More proof the only purpose of the fish to man version of evolution belief is to reject God completely
gabriel
The administration of this zoo believe all life is "The product
of both God and evolution".
Unfortunately that's not good enough for fish to man
evolutionists - they are condemning and attacking the zoo anyway.
Those of you that are trying to follow God and think the fish to
man version of evolution is intended, or can be, compatible with
belief in God, here's more evidence that this is not the
intention at all - this science fiction version of evolution is
nothing short of an attempt to spread the belief there is no God
whatsoever.
(Not to mention that believing in the fish to man version of
evolution turns most of God's Word into a lie.) Even Jesus Christ
backed up the fact that God created Adam and Eve.
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he
which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Matthew 19:4 KJVR
Unfortunately, some are too embarrassed by God's Word and the
words of Jesus Christ. They think it makes sense that God created
man after the image of fish and ape-like creatures, and that God
created a world of suffering and death through no fault of
mankind's. This line of logic makes it fine for each individual
to dismiss any parts of what God tells us that we don't feel like
listening to. We must be careful about being embarrassed by the
truth of God and the words of His Son, Jesus Christ:
"And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples
also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him
deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever
will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his
life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. For
what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and
lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his
soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words
in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the
Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father
with the holy angels.
Mark 8:34-38 KJVR
But it might be God's will that some would believe such a lie. We
can only hope we're lucky enough to not be one of them:
"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall
consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the
brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the
working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And
with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might
be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who
believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2 Thessalonians 2:8-12 KJVR
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/05/news-to-note-09052009#four
A zoo near Bristol, England, has been attacked for its promotion
of "creationist ideas," even though a zoo spokesperson called
life "the product of both God and evolution."
Noah's Ark Zoo Farm in Wraxall receives more than 100,000
visitors each year, including schoolchildren. That's a problem,
says the British Humanist Association, which accuses the zoo of
undermining science education.
"We're very concerned because it will undermine education and the
teaching of science," explained British Humanist Association
education officer Paul Pettinger, who visited the zoo earlier
this year. Pettinger cited as problematic such signs as one that
describes how "three great people groups" could be the
descendants of Noah's sons.
The association is asking tourism boards to stop promoting the
zoo, and has reportedly contacted tourism boards including the
British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIAZA) and
Visit Britain. According to BBC News, Visit Britain has clarified
that it only checks the zoo under its "Visitor Quality Assurance
Scheme" and has no official statement on the zoo's content. BIAZA
responded similarly.
The official statements from the zoo itself are intriguing. Its
website features a section on "creation research" that explains,
Popular media presents us with only two theories to explain the
origins of life: Darwinism or 6000BC Creationism. We think both
are flawed in their theory; both are extreme in their own rights.
One theory takes the evolution that is clear to us all and
extrapolates it backwards to imply there is no need for a God or
a Creation; the other requires a God for Creation but requires
the Genesis chronologies are complete and that there is a slow
Noah's Flood lasting 150 days to reach its height, in order that
most of the geological column can be laid down in this time.
Another page on the site seems to suggest that while the zoo
owner does not accept the Bible's straightforward teachings on
creation, they nonetheless do not unquestioningly accept old ages
and assumption-riddled radiometric dating, either.
All this may provide a background for why the zoo owner Anthony
Bush, billed by the BBC as a "former evangelical preacher,"
reportedly said, "I think God created life. I have no idea when."
He added, "Although technically creationists, we do not hold the
stereotypical creationist views that the world was created in
6,000 years and there is no evolution." He also pointed out that
the zoo presents a variety of views. And as for their claim that
life is a product of both God and evolution, their understanding
of "evolution" seems identical to our own-variations in the
genetic information of the original created kinds, not molecules
to man in the Darwinian sense.
Zoo research assistant Jon Woodward also fought off an attack
from the BHA that the zoo "misleads the public by not being open
about its creationist agenda." Woodward responded, "To say that
we are not upfront with our beliefs is unfounded. The name
'Noah's Ark' is the first indicator." He continued:
We also have much material on our website, which is not disguised
or hidden, as well as being on our leaflet. Our education policy
is purely based around the National Curriculum. At no point is
religion taught in the classroom, unless requested, as that would
go against the National Curriculum.
We are offering our visitors the chance to look at the
evolution/creation debate. As it is a free country, that is
within our right. Contrary to a small minority of people's
claims, we do not teach false science. This is clearly shown
within the zoo with one exhibition talking about Darwin and
another offering another point of view.
First and foremost, we would defend the zoo as privately owned
and thereby entitled to present its views to its patrons and
otherwise conduct business so long as it does not violate the
law. Our Creation Museum does the same, and likewise is privately
owned and on private property; yet we have likewise come under
attack from atheists wishing to censor our museum and the views
expressed in it.
What is also notable is that the zoo is less insistent on a
recent creation than we are, and it claims to seek out an "open,
yet critical, scientific approach to explaining the origin and
diversity of life." Yet any endorsement of (supernatural)
biological design must be out-and-out excised, say the humanists,
who increasingly want to censor creationist ideas wherever they
may be-and even if they're based on good, observational science.
==================================================
Tourism boards have been urged to stop promoting a North Somerset
zoo which presents creationist ideas.
The British Humanist Association (BHA) says Noah's Ark Zoo Farm
undermines the teaching of science.
Signs at the zoo in Wraxhall describe how the "three great people
groups" could be descended from the three sons of Bible ark
builder Noah.
A spokeswoman for the zoo said they viewed the natural world as a
product of both God and evolution.
Another sign at the zoo says animals hunt and kill food because
"man rebelled against God".
The zoo's website also explicitly rejects Darwinism, describing
it as "flawed", and claims scientists are afraid to talk about
"design" in the natural world.
BHA education officer Paul Pettinger visited the zoo at the end
of July.
He said: "I found lots of creationist and pseudo-scientific
beliefs.
"They ask you to pray for animals, and so on.
"We're very concerned because it will undermine education and the
teaching of science."
The BHA is calling on tourism boards to stop promoting the zoo.
But Noah's Ark's owner Anthony Bush says his zoo simply presents
a variety of views, one of which is creationist.
'Thought police'
Many creationists take a literal interpretation of the Bible's
description of the origin of life and reject the Darwinian
concept of evolution.
"I think God created life. I have no idea when," said the former
Evangelical preacher.
"There's a lot of people who believe in Genesis who don't want to
come out of the woodwork, but they don't want to come out of the
closet because of the thought police."
A spokeswoman for the zoo said: "We hold a view that the natural
world around us is the product of both God and evolution.
"Although technically creationists, we do not hold the
stereotypical creationist views that the world was created in
6,000 years and there is no evolution."
Tourism body Visit England has said it only checks the zoo under
its Visitor Quality Assurance Scheme and has no opinion on
content.
The zoo is visited by 120,000 people every year, including
members of school parties.
ken
delusion?
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>How many fools have you converted into accepting your "gotditit"
>delusion?
Gabriel should serve as a warning to all believers against mindlessly
teaching any nonsense that someone claims comes from God.
Anyone, like Gabriel, who thinks they have to repeat falsehoods to
defend their God, has a really twisted view of religion and reality.
Most Christians think their God is powerful enough that He doesn't need
to be defended by patheticly false claims made by ignorant foolishness.
Bob LeChevalier
>(Not to mention that believing in the fish to man version of
>evolution turns most of God's Word into a lie.)
That is because you fallaciously assume it to be "God's Word", rather
than the writings of men from ancient civilizations about what they
believe about God.
>Even Jesus Christ backed up the fact that God created Adam and Eve.
No He didn't. Jesus Christ taught in parables, and it therefore
cannot be said with certainty that any statement attributed to him was
a claim of fact, rather than a parabolic expression. And that is
assuming that He said those things that are attributed to Him in the
Bible, an assumption for which there is no evidence.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >(Not to mention that believing in the fish to man version of
: >evolution turns most of God's Word into a lie.)
:
: That is because you fallaciously assume it to be "God's Word",
Or you fallaciously assume it is not.
: rather
: than the writings of men from ancient civilizations about what they
: believe about God.
:
: >Even Jesus Christ backed up the fact that God created Adam and Eve.
:
: No He didn't. Jesus Christ taught in parables,
You already claim to not believe it's God's Word - you contradict
yourself to now debate it by what else is written in it. You
can't choose to selectively believe what you wish to try making a
point about it.
[snip]
Ralph
Of course he can, you ignorant buffoon. You don't have to "believe in"
something in order to refute it.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:33:17 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >(Not to mention that believing in the fish to man version of
>: >evolution turns most of God's Word into a lie.)
>:
>: That is because you fallaciously assume it to be "God's Word",
>
>Or you fallaciously assume it is not.
On its face, it is a collection of words in human language, written by
human beings. That is a sufficient explanation.
>: rather
>: than the writings of men from ancient civilizations about what they
>: believe about God.
>:
>: >Even Jesus Christ backed up the fact that God created Adam and Eve.
>:
>: No He didn't. Jesus Christ taught in parables,
>
>You already claim to not believe it's God's Word
So? Human works are capable of containing useful information - enough
information in my case, that I am a Christian.
>you contradict yourself to now debate it by what else is written in it.
That is the logical thing to do with a book of human writings.
>You can't choose to selectively believe what you wish
Of course I can.
And indeed, a non-Christian who doesn't believe a word of the Bible
can still debate it, based on its contents. Probably would do a
better job than you would, based on your inability to rationally
argue.
gabriel
wrote:
He beliefs what's written in it is false. Then he tries to use
"truths" in it to back up his claim that it is "false".
:
grisha
VoiceOfReason
grisha wrote:
> So, what is your problem?
He doesn't understand that most Christian denominations accept the
fact of evolution.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>So, what is your problem?
>On Sep 12, 11:18�am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>> www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/05/news-to-note-09052009#four
...
Gabriel does not realize that Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis racket
exists because it makes money lying to the religiously credulous. He
cannot believe that he is supporting liars and fools (probably because
he is one).
grisha
grisha
On Oct 4, 10:23 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 22:17:51 -0700 (PDT), grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com>
Juan M
I highly recommend this article.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
grisha
Pastor Dave
<juanmSP...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140
>
>I highly recommend this article.
>"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
The only thing that can prove evolution is fossils.
And yet it says...
"We don't need fossils in order to demonstrate
that evolution is a fact."
Please. <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The Bible says that death came by sin and sin came
by Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22).
Evolution says lots of things lived and died before
Adam and Eve got here and therefore attempts to rule
out what the Bible says.
One or the other is right, but they can't both be right.
VoiceOfReason
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 19:04:23 -0700, "Juan M"
> <juanmSP...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> >http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140
> >
> >I highly recommend this article.
> >"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
>
> The only thing that can prove evolution is fossils.
Totally wrong.
Evidence of Evolution
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
Evidence of common descent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Evidence for Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Humans As a Case Study for the Evidence of Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html
> And yet it says...
>
> "We don't need fossils in order to demonstrate
> that evolution is a fact."
>
> Please. <chuckle>
Laughing at your own ignorance again? It's really not that funny.
Cory Albrecht
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 19:04:23 -0700, "Juan M"
> <juanmSP...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140
>>
>> I highly recommend this article.
>> "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
>
> The only thing that can prove evolution is fossils.
> And yet it says...
>
> "We don't need fossils in order to demonstrate
> that evolution is a fact."
>
> Please.<chuckle>
No, we don't, because we also have biogeography, molecular biology,
comparative morphology, among others.
What - you thought that fossils were the only evidence of evolution?
Free Lunch
<coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Pastor Dave is ignorant about only a few concepts in that sentence,
including "evidence" and "evolution". He celebrates his ignorance by
proudly making a fool of himself as he repeats falsehoods.
gabriel
: So, what is your problem?
Hi grisha,
Just showing how it's false that people claim evolutionism (the
fish to man version of evolution) is compatible with belief in
God. Only showing how the true intent behind evolutionism is to
reject God, as proven by a zoo that tries to (ignorantly) claim
belief in evolutionism and God, and how evolutionists vehemently
attack that zoo as well.
Thank you for posting.
:
grisha
Actually I agree with you. While science, ToE, physics, etc. can
technically be compatible with some abstract deity, for example deity
behind the big bang, science invalidated all and every particular
religion that came with creation story.
Keep learning, Grisha
On Oct 11, 11:46 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 22:17:51 -0700 (PDT), grisha
>
gabriel
<gralm...@gmail.com> wrote:
: Gabriel:
:
: Actually I agree with you. While science, ToE, physics, etc. can
: technically be compatible with some abstract deity, for example deity
: behind the big bang, science invalidated all and every particular
: religion that came with creation story.
:
: Keep learning, Grisha
Actually science does no such thing - science is impotent to make
any claim about origins: evolutionism, the big bang, even
creation by God, evolutionism, the big bang, as any such beliefs
are not observable, not testable and not verifiable.
But it's logically undeniable we were created. The only faith
part is: was it the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, or aliens?
:
Devils Advocaat
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:54:55 -0700 (PDT), grisha
>
>
> : Gabriel:
> :
> : Actually I agree with you. While science, ToE, physics, etc. can
> : technically be compatible with some abstract deity, for example deity
> : behind the big bang, science invalidated all and every particular
> : religion that came with creation story.
> :
> : Keep learning, Grisha
>
> Actually science does no such thing - science is impotent to make
> any claim about origins: evolutionism, the big bang, even
> creation by God, evolutionism, the big bang, as any such beliefs
> are not observable, not testable and not verifiable.
>
> But it's logically undeniable we were created. The only faith
> part is: was it the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, or aliens?
Interesting how you place so much faith in something that is not
observable, testable or verifiable, while at the same time denying the
evidence that supports the reality of evolution as an observable,
testable and verifiable phenomenon.
>
> :
grisha
You are going in circles. You keep claiming that evolution is not
observable, not testable and not verifiable while it is - you need to
read more. You also claim that it's logically undeniable we were
created without presenting any valid arguments.
Now back to what I said. Take *any* creation story (Christian, Hindu,
Aztec's, or teaching of Seledka) and compare to scientific results,
well documented and well supported by valid physical evidences - all
story will crumble.
On Nov 7, 5:19 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:54:55 -0700 (PDT), grisha
>
gabriel
<gralm...@gmail.com> wrote:
: gabriel:
:
: You are going in circles. You keep claiming that evolution is not
: observable, not testable and not verifiable while it is
Not the fish to man version of evolution. If you want to claim
otherwise, then by all means please provide an observation of the
fish to man version of evolution: populations of [flies]
evolving, over generations, into animals that are clearly no
longer [flies] at all. Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and
human beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they claim
all those animals evolved eventually from fish-like ancestors
once upon a time. And you can replace any animal for [flies] in
that sentence. Time to back up the claim that the fish to man
version of evolution is observable. No one can because it's not.
What is observable? Populations of [flies] evolving, over
generations, into nothing more than more [flies] even if it's a
slightly different species of [flies] (Speciation). Never
evolving over generations into animals that are no longer [flies]
at all (the fish to man science fiction version of evolution).
:- you need to
gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: On 7 Nov, 13:19, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:54:55 -0700 (PDT), grisha
: >
: > <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : Gabriel:
: > :
: > : Actually I agree with you. �While science, ToE, physics, etc. can
: > : technically be compatible with some abstract deity, for example deity
: > : behind the big bang, science invalidated all and every particular
: > : religion that came with creation story.
: > :
: > : Keep learning, Grisha
: >
: > Actually science does no such thing - science is impotent to make
: > any claim about origins: evolutionism, the big bang, even
: > creation by God, evolutionism, the big bang, as any such beliefs
: > are not observable, not testable and not verifiable.
: >
: > But it's logically undeniable we were created. The only faith
: > part is: was it the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, or aliens?
:
: Interesting how you place so much faith in something that is not
: observable, testable or verifiable, while at the same time denying the
: evidence that supports the reality of evolution as an observable,
: testable and verifiable phenomenon.
Please back up that claim. Please show a single observation of
the fish to man version of evolution: populations of [flies]
evolving, over generations, into animals that are clearly no
longer [flies] at all.
: >
: > :
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Why do you keep asking that question? You know that it is meaningless
for anyone who understands evolution and that it only shows your disdain
for knowledge.
That said, your genes are evidence that you and modern fish share common
ancestry.
...