Problems with evolution theory
Jason
in life forms. Help me to send one truckload to the backyard of every
evolution-teaching professor in America. Or, let's buy them big X-ray
machines to use like tanning beds. =85Okay, too much fun here. =85.Back to
serious answers.
Evolutionists have serious problems with their theory. There is still
no mechanism for *how* evolution could have happened, to bolster their
underlying belief system that there just can't be a God to have to
answer to. Testable-repeatable science shows very, very different
results than evolution teaches. Mutations are almost always harmful or
(if not fatal) get reabsorbed into successive generations in any
event. Inbreeding causes serious problems, not magical automatic
improvements. They keep thinking that somewhere on Earth they'll find
some bona fide transitional fossils. But while billions upon billions
of fossils have been dug up over the years there are still zero
transitional fossils that stand up to scientific scrutiny over time.
All amphibians remain amphibians (reproducing within preset
variational limits). All fish remain fish. All mammals have always
been mammals, and within mammals (just like "kinds" within amphibians
or fish, etc.), there are dog-kind of animals that keep producing only
a variety of dogs as offspring. Why, you'd think that some wise
Designer had encoded specific, but flexible, instructions into each
type of life at the outset then let them propagate down through time.
A good engineer does not re-invent the wheel with each new model. Do
you think that any of the engineers at GM, Toyota or Ford would even
consider doing this when they're preparing a new automobile design? Of
course not. We know that many reptile and mammal skeletons look almost
the same structurally, even though the rest of each creature is
extremely different. Of course! They were designed, not randomly
evolved in some mystical-evolutionary sequence. Our Designer may have
"mixed & matched" parts when He was designing. The human eye is
closely related to the octopus eye. Human milk is closest to that of
donkeys. The human skeleton may be close to that of some primates -
but so many of our other biological parts are not! Evolution is a myth
and underneath the covers it is actually a spiritual deception. What
we see in the fossil record and in life today is actually evidence of
a common Designer of it all.
When you're watching an evolutionary TV show on PBS, BBC, Discovery or
other religious stations, listen for their underlying assumptions.
They *know* that evolution happened. That much is a given. Okay, umm,
now how this week? They're sure of only one thing - and that is that
humans do not have to answer to God.
Evolution sure didn't happen by mutations or else we'd have to wait in
line to buy truckloads of radioactive waste, correct? Instead,
evolutionists vehemently object to my idea of using their barbeque
areas for long term nuclear waste disposal. Come on, I'm just trying
to help them realize their religion's potential. (Evolution is not
science; it is rather a philosophy or religion - that often stands
against known science.)
How many times a year do Time, Newsweek, National Geographic or other
religious magazines tell us that some fossil find will "completely re-
write" the evolutionary tree? They still have no mechanism and zero
real transitional fossils. But they have great artist drawings to
compensate for their lack of evidence! The frauds and wishful evidence
of the past get scratched out and the new stuff gets wishfully drawn
into place. They are just sure that it had to have happened somehow
because the alternative (answering to our Creator) is unthinkable to
them.
If a person doesn't get enough calcium for 10 or 20 years it affects
their spinal column and posture, correct? (Such a deficiency can also
have serious impacts on the circulation and central nervous systems as
well, by the way.) Until about 100 years ago most people around the
world ate only local foods. Local foods are grown in local soil. Got
that? So then =85 if the local soil in some places was deficient in
magnesium, iron, aluminum, or any combination of so many other
minerals that we need at least trace amounts of =85 how would that
affect their skeletal, circulatory and nervous systems=85? If everybody
there had low iron=85? Low potassium in some areas=85? We'd get a few
deformed skeletons as mute testimony to the long-term deficiencies in
particular locales, correct? And that's what we find.
Most hominid fossils show regular humans, over 99% (of the estimated
7,000 total) are pretty normal. But a few old human skeletons are
misshaped. Perhaps there was inbreeding or as mentioned above some
nutritional deficiencies in those areas? Less than 1% of all the
hominid fossils found (again, about 7,000 total now) are odd enough
that evolutionists jump on them for media attention and then apply for
grant monies. But even with a few odd enough hominid fossils (maybe 40
or 50 out of the thousands and thousands that have been found, less
than 1% of the total, remember this!) there is definitely no
progression. The fossils just aren't there to support evolution. And
virtually all mutations are harmful. So, be logical and consider
creation theory.
SOURCE: http://www.creationism.org/topbar/mutations.htm
Parish *~
news:Jason-24071...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> Radioactive waste helps to increase the number of cellular mutations
> in life forms. Help me to send one truckload to the backyard of every
Since when are evolution-teaching professors responsible for Radioactive
waste? That makes no sense.
--
The Parrish *~, American-American-American.
* * * * * *
"The Mass is the most perfect form of making money."
* * * * * * * *
Jason
<Annointe...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <Jason-24071...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason
> says...
> >
> >
> >They're sure of only one thing - and that is that
> >humans do not have to answer to God.
>
> So, that is what life boils down to? Having to answer to a nonexistent,
> mythical, supernatural being? If there was a god and he created the universe,
> surely he could figure out some way to communicate with his creations
other than
> gibberish written thousands of years ago, and I have yet to discover a person
> who speaks with god who is not mentally ill. So, if we eliminate
ancient texts
> and modern psychos, what do we have left for evidence of god?
That is interesting. I have discovered that many of the people that I have
met that are atheists are also mentally ill.
Henry The IIV
Lies wont change the truth or get you into heaven. What a wretched life you
must live. :(
~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~
"Annointed Remnant" <Annointe...@newsguy.com> skrev i melding
news:i2hcs...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>humans do not have to answer to God.
>
> mythical, supernatural being? If there was a god and he created the
> universe,
> surely he could figure out some way to communicate with his creations
> other than
> gibberish written thousands of years ago, and I have yet to discover a
> person
> who speaks with god who is not mentally ill. So, if we eliminate ancient
> texts
> and modern psychos, what do we have left for evidence of god?
>
This is the only thing you focused on,ok..figures. No it doesn't
mean you have to be a psycho to know there's been a creation.
Just use the evidence and what it supports. Fossils = creation evidence,
start of life = must'v been an intervener. Then you're basically
there!
S
~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~
"Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
news:i2hs9o$iat$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Jason-24071...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>> Radioactive waste helps to increase the number of cellular mutations
>> in life forms. Help me to send one truckload to the backyard of every
>> evolution-teaching professor in America............
>
> Since when are evolution-teaching professors responsible for Radioactive
> waste? That makes no sense.
He's being ironic. If mutations help spurt foreward evolution, think
how fast it would go if they could be near mutation-catalyzing radio
active waiste..but I don't think they'd want that.. lol.
S
rincewind
wrote:
> "Annointed Remnant" <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com> skrev i meldingnews:i2hcs...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > In article <Jason-2407101543050...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Jason
> > says...
>
> >>They're sure of only one thing - and that is that
> >>humans do not have to answer to God.
>
> > So, that is what life boils down to? Having to answer to a nonexistent,
> > mythical, supernatural being? If there was a god and he created the
> > universe,
> > surely he could figure out some way to communicate with his creations
> > other than
> > gibberish written thousands of years ago, and I have yet to discover a
> > person
> > who speaks with god who is not mentally ill. So, if we eliminate ancient
> > texts
> > and modern psychos, what do we have left for evidence of god?
>
> This is the only thing you focused on,ok..figures. No it doesn't
> mean you have to be a psycho to know there's been a creation.
> Just use the evidence and what it supports. Fossils = creation evidence,
> start of life = must'v been an intervener. Then you're basically
> there!
>
> S
Did God stick his finger into the primeval ooze to start the
evolutionary spiral? Maybe, but he didn't leave any evidence behind to
find.
Jason
<7ef1a012-a4cb-49dd...@h1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
rincewind <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 8:08=A0pm, "~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~" <veron...@frisurf.no>
> wrote:
> > "Annointed Remnant" <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com> skrev i meldingnews:i2=
> hcss...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article <Jason-2407101543050...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > Jason
> > > says...
> >
> > >>They're sure of only one thing - and that is that
> > >>humans do not have to answer to God.
> >
> > > So, that is what life boils down to? =A0Having to answer to a nonexiste=
> nt,
> > > mythical, supernatural being? =A0If there was a god and he created the
> > > universe,
> > > surely he could figure out some way to communicate with his creations
> > > other than
> > > gibberish written thousands of years ago, and I have yet to discover a
> > > person
> > > who speaks with god who is not mentally ill. =A0So, if we eliminate anc=
> ient
> > > texts
> > > and modern psychos, what do we have left for evidence of god?
> >
> > This is the only thing you focused on,ok..figures. No it doesn't
> > mean you have to be a psycho to know there's been a creation.
> > Just use the evidence and what it supports. Fossils =3D creation evidence=
> ,
> > start of life =3D must'v been an intervener. Then you're basically
> > there!
> >
> > S
>
> Did God stick his finger into the primeval ooze to start the
> evolutionary spiral? Maybe, but he didn't leave any evidence behind to
> find.
I took a college biology class in 1972 and at that time the only theory
related to abiogenesis was the primordial pond theory. One intelligent
student was brave enough to ask the professor, "What proof do you have
that the primordial pond ever existed"? The professor replied, "There is
no PROOF that a primordial pond ever existed but believe it anyway because
it's the only theory we have. Needless to say, I did not believe that
theory. One advocate of evolution told me they no longer teach that
ridiculous theory.
rincewind
> In article
> <7ef1a012-a4cb-49dd-8e60-24f46502e...@h1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> rincewind <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 25, 8:08=A0pm, "~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~" <veron...@frisurf.no>
> > wrote:
> > > "Annointed Remnant" <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com> skrev i meldingnews:i2=
What's ridiculous about it? Why is a puddle of amino acids waiting for
some "bolt from the blue" (or God's finger) more ridiculous than God
making everything in seven days exactly as it is now with a false
record of fossils waiting to be found to test Man's faith?
Jason
<e6c03509-2779-44e7...@j19g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
rincewind <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2:06=A0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <7ef1a012-a4cb-49dd-8e60-24f46502e...@h1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > rincewind <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 25, 8:08=3DA0pm, "~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~" <veron...@frisurf.no>
> > > wrote:
> > > > "Annointed Remnant" <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com> skrev i meldingnew=
> s:i2=3D
> > > hcss0...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> > > > > In article <Jason-2407101543050...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.c=
> om>,
> > > > > Jason
> > > > > says...
> >
> > > > >>They're sure of only one thing - and that is that
> > > > >>humans do not have to answer to God.
> >
> > > > > So, that is what life boils down to? =3DA0Having to answer to a non=
> existe=3D
> > > nt,
> > > > > mythical, supernatural being? =3DA0If there was a god and he create=
> d the
> > > > > universe,
> > > > > surely he could figure out some way to communicate with his creatio=
> ns
> > > > > other than
> > > > > gibberish written thousands of years ago, and I have yet to discove=
> r a
> > > > > person
> > > > > who speaks with god who is not mentally ill. =3DA0So, if we elimina=
> te anc=3D
> > > ient
> > > > > texts
> > > > > and modern psychos, what do we have left for evidence of god?
> >
> > > > This is the only thing you focused on,ok..figures. No it doesn't
> > > > mean you have to be a psycho to know there's been a creation.
> > > > Just use the evidence and what it supports. Fossils =3D3D creation ev=
> idence=3D
> > > ,
> > > > start of life =3D3D must'v been an intervener. Then you're basically
> > > > there!
> >
> > > > S
> >
> > > Did God stick his finger into the primeval ooze to start the
> > > evolutionary spiral? Maybe, but he didn't leave any evidence behind to
> > > find.
> >
> > I took a college biology class in 1972 and at that time the only theory
> > related to abiogenesis was the primordial pond theory. One intelligent
> > student was brave enough to ask the professor, "What proof do you have
> > that the primordial pond ever existed"? The professor replied, "There is
> > no PROOF that a primordial pond ever existed but believe it anyway becaus=
> e
> > it's the only theory we have. Needless to say, I did not believe that
> > theory. One advocate of evolution told me they no longer teach that
> > ridiculous theory.
>
> What's ridiculous about it? Why is a puddle of amino acids waiting for
> some "bolt from the blue" (or God's finger) more ridiculous than God
> making everything in seven days exactly as it is now with a false
> record of fossils waiting to be found to test Man's faith?
Our belief is based on faith. If you took a college biology course or
chemistry course, you should know that scientific theories are suppose to
have some facts to back up the theories. In the case of the primordial
pond or primordial soup theory--there are NO facts to back up the theory.
My biology professor appeared to me to want his students to believe a
theory that was NOT based on any proof or facts. It was probably just a
theory that some scientist came up with. That is NOT the way scientists
are suppose to come up with theories. I suspect that is the reason this
theory is no longer mentioned in biology text books. I recently found out
that abiogenesis is no longer a part of evolution theory. That is a good
thing since there is no proof that mankind evolved from a one celled life
form.
rincewind
Yes it is, which is why I disagree with creationism being taught as a
science.
> If you took a college biology course or
> chemistry course, you should know that scientific theories are suppose to
> have some facts to back up the theories.
Well, I'm off the hook then because I didn't.
> In the case of the primordial
> pond or primordial soup theory--there are NO facts to back up the theory.
> My biology professor appeared to me to want his students to believe a
> theory that was NOT based on any proof or facts. It was probably just a
> theory that some scientist came up with. That is NOT the way scientists
> are suppose to come up with theories. I suspect that is the reason this
> theory is no longer mentioned in biology text books. I recently found out
> that abiogenesis is no longer a part of evolution theory. That is a good
> thing since there is no proof that mankind evolved from a one celled life
> form.
Good point. However it is observed that the further back the fossil
record goes, the simpler the life forms discovered. While there is no
physical proof of the primordial soup concept, it's not totally off
the wall to assume that life continued back until you reached an amino
acid building block from where life could start.
Incidently "abiogenesis" is the theory that full-blown life formed
from a life-less medium. (ie, crocodiles coming out of the mud) That
is hardly the case with an amino-acid base being triggered into
cellular activity.
Jason
<aa8a526d-cded-4b93...@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
rincewind <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 3:42=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <e6c03509-2779-44e7-8564-b2ba6627c...@j19g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > rincewind <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 27, 2:06=3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <7ef1a012-a4cb-49dd-8e60-24f46502e...@h1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > rincewind <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 25, 8:08=3D3DA0pm, "~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~" <veron...@frisurf.=
> no>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > "Annointed Remnant" <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com> skrev i meldin=
> gnew=3D
> > > s:i2=3D3D
> > > > > hcss0...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> > > > > > > In article <Jason-2407101543050...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwe=
> st.c=3D
> > > om>,
> > > > > > > Jason
> > > > > > > says...
> >
> > > > > > >>They're sure of only one thing - and that is that
> > > > > > >>humans do not have to answer to God.
> >
> > > > > > > So, that is what life boils down to? =3D3DA0Having to answer to=
> a non=3D
> > > existe=3D3D
> > > > > nt,
> > > > > > > mythical, supernatural being? =3D3DA0If there was a god and he =
> create=3D
> > > d the
> > > > > > > universe,
> > > > > > > surely he could figure out some way to communicate with his cre=
> atio=3D
> > > ns
> > > > > > > other than
> > > > > > > gibberish written thousands of years ago, and I have yet to dis=
> cove=3D
> > > r a
> > > > > > > person
> > > > > > > who speaks with god who is not mentally ill. =3D3DA0So, if we e=
> limina=3D
> > > te anc=3D3D
> > > > > ient
> > > > > > > texts
> > > > > > > and modern psychos, what do we have left for evidence of god?
> >
> > > > > > This is the only thing you focused on,ok..figures. No it doesn't
> > > > > > mean you have to be a psycho to know there's been a creation.
> > > > > > Just use the evidence and what it supports. Fossils =3D3D3D creat=
> ion ev=3D
> > > idence=3D3D
> > > > > ,
> > > > > > start of life =3D3D3D must'v been an intervener. Then you're basi=
> cally
> > > > > > there!
> >
> > > > > > S
> >
> > > > > Did God stick his finger into the primeval ooze to start the
> > > > > evolutionary spiral? Maybe, but he didn't leave any evidence behind=
> to
> > > > > find.
> >
> > > > I took a college biology class in 1972 and at that time the only theo=
> ry
> > > > related to abiogenesis was the primordial pond theory. One intelligen=
> t
> > > > student was brave enough to ask the professor, "What proof do you hav=
> e
> > > > that the primordial pond ever existed"? The professor replied, "There=
> is
> > > > no PROOF that a primordial pond ever existed but believe it anyway be=
> caus=3D
Mankind is far too complex to have evolved from a one celled life form.
Scientists have spent years just mapping DNA. I doubt that scientists that
are advocates of evolution believe that the very first crocodile magically
came of the mud. Google "spontaneous generation".
rincewind
For years people believed that mankind was "too complex" to have
evolved from a primate. (NOT what we would consider a modern day
monkey or ape but a primate common to all of them)
> Scientists have spent years just mapping DNA. I doubt that scientists that
> are advocates of evolution believe that the very first crocodile magically
> came of the mud. Google "spontaneous generation".
I never said they did. I was of the impression that "abiogenesis" was
a fancy term for "spontaneous generation." If I'm wrong, forgive me.
Jason
> > > > In the case of the primordial
> ory.
> > > > My biology professor appeared to me to want his students to believe a
> a
> > > > theory that some scientist came up with. That is NOT the way scientis=
> ts
> > > > are suppose to come up with theories. I suspect that is the reason th=
> is
> > > > theory is no longer mentioned in biology text books. I recently found=
> out
> > > > that abiogenesis is no longer a part of evolution theory. That is a g=
> ood
> > > > thing since there is no proof that mankind evolved from a one celled =
> life
> > > > form.
> >
> > > Good point. However it is observed that the further back the fossil
> > > record goes, the simpler the life forms discovered. While there is no
> > > physical proof of the primordial soup concept, it's not totally off
> > > the wall to assume that life continued back until you reached an amino
> > > acid building block from where life could start.
> >
> > > Incidently "abiogenesis" is the theory that full-blown life formed
> > > from a life-less medium. (ie, crocodiles coming out of the mud) That
> > > is hardly the case with an amino-acid base being triggered into
> > > cellular activity.
> >
> > Mankind is far too complex to have evolved from a one celled life form.
>
> For years people believed that mankind was "too complex" to have
> evolved from a primate. (NOT what we would consider a modern day
> monkey or ape but a primate common to all of them)
The advocates of evolution believe it happened that way. They also believe
that mankind evolved (over the course of billions of years) from a one
celled life form. One of the steps in that process was the "primate common
to all of them".
Of course, I don't believe it happened that way and there is no proof that
a one celled life form evolved naturally from amino acids, etc. Many
Christians believe that God created Adam and Eve and a countless number of
beautiful and wonderful plants and animals. Darwin appeared to believe the
same thing. Here is an article about his famous book.
That is a good point. Darwin may NOT have used the word "God" in his book.
However, it's possible that the word "creator" or "by the creator" was
used in at least one edition of his book. Read the article below for the
details:
I deleted most of the article. Visit the website to read the entire article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2004/03/murphy.htm
by Cullen Murphy
The oldest of the sources for the new Genesis would be Charles Darwin's
The Origin of Species. Darwin is by far the most humane of the three
writers‹warm, observant, a superb anecdotalist, similar in some respects
to the old Bible's J. And he would provide knotty issues for future
scholars to argue over. For instance, which version of Origin's last
sentence should be accepted as orthodox? Should it be the first edition's
[Darwin's statement:]
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
been Originally breathed [by the creator] into a few forms or into one
..."?
Or the second edition's version, in which after the word "breathed" Darwin
inserted the words "by the Creator"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cullen Murphy is The Atlantic's managing editor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2004 by The Atlantic Monthly Group.
The Atlantic Monthly; March 2004; The Next Testament; Volume 293, No. 2;
139-140.
[This is the entire Darwin statement:]
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst
this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity,
from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful
have been and are being, evolved."
‹ Charles Darwin
My interpretation:
God breathed life into Adam and perhaps also into Eve. God also created an
endless number of beautiful and wonderful plants and animals. After the
creation process was finished is when evolution kicked in.
> > Scientists have spent years just mapping DNA. I doubt that scientists tha=
> t
> > are advocates of evolution believe that the very first crocodile magicall=
> y
> > came of the mud. Google "spontaneous generation".
>
> I never said they did. I was of the impression that "abiogenesis" was
> a fancy term for "spontaneous generation." If I'm wrong, forgive me.
I don't believe the advocates of evolution use the term "spontaneous
generation" anymore. However, a cell evolving naturally from amino acids
would be a type of spontaneous generation but as I stated they no longer
use that term. I suggest that you google "spontaneous generation" to read
the story of when the term was first used. After you read that story, you
will know why the advocates of evolution no longer use that word.
I am sorry that I failed to understand you. I am glad that you don't
believe that a crocodile evolved naturally from the mud. As you stated, it
did not happen that way. God created the first crocodile type creature.
The modern day crocodiles and alligators evolved from that first crocodile
type creature that God created.
Most of the advocates of evolution that I have talked to have told me that
many of them believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life form.
They also told me that the first cell (or cells) evolved naturally from
amino acids, etc. It's similar to the primordial soup theory but they now
claim this could have happened in many other places on the earth. There is
no proof that the first cell evolved naturally from amino acids, etc. They
don't like it when I accuse them of having faith that the first cell
evolved naturally from amino acids, etc. Howerver, that theory is based
more on faith than on proof that it happened that way.
Thanks for your interesting post.
rincewind
> > I never said they did. I was of the impression that "abiogenesis" was
> > a fancy term for "spontaneous generation." If I'm wrong, forgive me.
>
> I don't believe the advocates of evolution use the term "spontaneous
> generation" anymore. However, a cell evolving naturally from amino acids
> would be a type of spontaneous generation but as I stated they no longer
> use that term. I suggest that you google "spontaneous generation" to read
> the story of when the term was first used. After you read that story, you
> will know why the advocates of evolution no longer use that word.
>
> I am sorry that I failed to understand you. I am glad that you don't
> believe that a crocodile evolved naturally from the mud. As you stated, it
> did not happen that way. God created the first crocodile type creature.
> The modern day crocodiles and alligators evolved from that first crocodile
> type creature that God created.
So we actually both agree, I just take it a step further and suggest
that God started the whole process by triggering the amino acids into
life. However, I don't think that should be taught in a science class
as there's no proof of WHAT exactly started the first chain reaction.
(And yes, there's no proof of there being an amino acid pool to begin
with, but that's a logical progression given the condition of the
fossil record that does exsist.)
>
> Most of the advocates of evolution that I have talked to have told me that
> many of them believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life form.
> They also told me that the first cell (or cells) evolved naturally from
> amino acids, etc. It's similar to the primordial soup theory but they now
> claim this could have happened in many other places on the earth. There is
> no proof that the first cell evolved naturally from amino acids, etc. They
> don't like it when I accuse them of having faith that the first cell
> evolved naturally from amino acids, etc. Howerver, that theory is based
> more on faith than on proof that it happened that way.
While I understand your point on the lack of proof of the primordial
ooze theory (or maybe "hypothasus" would be a better term) It still
makes sense if you study the evolutionary record that does exsist and
notice that the lifeforms get more and more primitive as the record
goes back in time. It's not unlikely to presume that the very first
step would be a primordial ooze that contains the amino acids that
formed life.
And I've never heard anyone suggest that the amino acids "naturally"
evolved into life forms. The theory I've heard is that some massive
force bonded inert amino acids into the beginnings of life.
>
> Thanks for your interesting post.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jason
<c8d02ba9-bd10-4a48...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
rincewind <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for your interesting post. I enjoyed reading your point of view.
The truth is that there is NO proof as to how life got started on this
world. I believe that God created mankind, plants and animals. After the
creation process was finished is when evolution kicked in. The plants and
animals in the world right now have as ancestors the plants and animals
that God created in the Garden of Eden. Of course, the advocates of
evolution believe it happened a different way. The theory you mentioned
related to amino acids is the latest one but there will probably be other
theories in the years to come. I seem to recall reading that a lighting
strike on amino acid was the theory of at least one atheist scientist.
jason
Bob T.
> In article <i2hcss0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Annointed Remnant
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > In article <Jason-2407101543050...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason
> > says...
>
> > >They're sure of only one thing - and that is that
> > >humans do not have to answer to God.
>
> > So, that is what life boils down to? Having to answer to a nonexistent,
> > mythical, supernatural being? If there was a god and he created the universe,
> > surely he could figure out some way to communicate with his creations
> other than
> > gibberish written thousands of years ago, and I have yet to discover a person
> > who speaks with god who is not mentally ill. So, if we eliminate
> ancient texts
> > and modern psychos, what do we have left for evidence of god?
>
> That is interesting. I have discovered that many of the people that I have
> met that are atheists are also mentally ill.
Huh! I have discovered that many of the people named "Jason" who post
on this newsgroup are really, really stupid.
- Bob T
Bob T.
wrote:
> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i meldingnews:i2hs9o$iat$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:Jason-24071...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> >> Radioactive waste helps to increase the number of cellular mutations
> >> in life forms. Help me to send one truckload to the backyard of every
> >> evolution-teaching professor in America............
>
> > Since when are evolution-teaching professors responsible for Radioactive
> > waste? That makes no sense.
>
> He's being ironic. If mutations help spurt foreward evolution, think
> how fast it would go if they could be near mutation-catalyzing radio
> active waiste..but I don't think they'd want that.. lol.
You're right, excessive mutation rates tend to be bad for a species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
- Bob T
>
> S
>
>
>
> > --
> > The Parrish *~, American-American-American.
> > * * * * * *
> > "The Mass is the most perfect form of making money."
> > * * * * * * * *- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And yet Bob is sooo close to Boob. Irony?
Anyway, I don't advocate creationism taught in the schools but when
evolution is, I have to wonder why they wouldn't include some science
stuff that would enhance a creator? (I think there should be open
discussions on both sides as a 'non-course' or have evolution and
creation in a club after school).
Anyway with the recent which came first question the chicken or the
egg....the science of the matter was commented on:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 07:55:41 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1
<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What came first, the chicken or the egg?
The chicken just like the Bible says.
Science answers, 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?'
Scientists claim to have answered the question that has confounded
philosophers for centuries: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
claim to have answered the question that has confounded philosophers
for centuries: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
It was, they say, indisputably the chicken.
A team from Warwick and Sheffield universities examined the formation
of a chicken's egg in microscopic detail and discovered that the
shell
was made from a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries.
Called ovocledidin-17, the protein acts as a catalyst to speed up the
development of the shell.
Read more:
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Science+answers+Which+came+first+c...
CJ
~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~
"Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> skrev i melding
news:Jason-31071...@67-150-126-33.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
The evidence are the opposite of a grand scale, over time massive
morphing of kinds of animals into humans etc. there's just no proof.
So even if God kicked life into gear, there just wasn't really any
evolution they've pictured.
S
>
Jason
Gracile.^.~" <vero...@frisurf.no> wrote:
That's a great point. I have stated many times that there is NO proof that
mankind evolved from a one celled life form. The atheist evolutionists
have to believe that it happened that way since they do NOT believe in
God. Since they do not believe in God, they had to come up with a theory
that does NOT involve God. They honestly do believe that mankind evolved
from a one celled life form. They also believe the one celled life form
evolved from amino acid. They will probably come out with other
abiogenesis theories that make more sense in the years to come. Thanks
again for your post,
jason
rincewind
...and who makes the lightening strike? I heard massive solar flares
bringing radiation. (There was a Dr. Who story where it was an
exploding space ship... I think we can pass on that one!)
The Garden of Eden story implies that the animals that were created
were in fact created just as they are now, and about 4,000 years ago
which doesn't fit in with the given fossil record that we've found.
There is out there somewhere a "creationist" museum where they take
everything and change it to fit the creation theory. They have a
skeleton of a T. Rex with a plaque that reads; "T. Rex - was a
vegetarian before the Fall" - ????
rincewind
> In article <2pydnWbz7purIcnRnZ2dnUVZ_g-dn...@posted.comnet>, "~.^.Saba
>
>
>
> Gracile.^.~" <veron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
> > "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> skrev i melding
> >news:Jason-31071...@67-150-126-33.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> > > In article
Still say it fits the given record better than a Garden and a Fall.
rincewind
wrote:
> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i meldingnews:i2hs9o$iat$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:Jason-24071...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> >> Radioactive waste helps to increase the number of cellular mutations
> >> in life forms. Help me to send one truckload to the backyard of every
> >> evolution-teaching professor in America............
>
> > Since when are evolution-teaching professors responsible for Radioactive
> > waste? That makes no sense.
>
> He's being ironic. If mutations help spurt foreward evolution, think
> how fast it would go if they could be near mutation-catalyzing radio
> active waiste..but I don't think they'd want that.. lol.
That's an old joke that I saw last used in a Dennis the Menace
cartoon. Dennis wanted to rebake a cake he'd accidently destroyed.
Seeing that the recipe said to bake for 30 minutes at 350 degrees, he
thought it would bake in 15 minutes at 700 degrees! Needless to say,
it didn't end well!
Jason
<1040d7e5-e893-462e...@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
rincewind <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 6:45=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <c8d02ba9-bd10-4a48-9ea5-b1cafa2ae...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > rincewind <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I never said they did. I was of the impression that "abiogenesis" w=
> as
> > > > > a fancy term for "spontaneous generation." If I'm wrong, forgive me=
> .
> >
> > > > I don't believe the advocates of evolution use the term "spontaneous
> > > > generation" anymore. However, a cell evolving naturally from amino ac=
> ids
> > > > would be a type of spontaneous generation but as I stated they no lon=
> ger
> > > > use that term. I suggest that you google "spontaneous generation" to =
> read
> > > > the story of when the term was first used. After you read that story,=
> you
> > > > will know why the advocates of evolution no longer use that word.
> >
> > > > I am sorry that I failed to understand you. I am glad that you don't
> > > > believe that a crocodile evolved naturally from the mud. As you state=
> d, it
> > > > did not happen that way. God created the first crocodile type creatur=
> e.
> > > > The modern day crocodiles and alligators evolved from that first croc=
> odile
> > > > type creature that God created.
> >
> > > So we actually both agree, I just take it a step further and suggest
> > > that God started the whole process by triggering the amino acids into
> > > life. However, I don't think that should be taught in a science class
> > > as there's no proof of WHAT exactly started the first chain reaction.
> > > (And yes, there's no proof of there being an amino acid pool to begin
> > > with, but that's a logical progression given the condition of the
> > > fossil record that does exsist.)
> >
> > > > Most of the advocates of evolution that I have talked to have told me=
> that
> > > > many of them believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life form=
> .
> > > > They also told me that the first cell (or cells) evolved naturally fr=
> om
> > > > amino acids, etc. It's similar to the primordial soup theory but they=
> now
> > > > claim this could have happened in many other places on the earth. The=
> re is
> > > > no proof that the first cell evolved naturally from amino acids, etc.=
> They
> > > > don't like it when I accuse them of having faith that the first cell
> > > > evolved naturally from amino acids, etc. Howerver, that theory is bas=
> ed
> > > > more on faith than on proof that it happened that way.
> >
> > > While I understand your point on the lack of proof of the primordial
> > > ooze theory (or maybe "hypothasus" would be a better term) It still
> > > makes sense if you study the evolutionary record that does exsist and
> > > notice that the lifeforms get more and more primitive as the record
> > > goes back in time. It's not unlikely to presume that the very first
> > > step would be a primordial ooze that contains the amino acids that
> > > formed life.
> >
> > > And I've never heard anyone suggest that the amino acids "naturally"
> > > evolved into life forms. The theory I've heard is that some massive
> > > force bonded inert amino acids into the beginnings of life.
> >
> > > > Thanks for your interesting post.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Thanks for your interesting post. I enjoyed reading your point of view.
> > The truth is that there is NO proof as to how life got started on this
> > world. =A0I believe that God created mankind, plants and animals. After t=
> he
> > creation process =A0was finished is when evolution kicked in. The plants =
> and
> > animals in the world right now have as ancestors the plants and animals
> > that God created in the Garden of Eden. Of course, the advocates of
> > evolution believe it happened a different way. The theory you mentioned
> > related to amino acids is the latest one but there will probably be other
> > theories in the years to come. I seem to recall reading that a lighting
> > strike on amino acid was the theory of at least one atheist scientist.
> >
> > jason
>
> ...and who makes the lightening strike? I heard massive solar flares
> bringing radiation. (There was a Dr. Who story where it was an
> exploding space ship... I think we can pass on that one!)
>
> The Garden of Eden story implies that the animals that were created
> were in fact created just as they are now, and about 4,000 years ago
> which doesn't fit in with the given fossil record that we've found.
>
> There is out there somewhere a "creationist" museum where they take
> everything and change it to fit the creation theory. They have a
> skeleton of a T. Rex with a plaque that reads; "T. Rex - was a
> vegetarian before the Fall" - ????
You may be referring to the Creation Science Museum that was established
by Kenneth Ham (spelling?). I have read about it but have never visited
it. The plants and animals that were created by God would (in most cases)
be slightly different or in some cases have major differences from the
animals and plants that are in the world today. For example, there would
only be one type of elephant and one type of crocodile. There would have
been about 3 types of dogs and about 3 types of cats (small, medium and
large). There was probably one type of each flower--at least one rose. The
flowers and trees would have deeper and more beautiful colors. I could go
on and on. I am making guesses. The creation museum probably uses the
animals and plants we have today simply because they don't know for sure
what the animals and plants looked like when they were first created. Some
of the plants and animals that have not evolved would be identical to
those animals that God created. I seem to recall reading that certain
sharks have NEVER evolved. That may be true. In other words, the sharks
that God created look exactly like the sharks we have today. I don't know
about T. Rex. I looked up Tyrannosaur in my dictionary and it stated it
was a carnivourous dinosaur. They are making a guess that all animals were
herbivores before the fall. That may or may not be true--we honestly don't
know. I know that in the perfect earth that God will eventually make--all
animals will be herbvivores which may be the reason they think it was that
way before the fall. The lion will lay down with the lamb.
YapHank
news:2f23d03b-36ee-4c1c...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Anyway, I don't advocate creationism taught in the schools but when
evolution is, I have to wonder why they wouldn't include some science
stuff that would enhance a creator? ............
~~~~~~~~~
WHAT science stuff enhances a "creator?"
YapHank
They are making a guess that all animals were
> herbivores before the fall. That may or may not be true--we honestly don't
> know. I know that in the perfect earth that God will eventually make--all
> animals will be herbvivores which may be the reason they think it was that
> way before the fall. The lion will lay down with the lamb.
>
What "fall?" Most churches agree that story is allegorical. Few take it
seriously. If all the animals are herbivores, what controls their
populations? Will this God you speak of have them all on birth control?
Even humans since none born will die? Obligate carnivores such as lions
and wolves cannot live on a vegetarian diet. You didn't know that did you?
Parish *~
news:1K-dnSowdv0wT9HR...@posted.comnet...
>
> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
> news:i2hs9o$iat$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Jason-24071...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>>> Radioactive waste helps to increase the number of cellular mutations
>>> in life forms. Help me to send one truckload to the backyard of every
>>> evolution-teaching professor in America............
>>
>> Since when are evolution-teaching professors responsible for Radioactive
>> waste? That makes no sense.
>
> He's being ironic. If mutations help spurt foreward evolution, think
> how fast it would go if they could be near mutation-catalyzing radio
> active waiste..but I don't think they'd want that.. lol.
Radio active waste causes negative mutations, not positive ones.
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Perhaps you didn't feel the need to read or copy.
Science answers, 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?'
Scientists claim to have answered the question that has confounded
philosophers for centuries: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
claim to have answered the question that has confounded philosophers
for centuries: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
It was, they say, indisputably the chicken.
A team from Warwick and Sheffield universities examined the formation
of a chicken's egg in microscopic detail and discovered that the
shell
was made from a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries.
Called ovocledidin-17, the protein acts as a catalyst to speed up the
development of the shell.
Read more:
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Science+answers+Which+came+first+c...
'Science' has attempted to use trials of labratory experiments that
would make life much more probable in it's forming than an early earth
chaos, so their experimenting shows by their lack of success there
must be more intelligence than their lack of to have been a cause for
life.
Einstein's theory of relativiity that matter cannot be created nor
destroyed (it only can change form), shows that there had to be an
origination of matter beyond that scientific principle which would
need an alternative source. A Creator would be the usual suspect.
'Science' cannot make any theory probable for the observation of any
life or small life which would be able to be observable easily by
instuments with the naked eye, so an early life much less an
observation to a next level would only leave another alternative
beside's evolution as probable.
CJ
curtjester1
I do know that eating meat and being strong is just a myth. Horses
and Gorillas eat vegan and look how strong they are. There are more
powerful proteins found in some veggie life than in meat, too. How
is your infallible opinion of wolves and lions scientifically
verified? Were they force fed other than meat products and all of
them died?
CJ
YapHank
On Aug 3, 9:46 am, "YapHank" <Yaph...@thisfake.net> wrote:
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2f23d03b-36ee-4c1c...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Anyway, I don't advocate creationism taught in the schools but when
> evolution is, I have to wonder why they wouldn't include some science
> stuff that would enhance a creator? ............
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> WHAT science stuff enhances a "creator?"
Perhaps you didn't feel the need to read or copy.
Science answers, 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?'
*** That's science? That can be asked of anything. What came first - the
fish or the fry/eggs? What came first - the human or the infant. What came
first - the cat or the kitten?
Scientists claim to have answered the question that has confounded
philosophers for centuries: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
claim to have answered the question that has confounded philosophers
for centuries: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
It was, they say, indisputably the chicken.
*** Which scientists made that claim?
A team from Warwick and Sheffield universities examined the formation
of a chicken's egg in microscopic detail and discovered that the
shell
was made from a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries.
*** And kittens and infants are only found to come from their mother's
uteruses.
Called ovocledidin-17, the protein acts as a catalyst to speed up the
development of the shell.
Read more:
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Science+answers+Which+came+first+c...
'Science' has attempted to use trials of labratory experiments that
would make life much more probable in it's forming than an early earth
chaos, so their experimenting shows by their lack of success there
must be more intelligence than their lack of to have been a cause for
life.
Einstein's theory of relativiity that matter cannot be created nor
destroyed (it only can change form), shows that there had to be an
origination of matter beyond that scientific principle which would
need an alternative source. A Creator would be the usual suspect.
*** Why a creator? Why turn to the magical and supernatural instead of
continuing to seek a scientific answer?
'Science' cannot make any theory probable for the observation of any
life or small life which would be able to be observable easily by
instuments with the naked eye, so an early life much less an
observation to a next level would only leave another alternative
beside's evolution as probable.
*** Many people believe this planet was seeded by some kind of intelligent
life form from another galaxy. That would make a lot more sense than magic
sky pixies creating life from nothing.
CJ
YapHank
On Aug 3, 9:53 am, "YapHank" <Yaph...@thisfake.net> wrote:
> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Jason-01081...@66-53-220-161.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> They are making a guess that all animals were
>
> > herbivores before the fall. That may or may not be true--we honestly
> > don't
> > know. I know that in the perfect earth that God will eventually
> > make--all
> > animals will be herbvivores which may be the reason they think it was
> > that
> > way before the fall. The lion will lay down with the lamb.
>
> What "fall?" Most churches agree that story is allegorical. Few take it
> seriously. If all the animals are herbivores, what controls their
> populations? Will this God you speak of have them all on birth control?
> Even humans since none born will die? Obligate carnivores such as lions
> and wolves cannot live on a vegetarian diet. You didn't know that did you?
I do know that eating meat and being strong is just a myth.
*** No one here said eating meat makes a being strong. We're talking about
"OBLIGATE CARVOVORES" who cannot utilize plant matter to live and thrive.
Horses
and Gorillas eat vegan and look how strong they are. There are more
powerful proteins found in some veggie life than in meat, too.
*** Look up the words OBLIGATE CARNIVORES. Carnivores do not have the same
type of digestive track vegetarians have. You should have learned this is
HS.
How
is your infallible opinion of wolves and lions scientifically
verified? Were they force fed other than meat products and all of
them died?
*** Look up the words OBLIGATE CARNIVORES. I don't have the time to type you
25 pages of info on animal nutrition. You should have had this in High
School. Were you sleeping in class?
CJ
~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~
"Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
> "~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~" <vero...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
> news:1K-dnSowdv0wT9HR...@posted.comnet...
>>
>> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
>> news:i2hs9o$iat$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Jason-24071...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>>>> Radioactive waste helps to increase the number of cellular mutations
>>>> in life forms. Help me to send one truckload to the backyard of every
>>>> evolution-teaching professor in America............
>>>
>>> Since when are evolution-teaching professors responsible for Radioactive
>>> waste? That makes no sense.
>>
>
>> He's being ironic. If mutations help spurt foreward evolution, think
>> how fast it would go if they could be near mutation-catalyzing radio
>> active waiste..but I don't think they'd want that.. lol.
>
>
> Radio active waste causes negative mutations, not positive ones.
99,9% of mutations are bad. They propose the small left percentage
is what created ALL the animals and humans..
S
Jason
Gracile.^.~" <vero...@frisurf.no> wrote:
> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
> news:i3974m$mnc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > "~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~" <vero...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
> > news:1K-dnSowdv0wT9HR...@posted.comnet...
> >>
> >> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
> >> news:i2hs9o$iat$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:Jason-24071...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> >>>> Radioactive waste helps to increase the number of cellular mutations
> >>>> in life forms. Help me to send one truckload to the backyard of every
> >>>> evolution-teaching professor in America............
> >>>
> >>> Since when are evolution-teaching professors responsible for Radioactive
> >>> waste? That makes no sense.
> >>
> >
> >> He's being ironic. If mutations help spurt foreward evolution, think
> >> how fast it would go if they could be near mutation-catalyzing radio
> >> active waiste..but I don't think they'd want that.. lol.
> >
> >
> > Radio active waste causes negative mutations, not positive ones.
>
> 99,9% of mutations are bad. They propose the small left percentage
> is what created ALL the animals and humans..
For a person to believe that, requires more faith than any Christian ever
has had.
YapHank
>
> For a person to believe that, requires more faith than any Christian ever
> has had.
>
>
And yet you've produced no scientific evidence for this God.
Jason
<Yap...@thisfake.net> wrote:
I know the names of at least two people that have been healed by God. Upon
request, I could probably find the names of hundreds of other people on
the internet.
The Catholic Church has made lots of people "saints". In all of those
cases, an investigation is done related to the miracles that the
candidates for saints have performed. If it can be proven that the
candidates have performed at least 2 miracles, they are made into saints.
They have to have evidence related to each miracle. They could not have
performed those many miracles without the help of God. I am not a
Chatolic.
curtjester1
observation or explanation viable except that male and females are a
requirement for begetting life, and the body of a hen produces the egg
shell and it's not from another source. So far it excludes an
evolutionary explanation or standard.
> Called ovocledidin-17, the protein acts as a catalyst to speed up the
> development of the shell.
>
> Read more:http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Science+answers+Which+came+first+c...
>
> 'Science' has attempted to use trials of labratory experiments that
> would make life much more probable in it's forming than an early earth
> chaos, so their experimenting shows by their lack of success there
> must be more intelligence than their lack of to have been a cause for
> life.
>
> Einstein's theory of relativiity that matter cannot be created nor
> destroyed (it only can change form), shows that there had to be an
> origination of matter beyond that scientific principle which would
> need an alternative source. A Creator would be the usual suspect.
>
> *** Why a creator? Why turn to the magical and supernatural instead of
> continuing to seek a scientific answer?
>
Because in our earth's observations nothing arises out something that
is not complicated which by our observational standards takes
engineering. Even the smallest particle we have like atoms and
molecules have high physics operating them. Why conclude that a
magical 'event' happened when we know what engineering it takes to get
things going?
> 'Science' cannot make any theory probable for the observation of any
> life or small life which would be able to be observable easily by
> instuments with the naked eye, so an early life much less an
> observation to a next level would only leave another alternative
> beside's evolution as probable.
>
> *** Many people believe this planet was seeded by some kind of intelligent
> life form from another galaxy. That would make a lot more sense than magic
> sky pixies creating life from nothing.
>
I think you still need to come up with why they were intelligent from
anywhere, don't you? Intelligence is the key, not beyond
incomprehensible odds of something just happening with hundreds and
thousands of events coming together conveniently.
CJ
> CJ
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:68c7dc46-18ed-4433...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 3, 9:53 am, "YapHank" <Yaph...@thisfake.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:Jason-01081...@66-53-220-161.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> > They are making a guess that all animals were
>
> > > herbivores before the fall. That may or may not be true--we honestly
> > > don't
> > > know. I know that in the perfect earth that God will eventually
> > > make--all
> > > animals will be herbvivores which may be the reason they think it was
> > > that
> > > way before the fall. The lion will lay down with the lamb.
>
> > What "fall?" Most churches agree that story is allegorical. Few take it
> > seriously. If all the animals are herbivores, what controls their
> > populations? Will this God you speak of have them all on birth control?
> > Even humans since none born will die? Obligate carnivores such as lions
> > and wolves cannot live on a vegetarian diet. You didn't know that did you?
>
> I do know that eating meat and being strong is just a myth.
>
> *** No one here said eating meat makes a being strong. We're talking about
> "OBLIGATE CARVOVORES" who cannot utilize plant matter to live and thrive.
>
> Horses
> and Gorillas eat vegan and look how strong they are. There are more
> powerful proteins found in some veggie life than in meat, too.
>
> *** Look up the words OBLIGATE CARNIVORES. Carnivores do not have the same
> type of digestive track vegetarians have. You should have learned this is
> HS.
>
Well without precise defining's here, I'll just assume that you are
not qualified to make those determinations. Are like lions and wolves
different than kitty cats and dogs that seem to get more than just
meat down?
> How
> is your infallible opinion of wolves and lions scientifically
> verified? Were they force fed other than meat products and all of
> them died?
>
> *** Look up the words OBLIGATE CARNIVORES. I don't have the time to type you
> 25 pages of info on animal nutrition. You should have had this in High
> School. Were you sleeping in class?
>
No, I was too busy watching horses and gorillas go through the garbage
and eat some left over Big Mac's and not dying.
CJ
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> In article <i3a7rc$8t...@news.albasani.net>, "YapHank"
>
> <Yaph...@thisfake.net> wrote:
> > "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:Jason-03081...@67-150-127-28.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>
> > > For a person to believe that, requires more faith than any Christian ever
> > > has had.
>
> > And yet you've produced no scientific evidence for this God.
>
> I know the names of at least two people that have been healed by God. Upon
> request, I could probably find the names of hundreds of other people on
> the internet.
>
shown the ability to go above human means to show miraculous ways?
CJ
Jason
<28f21863-66cf-40c4...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 3:07=A0pm, "YapHank" <Yaph...@thisfake.net> wrote:
> > "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:47d8db71-3a0f-439a...@l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 3, 9:46 am, "YapHank" <Yaph...@thisfake.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >news:2f23d03b-36ee-4c1c...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com..=
> .
> >
> > > Anyway, I don't advocate creationism taught in the schools but when
> > > evolution is, I have to wonder why they wouldn't include some science
> > > stuff that would enhance a creator? ............
> > > ~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > > WHAT science stuff enhances a "creator?"
> >
> > Perhaps you didn't feel the need to read or copy.
> >
> > Science answers, 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?'
> >
> > *** That's science? =A0That can be asked of anything. What came first - t=
> he
> > fish or the fry/eggs? =A0What came first - the human or the infant. =A0Wh=
> at came
> > first - the cat or the kitten?
> >
> > =A0 Scientists claim to have answered the question that has confounded
> > philosophers for centuries: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> > claim to have answered the question that has confounded philosophers
> > for centuries: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> >
> > It was, they say, indisputably the chicken.
> >
> > *** Which scientists made that claim?
> >
> > A team from Warwick and Sheffield universities examined the formation
> > of a chicken's egg in microscopic detail and discovered that the
> > shell
> > was made from a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries.
> >
> > *** =A0And kittens and infants are only found to come from their mother's
> > uteruses.
> >
> And yet that's what Science shows us, that there is no other
> observation or explanation viable except that male and females are a
> requirement for begetting life, and the body of a hen produces the egg
> shell and it's not from another source. So far it excludes an
> evolutionary explanation or standard.
>
> > Called ovocledidin-17, the protein acts as a catalyst to speed up the
> > development of the shell.
> >
> > Read more:http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Science+answers+Which+came+f=
> irst+c...
> >
> > 'Science' has attempted to use trials of labratory experiments that
> > would make life much more probable in it's forming than an early earth
> > chaos, so their experimenting shows by their lack of success there
> > must be more intelligence than their lack of to have been a cause for
> > life.
> >
> > Einstein's theory of relativiity that matter cannot be created nor
> > destroyed (it only can change form), shows that there had to be an
> > origination of matter beyond that scientific principle which would
> > need an alternative source. =A0A Creator would be the usual suspect.
> >
> > *** =A0Why a creator? =A0Why turn to the magical and supernatural instead=
> of
> > continuing to seek a scientific answer?
> >
> Because in our earth's observations nothing arises out something that
> is not complicated which by our observational standards takes
> engineering. Even the smallest particle we have like atoms and
> molecules have high physics operating them. Why conclude that a
> magical 'event' happened when we know what engineering it takes to get
> things going?
>
> > 'Science' cannot make any theory probable for the observation of any
> > life or small life which would be able to be observable easily by
> > instuments with the naked eye, so an early life much less an
> > observation to a next level would only leave another alternative
> > beside's evolution as probable.
> >
> > *** Many people believe this planet was seeded by some kind of intelligen=
> t
> > life form from another galaxy. =A0That would make a lot more sense than m=
> agic
> > sky pixies creating life from nothing.
> >
> I think you still need to come up with why they were intelligent from
> anywhere, don't you? Intelligence is the key, not beyond
> incomprehensible odds of something just happening with hundreds and
> thousands of events coming together conveniently.
>
> CJ
>
> > CJ
That is an excellent point. Thanks
Jason
<742019f1-d4e6-40d8...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 7:59=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article <i3a7rc$8t...@news.albasani.net>, "YapHank"
> >
> > <Yaph...@thisfake.net> wrote:
> > > "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > >news:Jason-03081...@67-150-127-28.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> >
> > > > For a person to believe that, requires more faith than any Christian =
> ever
> > > > has had.
> >
> > > And yet you've produced no scientific evidence for this God.
> >
> > I know the names of at least two people that have been healed by God. Upo=
> n
> > request, I could probably find the names of hundreds of other people on
> > the internet.
> >
> How would one deem it "by God" when other gods, like Satan, hss been
> shown the ability to go above human means to show miraculous ways?
God heals people. Satan would not spend his time healing Christians.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Things to think about.
The gifts would pass away...I Cor. 13
Satan would would do works that would make the whole earth marvel.
Rev. 13
A Scripture to think about.
"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of
light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be
transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be
according to their works." -2nd Corinthians 11:14-15
Satan was able to test Christ by showing him "all the kingdoms of the
earth". Matt 4, Luke 4
CJ
Jason
<9126d854-dd42-4edf...@i24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:45=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <742019f1-d4e6-40d8-ad58-04f294610...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 7:59=3DA0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > In article <i3a7rc$8t...@news.albasani.net>, "YapHank"
> >
> > > > <Yaph...@thisfake.net> wrote:
> > > > > "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:Jason-03081...@67-150-127-28.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> >
> > > > > > For a person to believe that, requires more faith than any Christ=
> ian =3D
> > > ever
> > > > > > has had.
> >
> > > > > And yet you've produced no scientific evidence for this God.
> >
> > > > I know the names of at least two people that have been healed by God.=
> Upo=3D
> > > n
> > > > request, I could probably find the names of hundreds of other people =
> on
> > > > the internet.
> >
> > > How would one deem it "by God" when other gods, like Satan, hss been
> > > shown the ability to go above human means to show miraculous ways?
> >
> > God heals people. Satan would not spend his time healing Christians.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > CJ
> >
> > > > The Catholic Church has made lots of people "saints". In all of those
> > > > cases, an investigation is done related to the miracles that the
> > > > candidates for saints have performed. If it can be proven that the
> > > > candidates have performed at least 2 miracles, they are made into sai=
> nts.
> > > > They have to have evidence related to each miracle. They could not ha=
> ve
> > > > performed those many miracles without the help of God. I am not a
> > > > Chatolic.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Things to think about.
>
> The gifts would pass away...I Cor. 13
>
> Satan would would do works that would make the whole earth marvel.
> Rev. 13
>
> A Scripture to think about.
>
> "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of
> light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be
> transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be
> according to their works." -2nd Corinthians 11:14-15
>
> Satan was able to test Christ by showing him "all the kingdoms of the
> earth". Matt 4, Luke 4
>
> CJ
CJ,
You made some good points,
Thanks,
jason
stooge...@msn.com
> In article <GqydnfWgqeXMEcXRnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@posted.comnet>, "~.^.Saba
>
>
>
> Gracile.^.~" <veron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
> > "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
> >news:i3974m$mnc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > >news:1K-dnSowdv0wT9HR...@posted.comnet...
>
> > >> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
> > >>news:i2hs9o$iat$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > >>> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > >>>news:Jason-24071...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> > >>>> Radioactive waste helps to increase the number of cellular mutations
> > >>>> in life forms. Help me to send one truckload to the backyard of every
> > >>>> evolution-teaching professor in America............
>
> > >>> Since when are evolution-teaching professors responsible for Radioactive
> > >>> waste? That makes no sense.
>
> > >> He's being ironic. If mutations help spurt foreward evolution, think
> > >> how fast it would go if they could be near mutation-catalyzing radio
> > >> active waiste..but I don't think they'd want that.. lol.
>
> > > Radio active waste causes negative mutations, not positive ones.
>
> > 99,9% of mutations are bad. They propose the small left percentage
> > is what created ALL the animals and humans..
>
> For a person to believe that, requires more faith than any Christian ever
> has had.
Maybe, but it's a proposal to explain the given record found in the
ground.
stooge...@msn.com
" 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God. 'For proof denies faith
and without faith, I am nothing.'
'Ah! But the Babel Fish gives it away, doesn't it?' says Man. 'It
proves you exist and so therefore you don't Q.E.D.'
'Oh,' says God. 'I hadn't thought of that.' And promptly vanishes in a
puff of logic.
'Oh that was easy.' says Man, and for his next stunt he proves that
black is white and gets killed at the next zebra crossing." - Douglas
Adams - The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.
The nature of God is faith. You can't prove faith. You shouldn't even
have to.
rincewind
SHOOT! I did it AGAIN! I keep getting involved in responding and
forgetting that I'm on my kid's Google account!
Sorry about that!
curtjester1
Jason
<8766910c-1996-495f...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
stooge...@msn.com wrote:
> On Aug 3, 6:32=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article <GqydnfWgqeXMEcXRnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@posted.comnet>, "~.^.Saba
> >
> >
> >
> > Gracile.^.~" <veron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
> > > "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
> > >news:i3974m$mnc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > > > "~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~" <veron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
> > > >news:1K-dnSowdv0wT9HR...@posted.comnet...
> >
> > > >> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
> > > >>news:i2hs9o$iat$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > > >>> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>news:Jason-24071...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> > > >>>> Radioactive waste helps to increase the number of cellular mutatio=
> ns
> > > >>>> in life forms. Help me to send one truckload to the backyard of ev=
> ery
> > > >>>> evolution-teaching professor in America............
> >
> > > >>> Since when are evolution-teaching professors responsible for Radioa=
> ctive
> > > >>> waste? =A0That makes no sense.
> >
> > > >> He's being ironic. If mutations help spurt foreward evolution, think
> > > >> how fast it would go if they could be near mutation-catalyzing radio
> > > >> active waiste..but I don't think they'd want that.. lol.
> >
> > > > Radio active waste causes negative mutations, not positive ones.
> >
> > > 99,9% of mutations are bad. They propose the small left percentage
> > > is what created ALL the animals and humans..
> >
> > For a person to believe that, requires more faith than any Christian ever
> > has had.
>
> Maybe, but it's a proposal to explain the given record found in the
> ground.
I believe there was a book that was writted by an advocate of creation. I
believe the title of the book was "The Amazing Faith of the
Evolutionists". The people that believe that life evolved from a one
celled life form have an amazing amount of faith. If 99.9% of mutations
are bad, that means there faith is even stronger than I once believed it
was.
~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~
"Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> skrev i melding
news:Jason-03081...@67-150-127-28.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
Yep. I don't have that kind of faith in me, I'll tell you that.
S
>
~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~
> In article
> <742019f1-d4e6-40d8...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 3, 7:59=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>> > In article <i3a7rc$8t...@news.albasani.net>, "YapHank"
>> >
>> > <Yaph...@thisfake.net> wrote:
>> > > "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> > >news:Jason-03081...@67-150-127-28.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>> >
>> > > > For a person to believe that, requires more faith than any
>> > > > Christian =
>> ever
>> > > > has had.
>> >
>> > > And yet you've produced no scientific evidence for this God.
>> >
>> > I know the names of at least two people that have been healed by God.
>> > Upo=
>> n
>> > request, I could probably find the names of hundreds of other people on
>> > the internet.
>> >
>> How would one deem it "by God" when other gods, like Satan, hss been
>> shown the ability to go above human means to show miraculous ways?
>
> God heals people. Satan would not spend his time healing Christians.
Don't forget his biggest trick is to stay under the radar,people laughing
at his existance, and that he can turn himself into an angel of light
(or so it seems). Satan is VERY real.
"Christians are called upon to guard what was spiritually entrusted to them
by the using the Holy Spirit (2 TIM 1:14). The Illuminati do a mirror image
of this, by layering in spirits (evil ones) to guard things in the system..
One of the principles (giving tactics) of the spirit world is that if you go
to get help from demons, they have a spiritual opportunity to enter into
your life in other ways. This involves spiritual laws. People, who have been
healed by occult healers, have discovered that it set them up for demonic
activity in their life. Of course, it is easy to write this, but often only
the victims of occult help, who have already learned the lesson the hard
way, believe it. The ultimate lie that Lucifer can pretend to give is
divinity.
http://www.whale.to/b/sp/spr10.html#UNDERSTANDING_THE_RELATIONSHIP_BETWEEN_FEAR_&_DEMONS_
S
~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~
"YapHank" <Yap...@thisfake.net> skrev i melding
news:i3a7rc$8tp$1...@news.albasani.net...
Irreducable complexity more than indicates a Master Mind, it proves it.
S
>
rincewind
No, no, no. The basis of evolutionary theory is studying the fossil
record. There have been some ideas proposed based on studying the
record and trying to determine the next step. Their "faith" is based
on studying the evidence and reaching conclusions not immediately
evident.
Jason
<f574f9ff-7264-4905...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
rincewind <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 12:07=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <8766910c-1996-495f-aa1c-0e61213b7...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > stoogesfa...@msn.com wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 6:32=3DA0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > In article <GqydnfWgqeXMEcXRnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@posted.comnet>, "~.^.Sab=
> a
> >
> > > > Gracile.^.~" <veron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
> > > > > "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
> > > > >news:i3974m$mnc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > > > > > "~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~" <veron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:1K-dnSowdv0wT9HR...@posted.comnet...
> >
> > > > > >> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
> > > > > >>news:i2hs9o$iat$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > > > > >>> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >>>news:Jason-24071...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com..=
> .
> > > > > >>>> Radioactive waste helps to increase the number of cellular mut=
> atio=3D
> > > ns
> > > > > >>>> in life forms. Help me to send one truckload to the backyard o=
> f ev=3D
> > > ery
> > > > > >>>> evolution-teaching professor in America............
> >
> > > > > >>> Since when are evolution-teaching professors responsible for Ra=
> dioa=3D
> > > ctive
> > > > > >>> waste? =3DA0That makes no sense.
> >
> > > > > >> He's being ironic. If mutations help spurt foreward evolution, t=
> hink
> > > > > >> how fast it would go if they could be near mutation-catalyzing r=
> adio
> > > > > >> active waiste..but I don't think they'd want that.. lol.
> >
> > > > > > Radio active waste causes negative mutations, not positive ones.
> >
> > > > > 99,9% of mutations are bad. They propose the small left percentage
> > > > > is what created ALL the animals and humans..
> >
> > > > For a person to believe that, requires more faith than any Christian =
> ever
> > > > has had.
> >
> > > Maybe, but it's a proposal to explain the given record found in the
> > > ground.
> >
> > I believe there was a book that was writted by an advocate of creation. I
> > believe the title of the book was "The Amazing Faith of the
> > Evolutionists". The people that believe that life evolved from a one
> > celled life form have an amazing amount of faith. If 99.9% of mutations
> > are bad, that means there faith is even stronger than I once believed it
> > was.
>
> No, no, no. The basis of evolutionary theory is studying the fossil
> record. There have been some ideas proposed based on studying the
> record and trying to determine the next step. Their "faith" is based
> on studying the evidence and reaching conclusions not immediately
> evident.
Thanks for your excellent post.
rincewind
>
>
>
>
>
> rincewind <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > > <c8d02ba9-bd10-4a48-9ea5-b1cafa2ae...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > rincewind <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I never said they did. I was of the impression that "abiogenesis" w=
> > as
> > > > > > a fancy term for "spontaneous generation." If I'm wrong, forgive me=
> > .
>
> > > > > I don't believe the advocates of evolution use the term "spontaneous
> > > > > generation" anymore. However, a cell evolving naturally from amino ac=
> > ids
> > > > > would be a type of spontaneous generation but as I stated they no lon=
> > ger
> > > > > use that term. I suggest that you google "spontaneous generation" to =
> > read
> > > > > the story of when the term was first used. After you read that story,=
> > you
> > > > > will know why the advocates of evolution no longer use that word.
>
> > > > > I am sorry that I failed to understand you. I am glad that you don't
> > > > > believe that a crocodile evolved naturally from the mud. As you state=
> > d, it
> > > > > did not happen that way. God created the first crocodile type creatur=
> > e.
> > > > > The modern day crocodiles and alligators evolved from that first croc=
> > odile
> > > > > type creature that God created.
>
> > > > So we actually both agree, I just take it a step further and suggest
> > > > that God started the whole process by triggering the amino acids into
> > > > life. However, I don't think that should be taught in a science class
> > > > as there's no proof of WHAT exactly started the first chain reaction.
> > > > (And yes, there's no proof of there being an amino acid pool to begin
> > > > with, but that's a logical progression given the condition of the
> > > > fossil record that does exsist.)
>
> > > > > Most of the advocates of evolution that I have talked to have told me=
> > that
> > > > > many of them believe that mankind evolved from a one celled life form=
> > .
> > > > > They also told me that the first cell (or cells) evolved naturally fr=
> > om
> > > > > amino acids, etc. It's similar to the primordial soup theory but they=
> > now
> > > > > claim this could have happened in many other places on the earth. The=
> > re is
> > > > > no proof that the first cell evolved naturally from amino acids, etc.=
> > They
> > > > > don't like it when I accuse them of having faith that the first cell
> > > > > evolved naturally from amino acids, etc. Howerver, that theory is bas=
> > ed
> > > > > more on faith than on proof that it happened that way.
>
> > > > While I understand your point on the lack of proof of the primordial
> > > > ooze theory (or maybe "hypothasus" would be a better term) It still
> > > > makes sense if you study the evolutionary record that does exsist and
> > > > notice that the lifeforms get more and more primitive as the record
> > > > goes back in time. It's not unlikely to presume that the very first
> > > > step would be a primordial ooze that contains the amino acids that
> > > > formed life.
>
> > > > And I've never heard anyone suggest that the amino acids "naturally"
> > > > evolved into life forms. The theory I've heard is that some massive
> > > > force bonded inert amino acids into the beginnings of life.
>
> > > > > Thanks for your interesting post.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > The truth is that there is NO proof as to how life got started on this
> > > world. =A0I believe that God created mankind, plants and animals. After t=
> > he
> > > creation process =A0was finished is when evolution kicked in. The plants =
> > and
> > > animals in the world right now have as ancestors the plants and animals
> > > that God created in the Garden of Eden. Of course, the advocates of
> > > evolution believe it happened a different way. The theory you mentioned
> > > related to amino acids is the latest one but there will probably be other
> > > theories in the years to come. I seem to recall reading that a lighting
> > > strike on amino acid was the theory of at least one atheist scientist.
>
> > > jason
>
> > ...and who makes the lightening strike? I heard massive solar flares
> > bringing radiation. (There was a Dr. Who story where it was an
> > exploding space ship... I think we can pass on that one!)
>
> > The Garden of Eden story implies that the animals that were created
> > were in fact created just as they are now, and about 4,000 years ago
> > which doesn't fit in with the given fossil record that we've found.
>
> > There is out there somewhere a "creationist" museum where they take
> > everything and change it to fit the creation theory. They have a
> > skeleton of a T. Rex with a plaque that reads; "T. Rex - was a
> > vegetarian before the Fall" - ????
>
> You may be referring to the Creation Science Museum that was established
> by Kenneth Ham (spelling?).
The very juxipostion (sp) of those first two words is a contradiction
in terms.
rincewind
> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> skrev i meldingnews:Jason-03081...@67-150-127-28.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <GqydnfWgqeXMEcXRnZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@posted.comnet>, "~.^.Saba
>
> >> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
> >>news:i3974m$mnc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> >news:1K-dnSowdv0wT9HR...@posted.comnet...
>
> >> >> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
> >> >>news:i2hs9o$iat$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> >>> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>news:Jason-24071...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> >> >>>> Radioactive waste helps to increase the number of cellular mutations
> >> >>>> in life forms. Help me to send one truckload to the backyard of
> >> >>>> every
> >> >>>> evolution-teaching professor in America............
>
> >> >>> Since when are evolution-teaching professors responsible for
> >> >>> Radioactive
> >> >>> waste? That makes no sense.
>
> >> >> He's being ironic. If mutations help spurt foreward evolution, think
> >> >> how fast it would go if they could be near mutation-catalyzing radio
> >> >> active waiste..but I don't think they'd want that.. lol.
>
> >> > Radio active waste causes negative mutations, not positive ones.
>
> >> 99,9% of mutations are bad. They propose the small left percentage
> >> is what created ALL the animals and humans..
>
> > For a person to believe that, requires more faith than any Christian ever
> > has had.
>
> Yep. I don't have that kind of faith in me, I'll tell you that.
>
> S
All it requires is faith in the scientific process.
Parish *~
>
> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
> news:i3974m$mnc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~" <vero...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
>> news:1K-dnSowdv0wT9HR...@posted.comnet...
>>>
>>> "Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
>>> news:i2hs9o$iat$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Jason-24071...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>>>>> Radioactive waste helps to increase the number of cellular mutations
>>>>> in life forms. Help me to send one truckload to the backyard of every
>>>>> evolution-teaching professor in America............
>>>>
>>>> Since when are evolution-teaching professors responsible for
>>>> Radioactive waste? That makes no sense.
>>>
>>
>>> He's being ironic. If mutations help spurt foreward evolution, think
>>> how fast it would go if they could be near mutation-catalyzing radio
>>> active waiste..but I don't think they'd want that.. lol.
>>
>>
>> Radio active waste causes negative mutations, not positive ones.
>
> 99,9% of mutations are bad. They propose the small left percentage
> is what created ALL the animals and humans..
But the good ones made all the difference in the world. :-)
~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~
"Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
In your vacant mind
S
Parish *~
No, on the earth.... had you gone to a regular school you would know this.
;-)
~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~
"Parish *~" <Par...@invalid.invalid> skrev i melding
oh sorry, I meant your filled-with-bullshit mind..
S
KC
> On Jul 31, 7:07 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 25, 11:26 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > In article <i2hcss0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Annointed Remnant
>
> > > <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <Jason-2407101543050...@66-53-208-78.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Jason
> > > > says...
>
> > > > >They're sure of only one thing - and that is that
> > > > >humans do not have to answer to God.
>
> > > > So, that is what life boils down to? Having to answer to a nonexistent,
> > > > mythical, supernatural being? If there was a god and he created the universe,
> > > > surely he could figure out some way to communicate with his creations
> > > other than
> > > > gibberish written thousands of years ago, and I have yet to discover a person
> > > > who speaks with god who is not mentally ill. So, if we eliminate
> > > ancient texts
> > > > and modern psychos, what do we have left for evidence of god?
>
> > > That is interesting. I have discovered that many of the people that I have
> > > met that are atheists are also mentally ill.
>
> > Huh! I have discovered that many of the people named "Jason" who post
> > on this newsgroup are really, really stupid.
>
> > - Bob T
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Anyway, I don't advocate creationism taught in the schools but whenevolutionis, I have to wonder why they wouldn't include some science
> stuff that would enhance a creator? (I think there should be open
> discussions on both sides as a 'non-course' or haveevolutionand
> creation in a club after school).
>
> Anyway with the recent which came first question the chicken or the
> egg....the science of the matter was commented on:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 07:55:41 -0700 (PDT), curtjester1
>
> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >What came first, the chicken or the egg?
>
> The chicken just like the Bible says.
>
> Science answers, 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?'
>
> philosophers for centuries: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> claim to have answered the question that has confounded philosophers
> for centuries: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
>
> It was, they say, indisputably the chicken.
>
> of a chicken's egg in microscopic detail and discovered that the
> shell
> was made from a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries.
>
> development of the shell.
>
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
actually, I heard that the egg came first and the chicken miraculously
popped out of it. lol. Not that everyone hold that opinion, I just
heard it and thought it was the funniest thing I have ever heard.
edrh...@hotmail.com
curtjester1
> On Thursday, August 5, 2010 12:07:32 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
> > In article
that was established over time which is everyone's out as far as
evidence. You have to actually find things in the ground that support
an opinion of transitional complexity which you will certainly be
lacking. So whether the complex was in force when a creation could
have been finished to be furthered by a female/male system into
further complexities, you must show, not only in your premise, but on
finding just how male and female would have come into a non-
creationistic beginning as well. We like, "he who created him male
and female" from Matt. 19:4 because it certainly seems on how we are
and always have been, and we acknowledge that it was incorporated and
made possible by a higher power, God, one who defies what science type
folk seem to want to define other than HIM.
CJ
edrh...@hotmail.com
curtjester1
anyone to even think there was a positive time element in the past
when it was done, nor how after creation affected things...that is
until theories started popping up in the 1800's. Even with all the
digging around there is nothing that makes macro evolution a viable
theory and diffuses itself without any connecting dots. As far as
dating things, that is still quite a hotbed of subjective opinionating/
theory. And the earth was in existence or being formed on or before
the first creative day.
What God wants us to think is that the creation is bigger than us, and
wouldn't have formed out of chaos and spontaneity and was formed by a
creating, highly efficienct engineer that can be seen by the casual
obsevances of nature.
CJ
edrh...@hotmail.com
Yes, a lot of evolutionary theory is conjecture. But it's conjecture based on what has been discovered over the past 200 years.
curtjester1
if you can't put links together in your underground findings. There
isn't in any the purported small critters of life, and even some basic
assumptions like chimp to man aren't linked either, but by some wild
imagination of a very small smattering of bones. If there were truly
a link there would be millions of whole bodies being slightly
differing and going forward, but there isn't. That is true for many
other species. It's why you get hoaxes with dinosaurs with wings.
etc.
CJ
edrh...@hotmail.com
Now did God cause the first spark in the primordal (sp) ooze that started the whole thing so many, many millions of years ago? Yes, I believe He did. But I would want that taught in a science class since it's not a theory or even a hypothesis but only a conjecture on my part.
Annointed Remnant
curtjester1 says...
>
>I think you have faith that there is this immense amount of complexity
>that was established over time which is everyone's out as far as
>evidence. You have to actually find things in the ground that support
>an opinion of transitional complexity which you will certainly be
>lacking. So whether the complex was in force when a creation could
>have been finished to be furthered by a female/male system into
>further complexities, you must show, not only in your premise, but on
>finding just how male and female would have come into a non-
>creationistic beginning as well. We like, "he who created him male
>and female" from Matt. 19:4 because it certainly seems on how we are
>and always have been, and we acknowledge that it was incorporated and
>made possible by a higher power, God, one who defies what science type
>folk seem to want to define other than HIM.
>
>CJ
would still be living in trees...
Annointed Remnant
edrh...@hotmail.com says...
fundamentalists. They believe the creation account in Genesis, but that each
creative day was 7000 years, not one. Fundamentalists are a throwback to the
days of rank superstition and ignorance. No matter how much evidence you pile
up, he will never accept it if it disagrees with the Watchtower bullshit written
by non-specialists.
curtjester1
life to any extended form of life. There is no evidence of many
things becoming coming from a past other than within in a confined
group which can be just a close variety of a set species. There is
nothing to dismiss as there is no evidence. The evidence of Genesis
is that it agrees with even science in the necessary steps for life to
be conducive to living in its enviroment in it's needs and steps for
those needs. The evidence is apparent in all of nature. You have
all species intact, whole, with all it's life surrounding it in all
its complexity to have it living and livable. All species have systems
dependent on other systems in the body and can't be a system without
all of them working together. That can't happen unless they were all
together at one time. Can you imagine a penis waiting upteeen eons
for a sperm or a female organ to arrive? No, it has to be there
already. Therefore we can trust the Bible and Jesus' words, about
worshiping the one, "who made them male and female". Simple, logical,
correct. Evolution, complex, bent on cartoonish imagination, and
unprovable by trying to connect it's own dots.
CJ
LashLarue ~~~~
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ac6d905-f094-430c...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:48:58 AM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> If the evidence is not conclusive enough for you, I'm sorry. Frankly I
> don't believe it ever WILL be conclusive enough for some people. The
> evidence is still there, dismiss it as you will. There is NO evidence for
> the Genesis version of creation.
>
What evidence are you speaking of?
magazines.
There is simply no link of first
life to any extended form of life. There is no evidence of many
things becoming coming from a past other than within in a confined
group which can be just a close variety of a set species. There is
nothing to dismiss as there is no evidence.
horse? They show an almost complete record of how the horse evolved.
The evidence of Genesis
is that it agrees with even science in the necessary steps for life to
be conducive to living in its enviroment in it's needs and steps for
those needs.
childbirth. Animals adapt to different enviornments or become extinct.
The evidence is apparent in all of nature. You have
all species intact, whole, with all it's life surrounding it in all
its complexity to have it living and livable. All species have systems
dependent on other systems in the body and can't be a system without
all of them working together.
That can't happen unless they were all
together at one time. Can you imagine a penis waiting upteeen eons
for a sperm or a female organ to arrive? No, it has to be there
already.
Therefore we can trust the Bible and Jesus' words, about
worshiping the one, "who made them male and female". Simple, logical,
correct. Evolution, complex, bent on cartoonish imagination, and
unprovable by trying to connect it's own dots.
go!!!!!!!!!!
edrh...@hotmail.com
> What evidence are you speaking of? There is simply no link of first
> life to any extended form of life. There is no evidence of many
> things becoming coming from a past other than within in a confined
> group which can be just a close variety of a set species. There is
> nothing to dismiss as there is no evidence. The evidence of Genesis
> is that it agrees with even science in the necessary steps for life to
> be conducive to living in its enviroment in it's needs and steps for
> those needs. The evidence is apparent in all of nature. You have
> all species intact, whole, with all it's life surrounding it in all
> its complexity to have it living and livable. All species have systems
> dependent on other systems in the body and can't be a system without
> all of them working together. That can't happen unless they were all
> together at one time. Can you imagine a penis waiting upteeen eons
> for a sperm or a female organ to arrive? No, it has to be there
> already. Therefore we can trust the Bible and Jesus' words, about
> worshiping the one, "who made them male and female". Simple, logical,
> correct. Evolution, complex, bent on cartoonish imagination, and
> unprovable by trying to connect it's own dots.
Now think about that for a second. ONLY lifeforms that went extinct managed to die somewhere where they could leave a fossil trace? I don't think so.
You want to disprove evolution? Easily done, find fossils of current life forms that can be carbon-dated back to before they should exist.
Oh wait, maybe it's not that easy after all.
curtjester1
wrote:
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5ac6d905-f094-430c...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 11, 11:47 am, edrho...@hotmail.com wrote:> On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:48:58 AM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > If the evidence is not conclusive enough for you, I'm sorry. Frankly I
> > don't believe it ever WILL be conclusive enough for some people. The
> > evidence is still there, dismiss it as you will. There is NO evidence for
> > the Genesis version of creation.
>
> What evidence are you speaking of?
>
> * You didn't bother to read the evidence yet you read those silly Watchtower
> magazines.
>
Creator long before the Watchtower, and people read many other
publications besides that to enhance their knowledge of what are
present, topical discussions. In fact, if it wasn't for science folk
with pushing their unprovable theories, there would be no theories of
evolution as most all believed in a Creator prior to that.
> life to any extended form of life. There is no evidence of many
> things becoming coming from a past other than within in a confined
> group which can be just a close variety of a set species. There is
> nothing to dismiss as there is no evidence.
>
> * No evidence of what exactly? Have you looked at the skeletons of the
> horse? They show an almost complete record of how the horse evolved.
>
says creation happened by creating 'kinds' which implies a parameter
of creatures under that umbrella. Evolution to be true must show it's
path through all forms of life, which are cousins of other forms of
life, which is basically defined as macro evolution. Micro evolution
or simply change by the reproduction process is showing mere change
and not an overall theory.
> The evidence of Genesis
> is that it agrees with even science in the necessary steps for life to
> be conducive to living in its enviroment in it's needs and steps for
> those needs.
>
> * Then your god is a poor creator. Look at how many women die in
> childbirth. Animals adapt to different enviornments or become extinct.
>
curses for improper allegiance were the reason for those
'imperfections' and will all be remedied in a promised 'new creation'
for mankind.
Animals wouldn't have to adapt if they were under humans being their
caretakers, as was an original mandate.
> The evidence is apparent in all of nature. You have
> all species intact, whole, with all it's life surrounding it in all
> its complexity to have it living and livable. All species have systems
> dependent on other systems in the body and can't be a system without
> all of them working together.
>
> * I'm living very well without my appendix and tonsils.
>
you like your hearing, all your senses, all your brain functions which
are all interdependent on multi-complex systems operating for them,
and they themselves interdependent on other systems.
> That can't happen unless they were all
> together at one time. Can you imagine a penis waiting upteeen eons
> for a sperm or a female organ to arrive? No, it has to be there
> already.
>
> * What makes you think the sexes would evolve independently of each other?
>
completely intact to be functional. It's only evolution that wants
you to imagine your way to that inconvient truth.
> Therefore we can trust the Bible and Jesus' words, about
> worshiping the one, "who made them male and female". Simple, logical,
> correct. Evolution, complex, bent on cartoonish imagination, and
> unprovable by trying to connect it's own dots.
>
> * And so you worship a god who created AIDS, cancer, Ebola....... way to
> go!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
live on and on. Our cells replenish in a matter of seconds. We
aren't designed to rust away like man-made things. All he ever asked
for was simple obedience. It's the only way a world could ever live
in peace, and well we see the point to know why we go through those
issues before the promises are realized. The GoE was guarded for no
return for a reason. In there was no disease or extreme weather
conditions, and many things we see today. The life outside was going
to be a tough life besides the mandate of death. It's God's way of
dropping people to their knees.
CJ
curtjester1
> > What evidence are you speaking of? There is simply no link of first
> > life to any extended form of life. There is no evidence of many
> > things becoming coming from a past other than within in a confined
> > group which can be just a close variety of a set species. There is
> > nothing to dismiss as there is no evidence. The evidence of Genesis
> > is that it agrees with even science in the necessary steps for life to
> > be conducive to living in its enviroment in it's needs and steps for
> > those needs. The evidence is apparent in all of nature. You have
> > all species intact, whole, with all it's life surrounding it in all
> > its complexity to have it living and livable. All species have systems
> > dependent on other systems in the body and can't be a system without
> > all of them working together. That can't happen unless they were all
> > together at one time. Can you imagine a penis waiting upteeen eons
> > for a sperm or a female organ to arrive? No, it has to be there
> > already. Therefore we can trust the Bible and Jesus' words, about
> > worshiping the one, "who made them male and female". Simple, logical,
> > correct. Evolution, complex, bent on cartoonish imagination, and
> > unprovable by trying to connect it's own dots.
>
> As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong) the Genesis theory is that all life as we see it here today, existed since the beginning and the "primitive" forms of life the evolutionists bring up are simply life forms that went extinct.
>
form of life. That's an evolutionary buzzword and a cartoon. All
forms of life are quite complex. There is no simple life forms.
Extinction can just be attributed to improper management.
> Now think about that for a second. ONLY lifeforms that went extinct managed to die somewhere where they could leave a fossil trace? I don't think so.
>
> You want to disprove evolution? Easily done, find fossils of current life forms that can be carbon-dated back to before they should exist.
>
starting from an early form and be visible and seen as it 'progressed'
further. It doesn't ever happen. Embarrassing to the evolutionists,
yet they just go onto other things.
> Oh wait, maybe it's not that easy after all.
are looking at just didn't come into existence without a lot of
forethought, forethought that was of a high science 'experiment'.
CJ
edrh...@hotmail.com
> That doesn't support evolution as I discussed previously. The Bible
> says creation happened by creating 'kinds' which implies a parameter
> of creatures under that umbrella. Evolution to be true must show it's
> path through all forms of life, which are cousins of other forms of
> life, which is basically defined as macro evolution. Micro evolution
> or simply change by the reproduction process is showing mere change
> and not an overall theory.
LashLarue ~~~~
wrote:
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5ac6d905-f094-430c...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 11, 11:47 am, edrho...@hotmail.com wrote:> On Tuesday, June 11,
> 2013 9:48:58 AM UTC-4, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > If the evidence is not conclusive enough for you, I'm sorry. Frankly I
> > don't believe it ever WILL be conclusive enough for some people. The
> > evidence is still there, dismiss it as you will. There is NO evidence
> > for
> > the Genesis version of creation.
>
> What evidence are you speaking of?
>
> * You didn't bother to read the evidence yet you read those silly
> Watchtower
> magazines.
>
Yet, you don't seem to care about a topic. People have believed in a
Creator long before the Watchtower, and people read many other
publications besides that to enhance their knowledge of what are
present, topical discussions.
Science didn't exist back then. No one knew about DNA or how old the earth
was. People also believed in monsters, elves, evil spirits, vampires,
unicorns, werewolves, and other things we know do not exist. Reading the WT
mag is like reading a mix of truth and fiction and wishful thinking.
In fact, if it wasn't for science folk
with pushing their unprovable theories, there would be no theories of
evolution as most all believed in a Creator prior to that.
believed in a magical creator because they didn't know any better. Science
didn't exist back then. People were ignorant and superstitious. I know you
never attended school but you would have learned about the history of man
and science. You are aware that those who believed in "creation" also
believed that mental illness didn't exist, that those people were infested
with evil spirits. Today we know better. We understand mental illness and
know evil spirits don't exist and have nothing to do with it. Your
ignorance of science and biology in general is astounding. Where you home
taught by a fundamentalist?
>
> * No evidence of what exactly? Have you looked at the skeletons of the
> horse? They show an almost complete record of how the horse evolved.
That doesn't support evolution as I discussed previously. The Bible
says creation happened by creating 'kinds' which implies a parameter
of creatures under that umbrella. Evolution to be true must show it's
path through all forms of life, which are cousins of other forms of
life, which is basically defined as macro evolution. Micro evolution
or simply change by the reproduction process is showing mere change
and not an overall theory.
You're talking like man whose education ended in the 1940s.
>
> * Then your god is a poor creator. Look at how many women die in
> childbirth. Animals adapt to different enviornments or become extinct.
>
That's a theology issue, and theolgy by the Bible says mandates or
curses for improper allegiance were the reason for those
'imperfections' and will all be remedied in a promised 'new creation'
for mankind.
women should be punished in some way.
Animals wouldn't have to adapt if they were under humans being their
caretakers, as was an original mandate.
earth so animals don't go extinct? You believe man has such magical godlike
powers? Are you so ignorant you are not aware that it is man who pushes the
animals to extinction? That were man has not gone the animals THRIVE and do
well? Animals do not need and have never needed man to "care" for them.
That's pure WTS conjecture and you have to know that. ;-)
>
> * I'm living very well without my appendix and tonsils.
>
You wouldn't have that as an issue unless there were so much given to
you like your hearing, all your senses, all your brain functions which
are all interdependent on multi-complex systems operating for them,
and they themselves interdependent on other systems.
> That can't happen unless they were all
> together at one time. Can you imagine a penis waiting upteeen eons
> for a sperm or a female organ to arrive? No, it has to be there
> already.
>
> * What makes you think the sexes would evolve independently of each other?
>
I don't. It's silly to think they would. They would have to be
completely intact to be functional. It's only evolution that wants
you to imagine your way to that inconvient truth.
animal/bird/whatever evolved. A God would know how to create female sex
organs so no women or female animals died due to giving birth, or during
birth. But your God failed to do that. Evolution is blind. Is God just as
blind and cold and uncaring? How about THAT inconvenient truth about your
supposed God?
>
> * And so you worship a god who created AIDS, cancer, Ebola....... way to
> go!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
Blame it on God when he has given so much.
while he floats on the clouds filing his nails?
Our bodies are designed to
live on and on. Our cells replenish in a matter of seconds. We
aren't designed to rust away like man-made things. All he ever asked
for was simple obedience.
Would you put a deadly tree or plant in front of your loved ones? Of course
not. Only a homicidal idiot would so such a thing. Or the evilness he did
by punishing all humanity because one mythical uneducated ignorant woman
with no life experience was tricked and beguiled by a talking serpent.
Anyone can be beguiled and tricked. But your particular God didn't seem to
know or understand that. Also, no one with any sense at all punishes the
innocent descendants of those who commit crimes.
It's the only way a world could ever live
in peace, and well we see the point to know why we go through those
issues before the promises are realized. The GoE was guarded for no
return for a reason. In there was no disease or extreme weather
conditions, and many things we see today. The life outside was going
to be a tough life besides the mandate of death. It's God's way of
dropping people to their knees.
God is, eh? How sad a god needs his human pets to worship him like a dog
worships it's owner.....
LashLarue ~~~~
>
> As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong) the Genesis theory is
> that all life as we see it here today, existed since the beginning and the
> "primitive" forms of life the evolutionists bring up are simply life forms
> that went extinct.
>
It just says they were created. There is no such thing as a primitive
form of life. That's an evolutionary buzzword and a cartoon. All
forms of life are quite complex. There is no simple life forms.
Extinction can just be attributed to improper management.
years ago? How you suppose man did that? And why are human remains never
found with the dinosaurs if man is that old and mismanaged them? You are
aware that animals live just fine where man doesn't invade, aren't you?
Animals don't need man to manage them. All they need is man stay away from
them and let them be.
> Now think about that for a second. ONLY lifeforms that went extinct
> managed to die somewhere where they could leave a fossil trace? I don't
> think so.
>
Why on earth would you want to think that?
> You want to disprove evolution? Easily done, find fossils of current life
> forms that can be carbon-dated back to before they should exist.
>
Evolution is easily disprovable. There would be a pattern of life
starting from an early form and be visible and seen as it 'progressed'
further. It doesn't ever happen. Embarrassing to the evolutionists,
yet they just go onto other things.
exists and created everything, including the universe, all diseases, man
etc?
> Oh wait, maybe it's not that easy after all.
What's really easy is to look around you and see that you or what you
are looking at just didn't come into existence without a lot of
forethought, forethought that was of a high science 'experiment'.
witness the creation of the universe, the earth and all forms of life. This
planet may well have been seeded by aliens, not gods, from someplace way out
in space........ now prove or disprove that.
curtjester1
wrote:
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b7793fdc-3cd5-4cde...@n5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 15, 11:19 am, edrho...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong) the Genesis theory is
> > that all life as we see it here today, existed since the beginning and the
> > "primitive" forms of life the evolutionists bring up are simply life forms
> > that went extinct.
>
> It just says they were created. There is no such thing as a primitive
> form of life. That's an evolutionary buzzword and a cartoon. All
> forms of life are quite complex. There is no simple life forms.
> Extinction can just be attributed to improper management.
>
> ** So you're saying man mismanaged the dinosaurs that lived over 65,000,000
> years ago? How you suppose man did that? And why are human remains never
> found with the dinosaurs if man is that old and mismanaged them? You are
> aware that animals live just fine where man doesn't invade, aren't you?
> Animals don't need man to manage them. All they need is man stay away from
> them and let them be.
>
man, or died in the world wide cataclysm of Noah's Flood. There are
sites that show dinosaur mixed in with all sorts of other fossils
including man.
> > Now think about that for a second. ONLY lifeforms that went extinct
> > managed to die somewhere where they could leave a fossil trace? I don't
> > think so.
>
> Why on earth would you want to think that?
>
> > You want to disprove evolution? Easily done, find fossils of current life
> > forms that can be carbon-dated back to before they should exist.
>
> Evolution is easily disprovable. There would be a pattern of life
> starting from an early form and be visible and seen as it 'progressed'
> further. It doesn't ever happen. Embarrassing to the evolutionists,
> yet they just go onto other things.
>
> ** How about YOU prove your God, of the 22,000 known gods man worships,
> exists and created everything, including the universe, all diseases, man
> etc?
>
figure it out.
> > Oh wait, maybe it's not that easy after all.
>
> What's really easy is to look around you and see that you or what you
> are looking at just didn't come into existence without a lot of
> forethought, forethought that was of a high science 'experiment'.
>
> ** And no way to know how it all came about since no one was there to
> witness the creation of the universe, the earth and all forms of life. This
> planet may well have been seeded by aliens, not gods, from someplace way out
> in space........ now prove or disprove that.
spend their whole life doing that, seeing something made and
attributing intelligent creativity to it. If it's much greater than a
human possibility, it has to be a higher source.
You still have to attribute what your 'alien' would be. It would be
God compared to what the highest known life forms on earth are,
humans. Hollywood aliens wouldn't fit with the Bible, though.
CJ
edrh...@hotmail.com
> "curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b7793fdc-3cd5-4cde...@n5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jun 15, 11:19 am, edrho...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong) the Genesis theory is
>
> > that all life as we see it here today, existed since the beginning and the
>
> > "primitive" forms of life the evolutionists bring up are simply life forms
>
> > that went extinct.
>
> >
>
>
>
> It just says they were created. There is no such thing as a primitive
>
> form of life. That's an evolutionary buzzword and a cartoon. All
>
> forms of life are quite complex. There is no simple life forms.
>
> Extinction can just be attributed to improper management.
>
>
>
> ** So you're saying man mismanaged the dinosaurs that lived over 65,000,000
>
> years ago? How you suppose man did that? And why are human remains never
>
> found with the dinosaurs if man is that old and mismanaged them? You are
>
> aware that animals live just fine where man doesn't invade, aren't you?
>
> Animals don't need man to manage them. All they need is man stay away from
>
> them and let them be.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Now think about that for a second. ONLY lifeforms that went extinct
>
> > managed to die somewhere where they could leave a fossil trace? I don't
>
> > think so.
>
> >
>
> Why on earth would you want to think that?
>
> > You want to disprove evolution? Easily done, find fossils of current life
> > forms that can be carbon-dated back to before they should exist.
>
> Evolution is easily disprovable. There would be a pattern of life
> starting from an early form and be visible and seen as it 'progressed'
> further. It doesn't ever happen. Embarrassing to the evolutionists,
> yet they just go onto other things.
If creationism is true, then there should be an even distribution of life throughout the strata. Humans should appear with dinosaurs (for that matter, mammals should be all through the record) and that just doesn't happen.
> ** How about YOU prove your God, of the 22,000 known gods man worships,
> exists and created everything, including the universe, all diseases, man
> etc?
"Ah," says Man. "But the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God. "I hadn't thought of that." And promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
I don't have to prove God's existence. My faith is enough for me. But that doesn't mean I have to believe He put the entire Cosmos in place in seven working days with light coming from light years away and fossils in place to make us question the Biblical story of Genesis.
I would rather believe that whatever the "spark of life" that cause a primeval collection of amino acids to begin the long process of forming life was, it was God's doing. Evolution is God's toolbox.
>
> > Oh wait, maybe it's not that easy after all.
>
> What's really easy is to look around you and see that you or what you
> are looking at just didn't come into existence without a lot of
> forethought, forethought that was of a high science 'experiment'.
>
> ** And no way to know how it all came about since no one was there to
> witness the creation of the universe, the earth and all forms of life. This
> planet may well have been seeded by aliens, not gods, from someplace way out
> in space........ now prove or disprove that.
Creationism can't find any evidence that supports their claim. All they do is deny the evidence that has been found so far and complain that the gaps in the theory will never be filled.
edrh...@hotmail.com
> No, read what I say. I said "can". Dinosaur's could have died before
> man, or died in the world wide cataclysm of Noah's Flood. There are
> sites that show dinosaur mixed in with all sorts of other fossils
> including man.
If there are dino fossils intermixed with man fossils, I'd like to know if they carbon date to the same era.
We do have someone in alt.conspiracy who claims he's found fossils of man in between veins of coal. which make very little sense... but then so does most of what he has to say.
curtj...@hotmail.com
On Jun 17, 11:07 pm, edrho...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 9:38:30 PM UTC-4, LashLarue ~~~~ wrote:
> >news:b7793fdc-3cd5-4cde...@n5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 15, 11:19 am, edrho...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong) the Genesis theory is
>
> > > that all life as we see it here today, existed since the beginning and the
>
> > > "primitive" forms of life the evolutionists bring up are simply life forms
>
> > > that went extinct.
>
> > It just says they were created. There is no such thing as a primitive
>
> > form of life. That's an evolutionary buzzword and a cartoon. All
>
> > forms of life are quite complex. There is no simple life forms.
>
> > Extinction can just be attributed to improper management.
>
> > ** So you're saying man mismanaged the dinosaurs that lived over 65,000,000
>
> > years ago? How you suppose man did that? And why are human remains never
>
> > found with the dinosaurs if man is that old and mismanaged them? You are
>
> > aware that animals live just fine where man doesn't invade, aren't you?
>
> > Animals don't need man to manage them. All they need is man stay away from
>
> > them and let them be.
>
> > > Now think about that for a second. ONLY lifeforms that went extinct
>
> > > managed to die somewhere where they could leave a fossil trace? I don't
>
> > > think so.
>
> > Why on earth would you want to think that?
>
> Because that's the creationists argument; all forms of life that we currently see here have ALWAYS been here. Those "primitive" (and yes, they were still "complex" forms of life, but they were "primitive" compared to what we see today) life forms that aren't here anymore couldn't adapt and went extinct. HOWEVER, this then implies that ONLY those animals which went extinct managed to die in such a way as to leave fossils since fossils of "modern" animals aren't found in the same strata as fossils of "primitive" animals.
>
>
>
> > > You want to disprove evolution? Easily done, find fossils of current life
> > > forms that can be carbon-dated back to before they should exist.
>
> > Evolution is easily disprovable. There would be a pattern of life
> > starting from an early form and be visible and seen as it 'progressed'
> > further. It doesn't ever happen. Embarrassing to the evolutionists,
> > yet they just go onto other things.
>
> The pattern of life IS visible. There are gaps because we're talking about finding things that have been lying around for millions of years. But, the deeper you go, the more simple the life forms become.
>
> If creationism is true, then there should be an even distribution of life throughout the strata. Humans should appear with dinosaurs (for that matter, mammals should be all through the record) and that just doesn't happen.
>
> > ** How about YOU prove your God, of the 22,000 known gods man worships,
> > exists and created everything, including the universe, all diseases, man
> > etc?
>
> "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God. "For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."
>
> "Ah," says Man. "But the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't Q.E.D."
>
> "Oh dear," says God. "I hadn't thought of that." And promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
>
> I don't have to prove God's existence. My faith is enough for me. But that doesn't mean I have to believe He put the entire Cosmos in place in seven working days with light coming from light years away and fossils in place to make us question the Biblical story of Genesis.
>
> I would rather believe that whatever the "spark of life" that cause a primeval collection of amino acids to begin the long process of forming life was, it was God's doing. Evolution is God's toolbox.
>
>
>
> > > Oh wait, maybe it's not that easy after all.
>
> > What's really easy is to look around you and see that you or what you
> > are looking at just didn't come into existence without a lot of
> > forethought, forethought that was of a high science 'experiment'.
>
> It's easy to look around and say; "Gee this all must have been created and so therefore it WAS created." Not so easy to find evidence to support that idea.
>
>
CJ
curtj...@hotmail.com
> > No, read what I say. I said "can". Dinosaur's could have died before
>
> > man, or died in the world wide cataclysm of Noah's Flood. There are
>
> > sites that show dinosaur mixed in with all sorts of other fossils
>
> > including man.
>
>
>
> I'd like to know where. And I'd like to know what condition the dig was in. As far as I've understood, primitive mammals began to show up near the end of the dinosaurs run and "man" didn't show up until millions of years AFTER the dinosaurs were gone.
>
>
>
> If there are dino fossils intermixed with man fossils, I'd like to know if they carbon date to the same era.
>
>
>
> We do have someone in alt.conspiracy who claims he's found fossils of man in between veins of coal. which make very little sense... but then so does most of what he has to say.
CJ
edrh...@hotmail.com
> There is a lot to be understood about coal deposits. Some say it's the direct consequence of the Flood and the burying of the lush vegetation that growing Pre-Flood when the enviroment must have been different with no direct sun, and humans living hundreds of years and the finding of growth of huge animal and plants.
curtj...@hotmail.com
> > There is a lot to be understood about coal deposits. Some say it's the direct consequence of the Flood and the burying of the lush vegetation that growing Pre-Flood when the enviroment must have been different with no direct sun, and humans living hundreds of years and the finding of growth of huge animal and plants.
>
>
>
> These are legitimate theories? Really? What do you base these on?
CJ
Annointed Remnant
curtj...@hotmail.com says...
>> >
>> > There is a lot to be understood about
>> >coal deposits. Some say it's the direct
>> >consequence of the Flood
>> These are legitimate theories? Really?
>> What do you base these on?
>
>Do some research.
Watcthtower nonsense written by cult controlled, undereducated,
non-professionals is not research. Read something written by professionals who
do not have an agenda.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/fossils_ruins/evolution/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/evo.2013.67.issue-6/issuetoc
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html
curtj...@hotmail.com
> In article <65ae281c-4778-463c...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> curtj...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >
>
> >> >
>
> >> > There is a lot to be understood about
>
> >> >coal deposits. Some say it's the direct
>
> >> >consequence of the Flood
>
>
>
> No one but an undereducated idiot believes there was a Bibical global flood.
>
>
>
> >> These are legitimate theories? Really?
>
> >> What do you base these on?
>
> >
>
> >Do some research.
>
>
>
> Gary Bergman, you've never researched anything in your whole life. Reading
>
> Watcthtower nonsense written by cult controlled, undereducated,
>
> non-professionals is not research. Read something written by professionals who
>
> do not have an agenda.
>
>
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/fossils_ruins/evolution/
>
>
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/evo.2013.67.issue-6/issuetoc
>
>
>
> http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html
CJ
Annointed Remnant
curtj...@hotmail.com says...
>On Saturday, June 22, 2013 12:51:43 PM UTC-4, Annointed Remnant wrote:
>> In article <65ae281c-4778-463c...@googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> there was a Bibical global flood.
>>
>Many PHd folk spend countless hours supporting
>catastrophism
believes there was a Biblical global flood.
>> Gary Bergman, you've never researched
>anything in your whole life. Reading
>> Watcthtower nonsense written by cult
>> controlled, undereducated,
>>
>Well, a Watchtower would at least show that
>Jesus spoke of a Noah's Flood and made it
>instrumental in his ministry.
the Bible!"
>And as far as off-topics like a science of
>floods, they do use extensive science
>citations to give a view.
creationists. You've never looked up any of their references or quotes. If
youe did, they you would know they are lying.
>> Read something written by professionals
>> who do not have an agenda.
>>
>You are a buffoon and not a researcher
Watctower which is written by undereducated cult members with absolutely no
scientific background.
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/fossils_ruins/evolution/
>>
>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/evo.2013.67.issue-6/issuetoc
>>
>> http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html
>
>types of people and sites do have agendas,
>and seemingly are void of putting thoughts
>of intelligence in the formation of our
>life on earth, when it is so easily seen
>and provable.
curtj...@hotmail.com
> In article <6b7a5095-510f-4c7b...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> curtj...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >
>
> >On Saturday, June 22, 2013 12:51:43 PM UTC-4, Annointed Remnant wrote:
>
> >> In article <65ae281c-4778-463c...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>
>
> >> No one but an undereducated idiot believes
>
> >> there was a Bibical global flood.
>
> >>
>
> >Many PHd folk spend countless hours supporting
>
> >catastrophism
>
>
>
> You are a liar. NO scientist who is respected in the scientific community
>
> believes there was a Biblical global flood.
>
>
>
> >> Gary Bergman, you've never researched
>
> >anything in your whole life. Reading
>
> >> Watcthtower nonsense written by cult
>
> >> controlled, undereducated,
>
> >>
>
> >Well, a Watchtower would at least show that
>
> >Jesus spoke of a Noah's Flood and made it
>
> >instrumental in his ministry.
>
>
>
> A typical fundamentalist response. When you lack evidence, you scream, "It's in
>
> the Bible!"
>
>
>
> >And as far as off-topics like a science of
>
> >floods, they do use extensive science
>
> >citations to give a view.
>
>
>
> No they don't. They are liars. Their references are bullshit remarks made by
>
> creationists. You've never looked up any of their references or quotes. If
>
> youe did, they you would know they are lying.
>
>
>
> >> Read something written by professionals
>
> >> who do not have an agenda.
>
> >>
>
> >You are a buffoon and not a researcher
>
>
>
> I read what real scientists have to say. You will not. You turn to the stupid
>
> Watctower which is written by undereducated cult members with absolutely no
>
> scientific background.
>
>
>
> >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/fossils_ruins/evolution/
>
> >>
>
> >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/evo.2013.67.issue-6/issuetoc
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html
>
> >
>
> >Typical internet stuff, and many of these
>
> >types of people and sites do have agendas,
>
> >and seemingly are void of putting thoughts
>
> >of intelligence in the formation of our
>
> >life on earth, when it is so easily seen
>
> >and provable.
>
>
>
> You are an imbecile, Gary Bergman.
CJ
Annointed Remnant
curtj...@hotmail.com says...
>On Sunday, June 23, 2013 8:44:03 AM UTC-4, Annointed Remnant wrote:
>> In article <6b7a5095-510f-4c7b...@googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> curtj...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> >
>>
>> >On Saturday, June 22, 2013 12:51:43 PM UTC-4, Annointed Remnant wrote:
>>
>> >> In article <65ae281c-4778-463c...@googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> No one but an undereducated idiot
>> >> believes there was a Bibical global
>> >> flood.
>>
>> >Many PHd folk spend countless hours
>> >supporting catastrophism
>>
>> You are a liar. NO scientist who is
>> respected in the scientific community
>> believes there was a Biblical global
>> flood.
>>
>>
>The internet is full of discussions on stuff
fantasize about being a Vietnam vet. The truth is you're an obese, lonely old
man who has lost his drivers license and putts around on a bicycle.
>> >> Gary Bergman, you've never researched
>> >> controlled, undereducated,
>>
>> >Well, a Watchtower would at least show that
>> >Jesus spoke of a Noah's Flood and made it
>> >instrumental in his ministry.
>>
>> A typical fundamentalist response. When
>> you lack evidence, you scream, "It's in
>> the Bible!"
>>
>People should believe in the Bible
taken to the city gate and stoned to death? People who claim the Bible is to be
taken literally has never read the Bible or are simply to goddamn stupid to
understand what it says.
>There are marine fossils on top of all
>mountains,
>> >And as far as off-topics like a science of
>>
>> >floods, they do use extensive science
>>
>> >citations to give a view.
>>
>>
>>
>> No they don't. They are liars. Their
>> references are bullshit remarks made by
>> creationists. You've never looked up
>> any of their references or quotes. If
>Said by an educated buffoon.
who refuses to educated himself.
>> >> Read something written by professionals
>> >> who do not have an agenda.
>>
>> >You are a buffoon and not a researcher
>>
>> I read what real scientists have to say.
>> You will not. You turn to the stupid
>>
>You can't even support what you claim
throughout the whole world.
>> You are an imbecile, Gary Bergman.
>
>Evidence and critical thinking not your strong suit?
That's not even funny, Gary. You can't think beyond the Watchtower.
Look, Gary Bergman, I can't debate with a man who demonstrates that he knows
nothing more than a child with a fourth grade education.
curtj...@hotmail.com
> In article <979e41d4-1ec5-4d79...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> curtj...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >
>
> >On Sunday, June 23, 2013 8:44:03 AM UTC-4, Annointed Remnant wrote:
>
> >> In article <6b7a5095-510f-4c7b...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>
>
> >> curtj...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Saturday, June 22, 2013 12:51:43 PM UTC-4, Annointed Remnant wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> In article <65ae281c-4778-463c...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> No one but an undereducated idiot
>
> >> >> believes there was a Bibical global
>
> >> >> flood.
>
> >>
>
> >> >Many PHd folk spend countless hours
>
> >> >supporting catastrophism
>
> >>
>
> >> You are a liar. NO scientist who is
>
> >> respected in the scientific community
>
> >> believes there was a Biblical global
>
> >> flood.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >The internet is full of discussions on stuff
>
>
>
> And that's why you believe in goofy conspiracies and alternate medicine and
>
> fantasize about being a Vietnam vet. The truth is you're an obese, lonely old
>
> man who has lost his drivers license and putts around on a bicycle.
>
>
>
> >> >> Gary Bergman, you've never researched
>
> >> >? anything in your whole life. Reading
>
> >> >> Watcthtower nonsense written by cult
>
> >> >> controlled, undereducated,
>
> >>
>
> >> >Well, a Watchtower would at least show that
>
> >> >Jesus spoke of a Noah's Flood and made it
>
> >> >instrumental in his ministry.
>
> >>
>
> >> A typical fundamentalist response. When
>
> >> you lack evidence, you scream, "It's in
>
> >> the Bible!"
>
> >>
>
> >People should believe in the Bible
>
>
>
> You mean the part that says if a child talks back to his parents he should be
>
> taken to the city gate and stoned to death? People who claim the Bible is to be
>
> taken literally has never read the Bible or are simply to goddamn stupid to
>
> understand what it says.
>
>
>
> >There are marine fossils on top of all
>
> >mountains,
>
>
>
> Either you're lying or you're too goddamn stupid to know that is not true.
>
>
>
> >> >And as far as off-topics like a science of
>
> >>
>
> >> >floods, they do use extensive science
>
> >>
>
> >> >citations to give a view.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No they don't. They are liars. Their
>
> >> references are bullshit remarks made by
>
> >> creationists. You've never looked up
>
> >> any of their references or quotes. If
>
> >> you did, they you would know they are lying.
>
> >>
>
> >Said by an educated buffoon.
>
>
>
> As I said, you've never looked them up. There is no way to debate with an idiot
>
> who refuses to educated himself.
>
>
CJ
Annointed Remnant
curtj...@hotmail.com says...
>> You mean the part that says if a child
>> talks back to his parents he should be
>> taken to the city gate and stoned to
>> death? People who claim the Bible is
>> to be taken literally has never read
>> the Bible or are simply to goddamn
>> stupid to understand what it says.
>>
>Not true,
>> Either you're lying or you're too
>> goddamn stupid to know that is not
>> true
>
>don't believe in a global flood admit
>there is marine life on all mountains.
appropriate field that make such a claim. Post who they are and what they claim
in complete context. I'll be waiting...
Annointed Remnant
>In article <bfaf7189-3957-4822...@googlegroups.com>,
>curtj...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> You mean the part that says if a child
>> talks back to his parents he should be
>> taken to the city gate and stoned to
>> death? People who claim the Bible is
>> to be taken literally has never read
>> the Bible or are simply to goddamn
>> stupid to understand what it says.
>>
>Not true,
Yes, it is true. How much you wanna bet?
>>> mountains,
>>
edrh...@hotmail.com
> >There are marine fossils on top of all
> >mountains,
>
> Either you're lying or you're too goddamn stupid to know that is not true.
So yeah, I'll believe there might be aquatic fossils on top of mountains. I won't believe they got put there by a Global Flood.
edrh...@hotmail.com
> > No one but an undereducated idiot believes there was a Bibical global flood.
>
> Many PHd folk spend countless hours supporting catastrophism and how water has taken a huge part in shaping out earth and environment. Only people with an agenda who make remarks like this which they never can support, and only make childish retorts, are the real uneducated ones. Even ones who don't agree with a global flood, do acknowledge water and floods and catastrophies as instrumental in the earth's changes in formations.
First simple question; You are asking me to believe that the ENTIER EARTH was covered by water which then "receded." To WHERE? Floods occur because the area's drainage can't keep up with the downpour of water, but drainage still occurs. If the entire Earth was covered with water, there was no where for the water to drain to!
edrh...@hotmail.com
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp
...and in case you don't like to read (well, things that aren't "the Bible" or "the Watchtower." Here's a fictionalized version of the letter that was used on the television series "The West Wing."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs
In reading the snopes column, I discovered that the guy who wrote the original piece got compensation for this.
Annonted Remnant
edrh...@hotmail.com says...
>
>>=20
>> >There are marine fossils on top of all=20
>> >mountains,=20
>>=20
>> Either you're lying or you're too goddamn stupid to know that is not true=
>. =20
>
>I can't give you a title, but in one of his monthly science columns for "Th=
>e Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction" Isaac Asimov did an article abou=
>t finding fossils of tropic creatures in Antarctica. He goes on about how t=
>he discovery of these creatures led to a theory that Antarctica was once a =
>tropical paradise and what cataclysim must have happened to change the envi=
>ronment. He then points out that with what we NOW know about tetonic plates=
> and how they shift on the Earth's mantle, the creatures were actually form=
>ed in a tropical area which was then, slowly, over milennia, dragged into i=
>
>So yeah, I'll believe there might be aquatic fossils on
>top of mountains. I won't believe they got put there by a
>Global Flood.
they are 500 million years old and are there because of plate tectonics - not a
global flood. A global flood is a fantasy story embellished by ancient cultures
which actually had local floods which did occur in the past and continue to
occur.
curtj...@hotmail.com
> >
>
> > >There are marine fossils on top of all
>
> > >mountains,
>
> >
>
> > Either you're lying or you're too goddamn stupid to know that is not true.
>
>
>
> I can't give you a title, but in one of his monthly science columns for "The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction" Isaac Asimov did an article about finding fossils of tropic creatures in Antarctica. He goes on about how the discovery of these creatures led to a theory that Antarctica was once a tropical paradise and what cataclysim must have happened to change the environment. He then points out that with what we NOW know about tetonic plates and how they shift on the Earth's mantle, the creatures were actually formed in a tropical area which was then, slowly, over milennia, dragged into its current location in the frozen wasteland.
>
>
>
> So yeah, I'll believe there might be aquatic fossils on top of mountains. I won't believe they got put there by a Global Flood.
CJ
curtj...@hotmail.com
CJ
edrh...@hotmail.com
> > I can't give you a title, but in one of his monthly science columns for "The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction" Isaac Asimov did an article about finding fossils of tropic creatures in Antarctica. He goes on about how the discovery of these creatures led to a theory that Antarctica was once a tropical paradise and what cataclysim must have happened to change the environment. He then points out that with what we NOW know about tetonic plates and how they shift on the Earth's mantle, the creatures were actually formed in a tropical area which was then, slowly, over milennia, dragged into its current location in the frozen wasteland.
>
>
> It's really not a theory about Antarctica. There is land there, and that land has plush vegetation for fossils as well as animals. One thing you should be able to draw out is that there wasn't ice before that happened and would only form after a cataclysm AND and a radical change in climate. Simple tectonics as we know them don't cause separation of land masses at once, nor do they cause weather to change. A global flood is by far an more educated guess, and with a global flood tectonics would be into play, and would be much more extensive that your normal earthquake.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > So yeah, I'll believe there might be aquatic fossils on top of mountains. I won't believe they got put there by a Global Flood.
>
> And you won't be very studious until you figure out what are the condition of the fossils. Normally fossils need a quick burial in order to be fossils. Do slow plate tectonics over a long period of time makes sense for that to happen? Two, the fossils should show signs of a very rapid buriela by being in quality states of preservation. What does the evidence show? You need to be objective first, and second look it up.