian and then cop out on
just this one?
Jesus turned water into wine. Did He tell them to wait for
it to ferment? Or was the wine instantly ready to drink?
It was the latter.
He healed people. Did He tell them to go see a doctor and
take their antibiotics for 10 days? Or were they instantly
healed? It was the latter.
So the bottom line is, that Jesus did what He did and just
sped up the process. So why is it impossible to these same
people who claim to believe in Christ, that He created it all
in six literal days?
If evolution is true, then the Bible cannot be and Jesus cannot
be Lord. Why not? Simple. Because Jesus would then be
nothing more than a made over monkey and man could not
be the pinnacle of God's creation. After all, evolution means
that we're still evolving. So who knows what we'll end up
being, right? I.e., if evolution is true, then man is not the
end of the evolutionary process and so, man cannot be
the pinnacle of God's physical creation, as Scripture does
teach that he is and that makes all of our hopes false!
Furthermore, the Bible says that death came by sin and sin
came by Adam. If that is not true (and that's what evolution
means), then Jesus could not have come to save us from the
Fall, since it never happened, if evolution is true. And Jesus
cannot be "the last Adam". He would be "the last ape" and
even that would not be true, since there are more after Him!
And preachers who claim theistic evolution are the biggest
hypocrites of all and are in the most danger! Why? Simple.
Read Isaiah 9:16 & Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6.
So what do YOU stand for? You must decide if you stand
for God, or men who deny Him! Which side do you want
to be on? The side that says that we are animals? Because
if so, then Jesus is not our Saviour, since we cannot be
sinning if we are animals, since we would just be acting
as we were designed to, which is also what evolution
teaches. And do you hold an animal responsible for
attacking another animal? Of course not! So neither
can man be responsible under the guidelines of evolution,
for attacking other men!
So don't tell your kids, "Stop acting like animals!" and
then tell them that they're apes. You're nothing but
a hypocrite when you do.
Evolution is not even compatible with Scripture and so,
there is no way it can be read into it.
First of all, God declares it to be six literal days when
He says about each day; "and the EVENING AND
THE MORNING were the 'X' day".
Second, evolution teaches that the Earth came after
the Sun. The Bible teaches that the Sun came after
the Earth.
Now of course, in an attempt at an avoidance maneuver,
the evolutionist will demand to know; "Then what was
the light before Day 4?!".
But note, that is an avoidance maneuver! Note that
they did not (because they were not able to) dispute
that the Bible does in fact say what it says about the
Sun being created after the Earth. Rather, instead,
they try to pit one verse against another and that is
simply in no way a refutation of what I said, period!
And then there are those who claim the "Gap Theory".
That there were "gaps" between the days, which is
supposedly when all of this supposed "evolution"
took place. But that is them inserting a gap where
none is stated.
<Futurists take note here, since the same rule applies
to how you handle Daniel 9:24-27, since no gap is
stated there either and you are a hypocrite if you
put one there and argue against one in Genesis,
because, "there is no gap stated". So if you demand
one there, then you must give one here, end of story.
Or, you can foolishly try to think that you will look
honest inserting one in Daniel, when there is no more
mention of one there, than there is in Genesis 1.>
And as for these "gaps", they do not seem to be able
to explain how it is that plants and insects survived
without each other for the millions, or even billions
of years that they insert there, between the days,
considering that neither could survive without the
other being around at the same time and yet, the
Bible tells us that they were created on different days!
So how did the plants and insects survive without
each other for those "millions, or billions" of years,
when they cannot survive without each other
being present at the same time, period!
Now of course, the theistic evolutionist will try to
claim that "they were different kinds of plants then".
Huh?!? What evidence is there for that, except that
they just claimed that it's so?! And why do "Christians"
sit back and act as if the theistic evolutionist has somehow
actually come up with a scientific answer?! How is it
"scientific" to take insects and plants, that we both
know depend on each other to live and just make some
wild claim that it was only a different kind of plant that
existed then, for millions, or billions of years?! What?!?
And where and when did the plants that would have
required insects come into existence? Did they just
pop into existence all of the sudden? Isn't that indeed
contrary to what evolution teaches? No, not at all the
evolutionist would say, because you see folks, when
the evolutionist needs things to happen fast, they
just say they did and claim it's "fits and starts" and
that's that! And you are supposed to believe that!
Or they will claim that after the insects appeared,
then these other plants that depend on them began
to evolve over millions of years.
Really? So what did the insects do until that happened?!
Hello?!? :)
The fact is, they had to appear in the same time frame
and literal days allows for that. Millions of years for
each day does not!
And then we'll see the theistic evolutionists telling us
how "they were a different type of insect back then".
Huh?!? Where does it say that?! And what insects,
exactly?! Hello?!?
This is just made up fairy takes they invent on the fly
in the middle of the conversation, while they hypocritically
tell you that you believe in a fairy take, while discussing
the very same Bible that they claim to believe in! What?!?
And yet, they expect you to believe all of this! And they
try to make you look foolish if you don't. And the sad
part is, that most Christians will back down, because
they are afraid that they don't know enough about
this supposed "science". Gee, I thought the discussion
was about THE BIBLE! And let's face the truth. Making
up things on the fly that have no basis in science, is in
no way, "science"! They are pretending! And it is your
job to find that out, instead of cowering in fear because
of an "on the fly, home spun fairy tale"! So do that! :)
The sad part is, many "Christians" do just accept it,
because someone who wants to believe in evolution
says it's so! We dare not question "scientists", right?
The sad part is, that these same "Christians" accept
this mumbo jumbo which runs completely contrary
to science, from people who are not scientists and
even from atheists who have zero education in the
involved sciences, just because they say it is so!
Get the message? Educate yourself and stop claiming
to believe in the word of God and then instead, placing
whatever a God hater says above it!
"...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for me
and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
Sorry for the harsh words, but we who believe God,
get tired of those who claim to, yet in truth don't.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
This Chinese proverb can be applied to our walk in faith:
"The attitude within is more important than
the circumstances without." - Chinese proverb
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>"Dave Oldridge"
>randy
>>>Have you heard of "theistic evolutionists?"
>
>> He has, but he claims we are all atheists at heart. But then, when it
>> comes to his god, Belial, I *AM* an atheist. I do not believe Belial to
>> be
>> a real god. He's an evil spirit that sometimes masquerades as one.
>> You can spot him by all the lying he inspires!
>
>I know what you mean, but let me just say that Dave can do no better than
>create an impression of who he really is.
What you do, is prove what liars you are. What I said,
is that evolution is an atheistic idea that rejects God.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"If we abide by the principles in the Bible, our country
will go on prospering." - Daniel Webster
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<tcro...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
Amen! The only thing I would say, is that they now
try to separate evolution from abiogenesis, because
they have taken such a beating on the subject and
spontaneous generation has been disproved. They
also try to claim that abiogenesis and spontaneous
generation are different things, when they are not.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"If then, these teachings [of a false prophet]
contradict the chief doctrine and article of Christ,
we should accord them neither with attention nor
acceptance though it were to snow miracles daily."
- Martin Luther
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<tcro...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>On Jan 11, 4:02�pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 11, 9:39�am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> > Evolution cannot develop anything, no more than water can be made to
>> > run uphill or pure chance sort a deck of cards by shuffling.
>>
>> This has been shown to be false by every type of animal and plant
>> domesticated or developed by humans.
>
>
>No, it has not. No one has demonstrated Evolution without including
>living organisms.
This is their typical bait and switch argument.
Demand proof of macroevolution and you will
get examples of microevolution, which is science.
Flowers from flowers is not man from a rock. :)
Then they will claim that macroevolution is a word
that was invented by Creationists, when in fact,
it was invented by evolutionists. So they are now
busy trying to change the definition of macroevolution
in the dictionaries, to what the definition of
microevolution is.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The Last Days were in the first century:
Matthew 3:7,10,12
7) But when He saw many of the Pharisees and
Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto
THEM, O GENERATION of vipers, who hath
warned YOU to flee from the wrath to come?
10) And NOW also the axe is laid unto the root
of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth
not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire.
12) Whose fan is in his hand, and he will
throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat
into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff
with unquenchable fire.
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>> There is no record of one single "positive change"
>>> for humans in a mutation. But what do you care?
>> You are "begging the question."
> I'm stating a fact.
I suppose it depends on how you define "mutation." If you deny evolution,
you simply deny that there has been any positive mutation. If, however,
evolution is part of the process through which God created diverse species,
then indeed there has been positive mutation.
>> Indeed, if evolution has taken place, creating new species,
>> then there has definitely been positive change.
> That's circular reasoning. Assume the theory is true
> and then claim it happened in a certain way. When
> proof is asked for, just tell them to assume the theory.
I'm not assuming anything. I don't know science well enough to argue it
either way.
> 1) We're talking about humans.
I was talking about all animal species--not just humans.
Dave, I'm primarily a creationist. I just don't claim to know what process
God used precisely to create diversity of animal species on earth.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>>>Have you heard of "theistic evolutionists?"
> What you do, is prove what liars you are. What I said,
> is that evolution is an atheistic idea that rejects God.
You haven't answered the question. Have you heard of "theistic
evolutionists?" I should think so.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>> Evolution is the atheistic view...
>>Have you heard of "theistic evolutionists?"
> An oxymoron. :)
That's like telling the flat-earther that the earth is round. He responds by
saying, "That can't be! Everybody knows the earth is flat, and a round earth
is absolutely incompatible with a flat earth!"
> I started this thread, remember? I started it with this:
> Now what you have to ask yourselves, is why it is that
> evolutionists, especially theistic evolutionists (a person
> who claims to believe the Bible and yet also claims
> that "God used evolution to do it"), get so outraged
> when you put forth the basic concepts of evolution
> and what it means to and for man, if it is true.
Maybe the "rage" you say theistic evolutionists have is because you're
slandering them? They do not follow an "atheistic" system at all. They're
just trying to follow the scientific evidence. You judge them and say
they're just trying to "please man." Shouldn't they get angry when you
falsely accuse them of trying to "please man?" They are only trying to be
honest with the best scientific evidence at their disposal.
So don't call evolution an "atheistic" system, when it is just man's best
efforts to explain the origins of species. The existence of "theistic
evolutionists" disproves your claim that this is an "atheistic" system
determined to disprove God. It is just a way to *physicallly* explain what
God did in history in creating animal life, reproducing a theoretical
history of the order in which this took place.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>>>> Evolution is the atheistic view...
>
>>>Have you heard of "theistic evolutionists?"
>
>> An oxymoron. :)
>
>That's like telling the flat-earther that the earth is round.
No it isn't. Theistic evolution is an oxymoron.
>> I started this thread, remember? I started it with this:
>
>> Now what you have to ask yourselves, is why it is that
>> evolutionists, especially theistic evolutionists (a person
>> who claims to believe the Bible and yet also claims
>> that "God used evolution to do it"), get so outraged
>> when you put forth the basic concepts of evolution
>> and what it means to and for man, if it is true.
>
> Maybe the "rage" you say theistic evolutionists have
> is because you're slandering them?
No, I'm not.
> They do not follow an "atheistic" system at all.
You can play dumb if you wish, but it won't change
the facts. Evolution seeks to explain how we got here
without invoking God into the mix. I.e., Evolution is
a naturalistic approach to explaining the universe.
Now if you don't know what "naturalistic" means,
then that is your problem. Like I said, play dumb.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"If one does not know to which port one is sailing,
no wind is favorable." - Seneca
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave"
>randy
>
>>>> There is no record of one single "positive change"
>>>> for humans in a mutation. But what do you care?
>
>>> You are "begging the question."
>
>> I'm stating a fact.
>
> I suppose it depends on how you define "mutation."
Translation: When the facts deny my claims,
I will redefine the word.
I mean it as evolutionists do.
I'm going to say this once...
I am well versed in the various involved sciences.
I do not "guess". I do not "assume". I "know".
> If you deny evolution, you simply deny that
> there has been any positive mutation.
I do not need to worry about denying evolution.
Again, you are being unscientific. You are indeed
assuming the theory to be true, without having
proved it to be so.
It is your job to prove a positive mutation within
human beings. But being so dishonest, when
you cannot, you demand, like all evolutionists
do, that everyone else disprove it, as if it were
an already proved fact. That is unscientific. (:
>>> Indeed, if evolution has taken place, creating new species,
>>> then there has definitely been positive change.
>
>> That's circular reasoning. Assume the theory is true
>> and then claim it happened in a certain way. When
>> proof is asked for, just tell them to assume the theory.
>
> I'm not assuming anything. I don't know science
> well enough to argue it either way.
Then you shouldn't assume that it is scientific
and yet, you do.
>> 1) We're talking about humans.
>
> I was talking about all animal species--not just humans.
I brought humans into it, because evolution teaches
that we came from a rock.
Now here is something for you to think about, Randy...
If evolution is true, then the Bible is a lie. This is simple
logic. You see, if evolution is true, then man was not
created in God's image, unless you believe that God's
image is a single celled, simplistic blob of protoplasm,
which is what Darwin based his theory on and which
btw, we later learned is not true. Even a single cell
is more complex than any major city!
Anyway, the point I'm making also, is that man would
not be the end of evolution, since it is not a process
that ceases to continue and therefore, man is just
a step in the path/journey to whatever and something
better than man is coming.
Furthermore, evolution is unscientific because all that
we actually do record, is the degrading; the loss of
information, not the gaining of it and so therefore,
macroevolution simply cannot be true, since not only
would it require adding information, but doing so on
a regular basis and yet, we simply never see that happen!
The bottom line is that science, by definition, whether
you like it or not, *absolutely requires* one of the
following two things to occur, in order for *anything*
to be called, "science":
1) Direct observation. Not indirect, as evolutionists
try to claim.
2) Repeatable testing that produces repeatable results
that prove the claim.
Without at least one of these, it is *not* *science*!
> Dave, I'm primarily a creationist.
No, you're not. You're an evolutionist. You want
to claim that evolution got us here and God just
"started it", or possibly "directed it". But it is
evolution that you credit for the progress and
we both know that! (:
> I just don't claim to know what process God used
> precisely to create diversity of animal species on earth.
Yes you do, since you fight for the idea that
evolution is true, which is what you are doing
right now.
The fact is, that evolution and the Bible do not mix,
period, end of story. They fly in the face of each other
and simply cannot coexist!
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in
the world believed that the world was flat? And
up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought
the atom was the smallest thing, until you split
it open and this like, whole mess of crap came out.
Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably
arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny
tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?"
- Phoebe from Friends, regarding evolution
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> I suppose it depends on how you define "mutation."
> Translation: When the facts deny my claims,
> I will redefine the word.
> I mean it as evolutionists do.
So do I. I've modified my definition of "mutations" due to discussions I've
had here with Rob about evolution. I've had similar discussions before with
others. A mutation may assume a very "random" appearance, and yet could have
conceivably been divinely designed. That may or may not have been part of
the process God used in creating species, for example, the many species of
horses.
In other words, what appears to us to be a random mutation may actually be a
form of creation.
> I do not need to worry about denying evolution.
> Again, you are being unscientific. You are indeed
> assuming the theory to be true, without having
> proved it to be so.
I freely admit I am probably less scientific than you. What I'm saying is
that any change that has happened to produce animals out of the elements of
the earth, or out of another similar animal, may appear to be a random
"mutation" (I use that word flexibly), but may actually be the process by
which God *created* them. I do not automatically assume that the acts of
creation were instantaneous. If they took place over time, then that process
may appear to be something we could define as "mutations."
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
> No it isn't. Theistic evolution is an oxymoron.
That is your opinion. That's a different matter. My point is that theistic
evolutionists exist, and disprove your belief that evolution is necessarily
"atheistic."
randy
Rob Strom
wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:55:06 -0800, "randy"
> <rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>
> >"Pastor Dave"
> I will redefine the word.
>
> I mean it as evolutionists do.
>
> I'm going to say this once...
>
> I am well versed in the various involved sciences.
> I do not "guess". I do not "assume". I "know".
I don't believe you know. If you know, then you
are even more evil, for you are deliberately
putting stumbling blocks in front of the
blind by distorting the science.
>
> > If you deny evolution, you simply deny that
> > there has been any positive mutation.
>
> I do not need to worry about denying evolution.
> Again, you are being unscientific. You are indeed
> assuming the theory to be true, without having
> proved it to be so.
>
> It is your job to prove a positive mutation within
> human beings.
There are many. One very noticeable one is
the mutation of the MCM6 gene on chromosome 2.
It produces lactose tolerance. That is a positive
mutation in environments where raising cattle
and drinking milk is prominent. It was selected
for in regions where this has historically
happened. There has been enough non-migration
so that this effect can still be measured. The original
condition of humans is lactose intolerance,
which evolved in mammals, presumably to encourage
weaning.
There are many other positive mutations, but
you asked for just one, so there it is.
...
> I brought humans into it, because evolution teaches
> that we came from a rock.
Evolution doesn't teach that we came from a rock.
You're not telling the truth about how knowledgeable
you are about the science. Why am I not surprised?
>
> Now here is something for you to think about, Randy...
>
> If evolution is true, then the Bible is a lie.
False.
> This is simple
> logic.
Then you should have no problems creating the syllogism
showing the premises and how you draw the conclusion.
> You see, if evolution is true, then man was not
> created in God's image, unless you believe that God's
> image is a single celled, simplistic blob of protoplasm,
> which is what Darwin based his theory on and which
> btw, we later learned is not true.
That's false. You're assuming we can't be in
God's image because we evolved, even though
it is because of God's laws that we're *able* to
evolve????
...
> Anyway, the point I'm making also, is that man would
> not be the end of evolution, since it is not a process
> that ceases to continue and therefore, man is just
> a step in the path/journey to whatever and something
> better than man is coming.
Different, not better, but yes, what's wrong with that?
>
> Furthermore, evolution is unscientific because all that
> we actually do record, is the degrading
false
> ; the loss of
> information, not the gaining of it
false
> and so therefore,
> macroevolution simply cannot be true, since not only
> would it require adding information, but doing so on
> a regular basis and yet, we simply never see that happen!
We have seen it happen throughout the fossil record,
and we have seen it happen on a smaller scale
even in direct observation.
>
> The bottom line is that science, by definition, whether
> you like it or not, *absolutely requires* one of the
> following two things to occur, in order for *anything*
> to be called, "science":
>
> 1) Direct observation. Not indirect, as evolutionists
> try to claim.
That's totally false. Otherwise electronics as
we know it would never exist.
>
>
> 2) Repeatable testing that produces repeatable results
> that prove the claim.
>
> Without at least one of these, it is *not* *science*!
There are many repeatable tests, such as the construction
of cladistic trees based on different mutable regions.
--
Rob Strom
Terry Cross
If you were to make a true statement, you would have to say that your
MCM6 example is only presumed, not that it "is." Like all the other
"changes" in the legend of human Evolution (loss of hair, loss of foot
callouses, opposable thumbs, etc.), your teaspoon of wine is somewhat
compromised by a barrel of sewage.
How amusing that you presume a survival value for lactose intolerance
-- as though children decide when to wean from mother's milk. The
theory is loaded with sexist stupidity and city-foolishness.
You don't need a lactose intolerance reaction to wean the child.
Weaning is usually occasioned by the appearance of teeth in the
offspring. I will let you puzzle for a while on why this might be.
Hint: The mother determines when to wean the child
And they call this "science."
TCross
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
> A mutation may assume a very "random" appearance
> and yet could have conceivably been divinely designed.
> That may or may not have been part of the process
> God used in creating species, for example, the many
> species of horses.
You are confusing microevolution with macroevolution
and a positive mutation which requires the gaining of
information, with a loss of information.
A new species of horse is:
1) Microevolution, since horses from horses
is nowhere near the same thing as horses
from sea creatures.
2) A loss of information, since when this
new species appears, it appears from
genetic information that is "selected"
from an existing species of horse,
or selected from two different species
of horses, but either way, a loss occurs
since not all of the information from
one or both horses is transmitted to
the new species of horse. And while
evolutionists like to pretend that
"natural selection" is some kid of
creative force, the reality is that it means
exactly what it says. It "selects" from the
existing code. And one does not get new
creatures from existing code.
What you must show is that macroevolution occurs.
And macroevolution requires a lot more than what
you present, which is microevolution, which is science
and which no one is denying as an event that occurs.
>> I do not need to worry about denying evolution.
>> Again, you are being unscientific. You are indeed
>> assuming the theory to be true, without having
>> proved it to be so.
>
> I freely admit I am probably less scientific than you.
> What I'm saying is that any change that has happened
> to produce animals out of the elements of the earth,
> or out of another similar animal, may appear to be
> a random "mutation" (I use that word flexibly), but
> may actually be the process by which God *created*
> them. I do not automatically assume that the acts of
> creation were instantaneous. If they took place over
> time, then that process may appear to be something
> we could define as "mutations."
Time is the magic wand that evolutionists try to wave
over the problem, as if just saying "time" means that
they don't have to prove their case, nor can they show
any "mutations" making entirely new creatures.
The truth is, no one has ever observed what is required
for macroevolution to be true. So why do you accept it?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
If your Bible is falling apart, chances are
your life is staying together.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<tcro...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
He assumes the evolution before proving it.
Furthermore, even if we assume his scenario,
he said it is "selected for". That means it
already existed in the genetic code and was
merely "turned on". That is not the mutation
that adds new information that is required
for macroevolution to be true.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Lord, help me get up when I fall. I can fall by myself.
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
> The truth is, no one has ever observed what is required
> for macroevolution to be true. So why do you accept it?
Who said I accepted it? I accept the possibility of anything science is
willing to prove to me. Since I'm not that scientifically-literate, I leave
the door open to whatever. I prefer to be associated with the "creationist"
camp. I just don't know how God did it!
randy
Rob Strom
wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:17:09 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross
No, and this shows you don't know how the thing works.
(You also don't know what the genetic code means;
you meant to say the genome.)
The lactose tolerance mutation DID NOT exist
in the genome. It showed up as a mutation.
The meaning of "selected for" is that people
who had this mutation had more babies
than those who didn't have it, causing the
next generation to have more copies of
the gene with the mutation in it.
--
Rob Strom
Terry Cross
Is lactose intolerance f0ound throughout adult mammals, Rob? What
gene creates it in humans, and what is the survival value for -- say
-- wolves?
Terry Cross
> On Jan 12, 3:16 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > > You are operating on two unfounded presumptions in this line of
> > > > argument:
>
> > > > a) you presume that the characteristics of all individuals --
> > > > including intelligence -- are the product of genetics.
>
> > > No I do not. Certainly many characteristics are the product of
> > > genetics and intelligence has a strong genetic component.
>
> > "Certainly"? Is this the pope of Materialism speaking out again? You
> > have no foundation for the statement.
>
> I don't even get to define my own position?
I don't mind what you believe, but you should not call it "science."
That world is already used for a rigorous empiricism, and re-using it
for your religious sect just causes confusion.
TCross
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
You don't have to be scientifically literate to see
that evolution conflicts with the Creation. The
order isn't even the same. Is that simple enough?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
One good thing about Alzheimers is that you meet
new people every day.
Ike E 1/2/2010
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:abgjl552sj79779bl...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> You don't have to be scientifically literate to see
> that evolution conflicts with the Creation.
Only if you're a moron who doesn't know how to read prophecy prophetically,
like the idiot literalists.
Ike
Terry Cross
The problem with "theistic evolution" is in the fundamental premise.
Since Evolution argues ad infinitum that all development is a matter
of chance and probability, i.e., mechanical events like dice tosses
and card shuffles, what role would be played by a god? Is he just an
opportunist along for the ride, waiting for Evolution to create an
intelligent species so he can move in, take over, and demand worship?
This is the essence of the Evolution Confusion: Conjure up a hopeful
monster, add a billion years or two, put it all in a black box, stir
with a blunt pencil -- and Shazam!
If you fall for the prestidigitation, you're a gonner. You have
already agreed that human intelligence and awareness is a chemical
phenomenon, morals are cultural, suffering is incidental, and God is
redundant.
TCross
lottery nan
> Regardless of what anyone wants to claim, what I say
> in this message about what evolution teaches, is indeed
> what it teaches.
>
> evolutionists, especially theistic evolutionists (a person
> who claims to believe the Bible and yet also claims
> that "God used evolution to do it"), get so outraged
> when you put forth the basic concepts of evolution
> and what it means to and for man, if it is true.
>
>
> Pastor Dave
>
> The following is part of my auto-rotating
> sig file and not part of the message body.
>
> is in mans' heart." - Vume
He is here
Ike E 1/2/2010
"Terry Cross" <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef0649ef-6839-4a4c...@g1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 20, 11:18 am, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
>> "Pastor Dave"
>> randy
>
>>> No it isn't. Theistic evolution is an oxymoron.
>
>> That is your opinion. That's a different matter. My point is that
>> theistic
>> evolutionists exist, and disprove your belief that evolution is
>> necessarily
>> "atheistic."
>> randy
> The problem with "theistic evolution" is in the fundamental premise.
> Since Evolution argues ad infinitum that all development is a matter
> of chance and probability, i.e.
It's YOUR premise that is false: Evolution does NOT "argue ad infinitum that
all development is a matter of chance and probability," as evolution doesn't
deal with ULTIMATE CAUSE, only SUBORDINATE CAUSES.
SOME atheistic Evolutionists argue that way because they think they have a
wedge they can use to pry apart Judeo-Christianity.
Meanwhile, the MAJORITY of Christians have no problem with Evolution at
all--they just haven't figured out how A and B fit together.
Ike
Terry Cross
wrote:
> "Terry Cross" <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ef0649ef-6839-4a4c...@g1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 20, 11:18 am, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> >> "Pastor Dave"
> >> randy
>
> >>> No it isn't. Theistic evolution is an oxymoron.
>
> >> That is your opinion. That's a different matter. My point is that
> >> theistic
> >> evolutionists exist, and disprove your belief that evolution is
> >> necessarily
> >> "atheistic."
> >> randy
> > The problem with "theistic evolution" is in the fundamental premise.
> > Since Evolution argues ad infinitum that all development is a matter
> > of chance and probability, i.e.
>
> It's YOUR premise that is false: Evolution does NOT "argue ad infinitum that
> all development is a matter of chance and probability," as evolution doesn't
> deal with ULTIMATE CAUSE, only SUBORDINATE CAUSES.
If you do not draw you definition of Evolution from the major writers
on Evolution, what is your definition?
You argue like maybe the Pope's edicts are just his opinion, and do
not reflect the truth of Catholicism?
> SOME atheistic Evolutionists argue that way because they think they have a
> wedge they can use to pry apart Judeo-Christianity.
The essence of the Evolution argument is mechanistic probability.
Read Darwin.
> Meanwhile, the MAJORITY of Christians have no problem with Evolution at
> all--they just haven't figured out how A and B fit together.
The majority of Christians - aren't.
TCross
Rob Strom
[stuff]
I don't like to follow up on my own posts, but I looked up more
information about this.
In retirement, I am a private tutor/teacher of science and math, and
am
developing a program of the Great Ideas of science, of which evolution
is
certainly one.
So I am always on the lookout for ways I can bring out studies that
illustrate these great ideas so that they are accessible to
youngsters.
And in fact, the story of the lactose persistence mutation is
illustrative, both of how selection works, and of how it is
possible for evolution to continue not only to split species,
but also to change them.
Here is a quote from a Colorado State site. I have annotated
in brackets to explain the technical terms to non-technical folks
"There are a number of polymorphisms [sites where some humans have
different codons in their genome than other humans] within the human
lactase gene [the gene coding for the protein that enables digestion
of lactose], and 'persistence genes' appear to have arisen multiple
times independently in human populations. Data from several studies
indicate that in European populations, the difference between
persistence and non-persistence results from the difference in a
single nucleotide located 13,910 bases upstream of the transcriptional
start site of the lactase gene. In virtually all cases examined, a T
at this position is associated with lactose persistence, while a C is
observed in the non-persistent allele [This is called an SNP or
"single nucleotide polymorphism"]. Interestingly, this polymorphism
that appears to potently affect lactase gene expression is embedded in
an intron of an adjacent gene [an intron is a non-protein-coding
region of the genome that is snipped out prior to translation into
protein; he is saying that buried among the "Junk DNA" in the intron
is genetic material that regulates when the lactase production is
turned off]. Different single nucleotide polymorphisms at roughly
-14,000 bp relative to the transcription start site of the lactase
have been implicated in lactase persistence within African
populations. [Indicating that lactase persistence in Africa evolved
separately from lactase persistence in Europe, that is "convergent
evolution".] The mechanism by which these minor differences in DNA
sequence affect lactase gene expression is not known.
The apparent convergent evolution of lactase persistence among human
populations is best explained as an adaptive response to the shared
selective pressure resulting from domestication of dairy animals and
consumption of milk during adulthood. [That is, in places where dairy
milk is a food source, persistence is advantageous, and results in
greater fitness; in other places persistence was disadvantageous;
hence persistence spread in Europe and certain specific milk-consuming
tribes in Africa, but not elsewhere.] Indeed, sequencing of DNA from
skeletal remains of eight neolithic individuals who lived across
Europe between 5800 and 5000 years BC revealed that all were
homozygous for the lactase non-persistence allele, lending support to
the hypothesis that the lactose-persistence mutation was selected for
following the domestication of dairy animals. [confirming that lactose
intolerance, and the C version of the allele is original in man, as
would be predicted from our common ancestry with other mammals]"
Someone brought up about teeth and weaning. There are factors
affecting the mother, and others affecting the baby. Mammals have
"milk teeth"; these milk teeth are in place when they are nursing --
it is false that nursing only occurs when there are no teeth at all.
The strengthening of the teeth can discourage the mother from nursing,
but the really stronger teeth don't come in until later -- e.g. humans
shed milk teeth at age 6 or 7 but weaning happens earlier. Lactose
intolerance can discourage the baby from nursing. Genetic theory
actually predicts that there is a conflict between the mother's
incentive to wean versus the baby's incentive to wean: this arises
from the fact that the tradeoff is between one child and future
children. For the mother the current and future child each share 50%
of the mother's genes, so they are equal. For the baby, he has 100%
of his own genes and the sibling 50%, so from his genes' viewpoint his
welfare is twice as important. The balance between the different
motivations to stop nursing is resolved in practice based on a number
of factors, including how available are the alternative sources of
nourishment to mother's milk. Here is a study in Arctic wolves of this
problem: http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/wow/pdf/172weaningarcticwolf.pdf
--
Rob Strom
I
> In retirement, I am a private tutor/teacher of science and math, and
> am developing a program of the Great Ideas of science, of which
> evolution is certainly one.
>
> So I am always on the lookout for ways I can bring out studies that
> illustrate these great ideas so that they are accessible to
> youngsters.
Worthy!
Look at the "evolution of evolution".
What was the explanation evolution replaced? What could the former
explanation not explain? What was the problem that evolution solved?
One of the ways to reinforce ideas to younger children is to have the idea
seen in application in as many varied ways as possible. Evolution is
applicable to our everyday life.
Such things are also useful for adults.
Rob Strom
I agree.
If this were something other than a religious debate forum, I'd
get into more detail.
For example, today by "evolution" we mean "Darwinian evolution" --
the "modern evolutionary synthesis", including gradualism with varying
rate of change, a combination of natural selection and under
certain situations, genetic drift, the various approaches to
speciation.
At an earlier time, evolution had a broader meaning that could include
things like Lamarckian evolution. That kind of
evolution replaced the still earlier view
that separate lineages were distinct and separately created.
The idea that species changed over time and that there was
some kind of adaptation was accepted soon after Darwin.
The mechanism of natural selection as the primary explanation
for the observed facts was not immediately accepted.
For one thing, Mendel's genetic theory was not widely
known, and there was no good explanation of why
beneficial mutations could become fixed in a population.
And the fossil record was meager too.
Now we have a much more substantial fossil record.
And we have the DNA theory of the genome, together
with mechanisms for genome mapping, which
provide spectacular and totally independent confirmation
of the predictions.
--
Rob Strom
Terry Cross
> On Jan 21, 11:06 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> [stuff]
>
> I don't like to follow up on my own posts, but I looked up more
> information about this.
>
> In retirement, I am a private tutor/teacher of science and math, and
> am
> developing a program of the Great Ideas of science, of which evolution
> is
> certainly one.
>
> So I am always on the lookout for ways I can bring out studies that
> illustrate these great ideas so that they are accessible to
> youngsters.
>
> And in fact, the story of the lactose persistence mutation is
> illustrative, both of how selection works, and of how it is
> possible for evolution to continue not only to split species,
> but also to change them.
>
> Here is a quote from a Colorado State site. I have annotated
> in brackets to explain the technical terms to non-technical folks
> The apparent convergent evolution of lactase persistence among human
> populations is best explained as an adaptive response to the shared
> selective pressure resulting from domestication of dairy animals and
> consumption of milk during adulthood. [That is, in places where dairy
> milk is a food source, persistence is advantageous, and results in
> greater fitness; in other places persistence was disadvantageous;
> hence persistence spread in Europe and certain specific milk-consuming
> tribes in Africa, but not elsewhere.] Indeed, sequencing of DNA from
> skeletal remains of eight neolithic individuals who lived across
> Europe between 5800 and 5000 years BC revealed that all were
> homozygous for the lactase non-persistence allele, lending support to
> the hypothesis that the lactose-persistence mutation was selected for
> following the domestication of dairy animals. [confirming that lactose
> intolerance, and the C version of the allele is original in man, as
> would be predicted from our common ancestry with other mammals]"
Proving once again that the height of scientific authority is the
ability to write opaque text.
> Someone brought up about teeth and weaning. There are factors
> affecting the mother, and others affecting the baby. Mammals have
> "milk teeth"; these milk teeth are in place when they are nursing --
Ooh, that makes wonderful Evolution sense -- the kid needs teeth to
chew the milk, of course!
> it is false that nursing only occurs when there are no teeth at all.
> The strengthening of the teeth can discourage the mother from nursing,
> but the really stronger teeth don't come in until later -- e.g. humans
> shed milk teeth at age 6 or 7 but weaning happens earlier. Lactose
> intolerance can discourage the baby from nursing.
Nuts. Babies would not know what makes them feel sick or bloat their
bellies an hour after nursing.
https://health.google.com/health/ref/Lactose+intolerance
Symptoms:
* Abdominal bloating
* Abdominal cramps
* Diarrhea
* Floating stools
* Foul-smelling stools
* Gas (flatulence)
* Malnutrition
* Nausea
* Slow growth
* Weight loss
Symptoms often occur after you eat or drink milk products, and are
often relieved by not eating or drinking milk products. Large doses of
milk products may cause worse symptoms.
If an adult cannot identify the problem without medical diagnosis,
what chance these symptoms would influence an infant's behavior ?
TCross
Ike E 1/24/2010
> On Jan 23, 5:59 am, "Ike E 1/2/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "Terry Cross" <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> news:ef0649ef-6839-4a4c...@g1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> On Jan 20, 11:18 am, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
>>> "Pastor Dave"
>>>> randy
>
>>>>> No it isn't. Theistic evolution is an oxymoron.
>
>>>> That is your opinion. That's a different matter. My point is that
>>>> theistic
>>>> evolutionists exist, and disprove your belief that evolution is
>>>> necessarily
>>>> "atheistic."
>>>> randy
>>> The problem with "theistic evolution" is in the fundamental premise.
>>> Since Evolution argues ad infinitum that all development is a matter
>>> of chance and probability, i.e.
>
>> It's YOUR premise that is false: Evolution does NOT "argue ad infinitum
>> that
>> all development is a matter of chance and probability," as evolution
>> doesn't
>> deal with ULTIMATE CAUSE, only SUBORDINATE CAUSES.
>> If you do not draw you definition of Evolution from the major writers
>> on Evolution, what is your definition?
???
Cite where "the major writers" spoke of "ultimate cause" in their writings.
> You argue like maybe the Pope's edicts are just his opinion, and do
> not reflect the truth of Catholicism?
???
Someday I may figure out what the hell the Pope has to do with the fact that
MOST Evolutionists don't have a problem with the "ultimate cause" being the
God of the Bible, and most Christians don't have a problem with Evolution,
which means your thesis was bullshit from the beginning.
>> SOME atheistic Evolutionists argue that way because they think they have
>> a
>> wedge they can use to pry apart Judeo-Christianity.
> The essence of the Evolution argument is mechanistic probability.
> Read Darwin.
First of all, I've "READ Darwin," idiot, directly and indirectly.
And there isn't a thing in there about "ultimate cause."
>> Meanwhile, the MAJORITY of Christians have no problem with Evolution at
>> all--they just haven't figured out how A and B fit together.
> The majority of Christians - aren't.
I know YOU aren't, you Marcionic heretic.
As to whether or not Catholics, the Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists,
Reformists, etc., etc. who make up the MAJORITY of Christians and DON'T have
problems with Evolution are "Christians," I'll let God be the judge (as He
lays out in the Seven Letters, warts and all).
(You have a lot of nerve questioning THEIR "Christianity" given your
ridiculous and abominable doctrines.)
Ike
Ike E 1/24/2010
"Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:fe16e495-9743-4aa6...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> I don't like to follow up on my own posts, but I looked up more
> information about this.
> In retirement, I am a private tutor/teacher of science and math, and
> am developing a program of the Great Ideas of science, of which evolution
> is certainly one.
> So I am always on the lookout for ways I can bring out studies that
> illustrate these great ideas so that they are accessible to
> youngsters.
> And in fact, the story of the lactose persistence mutation is
> illustrative, both of how selection works, and of how it is
> possible for evolution to continue not only to split species,
> but also to change them.
Somebody want to tell me what this self-promoting, self-aggrandizing
rhetorical bullshit has to do with a discussion of Theistic Evolution on the
religious boards?
Ike
Ike E 1/24/2010
> On Jan 24, 12:43 am, "I" <itsme@home000000000000107> wrote:
>> "Rob Strom" wrote:
>>> In retirement, I am a private tutor/teacher of science and math, and
>>> am developing a program of the Great Ideas of science, of which
>>> evolution is certainly one.
>
>>> So I am always on the lookout for ways I can bring out studies that
>>> illustrate these great ideas so that they are accessible to
>>> youngsters.
>
>> Worthy!
>
>> Look at the "evolution of evolution".
>
>> What was the explanation evolution replaced? What could the former
>> explanation not explain? What was the problem that evolution solved?
>> One of the ways to reinforce ideas to younger children is to have the
>> idea
>> seen in application in as many varied ways as possible. Evolution is
>> applicable to our everyday life.
>
>> Such things are also useful for adults.
> I agree.
> If this were something other than a religious debate forum, I'd
> get into more detail.
Well, it is, so how about getting ON TOPIC for a change, and leave off the
self-promoting (ad pointless) resume-padding.
Ike
Terry Cross
This is a singularly dishonest request: The words, "ultimate cause"
are yours.
The phrase "natural selection" has a very different meaning from
"divine creation." In fact, the meanings are mutually exclusive.
> > You argue like maybe the Pope's edicts are just his opinion, and do
> > not reflect the truth of Catholicism?
>
> ???
>
> Someday I may figure out what the hell the Pope has to do with the fact that
> MOST Evolutionists don't have a problem with the "ultimate cause" being the
> God of the Bible, and most Christians don't have a problem with Evolution,
> which means your thesis was bullshit from the beginning.
Yes, I understand you are a little slow with ordinary communication.
This is not news.
> >> SOME atheistic Evolutionists argue that way because they think they have
> >> a
> >> wedge they can use to pry apart Judeo-Christianity.
> > The essence of the Evolution argument is mechanistic probability.
> > Read Darwin.
>
> First of all, I've "READ Darwin," idiot, directly and indirectly.
I have checked on Amazon -- there is no author named "Darwin Idiot."
> And there isn't a thing in there about "ultimate cause."
Those are *your* words. Is that the level of integrity of your
research?
> >> Meanwhile, the MAJORITY of Christians have no problem with Evolution at
> >> all--they just haven't figured out how A and B fit together.
> > The majority of Christians - aren't.
>
> I know YOU aren't, you Marcionic heretic.
Another invention. I have shown you the insuperable differences I
have with Marcion. \
But you know, if you cannot follow a conversation, you could you
follow a thread in the bible with any hope of truth?
TCross
Terry Cross
wrote:
Surely. It is an attempt to push the "naturalistic" element of
Evolution -- the atheistic theme of Evolution that you deny.
TCross
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<tcro...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
> On Jan 20, 11:18�am, "randy" wrote:
>
>> "Pastor Dave"
>>
>> randy
>>
>>> No it isn't. �Theistic evolution is an oxymoron.
>>
>> That is your opinion. That's a different matter.
>> My point is that theistic evolutionists exist, and
>> disprove your belief that evolution is necessarily
>> "atheistic."
>
> The problem with "theistic evolution" is in the
> fundamental premise. Since Evolution argues
> ad infinitum that all development is a matter
> of chance and probability, i.e., mechanical events
> like dice tosses and card shuffles, what role would
> be played by a god? Is he just an opportunist
> along for the ride, waiting for Evolution to create
> an intelligent species so he can move in, take over
> and demand worship?
>
> This is the essence of the Evolution Confusion:
> Conjure up a hopeful monster, add a billion years
> or two, put it all in a black box, stir with a blunt
> pencil -- and Shazam!
And the interesting part is, it started with Goldschmidt,
who wanted us to believe that birds hatched from
dinosaur eggs and that was ridiculous, yet good ol'
Stevey tried to revive the idea, but said that lots of
time went by and then we had some "fits and starts".
The reality is, he tried to revive it, because he knows
that the "slow and gradual" evolution doesn't work,
since there is no evidence for it and yet, "fits and starts"
was disqualified long before that and here he is, trying
to revice it! Huh??? <chuckle>
It doesn't work fast. It doesn't work slow. But hey,
let's not say it doesn't work altogether, right? :)
Just throw the magic "time" wand at it and that means
that it happened, right?! :)
And how is it that there are "Christians" who will
actually give this concept credence? Does that
not say that they're buying into the idea that it
wasn't God at all?
After all, the truth is, as you pointed out, that
evolution is not and never has been about the
idea of "How God did it." and atheists will poke
fun all day at Christians, claiming
how is it that atheists all believe in evolution and
based on what it actually does teach, poke fun
at Christians, if indeed evolution does not speak
to the idea of eliminating God from the equation?!
Evolution IS indeed the idea that it happened
ALL BY ITSELF, by chance, WITHOUT intelligence
behind it, period, end of story! THAT is what
evolution means!!!
So any "Christian" who claims to be on both sides,
is saying that they side with atheism and God at
the same time! What?! Please! Has anybody
even read what Darwin wrote?! It was all about
him losing his faith and choosing to believe it was
all about chance! He said flat out how his faith
disappeared and how his doubt crept over him
like a wave! Please! There is no such thing as
"God did it by evolution", because evolution says
that God did not do it!!!
And how do these people not understand that
Darwin based his idea on a single celled organism,
the simplest living thing there is and the concept
that it was nothing more than a blob of protoplasm.
Now that we can see what it is, we know that the
simplest single celled organism is indeed more complex
BY FAR, than any major city and that the compenents
that make it up could not have happened by chance!
There would have to have been construction in one
shot (because the "blob of protoplasm" is disproved)
than what it would take to build a major city (by far)
to make this single celled organism and it simply
could not happen! We cannot even get the right
amino acids to line up the right way to make a
protein! Atheists try to claim that the Miller/Urey
experiment did that, but it didn't, since they did
not create life and they cheated to get a few of
the amino acids to line up! And the fact is, that
the atmosphere of an "early Earth" was not what
they claimed it was (we know that now) and it had
oxygen (more then than we have now) and you
simply cannot get life with oxygen present, since
whatever started to form would quickly oxidize
and you can't get life without oxygen, since it
could not exist without it (try not breathing)!
> If you fall for the prestidigitation, you're a goner.
> You have already agreed that human intelligence
> and awareness is a chemical phenomenon, morals
> are cultural, suffering is incidental, and God is
> redundant.
Yes, evolution cannot explain morals and what it
would mean, is that we put our faith in the human
mind to reason, when if evolution is true, it means
that the human mind in nothing more than a chance
assembly of chemical reactions, which cannot explain
human reasoning!
This is the thing and I have explained this to people
and yet, they still try to claim it's okay. Now they
can't dispute what I've (and you've) said, but they
still act like they actually believe that maybe it's so
anyway, when we all know they're full of crap and
that they know what we said is true and that the
reality is, that they're simply too cowardly to stand
up for God and say they believe! And yet they
think that come the day of their judgment, Jesus
is going to welcome them on in?! Yea, right!
They know they are denying Him, especially since
He said Creation happened and He did it, so He
would know and they claim that they aren't denying
Him, when they and we know they are! They're
calling Hm a liar, or at the least, mistaken! They
think they know more than Christ! And then they
will play the false humility card, claiming they're
not saying what happened and that they don't
really know for sure, yet they won't just believe
what Jesus said? Huh??? They don't know, so
hey, let's doubt Jesus? Puhlease! (:
I have and can defeat any argument that any
evolutionist puts forth! They will never admit it
and will run away, claiming I didn't even answer
them, when all they did, was try to argue in circles!
That's because they know they have nothing and
that they hate God and that's what motivates them!
And any supposed "Christian" that entertains what
cannot be true, is a fake!
They are willing to doubt a six day creation, because
hey, that sounds too much like a fairy tale, but yet,
they'll believe that God did it through evolution and
atheists will believe evolution happened without God,
when it takes a lot more faith than the Creation? Huh?
Furthermore, these supposed "Christians" will doubt
a six day Creation, yet claim there is no doubt that
Jesus turned water into wine in one minute and
healed a guy's ear in seconds and believe in a
virgin birth? Huh?! What?!
Please!!! <chuckle!> :)
Btw, great post!!! :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Leftists seem to be tolerant of just about everything
except dissenting opinions. Leftists tolerate
'diversity' when it involves superficial traits like
skin color or sexual habits, but insist on absolute
conformity when it comes to thought. To a leftist,
the most intolerable sin is intolerance." - Unknown
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<tcro...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>On Jan 23, 4:53 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
Hahaha!!! <lol!>
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Fortune favors the bold." - Virgil - The Aeneid
Terry Cross
wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:15:04 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross
The ivory tower speculations of these chrome-domes is truly shameful,
isn't it?
We should also ask why any lactose-intolerant adult would bother
drinking milk when everyone knows it makes a person sick, bloats the
belly, and makes for flatulence. That could have serious consequences
in a temperate zone society where shelter is necessary and housing is
small and crowded.
No doubt the initial lactose tolerant mutant was the same person who
invented domestication of cows and goats AND how to milk them.
Sheesh!
I have not yet encountered it, but I look forward to the explanation
for the soft sole of the human foot. Maybe that newly mutated
vulnerability to sharp stones and thorns is the origin of ballet (toe-
dancing).
TCross
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
> You don't have to be scientifically literate to see
> that evolution conflicts with the Creation. The
> order isn't even the same. Is that simple enough?
I realize that there are some problems with order. Rob has pointed that out
to me somwhere. I prefer to let the scientists hash this out with
theologians who are scientifically-literate.
randy
randy
"Terry Cross"
randy
> That is your opinion. That's a different matter. My point is that theistic
> evolutionists exist, and disprove your belief that evolution is
> necessarily
> "atheistic."
"The problem with "theistic evolution" is in the fundamental premise...."
I agree right up front with this. That is why I've long tried to debate
evolution from a *philosophical* pov. But as I've argued this with more and
more people, I've come to realize that not everybody holds to the idea of
"chance" evolution. For example, Rob believes in God and also accepts the
scientific basis for evolutionary development.
"Since Evolution argues ad infinitum that all development is a matter
of chance and probability, i.e., mechanical events like dice tosses
and card shuffles, what role would be played by a god? Is he just an
opportunist along for the ride, waiting for Evolution to create an
intelligent species so he can move in, take over, and demand worship?"
Yes, this is really the central issue. Can evolution be explained on a
"probable" basis? Based on what we know about the natural world it doesn't
at all seem likely that animal species evolved by any notion of a random
process.
On the other hand, the species of animal life did in fact appear on earth,
perhaps in some kind of historical order. Science picks up on this and tries
to determine the cause and effect relationship involved in this progressive
appearance.
I cannot possibly claim to know how God did it. I can only say that He did
it. He could've started with a handful of mud and produced what appears to
science as a random sequence of events leading up to multiple species of
life having shared characteristics. And if we had a time machine to go back
and photograph the changes microscopically, we at least might see what could
be called an "evolutionary sequence."
randy
Terry Cross
> "Terry Cross"
> randy
>
> > That is your opinion. That's a different matter. My point is that theistic
> > evolutionists exist, and disprove your belief that evolution is
> > necessarily
> > "atheistic."
>
> "The problem with "theistic evolution" is in the fundamental premise...."
>
> I agree right up front with this. That is why I've long tried to debate
> evolution from a *philosophical* pov. But as I've argued this with more and
> more people, I've come to realize that not everybody holds to the idea of
> "chance" evolution. For example, Rob believes in God and also accepts the
> scientific basis for evolutionary development.
Randy, your words are stumbling blocks. You must not equate
"scientific" with secular or materialistic. Scientific is what is
true, whatever that happens to be. If there were fairies in the
bottom of the garden and someone were in denial of that fact, they
would not be scientific.
> "Since Evolution argues ad infinitum that all development is a matter
> of chance and probability, i.e., mechanical events like dice tosses
> and card shuffles, what role would be played by a god? Is he just an
> opportunist along for the ride, waiting for Evolution to create an
> intelligent species so he can move in, take over, and demand worship?"
>
> Yes, this is really the central issue. Can evolution be explained on a
> "probable" basis? Based on what we know about the natural world it doesn't
> at all seem likely that animal species evolved by any notion of a random
> process.
>
> On the other hand, the species of animal life did in fact appear on earth,
> perhaps in some kind of historical order. Science picks up on this and tries
> to determine the cause and effect relationship involved in this progressive
> appearance.
What you cite is not "science." Evolution is an assertion of What Is
True, regardless of all the problems with the theory. That is not
science. Read Rob's assertion that lactose intolerance would help to
wean babies from nursing, for example! It's downright ignorant
goofiness! And how about his characterization of "milk teeth"!
> I cannot possibly claim to know how God did it. I can only say that He did
> it. He could've started with a handful of mud and produced what appears to
> science as a random sequence of events leading up to multiple species of
> life having shared characteristics. And if we had a time machine to go back
> and photograph the changes microscopically, we at least might see what could
> be called an "evolutionary sequence."
But staged creation is NOT Evolution, Randy. It just isn't.
Evolution is Natural Selection through a physical process from the
interplay of adverse conditions and selective mortality.
Lamarckism is the theory that each generation of creatures learns and
adapts, and passes its lessons along to its young. It is much closer
to the teachings of Darwin than your concept of guided staged
development, but Larmarkism cannot be called Evolution.
To qualify as Evolution, a theory must subscribe to Darwin's theories
of natural selection, i.e., mechanical process.
TCross
lottery nan
> "Terry Cross"
> randy
>
> > That is your opinion. That's a different matter. My point is that theistic
> > evolutionists exist, and disprove your belief that evolution is
> > necessarily
> > "atheistic."
>
> "The problem with "theistic evolution" is in the fundamental premise...."
>
> I agree right up front with this. That is why I've long tried to debate
> evolution from a *philosophical* pov. But as I've argued this with more and
> more people, I've come to realize that not everybody holds to the idea of
> "chance" evolution. For example, Rob believes in God and also accepts the
> scientific basis for evolutionary development.
what is a chance evolution.Is any chance random or doomed to be like
that?
> "Since Evolution argues ad infinitum that all development is a matter
> of chance and probability, i.e., mechanical events like dice tosses
> and card shuffles, what role would be played by a god? Is he just an
> opportunist along for the ride, waiting for Evolution to create an
> intelligent species so he can move in, take over, and demand worship?"
he is a self gambler,never lost to anything.
> Yes, this is really the central issue. Can evolution be explained on a
> "probable" basis? Based on what we know about the natural world it doesn't
> at all seem likely that animal species evolved by any notion of a random
> process.
Random process exists only for human beings.however,for our god,it
means certainity.
> On the other hand, the species of animal life did in fact appear on earth,
> perhaps in some kind of historical order. Science picks up on this and tries
> to determine the cause and effect relationship involved in this progressive
> appearance.
Nothing can influence the fixed order.There is a law,and there is a
number.
The work towards God shapes your destiny,although you might not be
able to be aware of that.
It can be many past lives experience together to make what is today.
> I cannot possibly claim to know how God did it. I can only say that He did
> it. He could've started with a handful of mud and produced what appears to
> science as a random sequence of events leading up to multiple species of
> life having shared characteristics. And if we had a time machine to go back
> and photograph the changes microscopically, we at least might see what could
> be called an "evolutionary sequence."
The seeking is only meaningful when it leads to a evlution,so we can
communicate with him better.
> randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
Because you are a coward who won't stand up for God.
You'd rather think that maybe God was wrong. After all,
the scientists have to hash it out, to see if we should
believe God's word, according to you.
Btw, why doesn't it occur to you that when we're discussing
science, we aren't discussing scientists and they are all
evolutionists vs "the scientifically literate Christians".
There are those who believe in the Creation and who are
highly qualified scientists. But you see, they have you
so brainwashed, that you don't even think of scientists
as even possibly being Creationists. To you, a scientist
must be an evolutionist.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
We are born wet, naked and hungry. Then things get worse.
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>I realize that there are some problems with order. Rob has pointed that
>>out
>>to me somwhere. I prefer to let the scientists hash this out with
>>theologians who are scientifically-literate.
> Because you are a coward who won't stand up for God.
> You'd rather think that maybe God was wrong. After all,
> the scientists have to hash it out, to see if we should
> believe God's word, according to you.
Calling honest people "liars" won't make you any points as a "Christian."
> Btw, why doesn't it occur to you that when we're discussing
> science, we aren't discussing scientists and they are all
> evolutionists vs "the scientifically literate Christians".
It doesn't occur to me because I *am* discussing scientists. I'm awaiting
the final verdict of what scientists conclude after their theories have been
proven or disproven. I don't have a problem with aging rocks or with the
liklihood that the earth is very old, perhaps 4.5 billion years. But you, on
the other hand, have a problem if you want to base your scientific beliefs
on the Genesis record, when that is not a scientific record at all. I
believe Genesis offers a blueprint for creation, expressing God's *purpose*
in creation. It does not necessarily give a precise historical order,
determing *how* God did what He did. The order of events for me expresses
purpose, more than any necessary chronological order. And it certainly
doesn't convey time in the sense of natural history. It is rather a matter
of sequence outlining God's purpose in creation.
> There are those who believe in the Creation and who are
> highly qualified scientists. But you see, they have you
> so brainwashed, that you don't even think of scientists
> as even possibly being Creationists. To you, a scientist
> must be an evolutionist.
No, I'm open to whatever science discovers. Theories are just theories.
Facts are facts. I believe some evolutionary development can be defined as
"evolution," even if it is part of God's creative processes. But I don't
believe that man evolved from animals. If they share common genetic
material, then I would have to consider that evidence, along with the
biblical record that God made man from the "dust of the ground." Somehow it
should fit together in the end. But to deny science the right to investigate
honestly is wrong, in my opinion. If you want to disallow honest enquiry by
science, then you should abandon science altogether.
randy
randy
"Terry Cross"
randy
"But staged creation is NOT Evolution, Randy. It just isn't.
Evolution is Natural Selection through a physical process from the
interplay of adverse conditions and selective mortality.
Lamarckism is the theory that each generation of creatures learns and
adapts, and passes its lessons along to its young. It is much closer
to the teachings of Darwin than your concept of guided staged
development, but Larmarkism cannot be called Evolution.
To qualify as Evolution, a theory must subscribe to Darwin's theories
of natural selection, i.e., mechanical process."
Terry, all I really have to argue is, as you term it, "staged creation."
Somehow God created the world, and all of the species of life in it,
including man. If we were to go back in time, and photograph the actual
appearance of these species, I suppose it might likely correspond to current
dating systems being used to determine the age of their appearance. But how
would it appear to us if we used a video camera, rather than just using
snapshots? We might see something that our secularized society would term
"evolution," even though it was the creative process of God at work.
But Terry it's all over my head! I don't really know how God did it. I just
know that it is utterly illogical for me to assume that this was a
non-divine process, determined strictly by random means. But Rob positively
denies a random process was at work. He focuses on the scientific
perspective that bases its conclusions on natural principles, such as
selectivity. None of this necessarily denies God is the author of this
natural process. But I fully sympathize with your views, and recognize your
points as valid. A natural process might exclude a divine hand in it.
randy
randy
"lottery nan"
randy
> I agree right up front with this. That is why I've long tried to debate
> evolution from a *philosophical* pov. But as I've argued this with more
> and
> more people, I've come to realize that not everybody holds to the idea of
> "chance" evolution. For example, Rob believes in God and also accepts the
> scientific basis for evolutionary development.
"what is a chance evolution.Is any chance random or doomed to be like
that?"
Rob, for example, denies that natural processes, such as "natural
selection," are "random" at all. This does not argue against divine design.
On the contrary, it affirms it, while safely remaining within the confines
of a strictly-scientific investigation.
> On the other hand, the species of animal life did in fact appear on earth,
> perhaps in some kind of historical order. Science picks up on this and
> tries
> to determine the cause and effect relationship involved in this
> progressive
> appearance.
"Nothing can influence the fixed order.There is a law,and there is a
number...."
On the contrary, the divine Creator cannot be limited to any fixed order
that He may impose on the natural order. What He created was universal laws
that can, of course, be broken as He sees fit. These might be termed
"miracles."
randy
Ike E 1/24/2010
[snip]
>> Cite where "the major writers" spoke of "ultimate cause" in their
>> writings.
> This is a singularly dishonest request
No, it's not, moron: EVOLUTION, in and of itself, DOESN'T DEAL IN "ULTIMATE
CAUSE," except in the hands of ATHEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS.
THAT'S why the MAJORITY of Christians don't have a problem with Evolution,
and the MAJORITY of Evolutionists AREN'T ATHEISTS.
Thus, EVOLUTION does NOT automatically equate with ATHEISM, as you propose,
dunderhead.
(As usual, explaining REALITY to you is like talking to a brick wall.)
Ike
Ike E 1/24/2010
Dumb as a post.
The MAJORITY of Christians have no problems with evolution, and the majority
of evolutionists are NOT atheists.
EVOLUTION is NOT inherently "atheist" except in the hands of "atheist
evolutionists," you moron: IT DOESN'T DEAL IN "ULTIMATE CAUSE."
Ike
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>>>I realize that there are some problems with order. Rob has pointed that
>>>out
>>>to me somwhere. I prefer to let the scientists hash this out with
>>>theologians who are scientifically-literate.
>
>> Because you are a coward who won't stand up for God.
>> You'd rather think that maybe God was wrong. After all,
>> the scientists have to hash it out, to see if we should
>> believe God's word, according to you.
>
>Calling honest people "liars" won't make you any points as a "Christian."
You aren't honest.
>> Btw, why doesn't it occur to you that when we're discussing
>> science, we aren't discussing scientists and they are all
>> evolutionists vs "the scientifically literate Christians".
>
>It doesn't occur to me because I *am* discussing scientists. I'm awaiting
>the final verdict of what scientists conclude after their theories have been
>proven or disproven.
Like I said, it doesn't occur to you. You think
"scientist = evolutionist".
>> There are those who believe in the Creation and who are
>> highly qualified scientists. But you see, they have you
>> so brainwashed, that you don't even think of scientists
>> as even possibly being Creationists. To you, a scientist
>> must be an evolutionist.
>
>No, I'm open to whatever science discovers.
As long as we define "science" as "evolutionist".
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it!"
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>Terry, all I really have to argue is, as you term it, "staged creation."
>Somehow God created the world, and all of the species of life in it,
Let me ask you a couple a question:
Do you believe that sin came by Adam?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"The truth may set you free, but first
it's going to piss you off." - Alec Baldwin
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>Rob, for example, denies that natural processes, such as "natural
>selection," are "random" at all. This does not argue against divine design.
>On the contrary, it affirms it, while safely remaining within the confines
>of a strictly-scientific investigation.
Random chance does not equal divine design.
That is a logical contradiction.
>On the contrary, the divine Creator cannot be limited to any fixed order
>that He may impose on the natural order.
If we are talking about evolution and then you say
that God may have changed it along the way,
whenever He felt like it, then what does that leave
for science? How can science investigate what has
not followed the rules and yet, evolutionists claim
that it is a natural event (one after the other)?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"The only place you find chaos in the universe
is in mans' heart." - Vume
bear
tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:10:56 -0800, "randy"
><rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>Terry, all I really have to argue is, as you term it, "staged creation."
>>Somehow God created the world, and all of the species of life in it,
>
>Let me ask you a couple a question:
>
>Do you believe that sin came by Adam?
Now is that not special, Dave wants to ask questions when he "kill
files" those that ask him questions. But then who can blame him, he
cannot answer the questions as he has admitted.
"It wouldn't matter even if I couldn't answer that. It doesn't mean
it didn't happen yet. It only means that Dave doesn't know the
answer!"
Look at that would you, Dave admitted in his own words that he could
not answer my question. An accomplished "pastor" who cannot answer a
question from one who he has proclaimed to be stupid, what does that
say for his level of intelligence?
Bahwahahahahahaha
Bear
Terry Cross
wrote:
> "Terry Cross" <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:724ec967-b78d-4be1...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 24, 5:42 am, "Ike E 1/24/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Cite where "the major writers" spoke of "ultimate cause" in their
> >> writings.
> > This is a singularly dishonest request
>
> No, it's not, moron: EVOLUTION, in and of itself, DOESN'T DEAL IN "ULTIMATE
> CAUSE," except in the hands of ATHEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS.
But of course you have no backing for your assertions, and of course
you are simply wrong. Every major work on Evolution has discussed the
subject, including Darwin and his "small warm pond" in which the first
particles of life "happened."
The speculators on Evolution wander back and forth freely between
origins and developments without any of the artificial distinction you
drool about here. For example, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021204080856.htm
> THAT'S why the MAJORITY of Christians don't have a problem with Evolution,
> and the MAJORITY of Evolutionists AREN'T ATHEISTS.
A "majority of Christians" slavishly adore Israel and the Pharisees,
and do not understand that modern Jews are the intellectual and
philosophical heirs of the the Pharisees, the people who arranged for
the crucifixion of Jesus. A "majority of Christians" is a very poor
endorsement for any theorem.
> Thus, EVOLUTION does NOT automatically equate with ATHEISM, as you propose,
> dunderhead.
Evolution is a thesis of pure chance without intentional design. You
would have to rewrite Evolution from the bottom up to make it anything
else.
TCross
Terry Cross
> "Terry Cross"
> randy
>
> "But staged creation is NOT Evolution, Randy. It just isn't.
> Evolution is Natural Selection through a physical process from the
> interplay of adverse conditions and selective mortality.
> Lamarckism is the theory that each generation of creatures learns and
> adapts, and passes its lessons along to its young. It is much closer
> to the teachings of Darwin than your concept of guided staged
> development, but Larmarkism cannot be called Evolution.
> To qualify as Evolution, a theory must subscribe to Darwin's theories
> of natural selection, i.e., mechanical process."
>
> Terry, all I really have to argue is, as you term it, "staged creation."
Staged creation would not be Evolution, Randy. Evolution theory is
not just the history of events, but a whole theoretical underpinning
for how and why. Making Evolution into a Christian theory is as
simple as transferring the paint from one house to another -- and as
pointless.
Long before Darwin, fossils had been found wondered over. Evolution
was the theory of how and why. When you strip off the how and why,
you are left with the simple observation of "what," and that is NOT
Evolution.
> Somehow God created the world, and all of the species of life in it,
> including man. If we were to go back in time, and photograph the actual
> appearance of these species, I suppose it might likely correspond to current
> dating systems being used to determine the age of their appearance.
And then again, maybe not. The rocks are aged by fossils found in
them, and the fossils are aged by the rocks in which they are found.
The estimated age of the earth is shifted up and down quite frequently
until we must admit that nothing is reallly known for sure.
> But how
> would it appear to us if we used a video camera, rather than just using
> snapshots? We might see something that our secularized society would term
> "evolution," even though it was the creative process of God at work.
>
> But Terry it's all over my head! I don't really know how God did it. I just
> know that it is utterly illogical for me to assume that this was a
> non-divine process, determined strictly by random means.
You have just denounced the #1 tent pole of Evolution, and therefore
you have no business being ambivalent about the subject.
TCross
Terry Cross
wrote:
> "Terry Cross" <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Of course it does. Origin is origin, as in "Origin of the Species,"
and "Origin of Life."
A random process is not a divine process.
TCross
Dave Oldridge
news:9uoal595nbr1c82qf...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:15:50 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross
> <tcro...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>On Jan 11, 4:02�pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 11, 9:39�am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> > Evolution cannot develop anything, no more than water can be made
to
>>> > run uphill or pure chance sort a deck of cards by shuffling.
>>>
>>> This has been shown to be false by every type of animal and plant
>>> domesticated or developed by humans.
>>
>>
>>No, it has not. No one has demonstrated Evolution without including
>>living organisms.
>
> This is their typical bait and switch argument.
> Demand proof of macroevolution and you will
> get examples of microevolution, which is science.
> Flowers from flowers is not man from a rock. :)
Is chimps and humans from the same stock not macroevolution?
>
> Then they will claim that macroevolution is a word
> that was invented by Creationists, when in fact,
> it was invented by evolutionists. So they are now
> busy trying to change the definition of macroevolution
> in the dictionaries, to what the definition of
> microevolution is.
Yes, generally microevolution refers to evolution observed withn a
species, whereas macroevolution refers to the generation of new species.
Of course, most creationist hack propagandists don't know the difference
between a prokaryote and a pachyderm so talking to them about the
generation of new species is pretty much useless.
--
Dave Oldridge
Terry Cross
wrote:
> Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote innews:9uoal595nbr1c82qf...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:15:50 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross
Remarkable, isn't it.
But I also find most Evolutionists are flat stupid on the basic
principles of logic and rhetoric. For example, your sentence above is
a textbook example of oxymoron through over-qualification, and 90% of
all Evolutionists would not understand the problem when it is pointed
out. As a result, discourse with them is less productive than a
conversation with a doorknob.
TCross
Ike E 1/24/2010
> On Jan 28, 3:55 am, "Ike E 1/24/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "Terry Cross" <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:724ec967-b78d-4be1...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jan 24, 5:42 am, "Ike E 1/24/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Cite where "the major writers" spoke of "ultimate cause" in their
>> >> writings.
>> > This is a singularly dishonest request
>>
>> No, it's not, moron: EVOLUTION, in and of itself, DOESN'T DEAL IN
>> "ULTIMATE
>> CAUSE," except in the hands of ATHEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS.
>
>
What an idiot.
1) The MAJORITY of Christians have no problems with Evolution (except where
certain factions try to declare "accidents" the "ultimate cause").
2) The MAJORITY of Evolutionists AREN'T ATHEISTS.
If EVOLUTION dealt in ULTIMATE CAUSE, then THE MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS WOULD
HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION, and THE MAJORITY OF EVOLUTIONISTS WOULD BE
ATHEISTS.
Dumb as a post, you are.
(But pretty much everyone already knew that.)
Ike
Terry Cross
wrote:
> "Terry Cross" <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e6a9e425-bff8-4cbc...@l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 3:55 am, "Ike E 1/24/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Terry Cross" <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:724ec967-b78d-4be1...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jan 24, 5:42 am, "Ike E 1/24/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> >> Cite where "the major writers" spoke of "ultimate cause" in their
> >> >> writings.
> >> > This is a singularly dishonest request
>
> >> No, it's not, moron: EVOLUTION, in and of itself, DOESN'T DEAL IN
> >> "ULTIMATE
> >> CAUSE," except in the hands of ATHEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS.
>
> > But of course you have no backing for your assertions...
>
> What an idiot.
>
> 1) The MAJORITY of Christians have no problems with Evolution (except where
> certain factions try to declare "accidents" the "ultimate cause").
"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of
a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.
But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little
pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat,
electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically
formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present
day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not
have been the case before living creatures were formed." -Darwin's
1871 letter to Joseph Hooker with his speculations on the spontaneous
generation of life.
Also to be considered is the reference to a "Creator" in the last
sentence of all the editions of his magnum opus bar the first:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or
into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according
to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being,
evolved." (Source on page 490 here)
Does this mean that Darwin was a Deist, invoking the Creator to
explain the first cells that can be called living?
"[to Hooker] But I have long regretted that I truckled to public
opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant
"appeared" by some wholly unknown process. - It is mere rubbish
thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of
origin of matter."
[to the Athenaeum] "Now is there a fact, or a shadow of a fact,
supporting the belief that these elements, without the presence of any
organic compounds, and acted on only by known forces, could produce a
living creature? At present it is to us a result absolutely
inconceivable. Your reviewer sneers with justice at my use of the
"Pentateuchal terms", "of one primordial form into which life was
first breathed": in a purely scientific work I ought perhaps not to
have used such terms; but they well serve to confess that our
ignorance is as profound on the origin of life as on the origin of
force or matter."
> 2) The MAJORITY of Evolutionists AREN'T ATHEISTS.
Just as the majority of chicken feathers do not come from birds?
> If EVOLUTION dealt in ULTIMATE CAUSE, then THE MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS WOULD
> HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION, and THE MAJORITY OF EVOLUTIONISTS WOULD BE
> ATHEISTS.
An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is
a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because
many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it
is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "If many find it
acceptable, it is acceptable."
The majority of Christians cannot find their own belly buttons. And
you suck at basic logic.
The very essence of Evolution is the statement that life is an
interplay of chemistry, chance, and probability. God does not live in
equations. Anyone who signs up for Evolution and-at-the-same-time
Christianity is too ignorant of one or both subjects to make
authoritative statements.
> Dumb as a post, you are.
Perhaps, but still too smart to listen to the rabbis that rule the
Christian churches.
TCross
Dionysus
> "lottery nan"
> randy
>
> > I agree right up front with this. That is why I've long tried to debate
> > evolution from a *philosophical* pov. But as I've argued this with more
> > and
> > more people, I've come to realize that not everybody holds to the idea of
> > "chance" evolution. For example, Rob believes in God and also accepts the
> > scientific basis for evolutionary development.
>
> "what is a chance evolution.Is any chance random or doomed to be like
> that?"
>
> Rob, for example, denies that natural processes, such as "natural
> selection," are "random" at all. This does not argue against divine design.
> On the contrary, it affirms it, while safely remaining within the confines
> of a strictly-scientific investigation.
how to investigate the future case if u knew u were completely out of
control?
>
> > On the other hand, the species of animal life did in fact appear on earth,
> > perhaps in some kind of historical order. Science picks up on this and
> > tries
> > to determine the cause and effect relationship involved in this
> > progressive
> > appearance.
how to define a progressive apparance for the future prediction?
> "Nothing can influence the fixed order.There is a law,and there is a
> number...."
>
> On the contrary, the divine Creator cannot be limited to any fixed order
> that He may impose on the natural order. What He created was universal laws
> that can, of course, be broken as He sees fit. These might be termed
> "miracles."
miracles can be broken if the observer is one step quicker.
> randy
Dionysus
what if a random process is doomed? shall we call it a divine process
or a cheating by God
>
> TCross- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -