Charles Darwin's frightful vision
Ted L
October 30, 2009, www.wayoflife.org fb...@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) -
Charles Darwin believed that man evolved from the animal kingdom largely by
the process of natural selection or survival of the fittest, and he
predicted that this struggle would result in the annihilation of less
evolved "races" of men. In his 1871 book The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote,
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the
savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous
apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be
exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be
wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we
may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead
of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla" (chapter vi).
Thus, Darwin believed that Negros and Australian aborigines are lower on the
evolutionary scale than Caucasians, and these "savage races" will soon be
exterminated to make the way for a an evolved man "even" superior to
Caucasians. That is racism of the most wretched kind, and this "science,"
which was the product of the anti-God skepticism in which Darwin was reared,
led directly to Hitler's murder camps. The word "eugenics" was coined by
Darwin's cousin Francis Galton. It refers to the attempt to improve the
human "race" by such means as birth control, abortion, and euthanasia. In
his book Hereditary Genius, Galton looked forward to a time "when the
population of the earth shall be kept as strictly within the bounds of
number and suitability of race, as the sheep on a well-ordered moor."
Charles Darwin's daughter Henrietta and her husband Robert Litchfield were
fervent eugenicists. Charles' son Leonard was the president of the First
International Congress of Eugenics. He bemoaned the fact that "the unfit"
are no longer killed off by hunger and disease, but "are cherished with
care, thus being able to reproduce their kind." Another son, George Darwin,
called for easy divorce and contraception to encourage the survival of the
fittest, predating the sexual revolution of the 1960s. A grandson, Charles
Galton Darwin, a major figure in the Manhattan Project, was president of the
Eugenics Society from 1953-59. Margaret Sanger, the atheist founder of
Planned Parenthood, was a fervent eugenicist. Hitler praised eugenics in
Mein Kampf, but as Dr. Benjamin Wiker, in his book The Darwin Myth, rightly
observes, "The fundamental problem with Darwinism is not that it leads to
Nazism, but that it can lead to anything" (p. 147). Darwinism destroys the
basis of any true moral code.
--
Now Is the Time to Be Saved
http://www.plymouthbrethren.org/article/1368
I
> Charles Darwin
"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is."
Visit No Answers in Genesis! http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
swa...@ozemail.com.au
>
> > Charles Darwin
> "Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is."
> Visit No Answers in Genesis! http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
So you believe that 'nobody made something out of nothing!?
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
Gladys Swager
(<<Kelly>>)
> Charles Darwin believed that man evolved from the animal kingdom
Gee...and could this be because man *is* part of the "animal kingdom",
Teddy?
FYI: There are five biological kingdoms - Animalia, which is made up
of animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which is
made up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human
eye - an amoeba is an example of this); Fungi, which is made up of
mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen, etc; and Monera, which is made up of
the three types of bacteria.
Now - if humans aren't part of the animal kingdom, of the other four
biological kingdoms, which one do we belong to, Teddy?
Like I said earlier - you're an idiot.
Jude de Alexander
"(<<Kelly>>)" <rosiebelleatr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd2af53b-2176-4675...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
LOL. Bada bing, Bada BANG! Right on the mark...
DUH. i thunk we'd be animules but, hay, I just a stoopid cajun boi. wat do
eye no?
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 1, 9:28�am, "I" wrote:
>>
>> > Charles Darwin
>> "Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is."
>> Visit �No Answers in Genesis! �http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
>
>So you believe that 'nobody made something out of nothing!?
Isn't that what you believe?
>Gladys Swager
=-=-=
Barry
See the website Gladys hates
Find out why she fears it so
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
You don't know how to quote properly so it looks like you are saying
the same as the person you reply to.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> >So you believe that 'nobody made something out of nothing!?
>
> Isn't that what you believe?
>
http://creation.com/are-there-apes-in-your-ancestry
Gladys Swager
CB
Seems to me he posted what Darwin believed.
That again makes you the idiot.
--
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!
Randy ®
( <rosiebelleatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Like I said earlier - you're an idiot.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NASB
(9) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
(10) nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 John 3:7-8 NASB
(7) Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who
practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
(8) the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has
sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this
purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:18:20 -0700 (PDT),
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article
<411f947c-259b-4b02...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Subject: Re: Self Defense
<<k�ll�>> <rosiebelleatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
**************************************************************
I *am* gay and have never said I stopped being gay
**************************************************************
On 7 Jan 2007 18:38:14 -0800,
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article <1168223894.3...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
Subject: Re: RANDY "PULPITFIRE" YOUNG...WHY DID YOU SAY THAT???
"*IKnowThatIAmAWhosoeverToo*" <onthe...@verizon.net> wrote:
**************************************************************
I am a lesbian
**************************************************************
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:17:55 -0700 (PDT),
In newsgroup "alt.christnet.christianlife",
Article
<983eeea0-7d26-4811...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
Subject: Re: Avoiding Self-righteousness A Sinful Woman Forgiven
<<k�ll�>> <rosie...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
**************************************************************
I was born homosexual, just as you were (I assume) born
heterosexual. I did not wake up one day and make a decision to be
homosexual any more than one day you woke up and decided to be
heterosexual. Homosexual is what I am naturally in sexual
preference and attraction.
**************************************************************
On 21 Jul 2006 11:18:48 -0700,
in article
<1153505928....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"Whosoever" <onthe...@verizon.net> wrote:
**************************************************************
No, the Bible does not forbid same-sex relations in a
committed, loving, monogamous relationship. It speaks of
homosexual-style rape in Genesis (but that isn't why Sodom was
destroyed), it speaks of anal-penetration in Leviticus (which
is something plenty of heterosexuals partake in), and it
speaks of same-sex temple prostitution in the New Testament.
None of these have anything to do with committed, loving,
monogamous homosexuality.
**************************************************************
On 29 Jul 2006 23:25:00 -0700,
in article
<1154240700.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"3Wh�s�ever3" <onthe...@verizon.net> wrote:
**************************************************************
I never said a word about my homosexuality in these groups
until you thought you had the right to "expose" me.
**************************************************************
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
I
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 1, 12:51�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> >So you believe that 'nobody made something out of nothing!?
>>
>> Isn't that what you believe?
>>
>No, and you know that I do not believe it.
Who made God?
>http://creation.com/are-there-apes-in-your-ancestry
"404
Page not found
Please try our search engine, or return to the home page."
If you copy and paste the url you will not get wrong.
At least test your links before posting.
>Gladys Swager
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:30:57 -0700 (PDT), "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 1, 12:51�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>>
>>> >So you believe that 'nobody made something out of nothing!?
>>>
>>> Isn't that what you believe?
>>>
>>No, and you know that I do not believe it.
>
>Who made God?
>
>>http://creation.com/are-there-apes-in-your-ancestry
For goodness sakes Glady, learn to copy and paste urls so you can
get them right.
Its http://creation.com/are-there-apemen-in-your-ancestry .
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Nov 1, 12:51 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> >> >So you believe that 'nobody made something out of nothing!?
> >> Isn't that what you believe?
> >No, and you know that I do not believe it.
>
> Who made God?
> >http://creation.com/are-there-apes-in-your-ancestry
>
> "404
> Page not found
> Please try our search engine, or return to the home page."
>
> At least test your links before posting.
>
Charles Darwin
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 3, 11:15�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Nov 1, 12:51�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> >> >So you believe that 'nobody made something out of nothing!?
>> >> Isn't that what you believe?
>> >No, and you know that I do not believe it.
>>
>> Who made God?
>> >http://creation.com/are-there-apes-in-your-ancestry
>>
>> "404
>> Page not found
>> Please try our search engine, or return to the home page."
>>
>> If you copy and paste the url you will not go wrong.
>> At least test your links before posting.
>>
>Generally I do.
You have been missing out big time.
>Charles Darwin
>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
Those people have no idea about the real world.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >Charles Darwin
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>
> Those people have no idea about the real world.
>
as their thoughts and actions are in much higher spheres.
Try to read the articles given with an unbiased mind.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 4, 10:08�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >Charles Darwin
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>>
>> Those people have no idea about the real world.
>>
>I can assure you that their feet are firmly planted on the ground,
>as their thoughts and actions are in much higher spheres.
Have you ever read the rubbish you link to?
>Try to read the articles given with an unbiased mind.
I do. You don't.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >Charles Darwin
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>
>
Also give me the title of the article(s) from which you have taken
your statements to make checking easier for me.
Gladys Swager
Edmond H. Wollmann
>
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:38:19 -0700 (PDT), "(<<Kelly>>)"
> <rosiebelleatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 31, 12:13 pm, "Ted L" <spamtaddl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Charles Darwin believed that man evolved from the animal kingdom
> >
> >Gee...and could this be because man *is* part of the "animal kingdom",
> >Teddy?
> >
> >FYI: There are five biological kingdoms - Animalia, which is made up
> >of animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which is
> >made up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human
> >eye - an amoeba is an example of this); Fungi, which is made up of
> >mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen, etc; and Monera, which is made up of
> >the three types of bacteria.
> >
> >Now - if humans aren't part of the animal kingdom, of the other four
> >biological kingdoms, which one do we belong to, Teddy?
> >
> >Like I said earlier - you're an idiot.
>
> Seems to me he posted what Darwin believed.
> That again makes you the idiot.
"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man
living in the sky who watches everything you do every minute of every
day. And the invisible man has a special list of 10 things he does not
want you to do. And if you do *any* of these 10 things, he has a special
place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where
he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and
cry forever and ever til the end of time...but he loves you."
-- George Carlin
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
� 2009 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/
Cujo DeSockpuppet
news:4AF8ED...@earthlink.net:
I suppose if God really hates you he could make you live with Edmo.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"Be careful though, your kookshit about how I am this and that will
reveal who the real kook is." - Edmo in PKB mode.
Barry OGrady
I suppose its because they feel compelled to support what I consider
to be absurd.
I had a quick look at
http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age .
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 11:57 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >> >Charles Darwin
> >> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
> >Give me three statements that you consider to be 'rubbish'
> >Also give me the title of the article(s) from which you have taken
> >your statements to make checking easier for me.
>
> I suppose its because they feel compelled to support what I consider
> to be absurd. I had a quick look at
> http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>
You need to take a long, slow look at that website for it gives
reasons
why long ages of millions upon millions of years are not necessary.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
They attack evolution because they have no evidence for their
magical creator.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Nov 12, 1:48 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Charles Darwin
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>
> >> >Give me three statements that you consider to be 'rubbish'
> >> >Also give me the title of the article(s) from which you have taken
> >> >your statements to make checking easier for me.
>
> >> I suppose its because they feel compelled to support what I consider
> >> to be absurd. I had a quick look at
> >>http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>
> >You need to take a long, slow look at that website for it gives reasons
> >why long ages of millions upon millions of years are not necessary.
>
> They attack evolution because they have no evidence for their
> magical creator.
>
There is more evidence for the Creator. God Almighty
But you do not want a relationship with Him.
You only want to criticise.
Just look at your own physical body, Barry.
It is much more complex than the body of an ape.
From whence came that added complexity?
Could it have arisen by mere chance?
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 14, 2:45锟絘m, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Nov 12, 1:48锟絘m, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>Charles Darwin
>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>>
>> >> >Give me three statements that you consider to be 'rubbish'
>> >> >Also give me the title of the article(s) 锟絝rom which you have taken
>> >> >your statements to make checking easier for me.
>>
>> >> I suppose its because they feel compelled to support what I consider
>> >> to be absurd. 锟絀 had a quick look at
>> >>http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>>
>> >You need to take a long, slow look at that website for it gives reasons
>> >why long ages of millions upon millions of years are not necessary.
>>
>> They attack evolution because they have no evidence for their
>> magical creator.
>>
>There is more evidence for the Creator. God Almighty
Zero is not more.
>But you do not want a relationship with Him.
>You only want to criticise.
There is nothing praiseworthy about your God.
>Just look at your own physical body, Barry.
>It is much more complex than the body of an ape.
>From whence came that added complexity?
>Could it have arisen by mere chance?
Could God have always existed without a creator?
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> >Charles Darwin
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>
http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>
> >> They attack evolution because they have no evidence for their
> >> magical creator.
>
The scientists who have written those websites say there is abundant
evidence that there is an Almighty, eternal Creator.
If you do not want to consider their evidence then that is your
choice.
>
> There is nothing praiseworthy about your God.
>
> >Just look at your own physical body, Barry.
> >It is much more complex than the body of an ape.
> >From whence came that added complexity?
> >Could it have arisen by mere chance?
>
> Could God have always existed without a creator?
>
You avoided my question.. I have told you that God is ***eternal***
Sorry, I can't put Him into a test-tube in a science laboratory.
But the evidence is available in His creation.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 17, 9:54�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Nov 14, 2:45�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> >Charles Darwin
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>>
>http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>>
>> >> They attack evolution because they have no evidence for their
>> >> magical creator.
>>
>The scientists who have written those websites say there is abundant
>evidence that there is an Almighty, eternal Creator.
>If you do not want to consider their evidence then that is your choice.
The 'evidence' comes down to 'There must be a God because we can't
think of anything else.'
>> There is nothing praiseworthy about your God.
>>
>> >Just look at your own physical body, Barry.
>> >It is much more complex than the body of an ape.
>> >From whence came that added complexity?
>> >Could it have arisen by mere chance?
I don't know how things began.
>> Could God have always existed without a creator?
>>
>You avoided my question.
>I have told you that God is ***eternal***
How is that possible?
Perhaps the material for life always existed.
>Sorry, I can't put Him into a test-tube in a science laboratory.
>But the evidence is available in His creation.
Where is the evidence there is a creation?
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> >Charles Darwin
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>
> >http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>
> >The scientists who have written those websites say there is abundant
> >evidence that there is an Almighty, eternal Creator.
> >If you do not want to consider their evidence then that is your choice.
> >I have told you that God is ***eternal***
>
> How is that possible?
> Perhaps the material for life always existed.
"There is no known law of physics able to create information from
nothing."
>
> >Sorry, I can't put Him into a test-tube in a science laboratory.
> >But the evidence is available in His creation.
>
> Where is the evidence there is creation?
>
It is only God Who is eternal.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 19, 12:21�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >On Nov 17, 9:54�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> >Charles Darwin
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>>
>> >http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>>
>> >The scientists who have written those websites say there is abundant
>> >evidence that there is an Almighty, eternal Creator.
>> >If you do not want to consider their evidence then that is your choice.
>> >I have told you that God is ***eternal***
>>
>> How is that possible?
>> Perhaps the material for life always existed.
>"There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing."
Does God not have information?
>> >Sorry, I can't put Him into a test-tube in a science laboratory.
>> >But the evidence is available in His creation.
>>
>> Where is the evidence there is creation?
>>
>It is only God Who is eternal.
>http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html
If God can exist without a creator then why not the material for the
big bang, for example?
You say God did nothing for an eternity before deciding to create.
Why not say the material for the big bang existed for eternity before
going into action?
I don't believe any of that but I offer it for your consideration.
>Gladys Swager
=-=-=
Barry
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Nov 19, 12:21 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >Charles Darwin
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>
> >http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>
>
> >> How is that possible?
> >> Perhaps the material for life always existed.
> >"There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing."
>
> >http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html
>
> If God can exist without a creator then why not the material for the
> big bang, for example?
God has always existed. God is the everlasting Person - using a human
term.
> You say God did nothing for an eternity before deciding to create.
That has not been revealed to us.
> Why not say the material for the big bang existed for eternity before
> going into action?
But how do you know that the 'Big Bang' happened?.
I will rejoice the day you tell me that you believe that God created
the heavens and the earth and all living beings on the earth.
But more importantly that you have come to believe that
Jesus Christ came to give you salvation.
For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourself,
***it is the gift of God*** Not of works, lest you should boast.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 20, 1:27�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Nov 19, 12:21�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >Charles Darwin
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>>
>> >http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>>
>> >> >I have told you that God is ***eternal*** (Gladys)
>>
>> >> How is that possible?
>> >> Perhaps the material for life always existed.
>> >"There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing."
Does God not have information?
>> >It is only God Who is eternal.
>> >http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html
>>
>> If God can exist without a creator then why not the material for the
>> big bang, for example?
>
>God has always existed. God is the everlasting Person - using a human
>term.
If God can exist without a creator then why not the material for the
big bang, for example?
>> You say God did nothing for an eternity before deciding to create.
>
>That has not been revealed to us.
>
>> Why not say the material for the big bang existed for eternity before
>> going into action?
>
>But how do you know that the 'Big Bang' happened?.
I don't, but there is at least some evidence for the BB.
How do you know that creation happened?
>I will rejoice the day you tell me that you believe that God created
>the heavens and the earth and all living beings on the earth.
>But more importantly that you have come to believe that
>Jesus Christ came to give you salvation.
If I believed that I would hate God for making us need salvation.
>For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourself,
>***it is the gift of God*** Not of works, lest you should boast.
So its like God's first awesome gift of suffering and death where he
forced it on all of creation?
You know you are filling up the archives with your repetitions.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
:
Charles Darwin
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>
http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>
>
> >For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourself,
> >***it is the gift of God*** Not of works, lest you should boast.
>
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 19, 12:21�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >On Nov 17, 9:54�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> >Charles Darwin
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>>
>> >http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>>
>> >The scientists who have written those websites say there is abundant
>> >evidence that there is an Almighty, eternal Creator.
>> >If you do not want to consider their evidence then that is your choice.
>> >I have told you that God is ***eternal***
>>
>> How is that possible?
>> Perhaps the material for life always existed.
>"There is no known law of physics able to create information from
>nothing."
Then nothing exists and I................
Yet if God can be eternal surely the material can have always existed.
When you argue that information can't come from nothing you are arguing
against the existence of a creator.
>> >Sorry, I can't put Him into a test-tube in a science laboratory.
>> >But the evidence is available in His creation.
>>
>> Where is the evidence there is creation?
>>
>It is only God Who is eternal.
What is your evidence there is a creation?
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >Charles Darwin
>>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>
>>http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>
I live in a world where many things have been made by many people,
In the room where I have am now using this computer there are quite
a number of things that would not be here except for the fact that I
made them, in some instances using materials made by other people.
Who made the clay for the pottery pieces I made?
Iin some instances the clay was dug from the ground that had been
undisturbed by any other people as it came from under virgin bush-
land.
The Aborigines who roamed this district at one time did
not dig under the ground.
If everything we have in our modern world was made (created) by others
then the question is how did the raw materials come to be originally.
Nothing comes from nothing, when humans are involved.
However the Eternal God Almighty could and did cause something to
come into existence from nothing. You can believe it or not.believe
it.
You have two choices.
Nothing suddenly became something of itself.
Something came from nothing as God Almighty brought it into existence.
However, if God Almighty does not exist, as you say,
how did nothing suddenly become something at the beginning of time?
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 21, 8:59�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >Charles Darwin
>>>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>>
>>>http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>>
>> What is your evidence there is a creation?
>
>I live in a world where many things have been made by many people,
>In the room where I have am now using this computer there are quite
>a number of things that would not be here except for the fact that I
>made them, in some instances using materials made by other people.
>Who made the clay for the pottery pieces I made?
>Iin some instances the clay was dug from the ground that had been
>undisturbed by any other people as it came from under virgin bush-
>land.
>The Aborigines who roamed this district at one time did
>not dig under the ground.
>If everything we have in our modern world was made (created) by others
>then the question is how did the raw materials come to be originally.
>Nothing comes from nothing, when humans are involved.
>However the Eternal God Almighty could and did cause something to
>come into existence from nothing. You can believe it or not.believe
>it.
Your argument is bogus. You know man made things are man made
because you can witness the making if you want. You can visit the
factory where your watch was made.
If we did evolve our failings and the fact that we are just another mammal
make sense. If we were created by an almighty benevolent God there is
no possible explanation for the suffering.
>You have two choices.
>Nothing suddenly became something of itself.
>Something came from nothing as God Almighty brought it into existence.
They are both the same thing.
God became something of itself,
or
God became something of itself.
>However, if God Almighty does not exist, as you say,
>how did nothing suddenly become something at the beginning of time?
Bringing a God into it does nothing to solve your problem.
If God can have always existed then so can the materials for everything.
Isn't it far more likely that the material for life and the universe always
existed than a magical creator that defies the laws of physics?
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Nov 21, 8:59 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >> >Charles Darwin
> >>>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>
> >>>http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>
> >come into existence from nothing. You can believe it or not.
>
> make sense.
But evolve from what? and evolved when?
Who or what made plants and animals originally?
Something can't come from nothing all of itself.
>If we were created by an almighty benevolent God there is
> no possible explanation for the suffering.
There is when you read the first chapters of Genesis.
> Bringing a God into it does nothing to solve your problem.
> If God can have always existed then so can the materials for everything.
Not so. But you just love to be argumentative.
> Isn't it far more likely that the material for life and the universe always
> existed than a magical creator that defies the laws of physics?
>
God made the laws of Physics.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 24, 1:01�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Nov 21, 8:59�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >> >Charles Darwin
>> >>>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>>
>> >>>http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>>
>> >The Eternal God Almighty could and did cause something to
>> >come into existence from nothing. You can believe it or not.
>>
>> If we did evolve our failings and the fact that we are just another mammal
>> make sense.
>
>But evolve from what? and evolved when?
I don't know the details.
>Who or what made plants and animals originally?
Nobody knows.
>Something can't come from nothing all of itself.
Unless that something is the Christian creator God?
>>If we were created by an almighty benevolent God there is
>> no possible explanation for the suffering.
>There is when you read the first chapters of Genesis.
Obviously your God is not almighty and benevolent.
>> Bringing a God into it does nothing to solve your problem.
>> If God can have always existed then so can the materials for everything.
>Not so.
Its far more likely that the material for life and the universe always
existed than a magical creator that defies the laws of physics.
>But you just love to be argumentative.
I'm offering you alternatives you can't refute.
>> Isn't it far more likely that the material for life and the universe always
>> existed than a magical creator that defies the laws of physics?
>>
>God made the laws of Physics.
Its far more likely that the material for life and the universe always
existed than a magical creator that defies the laws of physics.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Nov 24, 1:01 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
:
Charles Darwin
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>
http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>
> existed than a magical creator that defies the laws of physics.
>
and for all of time. .
Material for life could not have come into existence of itself.
God brought the universe and organisms into existence.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
God could not have come into existence of itself either.
>God brought the universe and organisms into existence.
Its far more likely that the material for life and the universe always
existed than a magical creator that defies the laws of physics.
>Gladys Swager
=-=-=
Barry
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Nov 26, 4:45 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >:
> >Charles Darwin
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>
> >http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>
>
God is given masculine gender = person Eternal, omnipotent,
omniscient, omnipresent.
You do not believe that God exists, by your own admission.
>
> Its far more likely that the material for life and the universe always
> existed than a magical creator that defies the laws of physics.
>
and works by them,
Secular scientists have been placing their own interpretations on
those
laws and have denied the Creation Scientists (Christians)
the right to challenge the incorrect statements they have made
at the public level and in schools. They were very devious as they
worked
at a time when Christain scientists were beginning their studies
to contradict the incorrect assumptions made by the Secularists
Gladys Swager
.
Barry OGrady
<swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 11:57�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Nov 26, 4:45�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >:
>> >Charles Darwin
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>>
>> >http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>>
>> God could not have come into existence of itself either.
>>
>God is not neuter gender.= a thing.
God is not a man that it should be called male.
>God is given masculine gender = person Eternal, omnipotent,
>omniscient, omnipresent.
God was created by a very male oriented society so they called God
male.
Calling God male is actually offensive because it says God is just
another animal.
>You do not believe that God exists, by your own admission.
I accept that no god exists.
>> Its far more likely that the material for life and the universe always
>> existed than a magical creator that defies the laws of physics.
>>
>God Almighty does not defy the laws of Physics for He made them
>and works by them,
The laws of physics would not permit an entire universe to be made in
a day.
>Secular scientists have been placing their own interpretations on those
>laws and have denied the Creation Scientists (Christians)
>the right to challenge the incorrect statements they have made
>at the public level and in schools. They were very devious as they
>worked at a time when Christain scientists were beginning their studies
>to contradict the incorrect assumptions made by the Secularists
That's truly pathetic Gladys.
You know there is no place for religion in science classes.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Nov 26, 11:57 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >Charles Darwin
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
> >http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>
> >God is given masculine gender = person Eternal, omnipotent,
> >omniscient, omnipresent.
>
> God was created by a very male oriented society so they called God
> male. Calling God male is actually offensive because it says God is just
> another animal.
>
> >You do not believe that God exists, by your own admission.
>
> I accept that no god exists.
>
> >> Its far more likely that the material for life and the universe always
> >> existed than a magical creator that defies the laws of physics.
>
> >God Almighty does not defy the laws of Physics for He made them
> >and works by them,
>
> The laws of physics would not permit an entire universe to be made in
> a day.
>
God had His own physical laws by which the Universe could come into
existence in a very short time.
Remember God is 'OMNIPOTENT' = ALL-POWERFUL
> >Secular scientists have been placing their own interpretations on those
> >laws and have denied the Creation Scientists (Christians)
> >the right to challenge the incorrect statements they have made
> >at the public level and in schools. They were very devious as they
> >worked at a time when Christain scientists were beginning their studies
> >to contradict the incorrect assumptions made by the Secularists
>
> That's truly pathetic Gladys.
> You know there is no place for religion in science classes.
>
That is Science as defined by secular/atheisticTertiaary academic
scientists
who determine the syllabuses for schools and who have a predetermined
aganda
of what they want the students to know.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3032/
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 27, 11:45�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Nov 26, 11:57�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >Charles Darwin
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>
>> >http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>>
>> >God is given masculine gender = person Eternal, omnipotent,
>> >omniscient, omnipresent.
>>
>> God was created by a very male oriented society so they called God
>> male. Calling God male is actually offensive because it says God is just
>> another animal.
>>
>> >You do not believe that God exists, by your own admission.
>>
>> I accept that no god exists.
>>
>> >> Its far more likely that the material for life and the universe always
>> >> existed than a magical creator that defies the laws of physics.
>>
>> >God Almighty does not defy the laws of Physics for He made them
>> >and works by them,
>>
>> The laws of physics would not permit an entire universe to be made in
>> a day.
>>
>God had His own physical laws by which the Universe could come into
>existence in a very short time.
>Remember God is 'OMNIPOTENT' = ALL-POWERFUL
Do you have a repeatable scientific test to show that?
>> >Secular scientists have been placing their own interpretations on those
>> >laws and have denied the Creation Scientists �(Christians)
>> >the right to challenge the incorrect statements they have made
>> >at the public level and in schools. They were very devious as they
>> >worked at a time when Christain scientists were beginning their studies
>> >to contradict the incorrect assumptions made by the Secularists
>>
>> That's truly pathetic Gladys.
>> You know there is no place for religion in science classes.
>>
>That is Science as defined by secular/atheisticTertiaary academic scientists
>who determine the syllabuses for schools and who have a predetermined
>aganda of what they want the students to know.
Creation comes from the bible.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Nov 27, 11:45 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >Charles Darwin
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>
> >http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>
>>> >God is given masculine gender = person Eternal, omnipotent,
> >> >omniscient, omnipresent.
>
> >> God was created by a very male oriented society so they called God
> >> male. Calling God male is actually offensive because it says God is just
> >> another animal.
>
God is a spirit - not flesh and blood as are humans.
Anthropomorphism is the attributing of human form or behaviour to
non-humans beings or things esp gods or aninals (Macquarie Dictionary)
I have never questioed why God is given male gender before this,
but as men are the stronger of the human species, it is appropriate
that God as the strongest of all should be attributed maleness.
Have you another reason that may be more satisfactory?
So God was created/invented by humans, in your opinion.
However, scientifically you have no proof that was so.
You do not want to acknowledge the existence of God Almighty
as that would mean that you would have to accept that you have made
quite a number of incorrect assumptions about Him.
> >> >You do not believe that God exists, by your own admission.
>
> >> I accept that no god exists.
>
However, you do not have any proof that what you accept is correct.
> >> >> Its far more likely that the material for life and the universe always
> >> >> existed than a magical creator that defies the laws of physics.
>
> >> >God Almighty does not defy the laws of Physics for He made them
> >> >and works by them,
>
> >> The laws of physics would not permit an entire universe to be made in
> >> a day.
>
However the eternal, omnipotent (all-powerful) God could create by
the
power of His word and could bring the Universe into existence within
a short period of time. .
> >Remember God is 'OMNIPOTENT' = ALL-POWERFUL
>
> Do you have a repeatable scientific test to show that?
Past events cannot be repeated in the present.
Secular scientists cannot repeat non-living suddenly becoming living;
they shy clear from abiogeneis knowing it is an impossibility.
However, the Living God could and did create living organisms by the
power of His word, bringing non-living/non-existent into living
organisms .
> >> >Secular scientists have been placing their own interpretations on those
> >> >laws and have denied the Creation Scientists (Christians)
> >> >the right to challenge the incorrect statements they have made
> >> >at the public level and in schools. They were very devious as they
> >> >worked at a time when Christain scientists were beginning their studies
> >> >to contradict the incorrect assumptions made by the Secularists
>
> >> That's truly pathetic Gladys.
> >> You know there is no place for religion in science classes.
>
On that reasoning,
nor should there be a place in a science class for any information
that cannot
be proved by the scientific method of repeatable testing -
not even to say 'Mother Nature' was/is responsible for changes within
organisms within their own species, much less that 'she' was
responsible
for one species to develop into another different species.
such as dinosaurs to birds
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/
> >That is Science as defined by secular/atheisticTertiary academic scientists
> >who determine the syllabuses for schools and who have a predetermined
> >aganda of what they want the students to know.
>
> Creation comes from the bible.
>
That does not mean that it is incorrect, a fantasy of the authors'
imaginations.
Archaeology is proving the correctness of some facts of the Bible.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3050/
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Dec 1, 11:30�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Nov 27, 11:45�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>> >Charles Darwin
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
>>
>> >http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>>
>>>> >God is given masculine gender = person Eternal, omnipotent,
>> >> >omniscient, omnipresent.
>>
>> >> God was created by a very male oriented society so they called God
>> >> male. Calling God male is actually offensive because it says God is just
>> >> another animal.
>>
>God is a spirit - not flesh and blood as are humans.
Therefore God is neither male nor female.
>Anthropomorphism is the attributing of human form or behaviour to
>non-humans beings or things esp gods or aninals (Macquarie Dictionary)
>I have never questioed why God is given male gender before this,
>but as men are the stronger of the human species, it is appropriate
>that God as the strongest of all should be attributed maleness.
>Have you another reason that may be more satisfactory?
God was designated male by a society which thought being male
carried extra respect.
>So God was created/invented by humans, in your opinion.
It appears that way.
>However, scientifically you have no proof that was so.
>You do not want to acknowledge the existence of God Almighty
>as that would mean that you would have to accept that you have made
>quite a number of incorrect assumptions about Him.
You have no scientific proof of that.
>> >> >You do not believe that God exists, by your own admission.
>>
>> >> I accept that no god exists.
>>
>However, you do not have any proof that what you accept is correct.
Lack of evidence is evidence of lack.
>> >> >> Its far more likely that the material for life and the universe always
>> >> >> existed than a magical creator that defies the laws of physics.
>>
>> >> >God Almighty does not defy the laws of Physics for He made them
>> >> >and works by them,
>>
>> >> The laws of physics would not permit an entire universe to be made in
>> >> a day.
>>
>However the eternal, omnipotent (all-powerful) God could create by the
>power of His word and could bring the Universe into existence within
>a short period of time. .
If the material has always existed it could formed itself without exceeding
the laws of physics and without needing God.
>> >Remember God is 'OMNIPOTENT' = ALL-POWERFUL
>>
>> Do you have a repeatable scientific test to show that?
>
>Past events cannot be repeated in the present.
>Secular scientists cannot repeat non-living suddenly becoming living;
>they shy clear from abiogeneis knowing it is an impossibility.
They shy away from it because there is no evidence.
Real scientists shy away from creation because there is no evidence.
>However, the Living God could and did create living organisms by the
>power of His word, bringing non-living/non-existent into living
>organisms .
You would rather believe that than what we have evidence for.
>> >> >Secular scientists have been placing their own interpretations on those
>> >> >laws and have denied the Creation Scientists �(Christians)
>> >> >the right to challenge the incorrect statements they have made
>> >> >at the public level and in schools. They were very devious as they
>> >> >worked at a time when Christain scientists were beginning their studies
>> >> >to contradict the incorrect assumptions made by the Secularists
>>
>> >> That's truly pathetic Gladys.
>> >> You know there is no place for religion in science classes.
>>
>On that reasoning,
>nor should there be a place in a science class for any information
>that cannot
>be proved by the scientific method of repeatable testing -
>not even to say 'Mother Nature' was/is responsible for changes within
>organisms within their own species, much less that 'she' was
>responsible
>for one species to develop into another different species.
>such as dinosaurs to birds
>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/
Are there any non-religious creation scientists?
>> >That is Science as defined by secular/atheisticTertiary academic scientists
>> >who determine the syllabuses for schools and who have a predetermined
>> >aganda of what they want the students to know.
>>
>> Creation comes from the bible.
>>
>That does not mean that it is incorrect, a fantasy of the authors'
>imaginations.
It means its religion.
>Archaeology is proving the correctness of some facts of the Bible.
>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3050/
Do they have any proof for an almighty God?
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Nov 27, 11:45 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > >On Nov 26, 11:57 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
> > >Charles Darwin
> > >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
> > >http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look#Jesus_age.
>
> existence in a very short time.
> Remember God is 'OMNIPOTENT' = ALL-POWERFUL
> > >Secular scientists have been placing their own interpretations on those
> > >laws and have denied the Creation Scientists (Christians)
> > >the right to challenge the incorrect statements they have made
> > >at the public level and in schools. They were very devious as they
> > >worked at a time when Christain scientists were beginning their studies
> > >to contradict the incorrect assumptions made by the Secularists
Gladys Swager