Darwin's encounter with God's Holy Spirit *~burr~*
Ted L
may have not devoted myself to a phantasy". (Charles Darwin, Life and
Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).
That cold shudder was the Holy Spirit pleading for Charlie to repent and
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for Charlie, he chose the
way of Baalim, stubborn as a mule, less the talking ass to forbade his
vanity.
At judgment he will no longer be able to rationalize his wicked works, as
his thoughts will be taken captive in obedience to Christ, while his
conscience bears witness that he chose to reject God in his knowledge.
(Romans 2:14-16, 2Cor 10:4-6)
--
"Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some
is; but
exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day
approaching." Hebrews 10:25
-Bible-believing local church finders:
<http://www.bibletruth.net/assembli.htm >
<http://www.wayoflife.org/directory/index.html>
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermonssource.asp?zipsearch=true
Jude Alexander
"Ted L" <spamta...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:WJfOm.3559$cW....@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
: "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I
: may have not devoted myself to a phantasy". (Charles Darwin, Life and
: Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).
Of course the man had doubts being raised on religion his whole life. Even
if he had not been raised on religion since his beginning, he probably would
have had doubts eventually anyway. Even in his lifetime, there were
unanswered questions.
However, if you keep up with archeology, you'd know that mankind has been
around for millions of years and they just found an incredible cache of bone
of early humans, animals and plants in eastern Africa. NO WAY the earth was
established in 4045 B.C. or thereabouts.
:
: That cold shudder was the Holy Spirit pleading for Charlie to repent and
: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for Charlie, he chose the
: way of Baalim, stubborn as a mule, less the talking ass to forbade his
: vanity.
Crap sandwich for sale, crap sandwich for sale. Ted has a bunch of 'em!
Pastor Dave
<spamta...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I
>may have not devoted myself to a phantasy". (Charles Darwin, Life and
>Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).
>
>That cold shudder was the Holy Spirit pleading for Charlie to repent and
>believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for Charlie, he chose the
>way of Baalim, stubborn as a mule, less the talking ass to forbade his
>vanity.
>
>At judgment he will no longer be able to rationalize his wicked works, as
>his thoughts will be taken captive in obedience to Christ, while his
>conscience bears witness that he chose to reject God in his knowledge.
>(Romans 2:14-16, 2Cor 10:4-6)
Good post! :) The only point we differ on, is that I believe
that judgment already happened and so, Charlie has indeed
already had to answer for his crimes.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The definition of insanity, is doing the same things
over and over and expecting different results.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> "Ted L" wrote t...
> : "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I
> : may have not devoted myself to a phantasy". (Charles Darwin, Life and
> : Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).
>
> Of course the man had doubts being raised on religion his whole life. Even
> if he had not been raised on religion since his beginning, he probably would
> have had doubts eventually anyway. Even in his lifetime, there were
> unanswered questions.
>
originally?.
In fact go back another step, how did the non-living come into
existence?
> However, if you keep up with archeology,
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3050/
> you'd know that mankind has been
> around for millions of years and they just found an incredible cache of bone
> of early humans, animals and plants in eastern Africa.
And there have been large numbers of dinosaur bones as if all washed
together in a great flood and fossilised togeher.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/
NO WAY the earth was established in 4045 B.C. or thereabouts.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/
> : That cold shudder was the Holy Spirit pleading for Charlie to repent and
> : believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for Charlie, he chose the
> : way of Baalim, stubborn as a mule, less the talking ass to forbade his
> : vanity.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
Gladys Swager
(<<Kelly>>)
> "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I
> may have not devoted myself to a phantasy". (Charles Darwin, Life and
> Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).
>
> That cold shudder was the Holy Spirit pleading for Charlie to repent and
> believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for Charlie, he chose the
> way of Baalim, stubborn as a mule, less the talking ass to forbade his
> vanity.
So you're saying that you know exactly what Darwin's heart was like at
the moment he passed from earthly life to eternal life?
Bible Studies with Satan
> "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I
> may have not devoted myself to a phantasy". (Charles Darwin, Life and
> Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).
>
> That cold shudder was the Holy Spirit pleading for Charlie to repent
You know nothing, Ted.
> and
> believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for Charlie, he chose the
> way of Baalim, stubborn as a mule, less the talking ass to forbade his
> vanity.
>
> At judgment he will no longer be able to rationalize his wicked works, as
> his thoughts will be taken captive in obedience to Christ, while his
> conscience bears witness that he chose to reject God in his knowledge.
> (Romans 2:14-16, 2Cor 10:4-6)
--
God did not need to work miracles to convince atheists but to convert heathens.
-- Sir Francis Bacon
Bible Studies with Satan
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:50:30 GMT, "Ted L"
> <spamta...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I
>>may have not devoted myself to a phantasy". (Charles Darwin, Life and
>>Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).
>>
>>That cold shudder was the Holy Spirit pleading for Charlie to repent and
>>believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for Charlie, he chose the
>>way of Baalim, stubborn as a mule, less the talking ass to forbade his
>>vanity.
>>
>>At judgment he will no longer be able to rationalize his wicked works, as
>>his thoughts will be taken captive in obedience to Christ, while his
>>conscience bears witness that he chose to reject God in his knowledge.
>>(Romans 2:14-16, 2Cor 10:4-6)
>
> Good post! :) The only point we differ on, is that I believe
> that judgment already happened and so, Charlie has indeed
> already had to answer for his crimes.
>
When will you answer for your crimes?
Jude Alexander
"(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:7927dce1-2550-47a6...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Dave knows everthing... even what you're thinking and the motives behind
every word you type on a post... :)
(<<Kelly>>)
> "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
I wasn't replying to Dave, I was replying to Ted.
Jude Alexander
Okay. May Ted is like Dave...
walksalone
news:400be3ba-6448-4877...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 23, 6:11�am, "Jude Alexander" wrote:
>> "Ted L" wrote t...
snip
> Even
>> if he had not been raised on religion since his beginning, he
>> probably wo
> uld
>> have had doubts eventually anyway. �Even in his lifetime, there were
>> unanswered questions.
>>
> And there are still unanswered questions. How did life begin
> originally?.
No one knows, & it is possible no one will. What i known is no
divinities are required for here we are.
> In fact go back another step, how did the non-living come into
> existence?
This is not the venue for such discussions, but:
There was an iniotial event, or cause. Be it the big bang, bran theory,
string theory, is not known yet. Nor may it ever be.
No deities required, not even Ahone.
Once that occured, gravitational forces kicked in, even though the
universe was expanding. This, over fabulous periods of time, led to the
universe we have today.
The non-living matter is the result of stars dieing by super nova.
Sorry, but if you can't even explan how salt is formed, your question is
menaingless for you lack the basic knowledge required to understand the
answers.
Maybe the talk.origens can help, but I think not. When people have the
answers & can't understand the question, there is not much hope for
them.
>> However, if you keep up with archeology,
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3050/
>
>> you'd know that mankind has been
>> around for millions of years and they just found an incredible cache
>> of bone
>> of early humans, animals and plants in eastern Africa. �
>
> And there have been large numbers of dinosaur bones as if all washed
> together in a great flood and fossilised togeher.
NO, there have not. There is zero evidence for a worldwide flood.
There is vidence for meteor strikes, natural disasters, etc.
Just because the evidence does not fit thje claims of various fanatics
withinn the xikan mythos does not mean it is wrong. Again, this is not
the venue for an education in geology. But such an education can be
had, & you don't even have to to go to college. But it will cost you
money.
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/
<http://www.teach12.com/SearchV2/searchttc.aspx?ct=TTCWebSearch&xr=t&site
=http%3A%2F%2F%0D%0A++++++++++++++++++++++++++++www.teach12.com&PageSize=
20&MaxPages=200&SearchKind=AllWords&FilterUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teach12.co
m&MediaType=&PriceRange=&Subject=&SearchPhrase=geology&imagefield.x=0&ima
gefield.y=0>
Knowledge is not cheap.
> NO WAY the earth was established in 4045 B.C. or thereabouts.
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Age_of_the_Earth [unkown
accuracy]
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm
For giggls & grins
http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html
snip
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
Why go to mis-information sites when there is better to be had for free?
> Gladys Swager
walksalone who sometimes feels older than the earth, which is much older
than that claimed witin any mythology, xian included.
Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is
believed to be a missing page from the Bible and is believed
to read 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within
this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living
or dead is purely coincidental'.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote >
> > On Nov 23, 6:11 am, "Jude Alexander" wrote:
>
> > > Even if he had not been raised on religion since his beginning, he
> >> Even in his lifetime, there were unanswered questions.
>
> > And there are still unanswered questions. How did life begin
> > originally?.
> > existence?
>
> This is not the venue for such discussions,
I am well aware that evolutionists do not 'touch' abiogenenesis.
Strange, that should be simple after their scientists can go back
millions/billions of years.
> but: there was an initial event, or cause. Be it the big bang, bran theory,
> string theory, is not known yet. Nor may it ever be.
> No deities required, not even Ahone.
>
How do you know that God Almighty (deity) was not involved (explain
scientifically as you are so sure that science gives you your
answers)?.
Theory can mean a number of things depending on the context in which
it is used. what is the definition of 'theory' that you use?.
> Once that occured, gravitational forces kicked in, even though the
> universe was expanding.
How did the graitational forces come into existence? (explain
scientifically)?
How do you know that the Universe was expanding? .
This, over fabulous periods of time, led to the universe we have
today.
>
How were 'the fabulous periods of time' measured?
> The non-living matter is the result of stars dying by super nova.
>
How do you know that? By what definition of 'theory'?
> Sorry, but if you can't even explan how salt is formed, your question is
> meaningless for you lack the basic knowledge required to understand the
> answers.
> Maybe the talk.origens can help, but I think not. When people have the
> answers & can't understand the question, there is not much hope for
> them.
>
And you and the evolutionists 'know' that they have all the answers to
the
questions that can be asked?
> >> However, if you keep up with archeology,
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3050/
>
> >> you'd know that mankind has been
> >> around for millions of years and they just found an incredible cache
> >> of bone of early humans, animals and plants in eastern Africa.
>
> > And there have been large numbers of dinosaur bones as if all washed
> > together in a great flood and fossilised togeher.
> NO, there have not. There is zero evidence for a worldwide flood.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3000/
> There is evidence for meteor strikes, natural disasters, etc.
>
They have happened throughout history.
> Just because the evidence does not fit the claims of various fanatics
> withinn the xikan mythos does not mean it is wrong.
And because atheists have proposed thei ideas about the origins of
the Universe, and organisms in the world does not mean that all they
have proposed is correct.
And because secular scientists had made certain proposals that have
been
taught as truth to school children and to adults through the media
then it all
must be right even though it can't be tested scientifically?.
> Again, this is not the venue for an education in geology.
> But such an education can be had, & you don't even have to to go to college.
> But it will cost you money.
>
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/
>
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/
>
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.htmlhttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Age_of_the_Earth[unkown
> accuracy]
>
> http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm
>
> > http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html
>
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>
> Why go to mis-information sites when there is better to be had for free?
>
You won't have to pay for reading the above sites that I have given to
you.
But, if you find them of value, the scientists would appreciate a
donation
to assist them in their work.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
Is it true they found the outboard motor used by the ark?
=-=-=
Barry
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
walksalone
news:1792ead4-d361-4b74...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
You'll have to ask somebody who studies that particular field. My field
is mythology. And of course, anyone who wants to do just a casual
proposal of gravity can verify its existence and presence. If you have
doubts about an existing, take a 50 pound rock and drop it on your foot.
If it floats up, there is no gravity.
> How do you know that the Universe was expanding?
I'm sorry, I thought I was trying to converse with someone who had a
basic grasp of science. I am not an astronomer, but even I understand red
shift and blue shift.
> This, over fabulous periods of time, led to the universe we have
> today.
>>
> How were 'the fabulous periods of time' measured?
Like today, one day at a time.
>> The non-living matter is the result of stars dying by super nova.
>>
> How do you know that? By what definition of 'theory'?
A theory, is a collection of information sources that are utilized to
explain observations. Rather than leaving it all laying around in bits
and pieces, it is formalized, condensed, and published for others
familiar with the field of inquiry, to pick apart proved false or true.
It's called peer review, another term that you apparently are not
familiar or comfortable with. That is for you to work out for yourself.
>> Sorry, but if you can't even explan how salt is formed, your question
>> is meaningless for you lack the basic knowledge required to
>> understand the answers.
>> Maybe the talk.origens can help, but I think not. �When people have
>> the answers & can't understand the question, there is not much hope
>> for them.
>>
> And you and the evolutionists 'know' that they have all the answers to
> the
> questions that can be asked?
No, especially not me. But I have enough curiosity when I find something
that strikes me as being peculiar, be it a claim for a supernova, or
simply night lights in the sky that move, to look up the information from
more than one source. This might be the situation you're in, you do not
understand that there is more than one source for information dealing
with the sciences.
& my observation about you not even being able to explain how salt is
made, was not meant as an insult. But if you don't understand that much
basic intergenic chemistry, then organic chemistry may as well be in the
twilight zone for you. Those limitations you may well feel comfortable
with, but you do not have the right to impose them on anyone else.
Specially simply not on your say-so and using false information.
>> >> However, if you keep up with archeology,
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3050/
>>
>> >> you'd know that mankind has been
>> >> around for millions of years and they just found an incredible
>> >> cache of bone of early humans, animals and plants in eastern
>> >> Africa. �
>>
>> > And there have been large numbers of dinosaur bones as if all
>> > washed together in a great flood and fossilised togeher.
>> NO, there have not. �There is zero evidence for a worldwide flood.
>
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3000/
>
>> There is evidence for meteor strikes, natural disasters, etc.
>>
> They have happened throughout history.
And they will continue to do so. But not by means of a 40 day rain which
would generate so much heat that all life on the planet would be cooked,
or uses more water than the planet has or ever has had. It's not hard to
understand why people that live in dry country would live near rivers and
be overly familiar with floods. Mount Everest has never been underwater
to the depth claimed by the Hebrew Bible.
>> Just because the evidence does not fit the claims of various fanatics
>> withinn the xikan mythos does not mean it is wrong. �
>
> And because atheists have proposed thei ideas about the origins of
Again, not just atheists. But of course, you are trying to defend your
mythology and its errors where the universe is concerned. You have my
condolences.
> the Universe, and organisms in the world does not mean that all they
> have proposed is correct.
Here is a news bulletin just for you. It's not just atheists coming to
the conclusion that the universe and organisms within it do not require a
god to get them going. There are some scientists who happen to be xian
but will not allow that to interfere with their observations and their
relation to the evidence.
> And because secular scientists had made certain proposals that have
> been
Not just secular scientists, xian ones as well. Scientists that allow
their mythology to influence or observations are not really deserving of
the name. Maybe lab technicians would be better. For me, it's a question
of professional standards. The standards they fail to meet when they let
whatever mythology they indulge in influence their observations.
> taught as truth to school children and to adults through the media
> then it all
> must be right even though it can't be tested scientifically?.
It can be tested, but will you be alive 10,000 years from now? I won't,
and I for one am glad I will not be. However, those with the basic
foundation in basic science should have no problem following the bouncing
yellow ball called evidence. It's not your fault if science has
outstripped your basic understanding of what is or is not real and
verifiable. There are many fields of science that have outstripped my
limited knowledge. But that does not mean I cannot come to a basic
understanding of what those signs are talking about.
Of course, I have no emotional hook or need to be unique in the universe.
Somehow or another, I cannot see myself as a pet of a god.
>> Again, this is not the venue for an education in geology. �
>> But such an education can be had, & you don't even have to to go to
>> coll
> ege. �
>> But it will cost you money.
The teaching Company does not donate their DVDs for free. However, much
of the information of a general nature is a readily available with the
websites that I have previously provided. I even included a one joke
site.
I noticed, they cite and link to the creation company has been removed.
But not marked.
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/
>>
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/
The following websites are free, but the one that has a product for sale
seems to be missing at the moment. However, it is in my prior message.
>> http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/fa
>> qs/
> faq-age-of-earth.htmlhttp://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Age_of_t
> he_Earth[unkown
>> accuracy]
>>
>> http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm
>>
>> > http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html
>>
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>>
>> Why go to mis-information sites when there is better to be had for
>> free?
>>
> You won't have to pay for reading the above sites that I have given to
> you.
Nor will you have to pay to visit any of the above websites I have
provided. However, if you wish to purchase the university level program
on DVD concerning geography, that of course will be expensive. Much more
expensive than you will probably be comfortable in paying for furthering
your education
> But, if you find them of value, the scientists would appreciate a
> donation to assist them in their work.
I found them to be typical of apologetics sites, and misusing information
to mislead others. Of course, your mileage will vary just as your
standards for evidence will very from mine.
> Gladys Swager
walksalone who has to feel sorry for those who limited their appreciation
for the beauty of the natural world for a myth that they have to die to
receive any rewards from. Life is for living, something is apparently an
alien concept to many people that follow the revealed gods of the desert.
The villa's and the chapel's where
I learned with little labor
The way to love my fellow man
And hate my next-door neighbor.
[C. K. Chesterton]
Rod
> "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself
> whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy". (Charles Darwin,
> Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).
>
> That cold shudder was the Holy Spirit pleading for Charlie to repent and
> believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for Charlie, he chose
> the way of Baalim, stubborn as a mule, less the talking ass to forbade
> his vanity.
It appears that he had sense enough to know an evil parading itself
as good, when it came calling....
Psa 2:11 Give worship to the Lord with fear, kissing his feet and
giving him honour,
Psa 2:12 For fear that he may be angry, causing destruction to come on
you, because he is quickly moved to wrath. Happy are all those who put
their faith in him.
theo
wrote:
> How did the graitational forces come into existence? (explain
> scientifically)?
There is boy matter and girl matter in the universe and they are
attracted to each other. Some matter is not attracted this way and
they become spinsters. :-)
Theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Nov 24, 3:40 am, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > How did the gravitational forces come into existence? (explain
> > scientifically)?
>
> There is boy matter and girl matter in the universe and they are
> attracted to each other. Some matter is not attracted this way and
> they become spinsters. :-)
>
Gladys Swager
theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
>swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote >
> > On Nov 24, 3:49 am, walksalone wrote:
> >> swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote >
>
> >> > And there are still unanswered questions. How did life begin
> >> > originally?. In fact, go back another step,
> >> >how did the non-living come into existence?
> >> This is not the venue for such discussions,
>
scientifically by repeated, testable experiments.
But they are pertinent to the study especially as there is ancient
literature that states that God created.
The secularists (I also call them secularisers because they seem to
want a whole society dominated by their opinions) do not 'want the
foot of God in the door' - Lowenton - hope I have spelt his name
correctly.
> > I am well aware that evolutionists do not 'touch' abiogenenesis.
> > Strange, that should be simple after their scientists can go back
> > millions/billions of years.
> >> but: there was an initial event, or cause. Be it the big bang,
> >>bran theory, string theory, is not known yet. Nor may it ever be.
> >> No deities required, not even Ahone.
>
But that is arrogance. Because you believe that God was not there in
the Creation, you/and your scientific colleagues have no right to
impose
that belief in Science courses. In some texts for younger children the
credit
for change is given to 'Mother Nature' - but that is still denying
that the
original creation came from God Almighty.
Let science in schools be Operational Science - the history of
discoveries
of the functions in various disciplines, the way science works in
today's
world and leave Origins Science out of that teaching to be an issue
in
community discussions, debates and education.
Or else give the same time to both the Creation and the Evolutionary
Scientists for both to state their points of view to be followed
through at
a later time with further reading and investigation.
Charles Darwin in his Introduction to On the Origin of Species, 1859,
wrote
"A fair result can be obtained only by fully understanding the facts
and
the arguments on. both sides of each question"
The Evolutionists who took over school systems mainly after 1957 have
not
wanted that aspect of Darwin's thinking to be implemented in their
programmes
as given to school children and to adults through the media.
<snip>
Yes. there is change within a species, that is observed in every
procreation.
But evolutionary change from one species to another up the tree of
life
or along cladistic branches has not been shown to have happened.
Apes and humans are given as from some UNKNOWN apelike ancestor.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/
Gladys Swager
Ted L
> It appears that he had sense enough to know an evil parading itself
> as good, when it came calling....
>
> Psa 2:11 Give worship to the Lord with fear, kissing his feet and
> giving him honour,
>
> Psa 2:12 For fear that he may be angry, causing destruction to come on
> you, because he is quickly moved to wrath. Happy are all those who put
> their faith in him.
Strange translation you cite...definitely not the same as what is
found in a faithful translation:
"Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his
wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their
trust in him."
Stick with the King James and you'll be "happy" (i.e. blessed).
theo
wrote:
> But that is arrogance. Because you believe that God was not there in
> the Creation, you/and your scientific colleagues have no right to
> impose
> that belief in Science courses. In some texts for younger children the
> credit
> for change is given to 'Mother Nature' - but that is still denying
> that the
> original creation came from God Almighty.
Gladys, when you have repeatable testable proof that your God, or any
other, exists, and that creation actually happened as described in the
bible, I would be happy to not only have it included in Science
curricula, I would be prepared to believe in Him/Her/It.
Theo
walksalone
4dad-accc-e...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 24, 12:16�pm, walksalone wrote:
>>swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote >
>> > On Nov 24, 3:49�am, walksalone wrote:
>> >> swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote >
>> >> snip
>>
>> >> > And there are still unanswered questions. How did life begin
>> >> > originally?. In fact, go back another step,
>> >> >how did the non-living come into existence?
>> >> This is not the venue for such discussions,
>>
> They are not issues to you because they cannnot be answered
> scientifically by repeated, testable experiments.
According to who? It's not as if anyone would consider you a scientific
authority, is it? The pack of the matter is, they can be scientifically
verified, but no one that starts the experiment will live to see it
finished. Rather takes some of the fun & excitement of verifying what
the evidence supports.
> But they are pertinent to the study especially as there is ancient
> literature that states that God created.
One most presume, you're talking about Okeanus, which is perhaps the
first recorded creator for humanity. Or maybe you are considering one of
the following gods for that dubious title. Humanity has many gods, yours
is simply one of the latest ones. But it has one thing in common with
the remainder of the gods, a severe case of lacka.
Lacka of requirement, lacka of evidence, lacka usefullness in day to day
life. Even though I tolerate and accept the fact that people, are
brainwashed from day one in certain mythologies, does not mean I have to
apply or accept that mythology as requirement for myself.
The original created by god thingy is not Hebrew, but Sumerian. That is,
the original that we have a copy of. That your handlers never taught you
this is not my fault or yours, it is theirs.
> The secularists (I also call them secularisers because they seem to
> want a whole society dominated by their opinions) do not 'want the
> foot of God in the door' - Lowenton - hope I have spelt his name
> correctly.
Don't know, and don't care. When it comes to the gods, I am so apathetic
to the claims made on their behalf that he would be embarrassing if I had
not bothered to study the claims. But I have, and due to people like
you, xianity has been close to the font in those studies. After four
daughters, I realize I really don't know everything, and I never did.
But I can learn, and I have. It's not complementary to xianity as you
pretend it exists. I have to phrase it that way, because the xianity you
practice today is nothing like first century Christianity. You don't
have the claimed written material they had, and are probably quite
unaware of it. Blissfully so one might say.
So pretending that a god broke wind and poofed the universe into
existence may be intellectually satisfying for prose that had not
bothered to do basic science, but for the rest of us that we use a hollow
feeling in the mind. We know better. We may not know how, but we know
better.
And again, this is not the venue for a serious science discussion even
though you like to pretend it is. But you have no choice, you are a xian
and you don't know any better. As a matter of fact, it's part of the
teachings of modern day xianiy. It is all right to assert your ignorance
and demand others honor it, or otherwise, you're being persecuted for
your belief. You're not. And I don't care what your preacher says about
that.
>> > I am well aware that evolutionists do not 'touch' abiogenenesis.
>> > Strange, that should be simple after their scientists can go back
>> > �millions/billions of years.
>> >> but: there was an initial event, or cause. �Be it the big bang,
>> >>bran theory, string theory, is not known yet. �Nor may it ever be.
>> >> No deities required, not even Ahone.
>>
> But that is arrogance. Because you believe that God was not there in
You are quite incorrect. And partially correct. Because I lack a belief
in any deity, to include those of my ancestors, I see no reason to
complicate the origins of the universe by including a god that supposedly
is self-created. If such a god is self-created, are not the universe.
> the Creation, you/and your scientific colleagues have no right to
> impose
They have every much a right issue do to impose your ill-informed release
on others. Which is to say, none. Yet, here you are attempting to
convince me and others that you have the right of it even though you can
provide no evidence to support your claim. Circular arguments are not
evidence, appeals to authority are not evidence. And twisting
information to me to imply what you want it to state is definitely not
information. The last one, you're probably not guilty of knowingly. But
those that should know better are. And they teach you.
> that belief in Science courses. In some texts for younger children the
> credit
> for change is given to 'Mother Nature' - but that is still denying
> that the
> original creation came from God Almighty.
If it requires a god to brew a cup of tea, then a god would be a
necessity. However, it does not and therefore, a god is not a necessity.
That you conflate natural processes and refer to them as god-given and
directed, is your self-inflicted problem. And you are attempting to make
it mine as well, along with those who will never meet but our messages
might influence.
> Let science in schools be Operational Science - the history of
> discoveries
> of the functions in various disciplines, the way science works in
> today's
> world and leave Origins Science out of that teaching to be an issue
> in
Origin sciences, and what would those be?
> community discussions, debates and education.
If they cannot make predictions, and they cannot be verified, they are
not science. This is pretty much understood by people attaining the
educational level of the eighth grade in a decent school system.
> Or else give the same time to both the Creation and the Evolutionary
> Scientists for both to state their points of view to be followed
They had their chance, in court. Creation science is simply an attempt
to get around the constitutional limitations on church and state in the
United States. Which of course, is where I'm based at. So no thank you,
I prefer honesty and integrity when I am discussing things with people.
> through at
> a later time with further reading and investigation.
He claims for an intelligent design & a Creator God have been well
examined in the courts of the United States. They lose. And of subject
for people that do not have an emotional need needs to be taken care of.
> Charles Darwin in his Introduction to On the Origin of Species, 1859,
> wrote
> "A fair result can be obtained only by fully understanding the facts
> and
> the arguments on. both sides of each question"
Indeed, but when the arguments for creation by Fiat fail due to lack of
evidence, and they no longer need to be considered as germane to any
conversation involving evolution or creation. By the way, lack of
evidence can be an indication of lack. When the evidence to be
overwhelming as in the case of the Christian mythos, and is totally
absent, there is no need to consider it as an influencing factor other
than on the satisfaction and justification for the emotionally crippled
that need such a entity in their life.
> The Evolutionists who took over school systems mainly after 1957 have
> not
> wanted that aspect of Darwin's thinking to be implemented in their
> programmes
> as given to school children and to adults through the media.
> <snip>
What media posits that only evolution is the correct way to go? And here
in the southeast US, the majority of the schools administration and
teachers are xian and have done their level best to remove science from
the curriculum. It seems that science is unconcerned with their deity &
into fans their delicate sensibilities.
> Yes. there is change within a species, that is observed in every
> procreation.
> But evolutionary change from one species to another up the tree of
> life
> or along cladistic branches has not been shown to have happened.
Oh but it hangs. Just because that evidence is not satisfactory to you
or those that you seek guidance from is immaterial. The talk.origins
website is just chock full of information for people that really would
like to have it. Many of the people that post to that particular
newsgroup are xian.
> Apes and humans are given as from some UNKNOWN apelike ancestor.
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/
You keep using that one website as if it had all the answers, and science
would tell you in a heartbeat, we don't have all the answers. No, we
don't know the exact branching point between the great apes and humanity,
and to the exact time and generation, are not likely to ever know. But
the latest one to be found has been named Ardis, and I'm sure you'll
remain ignorant about that one as well.
But this is not a science course nor is it a science newsgroup, it hast
to do in this case, with the activities of the Baptist Church. Mind you
out there racing that discussed but, that's what the title says it's for.
Add to that, I'm not a biologist or a paleontologist, which means I lack
the basic education, it just as you do, to determine whether evolution or
not is likely to be a fact. Based on what I see today, and the fossil
record, I have no choice but to accept it as a likelihood in excess of
99.99%. Which is as good as it's going to get in this life because we
are not all knowing.
Still, that's better than having been created for the sole purpose of
stroking the ego of a, for lack of better terminology, self-centered
egotistical sadistic son of a bitch called God by those that had never
bothered to read, either in context or apparently, as written, their so-
called sacred Scripture. Try reading Revelation in total without study
guides. A book written for the end times of the second century when
whole world was going to go away. It hasn't, and until the next serious
meteor strike, probably won't unless xians gain control within the United
States and push the nuclear buttons.
The Earth has had that I know of, at least three apocalyptic events, to
natural, and one man made. And we're still here.
> Gladys Swager
walksalone who has to wonder about the ability of xians to converse
meaningfully about the sciences, and the best they can do is expect one
line answers to their, rather childish questions really. Still, they are
a fact of life, and as such a part of the evolutionary mix.
Just so you know, according to the Hebrew Bible which is the authority
for xianity, Yahweh is not the creator nor is he the sole supreme god.
Have a nice day. And if you have any serious questions that are
realistic or viable for this particular form/medium, feel free to ask. I
may not have the answers and I may not know for to find out, but then
again I might.
Deuteronomy 32:8-9
When the Most High (Elyon) allotted peoples for inheritance,
When He divided up humanity,
He fixed the boundaries for peoples,
According to the number of the divine sons;
For Yahweh's portion is his people,
Jacob His own inheritance.
Rod
No, I think I'll just stay away from it all. Neither your version nor
the others are any more appealing. I'm not going to bother dressing
either verse up to make them appear appealing, they both describe
a violent, hair triggered psychopath.
Keep your religion and the god you worship.
(<<Kelly>>)
> No, I think I'll just stay away from it all. Neither your version nor
> the others are any more appealing. I'm not going to bother dressing
> either verse up to make them appear appealing, they both describe
> a violent, hair triggered psychopath.
>
> Keep your religion and the god you worship.
And now we see another metamorphosis of rodney, the shape-shifting
game-player. One day a Christian, the next day not, one day an
unbeliever, the next day not. Indeed, you are lukewarm - neither hot
nor cold. If you're not careful, the Lord will one day spew you out
of His mouth (Revelation 3:16). James 1:8 has a perfect description
of you, rodney: "a double minded man, unstable in all his ways".
Your wife, Mary, must be a saint.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
microscope
or into a test-tube and prove experimentally, scientifically that God
exists.
Bur, nevertheless. around me I see a world that just could not come
into
existence by and of itself.
In respect of living organisms I have been reminded of my first
contact with
science for Infants' age school children sometime in 1974 as a
greater
emphasis was being placed on it beyond the Nature Study of previous
years.
Actually it was the first time that I had read of the classification
criteria of living
organisms as opposed to non-living organisms. Living organisms can
make
(beget) other living organisms like unto themselves. Thinking about
it
I reasoned that required a Living Being to bring about the first
living organisms
in the world. And that pointed to God Almighty.
When I shared the idea with a Christian minister he said that
Anslem, Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1000's had reasoned the same
way.
http{//www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3008/
The first article 'Does God exist?' 'The Bible begins with the
statement,
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' God's
existence
is assumed, self-evident, In Psalm 14 : 1 we are told, "The fool has
said
in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done
abominable works. there is none who does good. Here we see that the
Bible connects corrupt thoughts about God - especially denying His
very
existence - with corrupt morals. etc Read the rest for yourself.
Could Hitler have imposed the cruelty he did on Europe and Britain
in the Second World War if he had had a proper understanding of
God's will for human behaviours towards others?
We are both aware of those times in different ways because of our
experiences during those years.
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote :
> > They are not issues to you because they cannnot be answered
> > scientifically by repeated, testable experiments.
>
> According to who? It's not as if anyone would consider you a scientific
> authority, is it?
I would not be considered a scientific authority because I do not
have
Tertiary level degrees in those subjects, which from many
Universities
would require an acceptance of evolutionary development and millions
of years for the existence of the Universe.
Charles Darwin wrote in his Introduction to his On the Origin of the
Species
(1859) 'A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and
balancing the
facts and arguments on both sides of each question.
There is 'no evidence for species to species transitional forms in the
fossil
record or in creation. That is what was missing in Darwin's day, and
it is
still missing today,'
I used science texts when I was tutoring High school students as part
of
the study of English to ensure the students were more capable of
reading
and comprehendind their test questions. There was only one point of
view
given ie the Evolutionary World view'. But that view has not been
proved
scientifically and the more I read from the Internet and these
postings there
is no way that that view can be said to be supported by the scientific
method
of repeated testings. But despite that the evolutionary 'molecules-to-
man'
perspective is still the only view that is allowed in the teaching of
science.
> The pack of the matter is, they can be scientifically
> verified, but no one that starts the experiment will live to see it
> finished. Rather takes some of the fun & excitement of verifying what
> the evidence supports.
So you can can't say 'they can be scientifically verified. (FULL
STOP)'
> > But they are pertinent to the study especially as there is ancient
> > literature that states that God created.
>
> One must presume, you're talking about Okeanus, which is perhaps the
> first recorded creator for humanity. Or maybe you are considering one of
> the following gods for that dubious title. Humanity has many gods, yours
> is simply one of the latest ones. But it has one thing in common with
> the remainder of the gods, a severe case of lacka.
> Lacka of requirement, lacka of evidence, lacka usefullness in day to day
> life. Even though I tolerate and accept the fact that people, are
> brainwashed from day one in certain mythologies, does not mean I have to
> apply or accept that mythology as requirement for myself.
>
Perhaps it may be said that as our information comes from the Judeo-
Christian
ethic that we have been denied the information to which you refer.
But what is the scientific checking that makes you believe that the
gods to
whom you refer pre-date the J-C accounts?
> The original created by god thingy is not Hebrew, but Sumerian. That is,
> the original that we have a copy of. That your handlers never taught you
> this is not my fault or yours, it is theirs.
>
I have not followed through on that. I assume that may include the
Gilgamesh
epic, as an equivalent of Noah's Flood and thought by some to have
been
the information on which the Biblical Flood was based.
From memory I think one of the articles on the following webiste
has information on that topic.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3000/
<snip> Hope to return to the rest of your posting later.
Gladys Swager
Rod
I'm not being double minded, or is english not your first language?
I want no more of your religion...ever. You like it so well, keep it.
>
> Your wife, Mary, must be a saint.
>
Can't wait to stir up the shit, can ya?
(<<Kelly>>)
> I'm not being double minded, or is english not your first language?
English most certainly is my first language, rodney. And in parsing
the "English" you attempt to use, it's been apparent (from years of
your posts) that you are, indeed, quite double-minded.
> I want no more of your religion...ever. You like it so well, keep it.
I don't have "religion", rodney - I have faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ through which I have been saved by God's grace (paraphrase from
Ephesians 2:8)
> > Your wife, Mary, must be a saint.
> Can't wait to stir up the shit, can ya?
So..I guess she finally left you? (not that I'm surprised... )
Rod
> On Nov 25, 3:18 pm, Rod <spa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not being double minded, or is english not your first language?
>
> English most certainly is my first language, rodney. And in parsing
> the "English" you attempt to use, it's been apparent (from years of
> your posts) that you are, indeed, quite double-minded.
Whatever trips your trigger.
>
>> I want no more of your religion...ever. You like it so well, keep it.
>
> I don't have "religion", rodney -
Oh yeah, you DO have religion Kelly, and you are so brainwashed by it
that you wouldn't see it for what it was if it smacked you between
your eyes with 2 X 4.
> I have faith in the Lord Jesus
> Christ through which I have been saved by God's grace (paraphrase from
> Ephesians 2:8)
So you place your trust in a mass murderer of millions..no surprise
their. Millions of people just as gullible and fanatical do the same
thing.
What you need is a good deprogrammer to clean the shit from your mind,
or what remains of it.
>
>>> Your wife, Mary, must be a saint.
Not much longer.....they are known as deprogrammer's...
>
>
>> Can't wait to stir up the shit, can ya?
>
> So..I guess she finally left you? (not that I'm surprised... )
>
Sorry to disappoint you !....NOT really. I hope the thought of her
being with me kills you.<SMILING BIG...!>
Pastor Dave
thusly:
>> Stick with the King James and you'll be "happy" (i.e. blessed).
>
> No, I think I'll just stay away from it all.
And yet, here you are, staying right in the middle
of it all, posting messages that are hateful to God.
<chuckle>
--
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
Ted L
> No, I think I'll just stay away from it all. Neither your version nor
> the others are any more appealing. I'm not going to bother dressing
> either verse up to make them appear appealing, they both describe
> a violent, hair triggered psychopath.
>
> Keep your religion and the god you worship.
Got it. I hope you'll consider 2Peter 2:20-22 before you wander too
far off.
(<<Kelly>>)
> >> I'm not being double minded, or is english not your first language?
> > English most certainly is my first language, rodney. And in parsing
> > the "English" you attempt to use, it's been apparent (from years of
> > your posts) that you are, indeed, quite double-minded.
>
> Whatever trips your trigger.
My feelings have nothing to do with it. It's my observations of your
behavior over the years in Usenet I am referring to.
> >> I want no more of your religion...ever. You like it so well, keep it.
> > I don't have "religion", rodney -
> Oh yeah, you DO have religion Kelly, and you are so brainwashed by it
> that you wouldn't see it for what it was if it smacked you between
> your eyes with 2 X 4.
I'm not in the least surprised you have no idea about the difference
between faith as described in the Bible and religion (since it's
religion - not faith - you've been alternately chasing after and
pushing away in Usenet for years).
> > I have faith in the Lord Jesus
> > Christ through which I have been saved by God's grace (paraphrase from
> > Ephesians 2:8)
> So you place your trust in a mass murderer of millions..no surprise
> their.
Stopped taking your meds, I see.
> Millions of people just as gullible and fanatical do the same
> thing.
I see. So now you're back to hating God and blaspheming Him. What a
surprise (NOT).
> What you need is a good deprogrammer to clean the shit from your mind,
> or what remains of it.
Sure, rodney - whatever you say.
> >>> Your wife, Mary, must be a saint.
> Not much longer.....they are known as deprogrammer's...
Uh...what?
> >> Can't wait to stir up the shit, can ya?
> > So..I guess she finally left you? (not that I'm surprised... )
> Sorry to disappoint you !....NOT really. I hope the thought of her
> being with me kills you.<SMILING BIG...!>
Seriously, I couldn't care less one way or the other. My only hope is
that she is mentally and emotionally and physically safe in your
presence - from what everyone's seen of your mercurial moods and
whims, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if she isn't one of the countless
women in this country who are abused and forced into silence out of
self-preservation.
Rod
> On Nov 25, 3:50 pm, Rod <spa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I'm not being double minded, or is english not your first language?
>
>
>>> English most certainly is my first language, rodney. And in parsing
>>> the "English" you attempt to use, it's been apparent (from years of
>>> your posts) that you are, indeed, quite double-minded.
>> Whatever trips your trigger.
>
> My feelings have nothing to do with it.
Whatever..
It's my observations of your
> behavior over the years in Usenet I am referring to.
Good. I hope you're enjoying yourself.
>
>>>> I want no more of your religion...ever. You like it so well, keep it.
>
>
>>> I don't have "religion", rodney -
>
>
>> Oh yeah, you DO have religion Kelly, and you are so brainwashed by it
>> that you wouldn't see it for what it was if it smacked you between
>> your eyes with 2 X 4.
>
> I'm not in the least surprised you have no idea about the difference
> between faith as described in the Bible and religion (since it's
> religion - not faith - you've been alternately chasing after and
> pushing away in Usenet for years).
>
>>> I have faith in the Lord Jesus
>>> Christ through which I have been saved by God's grace (paraphrase from
>>> Ephesians 2:8)
>
>
>> So you place your trust in a mass murderer of millions..no surprise
>> their.
>
> Stopped taking your meds, I see.
Psalm 2:11 & 12, or perhaps you're still unable to read after all
this time ??
>
>> Millions of people just as gullible and fanatical do the same
>> thing.
>
> I see. So now you're back to hating God and blaspheming Him. What a
> surprise (NOT).
>
>> What you need is a good deprogrammer to clean the shit from your mind,
>> or what remains of it.
>
> Sure, rodney - whatever you say.
>
>>>>> Your wife, Mary, must be a saint.
>
>
>> Not much longer.....they are known as deprogrammer's...
>
> Uh...what?
>
>>>> Can't wait to stir up the shit, can ya?
>
>
>>> So..I guess she finally left you? (not that I'm surprised... )
>
>
>> Sorry to disappoint you !....NOT really. I hope the thought of her
>> being with me kills you.<SMILING BIG...!>
>
> Seriously, I couldn't care less one way or the other.
BIG LIE..
> My only hope is
> that she is mentally and emotionally and physically safe in your
> presence
I guess I'll have to send someone to visit you to persuade you to
mind your own business, won't I....okay.
- from what everyone's seen of your mercurial moods and
> whims, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if she isn't one of the countless
> women in this country who are abused and forced into silence out of
> self-preservation.
You certainly can ask her in the presence of a police officer. I'm
going to arrange it just for you by phone.
We are going to resolve your obsessiveness once and for all time,
as I not willing to tolerate your obsessions any longer.
Rod
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:54:53 -0600, Rod <spa...@yahoo.com> spake
> thusly:
>
>
>>> Stick with the King James and you'll be "happy" (i.e. blessed).
>> No, I think I'll just stay away from it all.
>
> And yet, here you are, staying right in the middle
> of it all, posting messages that are hateful to God.
>
> <chuckle>
>
And you can't understand why....
Rod
Ted, I've observed Christains for a long time, and during that time
I've never made a commitment to your god of any kind, nor have I
placed any measurable amount of faith in him. Instead I have observed
your people for the longest period of time, tolerating their abuses
and idiosyncrasies in an effort to find out more about them and their
god.
Ted...you are putting yourself under submission to I have no idea
what, you are going in blind, led by a book to who knows "WHAT",
but your book describes it in Psalm 2:11 & 12. I've presented this
to several other Christians who's response will be like your own,
and they see the verses thru rose colored glasses. Believe me Ted,
those verses do not appear to a deprogrammer the same way they appear
Christians.
You CAN break free of this mental disease known as faith in god,
and no matter how real he seems to you at the moment, he is a
mental construct in YOUR MIND ONLY, and has no real substance
in this world!
Your faith is no more than a form of mental conditioning that you
have imposed upon yourself, hence it is within your power to be free of
it. This is not a suggestion that you live your life without
restrictions or morals, but it puts the responsibility for living a
moral life squarely
with you. Your god is NOT a moral god; Ted, have you seen me, or anyone
for this matter, threatening to end someones life if that person doesn't
agree with me and do as I require ? No Ted, you' won't see this ever...
but Ted, your GOD does this very thing...
Psalm 2:11 & 12 describe a raging psychopath, and in exodus 34:6 & &,
describing yet another side to this "god" that is often associated
with the psychopaths need for recognition...
Exo 34:6 And Jehovah passed by before him, and proclaimed, Jehovah,
Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in
lovingkindness and truth,
Exo 34:7 keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and
transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the
children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.
You are in a cult, Ted, a member of a very large, loosely knit cult.
No appearances of your god have been made, only rumors of them spread
throughout this "community" of followers.
You CAN come out of the delusion Ted, but you must want to be free
of the disease, and believe me Ted, GOD is NOT able to kill you for
doing so, and he won't be sending you to any hell after death.
Ted, your god is a mental construct, he is only as powerful as your
mind makes him; no more so than that!
Why give him power to terrorize you ? Turn your back on him and leave!
(<<Kelly>>)
> >> So you place your trust in a mass murderer of millions..no surprise
> >> their.
> > Stopped taking your meds, I see.
> Psalm 2:11 & 12, or perhaps you're still unable to read after all
> this time ??
Sorry, but there's nothing in the Psalms that says anything about you
no longer taking your psych meds, rodney.
> >> Sorry to disappoint you !....NOT really. I hope the thought of her
> >> being with me kills you.<SMILING BIG...!>
> > Seriously, I couldn't care less one way or the other.
> BIG LIE..
Sorry, but no.
> I guess I'll have to send someone to visit you to persuade you to
> mind your own business, won't I....okay.
Sure, rodney - whatever you say. I hope that whomever you decide to
"send" enjoys seeing the open end of the barrel of one of my several
shotguns and rifles. Or is this another one of empty, meaningless
threats?
> You certainly can ask her in the presence of a police officer. I'm
> going to arrange it just for you by phone.
>
> We are going to resolve your obsessiveness once and for all time,
> as I not willing to tolerate your obsessions any longer.
Sure, rodney - whatever you say.
Since I know most of the local sheriff's deputies and State Patrolmen
in the area on a personal, social level (I went to school with a
number of them and/or their siblings), it will be nice to visit after
we laugh at you and your "complaint".
Rod
> On Nov 26, 5:58 am, Rod <spa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> So you place your trust in a mass murderer of millions..no surprise
>>>> their.
>
>
>>> Stopped taking your meds, I see.
>
>
>> Psalm 2:11 & 12, or perhaps you're still unable to read after all
>> this time ??
>
> Sorry, but there's nothing in the Psalms that says anything about you
> no longer taking your psych meds, rodney.
>
>>>> Sorry to disappoint you !....NOT really. I hope the thought of her
>>>> being with me kills you.<SMILING BIG...!>
>
>
>>> Seriously, I couldn't care less one way or the other.
>
>
>> BIG LIE..
>
> Sorry, but no.
>
>> I guess I'll have to send someone to visit you to persuade you to
>> mind your own business, won't I....okay.
>
> Sure, rodney - whatever you say. I hope that whomever you decide to
> "send" enjoys seeing the open end of the barrel of one of my several
> shotguns and rifles. Or is this another one of empty, meaningless
> threats?
Well, I hadn't really decided who it would be best to have speak with
you yet, someone with the police, or a sheriffs deputy....but I'll be
sure and pass your little post along to them before they show up.
Wouldn't want you firing at a law officer, would we, oh raging
psychopath ?
(<<Kelly>>)
> (<<Kelly>>) wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 5:58 am, Rod <spa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> So you place your trust in a mass murderer of millions..no surprise
> >>>> their.
>
> >>> Stopped taking your meds, I see.
>
> >> Psalm 2:11 & 12, or perhaps you're still unable to read after all
> >> this time ??
>
> > Sorry, but there's nothing in the Psalms that says anything about you
> > no longer taking your psych meds, rodney.
>
> >>>> Sorry to disappoint you !....NOT really. I hope the thought of her
> >>>> being with me kills you.<SMILING BIG...!>
>
> >>> Seriously, I couldn't care less one way or the other.
>
> >> BIG LIE..
>
> > Sorry, but no.
>
> >> I guess I'll have to send someone to visit you to persuade you to
> >> mind your own business, won't I....okay.
>
> > Sure, rodney - whatever you say. I hope that whomever you decide to
> > "send" enjoys seeing the open end of the barrel of one of my several
> > shotguns and rifles. Or is this another one of empty, meaningless
> > threats?
>
> Well, I hadn't really decided who it would be best to have speak with
> you yet,
And exactly what will they be "speaking" to me about, rodney? The
fact that I posted something very true, yet neither libelous (that
would be a civil complaint if it were actually libel and then law
enforcement wouldn't be involved) nor illegal (posting in a public
newgroup online is not illegal, you know)...? Yes, I'm certain they
will be clamoring to get here at the beck and call of a short,
impotent, balding, coward of a man who lives in Kansas and makes false
reports to law enforcement.
> someone with the police, or a sheriffs deputy....but I'll be
> sure and pass your little post along to them before they show up.
Sure you will, Widdle Wodney - sure you will. And what are they
supposed to do when they see what I posted? Laugh and then throw it
in the garbage because they can obviously see you are a complete kook?
> Wouldn't want you firing at a law officer, would we, oh raging
> psychopath ?
Oh, well...see, you weren't specific initially about whom you would be
"sending" - I just took that threat as another one of your empty
threats to send a hitman.
When they do show up I suppose I could invite them in for Thanksgiving
dinner, couldn't I...?
Rod
Oh...this is vintage by the way!
Beautiful! A perfect example of a paranoid mind.
A real keeper!
(<<Kelly>>)
> >> You certainly can ask her in the presence of a police officer. I'm
> >> going to arrange it just for you by phone.
>
> >> We are going to resolve your obsessiveness once and for all time,
> >> as I not willing to tolerate your obsessions any longer.
> > Since I know most of the local sheriff's deputies and State Patrolmen
> > in the area on a personal, social level (I went to school with a
> > number of them and/or their siblings), it will be nice to visit after
> > we laugh at you and your "complaint".
> " Sure, rodney - whatever you say. I hope that whomever you decide to
> send" enjoys seeing the open end of the barrel of one of my several
> shotguns and rifles. Or is this another one of empty, meaningless
> threats? "
>
> Oh...this is vintage by the way!
>
> Beautiful! A perfect example of a paranoid mind.
>
> A real keeper!
<shrug>
As usual, you've got bupkes.
Rod
Who better to reason with you than someone you know? Your paranoia is
getting worse Kelly, please get back on the medication! It is bad enough
to have obsessions about another persons wife, but coupled with paranoia
it can be a deadly situation for all.
Please be honest with law enforcement when they do come. They will
have faxed copies of your posts at hand.
>
> When they do show up I suppose I could invite them in for Thanksgiving
> dinner, couldn't I...?
>
Can you indeed ? Rember, these are law enforcement officers, not
good ole boys. You haven't enough money or charm to buy your way out of
some things....
Rod
Makes you feel good to believe it anyway, huh ?
(<<Kelly>>)
> Who better to reason with you than someone you know?
Was that supposed to make sense, is it just more of your usual non-
sequitur ramblings?
> Your paranoia is
> getting worse Kelly, please get back on the medication! It is bad enough
> to have obsessions about another persons wife, but coupled with paranoia
> it can be a deadly situation for all.
Gee...when someone threatens you and tells you they are coming to do
you harm and/or send someone else to do you harm - you don't think
that even a smidgen of paranoia is justified?
All you're doing here is projecting, coward. Oh, and BTW...you're
holding your mirror the wrong way.
> Please be honest with law enforcement when they do come. They will
> have faxed copies of your posts at hand.
Sure they will, rodney. And they will do it just because *you* tell
them to, right?
Let me guess...your fascination with law enforcement has something to
do with the fact that you, at one time, dreamed of being a law
enforcement officer but you couldn't hack it, right?
> > When they do show up I suppose I could invite them in for Thanksgiving
> > dinner, couldn't I...?
> Can you indeed ?
Sure - why not?
> Rember, these are law enforcement officers, not
> good ole boys.
Really? Sorry, but law enforcement around here is full of "good ole
boys" - born and bred right here in redneck country.
Wanna try again?
> You haven't enough money or charm to buy your way out of
> some things....
Oh...and exactly what is it that I would be trying to "buy [my] way
out of", rodney? What is it that law enforcement will be coming to my
door for, rodney? What law have I broken, rodney?
As usual, you've got bupkes and your threats are empty and baseless.
Rod
> On Nov 26, 9:11 am, Rod <spa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Who better to reason with you than someone you know?
>
> Was that supposed to make sense, is it just more of your usual non-
> sequitur ramblings?
>
>> Your paranoia is
>> getting worse Kelly, please get back on the medication! It is bad enough
>> to have obsessions about another persons wife, but coupled with paranoia
>> it can be a deadly situation for all.
>
> Gee...when someone threatens you and tells you they are coming to do
> you harm and/or send someone else to do you harm - you don't think
> that even a smidgen of paranoia is justified?
So this is your "twist" on me having someone come to TALK with you,
just as the post said.
Wow! Your trying to justify your mental illnesses now..incredible.
>
>> Please be honest with law enforcement when they do come. They will
>> have faxed copies of your posts at hand.
>
> Sure they will, rodney. And they will do it just because *you* tell
> them to, right?
Their are none blinder than those refusing to see..
>
> Let me guess...your fascination with law enforcement has something to
> do with the fact that you, at one time, dreamed of being a law
> enforcement officer but you couldn't hack it, right?
What makes you think I want to be shot at by idiots like you ?
>
>>> When they do show up I suppose I could invite them in for Thanksgiving
>>> dinner, couldn't I...?
>
>
>> Can you indeed ?
>
> Sure - why not?
>
>> Rember, these are law enforcement officers, not
>> good ole boys.
>
> Really? Sorry, but law enforcement around here is full of "good ole
> boys" - born and bred right here in redneck country.
>
> Wanna try again?
And licensed by the state. I'm sure they will be thrilled with you
advertising that they can be corrupted by your influence, or...is this
an extention of some fantasy that your mental illness has been playing out ?
>
>> You haven't enough money or charm to buy your way out of
>> some things....
>
> Oh...and exactly what is it that I would be trying to "buy [my] way
> out of", rodney? What is it that law enforcement will be coming to my
> door for, rodney? What law have I broken, rodney?
>
> As usual, you've got bupkes and your threats are empty and baseless.
>
Yes, reason would be considered a threat by the paranoid. Case in
point; Lyndon, Missouri; Police officer executes a welfare check
on a mentally ill man after dark. Pulls into the drive, walks up to
the front door and knocks, peers thru the front door window to see
if anyone is home, and gets his head blown off by the blast from
a shotgun.
The mentally ill are turned loose on society all the time because
of bad judgment on someones part; be it budget cuts or the legal
system.
In your case I'd wager the asylum was closed and the Drs. sued
for incompetence.
Ted L
> > Got it. I hope you'll consider 2Peter 2:20-22 before you wander too
> > far off.
...
>You CAN come out of the delusion Ted, but you must want to be free
>of the disease, and believe me Ted, GOD is NOT able to kill you for
>doing so, and he won't be sending you to any hell after death.
...
> Why give him power to terrorize you ? Turn your back on him and leave!
Your appeal to "freedom" is answered in verse 19 of the above-
referenced cite, and no thank you. Plus, your plan of escape is
flawed. (c.f. Isa. 28:18)
Rod
It would be if their were need for a plan at all. There isn't
anything to "escape from" but a figment of the imagination.
Your warnings are futile and gods threats are empty and hollow...
no demons quiver at the thought of him, only those poor souls
on earth that are bound to an imaginary god by imaginary threats of
violence and torture...
and you love this thing that makes such promises...
Like Donna, you are an acceptable casualty...
swa...@ozemail.com.au
>
> > One must presume, you're talking about Okeanus, which is perhaps the
> > first recorded creator for humanity. Or maybe you are considering one of
> > the following gods for that dubious title. Humanity has many gods, yours
> > is simply one of the latest ones. But it has one thing in common with
> > the remainder of the gods, a severe case of lacka.
> > Lacka of requirement, lacka of evidence, lacka usefullness in day to day
> > life. Even though I tolerate and accept the fact that people, are
> > brainwashed from day one in certain mythologies, does not mean I have to
> > apply or accept that mythology as requirement for myself.
>
> Perhaps it may be said that as our information comes from the Judeo-
> Christian ethic that we have been denied the information to which you refer.
> But what is the scientific checking that makes you believe that the
> gods to whom you refer pre-date the J-C accounts?
>
> > The original created by god thingy is not Hebrew, but Sumerian. That is,
> > the original that we have a copy of. That your handlers never taught you
> > this is not my fault or yours, it is theirs.
>
> I have not followed through on that. I assume that may include the
> Gilgamesh epic, as an equivalent of Noah's Flood and thought by some to have
> been the information on which the Biblical Flood was based.
>
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3003/
>
I have now read an internet article on the Sumerian gods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer
In comparing that information with the Biblical account I am of thee
opinion
that the two records are of the same time period.
The patriarchs from Adam to Lameck, the father of Noah, had many
children
as most lived into advanced ages, five of them Adam, Seth,
Enos,Cainan.
and Methuslah, were all over nine hundred years when they died. From
Adam
to Lamech their ages overlapped so that an oral tradition could be
kept with
complete accuracy. Their children would have spread out to surrounding
areas
and would have taken some/all of the knowledge given them by their
forebears,
but without contact with the older generations that information could
have
become corrupted.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3003/
Scroll down to 'Was Genesis copied from pagan mythology?'
Also check in that section, 'The Gilgamesh Epic and the Bible'.
Gladys Swager
walksalone
news:078e3a98-41ac-4bcd...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 25, 11:21�pm, walksalone wrote:
>> swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote :
>
>> > They are not issues to you because they cannnot be answered
>> > scientifically by repeated, testable experiments.
>>
>> According to who? �It's not as if anyone would consider you a
>> scientifi
> c
>> authority, is it? �
>
> I would not be considered a scientific authority because I do not
> have
Yet, you speak as if you have such authority. This may be unintentional
on your part because as I understand it, you have been a teacher before
this.
> Tertiary level degrees in those subjects, which from many
> Universities
> would require an acceptance of evolutionary development and millions
> of years for the existence of the Universe.
I know of no University which requires their student body to accept
evolutionary developed in the billions of years the universe has been a
round. Would you care to tell me which university this is you are
thinking of?
> Charles Darwin wrote in his Introduction to his On the Origin of the
> Species
> (1859) 'A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and
> balancing the
> facts and arguments on both sides of each question.
And this is true also in mythology, or about any other subject you would
care to broach. Such as astronomy, geology, the water cycle, cosmology,
solar disk accretion, just about any scientific discipline you would
care to pursue. As the song goes, when you only learn one dance, one
dance is all you can do. It matters not how much talent you have.
> There is 'no evidence for species to species transitional forms in the
> fossil
As near as I can determine, the way you are using the phrase, no there's
not. It's near as I can determine, you anticipate the extreme on
likelihood, and counter evolutionary theory fact of, say a dog giving
live birth to a pig. Evolutionary theory says this will not happen and
the evidence we have a fossil record indicates this is true. Perchance
in your eagerness to accuse your gods of evolution/creation, you're
disregarding what evolution is, in a practical sense of the term. It is
no more in changes within a species over a period of time to accommodate
environmental changes as well as, random mutations that benefit the
species. No more, no less. That is as simple as it can be made and
still be evolution.
> record or in creation. That is what was missing in Darwin's day, and
> it is
> still missing today,'
Actually no, we do have a transitional species as fossils, just as you
are a transitional between your prayers and your offspring. You are not
identical to them genetically, & therefore, evolution has done what it
is supposed to do.
> I used science texts when I was tutoring High school students as part
> of
> the study of English to ensure the students were more capable of
> reading
> and comprehendind their test questions. There was only one point of
> view
> given ie the Evolutionary World view'. But that view has not been
> proved
> scientifically and the more I read from the Internet and these
> postings there
> is no way that that view can be said to be supported by the scientific
> method
> of repeated testings. But despite that the evolutionary 'molecules-to-
> man'
> perspective is still the only view that is allowed in the teaching of
> science.
Again, it can be. But neither you nor I will be alive at the end of
those experiments. Unfortunate, but evolution does not work at rate of
speed you seem to think it should, and there is no reason for it to.
>> The pack of the matter is, they can be scientifically
>> verified, but no one that starts the experiment will live to see it
>> finished. �Rather takes some of the fun & excitement of verifying
>> what the evidence supports.
>
> So you can can't say 'they can be scientifically verified. (FULL
> STOP)'
Not what I said, it can be done, but due to the extensive periods of
time involved, and neither of us would see the finish of the experiment.
We would be quite dead. However, evolution can work at a speeded up
pace on occasion, a such as the continuing resistance of humanity to
various bacteria, insects to pesticides, and a lot of other things
people claim is not real evolution. It is, evolution is not concerned
with species changes per se. It simply is concerned with random
mutations that may or may not benefit the species.
>> > But they are �pertinent to the study especially as there is ancient
>> > literature that states that God created.
>>
>> One must presume, you're talking about Okeanus, which is perhaps the
>> first recorded creator for humanity. �Or maybe you are considering
>> one
> of
>> the following gods for that dubious title. �Humanity has many gods,
>> you
> rs
>> is simply one of the latest ones. �But it has one thing in common
>> with the remainder of the gods, a severe case of lacka.
>> Lacka of requirement, lacka of evidence, lacka usefullness in day to
>> day life. �Even though I tolerate and accept the fact that people,
>> are brainwashed from day one in certain mythologies, does not mean I
>> have to apply or accept that mythology as requirement for myself.
>>
> Perhaps it may be said that as our information comes from the Judeo-
> Christian
It could be said, and it has been said. However, it is a lie. We know
when the Hebrew tribes settled in Judea, we can narrow it down to a very
short period of time. Archaeology is not a friend of mythologies that
claim to be true. We know beyond a reasonable doubt, which by the way
exclude to because you believe & you cannot doubt. This would also be
true if you were a devout Hindu, Islamic, or any other organized
mythology. It's the only thing you have in common. An unshakable
belief in a deity. Back to archaeology, there is a book out, and I found
mildly interesting because it had information and approaches I had not
considered.
It's called The Bible Unearthed and most pastors condemn it because, it
says what happened in Judea, as well as when, is not as claimed within
the Hebrew Bible. And because the Hebrew Bible is the sole authority
for the Greek testaments, they don't like that. But archaeology does
not care.
> ethic that we have been denied the information to which you refer.
> But what is the scientific checking that makes you believe that the
> gods to
> whom you refer pre-date the J-C accounts?
Scientific checking, would you care to define that phrase. It's so
ambiguous that I would hesitate to commit myself to attempting to tell
you anything was scientific nature.
However, archaeology is a discipline that uses various sciences and it
definitely indicates that, the Hebrew mythology is a relatively
latecomer in the Middle East. Not only that mythology, the population.
>> The original created by god thingy is not Hebrew, but Sumerian. �That
>> i
> s,
>> the original that we have a copy of. �That your handlers never taught
>> y
> ou
>> this is not my fault or yours, it is theirs.
>>
> I have not followed through on that. I assume that may include the
> Gilgamesh
> epic, as an equivalent of Noah's Flood and thought by some to have
> been
> the information on which the Biblical Flood was based.
Beyond reasonable doubt, even though not word for word. The Hebrew
tribes did not assemble in a vacuum. They settled, very sparsely to
start with, and the high lands in Judea. They were pastoral, and again,
I refer you to the Bible on earth for a layman's lay level of language
and explanation. It comes up with such items as Kingdom of Solomon as
claimed within the Hebrew Bible. It uses archaeological evidence to
establish that claim.
> From memory I think one of the articles on the following webiste
> has information on that topic.
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3000/
Information, or misinformation?
> <snip> Hope to return to the rest of your posting later.
> Gladys Swager
So far, it has been a pleasant exchange of confusion, hopefully, I'll be
with articulate the information I have better and possibly assist you in
learning more about the mythology of the Middle Eastern region.
Actually, it should include Mediterranean basin because, Hebrew did
borrow from the Greek as well.
walksalone who had long since learned, never try to convince a believer
in anything they might be wrong. However, conversing with the civil
ones frequently helps people that are not engaged in a conversation more
and more about the topic.
Was there a real Jesus somewhere near the first century, it was after
all, the second most popular name in Judea. These are known historical
males who carried that name. One was even crucified.
Jesus ben Phiabi
Jesus ben Sec
Jesus ben Damneus
Jesus ben Gamaliel
Jesus ben Sirach
Jesus ben Pandira
Jesus ben Ananias.
Jesus ben Saphat
Jesus ben Gamala
Jesus ben Thebuth
Jesus ben Stada
Why did the Romans engage in crucifixion, here is one Romans point of
view. As a side note of general interest, there were only three crimes
one could be crucified for, primarily, insurrection against the state.
Followed by a slave that has either revolted against or killed its
master. And after Julius Caesar, piracy. Nothing is said about killing
off itinerant preachers, even though there is a recording of one being
flogged and released.
Quintilian (AD 35-95, Decl 274)
'Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen,
where most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties
relate not so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect.'
walksalone
news:af96b562-18d7-44fb...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
They aren't, the original mythology comes from Sumer, which predates the
foundation let alone the existence of Judea by centuries.
> The patriarchs from Adam to Lameck, the father of Noah, had many
> children
> as most lived into advanced ages, five of them Adam, Seth,
> Enos,Cainan.
> and Methuslah, were all over nine hundred years when they died. From
> Adam
> to Lamech their ages overlapped so that an oral tradition could be
> kept with
No, they were not. In the first place, that is a trope, a literary
device used to show God's favor to an individual. Along with the
advanced age, as was typical was in the Hebrew Bible, they got their
reward for being pious in the here and now. If you would care to pursue
the Sumerian king lists, you will notice that the further back in time
something was claimed, the longer the kings lived.
> complete accuracy. Their children would have spread out to surrounding
> areas
> and would have taken some/all of the knowledge given them by their
> forebears,
> but without contact with the older generations that information could
> have
> become corrupted.
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3003/
Why am I not surprised that you would cite a known apologetic website
which has but one purpose, and it's not telling the truth. They may
believe they are, but they're not.
> Scroll down to 'Was Genesis copied from pagan mythology?'
Of course it was, so what? When you're writing a national epic, he crawl
on material that's common knowledge and modify the telling to suit your
purpose.
Depending on where you're at, the Earth could have formed due to
separation of husband and wife, or at the behest of one or the other.
One of the commonalities with the other mythology is, water. Why would
water be considered a source of life to the ancient societies? Anybody
that has ever lived on farms could tell you why. From birth of livestock
& humans and the breaking of the water, to the necessity of water to keep
the crops alive. As well as yourself and the livestock. It wouldn't
take very long to notice, without water, you die. And humanity has this
thing about not dying willingly, it seems to be part and parcel of us.
> Also check in that section, 'The Gilgamesh Epic and the Bible'.
> Gladys Swager
I have read Gilgamesh epic, and there are parallels in it. Whether or
not apologetics are willing to except those parallels is really
immaterial, they are still there.
And apologetics have yet to answer where did the Hebrews comes from, what
they refugees from the Aegean Apocalypse, did they slowly accumulate a
population density and base they gave them pretensions of grandure that
history says they never had?
We know it never was an international power, is always shown as a vassal
state when dealing with foreign powers. Was it ever actually
independent, Judea, probably not. They did not have the military
manpower to be independent and influence international affairs. Israel
proper however, did. There is no reason to suspect that Judea ever ruled
over Israel. And that is in spite of the Hebrew by book claiming it did.
The United monarchy apparently never existed as claimed. At best, David
might have been one of three types of leaders. A warlord, a chieftain,
or a bandit leader. That's all archaeology can support. There are some
archaeologist on both sides of that fence, like the missing tomb of
Jesus, archaeology cannot find what is not there. There are people that
interpolate and claim that the Bible is correct. I like the approach of
one archaeologist, excavating one of the major Israel sites, pointed out
that a louder destruction and fire had taken place at that location. The
Bible says it was the Jews, but it didn't have to be because it could
have been others such as refugees during the Aegean Apocalypse. He was
far inland that we know who it was not.
There are many places claimed to have been conquered by Joshua, they
could not have been because, they were either ruins prior to his arrival,
or, he never made it that far. Thank you Jericho and the ruins of Ai or
if you believe the Bible, great battles took place. I have seen some
apologetic videos on those, unfortunately, when they are concerned, I
have read too much. I care less about what might have been, I want to
know what happened. I want to know as well as it can be determined.
Rather like a lot of Christians like to point out that no one that
questions the myth was there during the creation of the earth with its
solid dome canopy. They seem to forget, they weren't either.
walksalone who cannot recommend for anyone to obtain just one source of
information on any subject, especially not mythology. Mythology has the
blessing and curse of being interlaced with history as well as geography.
Add to that the philosophical concepts that some of the organized
mythologies have, and it's rather confusing at times.
In the case of study of the Bible as well as The Greek Testaments, there
are a rather large number of journals available, most of them require
funding and very few of the xian persuasion that I have encountered are
willing to pony up. They prefer to make the claims and not know for
sure. And then, there are those such as one of the saddest people I have
ever encountered. A very good man, who believes in spite of all the
evidence against it. His parents and church did him wrong, but it was
for his own good remember? I don't think so.
A good starting point for the mythologies of the ancient near East, the
region in particular referred to as Israel even though it had nothing to
do with Judea as far as anybody can tell is the following.
The Religions Of Ancient Israel.
Ziony Zevit[English]
published by Continuum
ISBN 0826447287 [hardback edition]
Very dry, not exciting at all. But very informative.
CB
Rod, is kelly jealous because you have a wife that loves you?
Or is she trying to "recruit" her?
--
From my smitten heart, with tears two wonders I confess:
The wonders of His glorious love, And my own worthlessness.
Content to let the world go by, to know no gain nor loss,
My sinful self my only shame, my glory all the cross!
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote
> > Species (1859) 'A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and
> > balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.
>
> And this is true also in mythology, or about any other subject you would
> care to broach. Such as astronomy, geology, the water cycle, cosmology,
> solar disk accretion, just about any scientific discipline you would
> care to pursue. As the song goes, when you only learn one dance, one
> dance is all you can do. It matters not how much talent you have.
>
> > There is 'no evidence for species to species transitional forms in the
> > fossil
>
> As near as I can determine, the way you are using the phrase, no there's
> not. It's near as I can determine, you anticipate the extreme on
> likelihood, and counter evolutionary theory fact of, say a dog giving
> live birth to a pig. Evolutionary theory says this will not happen and
> the evidence we have a fossil record indicates this is true. Perchance
> in your eagerness to accuse your gods of evolution/creation, you're
> disregarding what evolution is, in a practical sense of the term. It is
> no more in changes within a species over a period of time to accommodate
> environmental changes as well as, random mutations that benefit the
> species. No more, no less. That is as simple as it can be made and
> still be evolution.
>
> > record or in creation. That is what was missing in Darwin's day, and
> > it is still missing today,'
>
> Actually no, we do have a transitional species as fossils, just as you
> identical to them genetically, & therefore, evolution has done what it
> is supposed to do.
>
But the big issue is 'molecules-to-man' or 'goo-to-you-via-the-zoo'
as stated by scientists who are creationists.
> > I used science texts when I was tutoring High school students as part
> > of the study of English to ensure the students were more capable of
> > reading and comprehending their test questions. There was only one point of
> > view given ie the Evolutionary World view'. But that view has not been
> > proved scientifically and the more I read from the Internet and these
> > postings there is no way that that view can be said to be supported by the scientific
> > method of repeated testings. But despite that the evolutionary 'molecules-to-
> > man' perspective is still the only view that is allowed in the teaching of
> > science.
>
> Again, it can be. But neither you nor I will be alive at the end of
> those experiments. Unfortunate, but evolution does not work at rate of
> speed you seem to think it should, and there is no reason for it to.
>
> >> The pack of the matter is, they can be scientifically
> >> verified, but no one that starts the experiment will live to see it
> >> finished. Rather takes some of the fun & excitement of verifying
> >> what the evidence supports.
>
> > So you can can't say 'they can be scientifically verified. (FULL
> > STOP)'
>
> Not what I said, it can be done, but due to the extensive periods of
> time involved, and neither of us would see the finish of the experiment.
> We would be quite dead. However, evolution can work at a speeded up
> pace on occasion, such as the continuing resistance of humanity to
> various bacteria, insects to pesticides, and a lot of other things
> people claim is not real evolution. It is, evolution is not concerned
> with species changes per se. It simply is concerned with random
> mutations that may or may not benefit the species.
>
That is change within the species. It is NOT what requires millions of
years
Becausse change occurs within a species IT IS WRONG TO EXTRAPOLATE
and say that change occurs from one species to another.
>
> > Perhaps it may be said that as our information comes from the Judeo-
> > Christian
>
> It could be said, and it has been said. However, it is a lie. We know
> when the Hebrew tribes settled in Judea, we can narrow it down to a very
> short period of time. Archaeology is not a friend of mythologies that
> claim to be true. We know beyond a reasonable doubt, which by the way
> exclude to because you believe & you cannot doubt. This would also be
> true if you were a devout Hindu, Islamic, or any other organized
> mythology. It's the only thing you have in common. An unshakable
> belief in a deity. Back to archaeology, there is a book out, and I found
> mildly interesting because it had information and approaches I had not
> considered.
> It's called The Bible Unearthed and most pastors condemn it because, it
> says what happened in Judea, as well as when, is not as claimed within
> the Hebrew Bible. And because the Hebrew Bible is the sole authority
> for the Greek testaments, they don't like that. But archaeology does
> not care.
>
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3050/
>
> Beyond reasonable doubt, even though not word for word. The Hebrew
> tribes did not assemble in a vacuum. They settled, very sparsely to
> start with, and the high lands in Judea.
The Bible does not indicate where the first peoples lived - they may
have
lived in any area that has come to be called 'The cradle of
civilisation' in
the eastern Mediterranean area through to present day Iraq/Iran and
including present-day Ethiopia. After the Ark landed the eight
survivors
travelled from the east (which could have been the foothills to the
mountainous regions in what is now Iran to the land of Shinar which is
Babylon about 50km south of present day Baghad.
Some time later Abraham and his family went from Ur, near the mouth
of the Tigris and Uphrates Rivers to the land of Canaan (Genesis
11)
> > From memory I think one of the articles on the following webiste
> > has information on that topic.
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3000/
>
> Information, or misinformation?
>
Depending on your indoctrinations,
> So far, it has been a pleasant exchange of confusion, hopefully, I'll
> articulate the information I have better and possibly assist you in
> learning more about the mythology of the Middle Eastern region.
> Actually, it should include Mediterranean basin because, Hebrew did
> borrow from the Greek as well.
>
Mythology??? or facts???
>
> Was there a real Jesus somewhere near the first century, it was after
> all, the second most popular name in Judea. These are known historical
> males who carried that name. One was even crucified.
>
That Jesus was resurrected, came alive, on the third day after he had
been
killed by crucifixion.
>
> Why did the Romans engage in crucifixion, here is one Romans point of
> view. As a side note of general interest, there were only three crimes
> one could be crucified for, primarily, insurrection against the state.
> Followed by a slave that has either revolted against or killed its
> master. And after Julius Caesar, piracy. Nothing is said about killing
> off itinerant preachers, even though there is a recording of one being
> flogged and released.
>
See:-
Matthew 26 : 47 - 75 to Matthew 27 : 1 - 50
Gladys Swager
Rod
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:13:20 -0600, Rod <spa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rod, is kelly jealous because you have a wife that loves you?
> Or is she trying to "recruit" her?
I think she is obsessed with her..some kind of unnatural fixation
that comes with severe mental problems. I'm told that many fags
have serious emotional problems and are very good at hiding them,
but Kelly seems to be slipping up more and more.
theo
wrote:
> On Nov 25, 5:12 pm, theo wrote:> On Nov 25, 9:58 am, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > Gladys, when you have repeatable testable proof that your God, or any
> > other, exists, and that creation actually happened as described in the
> > bible, I would be happy to not only have it included in Science
> > curricula, I would be prepared to believe in Him/Her/It.
>
> Well. Theo, there is one thing for sure. I can't put God under a
> microscope
> or into a test-tube and prove experimentally, scientifically that God
> exists.
> Bur, nevertheless. around me I see a world that just could not come
> into
> existence by and of itself.
You are confronted with something for which there is currently no full
explanation and you yell Goddidit!. You have a God of the gaps Gladys.
> In respect of living organisms I have been reminded of my first
> contact with
> science for Infants' age school children sometime in 1974 as a
> greater
> emphasis was being placed on it beyond the Nature Study of previous
> years.
> Actually it was the first time that I had read of the classification
> criteria of living
> organisms as opposed to non-living organisms. Living organisms can
> make
> (beget) other living organisms like unto themselves. Thinking about
> it
> I reasoned that required a Living Being to bring about the first
> living organisms
> in the world. And that pointed to God Almighty.
If life can only come from life, from which living being did your
living god come?
> The first article 'Does God exist?' 'The Bible begins with the
> statement,
> In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' God's
> existence
> is assumed, self-evident, In Psalm 14 : 1 we are told, "The fool has
> said
> in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done
> abominable works. there is none who does good. Here we see that the
> Bible connects corrupt thoughts about God - especially denying His
> very
> existence - with corrupt morals. etc Read the rest for yourself.
If there is a God and there are people who are corrupt doing
abominable works, then your God made them that way.
Theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Nov 26, 6:35 am, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > The first article 'Does God exist?' 'The Bible begins with the
> > statement,
> > In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' God's
> > existence is assumed, self-evident, In Psalm 14 : 1 we are told, "The fool has
> > said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done
> > abominable works. there is none who does good. Here we see that the
> > Bible connects corrupt thoughts about God - especially denying His
> > very existence - with corrupt morals. etc
> If there is a God and there are people who are corrupt doing
> abominable works, then your God made them that way.
>
If you think what I have posted to you is ridiculous then to jump from
corruption
in the world to your assertion that God is responsible for it is the
most
foolish piece of logic that I have ever heard.
An analogy would be that if a pupil in a school hit another pupil over
the head
with a cricket bat then the Principal of the school was responsible
when the
Principal had explained the moral code within the school to all
pupils.
Younger than I am, you grew up in war-torn Holland, do you think your
early
impressionable years made you wonder where God was in all the carnage
around you and even more so if members of your own family suffered or
died?.
Yes, I can understand why many said, "Why did God allow it!"
Here, in Australia, I had farm and household chores extra to my
studies
so that my older parents could grow the extra food required by those
who were
conscripted into the war services. Without adequate health knowledge
in those
years I experienced a series of illnesses from which it took quite a
long time to
recover. Yes, I have said, "Why did God allow it!"
It was humans who caused God's creation to go wrong as God gave them
the
ability to choose, as He did not want them to be robots. And that
choice is ours
today in good and in bad times to believe that despite all we might
experience to the contrary.
I can only pray for you that you will come to know 'the peace of God,
which passes all understanding' Philippians 4 : 7(a)
And, I can assure you, that when you have that peace you know that
God does exist.
For by grace are we saved though faith and that not of ourselves,
it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast.
Ephesians 2 : 8-9
Gladys Swager
walksalone
news:b26293fd-1a2b-4852...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 27, 9:57�am, walksalone wrote:
>> swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote
>> > On Nov 25, 11:21�pm, walksalone �wrote:
>> >> swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote :
snip
>> dog giving live birth to a pig. �Evolutionary theory says this will
>> not happen and the evidence we have a fossil record indicates this is
>> true. �Perchance in your eagerness to accuse your gods of
>> evolution/creation, you're disregarding what evolution is, in a
>> practical sense of the term. It is no more in changes within a
>> species over a period of time to accommodate environmental changes as
>> well as, random mutations that benefit the species. �No more, no
>> less. �That is as simple as it can be made and still be evolution.
>>
>> > record or in creation. That is what was missing in Darwin's day,
>> > and it is still missing today,'
>>
>> Actually no, we do have a transitional species as fossils, just as
>> you are a transitional between your parents and your offspring. �You
>> are no
> t
>> identical to them genetically, & therefore, evolution has done what
>> it is supposed to do.
>>
> That is change within a species. It happens in every procreation.
Which is also known as evolution. Creationists like pretend there are two
varieties, micro and macro. There's only evolution, change.
> But the big issue is 'molecules-to-man' or 'goo-to-you-via-the-zoo'
> as stated by scientists who are creationists.
And why are we discussing evolution? The topic you want to discuss is
abiogenesis, which is also a scientific fact. After all, you are here as
am I. Whether your god date, or as indicated by the evidence a natural
shirt of events went to the fortunate accident not as humanity, it's what
you want to know. Your mind is already made up, I'm still learning.
snip
>> Again, it can be. �But neither you nor I will be alive at the end of
>> those experiments. �Unfortunate, but evolution does not work at rate
>> of speed you seem to think it should, and there is no reason for it
>> to.
I notice this was not responded to, did you miss it? It's cluttered as the
message was, that's a very good possibility.
snip
>> > So you can can't say 'they can be scientifically verified. (FULL
>> > STOP)'
>> Not what I said, it can be done, but due to the extensive periods of
>> time involved, and neither of us would see the finish of the
>> experiment. �We would be quite dead. However, evolution can work at a
>> speeded up pace on occasion, such as the continuing resistance of
>> humanity to various bacteria, insects to pesticides, and a lot of
>> other things people claim is not real evolution. �It is, evolution is
>> not concerned with species changes per se. �It simply is concerned
>> with random mutations that may or may not benefit the species.
>>
> That is change within the species. It is NOT what requires millions of
> years
And that is what evolution is. That is not what you are looking for, the
change from inorganic material to human seems to be the object of your
search.
> Becausse change occurs within a species IT IS WRONG TO EXTRAPOLATE
> and say that change occurs from one species to another.
Why? We know that the ancestors of humanity were reptilian, we know that
the ancestors of all blood circulating an oxygen breathing life forms on
land was reptilian. Or perhaps you think humanity & the dinosaurs existed
together?
Though generally, the fact remains that the exact mechanism of abiogenesis
that led to humanity is not known, it occurs with regularity today.
New life comes into existence of the shores of Japan with regularity. Do
some research on volcanic events and new life forms.
Then too, that is a problem with a definition of life as you are using it.
You wanted to hold a special row when it does not. Life is any compound
that seeks to regenerate itself. I realized that's very unsatisfactory to
you, but I know of no better way to put it. From strands of RNA and DNA
all the way up to humanity itself, that's all life is. And we know beyond
a reasonable doubt that chemicals will combine into combinations that are
not readily apparent, either via catalytic reaction, or by being placed in
solution, normally water.
As I said earlier, if you do not know how salt is formed, this conversation
is not for you. That is the most basic way to approach inorganic chemistry
that I know of, and inorganic chemistry is the gateway to organic
chemistry.
It would appear you even aware of chemicals heavier than carbon compounds
come from. Or how. Without that basic knowledge, or you can do is argue
from emotion. That may be very satisfactory for you, but not for those of
us that want to know.
>> > Perhaps it may be said that as our information comes from the
>> > Judeo- Christian
>> It could be said, and it has been said. �However, it is a lie. �We kn
> ow
>> when the Hebrew tribes settled in Judea, we can narrow it down to a
>> very short period of time. �Archaeology is not a friend of
>> mythologies that claim to be true. �We know beyond a reasonable
>> doubt, which by the way exclude to because you believe & you cannot
>> doubt. �This would also be true if you were a devout Hindu, Islamic,
>> or any other organized mythology. �It's the only thing you have in
>> common. �An unshakable belief in a deity. Back to archaeology, there
>> is a book out, and I found mildly interesting because it had
>> information and approaches I had not considered.
>> It's called The Bible Unearthed and most pastors condemn it because,
>> it says what happened in Judea, as well as when, is not as claimed
>> within the Hebrew Bible. �And because the Hebrew Bible is the sole
>> authority for the Greek testaments, they don't like that. �But
>> archaeology does not care.
>>
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3050/
Sorry, they are known to be wrong in more than just this case.
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=1715 [an
approach rarely seen]
<http://higher-criticism.com/2009/07/historical-narrative-of-the-bible-
might-offend.html> not anything an average run-of-the-mill xian would
expect, but historically interesting.
http://www.archive.org/details/historicalbible04kent this is a downloadable
format.
http://www.biblemapsandresources.com/sitemap.html this might be of interest
to you.
I too cannot obtain the editors of apologetic sites, but additionally I can
find sites to have actual historical information.
Part of the problem you have been trying to convince others that yours is
the correct version, is until the Council of Nicea, when Constantine and
needed something to solidify the Empire and stop the destruction being
caused by xians, the Canon you have today did not exist. Even then, it was
not formalized until later. But a lot of the other earlier xian writings
do exist, in spite of the best efforts early newly created Roman Catholic
Church, some temples were actually left alone, a lot of literature from the
other gods survived, and a lot of literature from their mythology also
survived in spite of them. They were the heretics of the time, but they
had control over a goodly portion of the population. Power the Emperor
Constantine needed and got by catering to them.
It's very strange, throughout the Roman Empire until Constantine invaded
Italy, xians did not engage in military activity. They were a goodly
portion of the population, but were exempted from military service due to
one their god's commandments that they liked to quote. Now shalt not kill.
We know how that worked in this case, to the advantage of Constantine.
>> Beyond reasonable doubt, even though not word for word. �The Hebrew
>> tribes did not assemble in a vacuum. �They settled, very sparsely to
>> start with, and the high lands in Judea. �
> The Bible does not indicate where the first peoples lived - they may
> have
Oh but it does, would you care to discuss the legends of Abraham? The one
that historically cannot exist according to the customs and culture of the
time he's claimed to have existed in? I'm always open to something new and
interesting.
> lived in any area that has come to be called 'The cradle of
> civilisation' in
The first peoples lived in what is called Ethiopia. This is as near as can
be determined due to the scarcity of fossilized material. Neanderthal man,
was not human. Yes, he resembled us, but genetically, he had far too many
differences. Of course this is found by those intensely interested in the
history and origins of humanity. I must presume, given your faith in a
mythology that lacks historical support, this excludes you. And that is a
pity.
> the eastern Mediterranean area through to present day Iraq/Iran and
> including present-day Ethiopia. After the Ark landed the eight
> survivors
Ark, which ark would that be? We know there is no more wide flood, nor has
there been. We know this from various sources to include trees that are
over 6000 years old. You May Want to Quit Yourself with the Bristlecone
Pine tree. The rest account I was aware of, they were well over 10,000
years old. And then, there's only salt water creatures who are still
alive, and were alive prior to declare the event, who would not be alive
with the introduction of that much freshwater. Of course, these are not
things that you would normally consider because it's brought up at all
during conversations with your average xian, the subject is changed or so
to try to be hand waved away or distracted from.
> travelled from the east (which could have been the foothills to the
> mountainous regions in what is now Iran to the land of Shinar which is
> Babylon about 50km south of present day Baghad.
Yes and? Where did Babylon come from? It popped up overnight? Or was it
a well-settled community?
> Some time later Abraham and his family went from Ur, near the mouth
> of the Tigris and Uphrates Rivers to the land of Canaan (Genesis
> 11)
And yet, the journey described is not what would have been followed by
anybody acting under the commands of the god. He would have followed the
coastal road, the trade route. Instead they went north to a city dedicated
to a moon god, and then south.
And this does not explain the problem of Abraham's cave, a religious site
to this day.
>> > From memory I think one of the articles on the following webiste
>> > has information on that topic.
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3000/
You really need to expand your horizons and sources of information.
One such source that you will not like is:
Hebrew Mythology the Book of Genesis
ISBN 0517413663
Robert Graves is is one of the authors, it is quite readable.
>> Information, or misinformation?
>>
> Depending on your indoctrinations,
Or willingness to educate yourself on the subject matter. Mythology has
been a strange study for me. I've had to learn about the cultures of the
era when these particular gods were being worshiped, the region, the
climate, the population distribution, as well as the context in which the
gods were worshiped. Of course, that makes a conversation between us to
unfair, because I hold the criteria of much more critical than you do. I
have unfair advantage, just as you are an atheist to all the other gods of
the world, I don't believe in your god either. Not an active belief or
disbelief, more like apathetic disbelief. As long as no evidence can be
forwarded, I could care less whether or not the particular god really does
exist.
This does not mean that I expect you to quit believing just because you
found something that it did not occur with your definition and
indoctrination.
>> So far, it has been a pleasant exchange of confusion, hopefully, I'll
>> articulate the information I have better and possibly assist you in
>> learning more about the mythology of the Middle Eastern region.
>> Actually, it should include Mediterranean basin because, Hebrew did
>> borrow from the Greek as well.
>>
> Mythology??? or facts???
Mythology. Facts can be supported by evidence and circular ornamentation
is not evidence but a logical fallacy. That it is an organized mythology
is beside the point.
>> Was there a real Jesus somewhere near the first century, it was after
>> all, the second most popular name in Judea. �These are known
>> historical males who carried that name. �One was even crucified.
>>
> That Jesus was resurrected, came alive, on the third day after he had
> been killed by crucifixion.
No, the Jesus in question was all the list and the Jesus Ben Joseph, also
known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Christ is conspicuously missing.
And the Jesus that was aside, did not return from the dead.
You might want to read up on why it is the crucifixion follows the scenario
it does, you might also want to ask yourself, if these writings were so
crucial to xianity, in its beginning, why did it take so long for them to
arrive in and by anonymous authors?
>> Why did the Romans engage in crucifixion, here is one Romans point of
>> view. As a side note of general interest, there were only three
>> crimes one could be crucified for, primarily, insurrection against
>> the state. Followed by a slave that has either revolted against or
>> killed its master. �And after Julius Caesar, piracy. �Nothing is said
>> about kill
> ing
>> off itinerant preachers, even though there is a recording of one
>> being flogged and released.
>>
> See:-
> Matthew 26 : 47 - 75 to Matthew 27 : 1 - 50
A text written by an unknown author in order to support a growing community
of believers with historical inaccuracies. I already have, probably more
times than I would like to think about. The study of mythology includes
reading material you're not inclined to read. Otherwise, like you, I would
add only one point of view. And like you, my point of view would not be
amenable to change due to the introduction of facts that were contrary to
what I wanted to believe. My mind can be changed, but yours Dear Lady,
cannot. And this is quite probably is not even your fault, but can be laid
at the feet of your parents. He did not give you a chance to learn more
than one point of view, and it shows.
walksalone who is considering trimming the headers to my group and her
group. Though it is off-topic for everyone owes groups, there is a
tendency for these things to become humongous, and brain deadening due to
the sheer volume of quoted material. I don't dislike anyone that much.
The following material is not mine, but it's hard to argue against.
Some beliefs are like walled gardens. They leave us feeling especially
privileged.
Other beliefs are expansive . . . they open up the world.
Some beliefs are like shadows, clouding our days with fear.
Other beliefs are like sunshine, blessing all beings with warmth and trust.
IT MATTERS WHAT WE BELIEVE.
Some beliefs are divisive. They tear our communities apart.
Other beliefs connect us. Differences give texture to community.
Some beliefs are like binders, shutting our eyes to our power to make
choices.
Other beliefs are like gateways, opening the world for our minds to
explore..
IT MATTERS WHAT WE BELIEVE
Some beliefs separate the world into US and THEM.
Some beliefs set up boundaries of fear.
Some beliefs encourage us to lock our hearts even tighter than our doors.
Some beliefs have the power to shred the fabric of the world.
IT MATTERS WHAT WE BELIEVE.
(inspired by a song by: Sophia Lyon Fahs)
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> >> Perchance in your eagerness to accuse your gods of
> >> evolution/creation, you're disregarding what evolution is, in a
> >> practical sense of the term. It is no more in changes within a
> >> species over a period of time to accommodate environmental changes as
> >> well as, random mutations that benefit the species. No more, no
> >> less. That is as simple as it can be made and still be evolution.
> >> Actually no, we do have a transitional species as fossils, just as
> >> you are a transitional between your parents and your offspring. You
> >> are not identical to them genetically, & therefore, evolution has done what
> >> it is supposed to do.
>
> > That is change within a species. It happens in every procreation.
>
> Which is also known as evolution. Creationists like pretend there are two
> varieties, micro and macro. There's only evolution, change.
>
There has to be a differentiation as one is a rearrangement of the
genes;
the other requires loss certain genes and additional genes for the
change
of the species.
> > But the big issue is 'molecules-to-man' or 'goo-to-you-via-the-zoo'
> > as stated by scientists who are creationists.
>
> And why are we discussing evolution? The topic you want to discuss is
> abiogenesis, which is also a scientific fact. After all, you are here as
> am I. Whether your god date, or as indicated by the evidence a natural
> shift of events went to the fortunate accident not as humanity, it's what
> you want to know. Your mind is already made up, I'm still learning.
> snip
>
> >> Again, it can be. But neither you nor I will be alive at the end of
> >> those experiments. Unfortunate, but evolution does not work at rate
> >> of speed you seem to think it should, and there is no reason for it
> >> to.
>
I find it stange that scientists can speak of millions of years, but
as yet,
they do not know how and when abiogenesis occurred at the beginning
of those millions of years. .
>
> snip
>
> >> > So you can can't say 'they can be scientifically verified. (FULL
> >> > STOP)' (Gladys)
> >> Not what I said, it can be done, but due to the extensive periods of
> >> time involved, and neither of us would see the finish of the
> >> experiment. We would be quite dead. However, evolution can work at a
> >> speeded up pace on occasion, such as the continuing resistance of
> >> humanity to various bacteria, insects to pesticides, and a lot of
> >> other things people claim is not real evolution. It is, evolution is
> >> not concerned with species changes per se. It simply is concerned
> >> with random mutations that may or may not benefit the species.
>
> > That is change within the species. It is NOT what requires millions of
> > years
>
> And that is what evolution is. That is not what you are looking for, the
> change from inorganic material to human seems to be the object of your
> search.
As I see it secular scientists want people to only know the term
'evolution'
and that it happened in the time-frame they have conjectured.
>
> > Becausse change occurs within a species IT IS WRONG TO EXTRAPOLATE
> > and say that change occurs from one species to another.
>
> Why? We know that the ancestors of humanity were reptilian, we know that
> the ancestors of all blood circulating an oxygen breathing life forms on
> land was reptilian. Or perhaps you think humanity & the dinosaurs existed
> together?
How do you know that the ancestors of humans were reptiles?
It may be that humans and dinosaurs did exist together.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/
Gladys Swager
<snip>
CB
I think she's after her.
Rod
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:06:06 -0600, Rod <spa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> CB wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:13:20 -0600, Rod <spa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Rod, is kelly jealous because you have a wife that loves you?
>>> Or is she trying to "recruit" her?
>> I think she is obsessed with her..some kind of unnatural fixation
>> that comes with severe mental problems. I'm told that many fags
>> have serious emotional problems and are very good at hiding them,
>> but Kelly seems to be slipping up more and more.
>
> I think she's after her.
She may be, but no way to know for certain until she shows up again.
(<<Kelly>>)
> She may be, but no way to know for certain until she shows up again.
Oh..."shows up again"...? So now you're implying I have come all the
way from Washington state to your little home in Emporia, Kansas
*just* to see your wife?
LOL!
You'll lie about anything for attention, won't you?
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 27, 1:54�pm, theo wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 6:35�am, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> > The first article 'Does God exist?' � 'The Bible begins with the
>> > statement,
>> > In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' God's
>> > existence is assumed, self-evident, In Psalm 14 : 1 we are told, "The fool has
>> > said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done
>> > abominable works. there is �none who does good. Here we see that the
>> > Bible connects corrupt thoughts about God - especially denying His
>> > very existence - with corrupt morals. etc � �
>
>> If there is a God and there are people who are corrupt doing
>> abominable works, then your God made them that way.
>>
>If you think what I have posted to you is ridiculous then to jump from corruption
>in the world to your assertion that God is responsible for it is the most
>foolish piece of logic that I have ever heard.
You claim God made everything but is responsible for nothing.
>An analogy would be that if a pupil in a school hit another pupil over
>the head with a cricket bat then the Principal of the school was responsible
>when the Principal had explained the moral code within the school to all
>pupils.
A far better analogy would be that if a pupil in a school hit another pupil over
the head with a cricket bat then the Principal of the school was responsible
when the principal had created conditions where such actions seemed
acceptable.
Remember, the principle is almighty.
>Younger than I am, you grew up in war-torn Holland, do you think your early
>impressionable years made you wonder where God was in all the carnage
>around you and even more so if members of your own family suffered or
>died?.
No.
>Yes, I can understand why many said, "Why did God allow it!"
>Here, in Australia, I had farm and household chores extra to my studies
>so that my older parents could grow the extra food required by those
>who were conscripted into the war services. Without adequate health
>knowledge in those years I experienced a series of illnesses from which
>it took quite a long time to recover.
Praise God!
>Yes, I have said, "Why did God allow it!"
Did you conclude God allows horrible things because he loves us and
injustice because he is just?
>It was humans who caused God's creation to go wrong as God gave them
>the ability to choose, as He did not want them to be robots. And that
>choice is ours today in good and in bad times to believe that despite all we
>might experience to the contrary.
How is that working out for us?
Are miracles God breaking his own code?
>I can only pray for you that you will come to know 'the peace of God,
>which passes all understanding' Philippians 4 : 7(a)
Are you serious? How could I not know the love of almighty God?
>And, I can assure you, that when you have that peace you know that
>God does exist.
We already know there is no good God.
>For by grace are we saved though faith and that not of ourselves,
>it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast.
"Like taking candy from a baby. First you must give the baby candy
so you can take. God gives us love and life and happiness just so
he can tear it all away and make us cry."
Chef - Southpark
>Gladys Swager
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Ken Smith
> "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself
> whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy". (Charles Darwin,
> Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).
>
> That cold shudder was the Holy Spirit pleading for Charlie to repent and
> believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for Charlie, he chose
> the way of Baalim, stubborn as a mule, less the talking ass to forbade
> his vanity.
That's a very peculiar interpretation to p[lace on a few words written
by Darwin, without quoting the context - or even to whom Darwin was
writing, or the date of the letter.
>
> At judgment he will no longer be able to rationalize his wicked works,
> as his thoughts will be taken captive in obedience to Christ, while his
> conscience bears witness that he chose to reject God in his knowledge.
> (Romans 2:14-16, 2Cor 10:4-6)
Salaam
Ken Smith
CB
You are a proven liar and you knw it.
You lied about me.
Still waiting for apology
Rod
You as much as confessed to being here in another post, and now I'm
supposed to ignore that and take your word, the word of a known liar,
a sex pervert and a stalker ?