David Attenborough's - Life in Cold Blood - Dragons of the Dry

[Barry OGrady]

David Attenborough's - Life in Cold Blood
Dragons of the Dry (Repeat)

6.30pm - 7.30pm
SC10
Saturday, 25 May 2013

A look at the immense diversity, social skills, and displays of the
lizards. While they are highly adept at camouflage, occasionally there
is a need to break cover in order to ward off rivals.

==============
This sig intentionally left blank

[gladys swager]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
> David Attenborough's - Life in Cold Blood Dragons of the Dry (Repeat)
> 6.30pm - 7.30pm SC10 Saturday, 25 May 2013

A look at the immense diversity, social skills, and displays of the lizards. While they are highly adept at camouflage, occasionally there is a need to break cover in order to ward off rivals.

And also read:-
creation.com/dragons-animals-not-apparitions

[Barry OGrady]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:32:34 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 23, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> David Attenborough's - Life in Cold Blood Dragons of the Dry (Repeat)
>> 6.30pm - 7.30pm SC10 Saturday, 25 May 2013
>
>A look at the immense diversity, social skills, and displays of the
>lizards. While they are highly adept at camouflage, occasionally there
>is a need to break cover in order to ward off rivals.

I know. I wrote that originally.

>And also read:-
>creation.com/dragons-animals-not-apparitions

You must learn to take responsibility for your own actions.
If you won't use a proper newsreader at least have a talk
to Google support.

And see if you can find out what is causing those embarrassing
links to creation ministries Irrational.


==============
The idea that we can shed our responsibility by having someone
killed is morally repugnant.

[gladys swager]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>On Thursday, May 23, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:

And evolutionists have to deal with a world of 'red-in-the-jaw-and-the-tooth'.
Wouldn't you think that Evolution would have been more careful
when working the progression from unicellular to you?

[Barry OGrady]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:11:21 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>And evolutionists have to deal with a world of 'red-in-the-jaw-and-the-tooth'.
>Wouldn't you think that Evolution would have been more careful
>when working the progression from unicellular to you?

Its certainly not the sort of thing you would expect from an
almighty and caring intelligent creator yet it happened.
I think you just killed off creation.
I'll inform the morons at Creation Ministries Irrational that
they may as well close down.

[Barry OGrady]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:11:21 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>And evolutionists have to deal with a world of 'red-in-the-jaw-and-the-tooth'.
>Wouldn't you think that Evolution would have been more careful
>when working the progression from unicellular to you?

Its certainly not the sort of thing you would expect from an
almighty and caring intelligent creator yet it happened.
I think you just killed off creation.
I'll inform the morons at Creation Ministries Irrational that
they may as well close down.

[gladys swager]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>And evolutionists have to deal with a world of 'red-in-the-jaw-and-the-tooth'. >Wouldn't you think that Evolution would have been more careful
>when working the progression from unicellular to you?

Its certainly not the sort of thing you would expect from an almighty and caring intelligent creator yet it happened. I think you just killed off creation. I'll inform the morons at Creation Ministries xxxxxxxxxx

that they may as well close down.

And, Barryu, when you use a newsgroup for denigration, and especially in the context of ideas of which you know very little or nothing.
then you 'should close down'.

The idea that we can shed our responsibility by having someone killed is morally repugnant.

You block your brain to the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead
early on Easter Sunday morning....It is easy to see that you read infirmation about the Christian faith with a biased mind from your acceptance of Atheism....
no god, things just made themselves, the universe just came into excitence
all of itself, anmals and humans just made themselves.....ugh!!!

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth Genesis 1 : 1

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 08:12:49 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 25, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>And evolutionists have to deal with a world of 'red-in-the-jaw-and-the-tooth'.
>>Wouldn't you think that Evolution would have been more careful
>>when working the progression from unicellular to you?
>
>Its certainly not the sort of thing you would expect from an almighty
>and caring intelligent creator yet it happened.

I agree, though I am surprised to see you say that.

>I think you just killed off creation.

You did that.

>I'll inform the morons at Creation Ministries Irrational

>that they may as well close down.

You can leave that to me since you can't be trusted.

>And, Barryu, when you use a newsgroup for denigration, and especially
>in the context of ideas of which you know very little or nothing.
>then you 'should close down'.

God thinks everything is good. Who are you to say otherwise?

>The idea that we can shed our responsibility by having someone killed is morally repugnant.

I agree, though I am surprised to see you say that.

>You block your brain to the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead
>early on Easter Sunday morning....It is easy to see that you read
>infirmation about the Christian faith with a biased mind from your
>acceptance of Atheism....

That changes nothing.

The idea that we can shed our responsibility by having someone killed
is morally repugnant.

>no god, things just made themselves, the universe just came into excitence
>all of itself, anmals and humans just made themselves.....ugh!!!

Something as powerful as a human brain requires a creator but the far
more powerful creator came from nothing?

>In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth Genesis 1 : 1

18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that
God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves
are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one
thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they
have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:
for all [is] vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust
again.

Ecclesiastes 3:18-20

==============

[gladys swager]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:

Barry, You delight in nonsense.
You are an atheist, but without any proof that God does not ecist.
You have made it your task to denigrate me, almost from the first time
you posted against me.

How anyone can believe that God does not exist ie be an Atheist,
is something I find very hard to understand.

God did not promise a flower-strewn path through life,
but He did promise a 'safe-landing in eternity' as our faith is in Him.

For by grace (God's gift of everlasting life that is unmerited by us)
are we saved...through faith....in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ,
and that not of ourselves....the good deeds that we may do.....
it is the gift of God. Ephesians 2 - 8 -9

You can accept that gift...or you can reject it...it is your choice.

[gladys swager]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 10:23:39 AM UTC+10, gladys swager wrote:
> On Sunday, May 26, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote: Barry, You delight in nonsense. You are an atheist, but without any proof that God does not exist -
Apologies for the misspelling,

Creation Ministries Internationl is a registerested business name.
You have no right to lampoon them,
as they are a fine organisation
and have a right to give their ideas to the general community.

I would think there should be a means to charge you in the Trading Act
as you use your nonsense to discredit them to the general public.

creation.com/ Creation Ministries International -
please note the last word of their title.

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:33:03 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 10:23:39 AM UTC+10, gladys swager wrote:
>
>Apologies for the misspelling,
>
>Creation Ministries Internationl is a registerested business name.

Are you going to apologise for misspelling their name?

>You have no right to lampoon them,
>as they are a fine organisation
>and have a right to give their ideas to the general community.

What have they got over you?

>I would think there should be a means to charge you in the Trading Act
>as you use your nonsense to discredit them to the general public.

We may be able to charge them for the harm they have done to you.

>creation.com/ Creation Ministries Irrational -

> please note the last word of their title.

Noted.

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:23:39 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 26, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>Barry, You delight in nonsense.
>You are an atheist, but without any proof that God does not ecist.

Are you going to apologise for misspelling exist?

>You have made it your task to denigrate me, almost from the first time
>you posted against me.

You get what you give.

>How anyone can believe that God does not exist ie be an Atheist,
>is something I find very hard to understand.

Its due to the lack of God.

>God did not promise a flower-strewn path through life,
>but He did promise a 'safe-landing in eternity' as our faith is in Him.

No sane person could trust such a monster, but you have
given your trust to evil people.

>For by grace (God's gift of everlasting life that is unmerited by us)
>are we saved...through faith....in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ,
>and that not of ourselves....the good deeds that we may do.....
>it is the gift of God. Ephesians 2 - 8 -9

That is morally repugnant.

>You can accept that gift...or you can reject it...it is your choice.

If you don't like the idea of coming from evolution say so, but
don't pretend it didn't happen.
Real science is a wonderful and truthful thing.
Religion can only lie.

Thank you for once again showing how morally bankrupt
Christianity is.

Oh, BTW, you might have missed this.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described
science as the search for truth. Science does this by continuously
comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world.
When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or
rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. In other words,
science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and
rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge
and understanding grow over time. Religious explanations for the
order of things are not science because they are based primarily on
faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified.
Because of this fundamental difference in the approach to
understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect
decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is not a
science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an
alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of
the biological sciences. However, religious creation stories and the
idea of "intelligent design" can be taught in philosophy, religion, or
history courses.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has
existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue
about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a
long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two
centuries ago.

The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of
evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this
section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to
reconstruct this story.
These lines of evidence include:

<links>
Fossil evidence

Homologies

Distribution in time and space

Evidence by example

http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence

Scientists and crime solvers have something in common. They can both
figure out what happened, even if no one was there to see it.
Scientists do the same thing that crime solvers do. They look for
clues. The more clues that were left behind, the more likely they are
to figure it out. If all of the clues point to the same conclusion,
then they know what happened.

Consider the case of the origin of species. There are many thousands
of clues, and they all point to the conclusion that life evolved.
There are so many clues that they fall under multiple disciplines of
science. Each of these disciplines provides a separate line of
evidence for evolution.

Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because
they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be
objectively falsified. Because of this fundamental difference in the
approach to understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in
effect decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is
not a science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an
alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of
the biological sciences. However, religious creation stories and the
idea of "intelligent design" can be taught in philosophy, religion, or
history courses.

[gladys swager]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:

Barry, You and your evolutionist friends cannot tell
how something came from nothing and diversified.....millions of years ago.

[Barry OGrady]

That's true.

Gladys, you and your creationist friends cannot tell how something
came from nothing and created.....thousands of years ago.

[gladys swager]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Sunday, May 26, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:

> >Barry, You and your evolutionist friends cannot tell how something came from
> >nothing and diversified.....millions of years ago.

That's true. Gladys, you and your creationist friends cannot tell how something came from nothing and created.....thousands of years ago.

Yes, we can. God created. The record is in the bible.
Jesus Chrsit would have known the record of the Old Testament.

>The idea that we can shed our responsibility by having someone killed is
>morally repugnant.

It was the persons who did not accept the teachings that Jesus had given who were responsible for His death. However, Jesus was resurrected, overcame death,
and is alive for evermore.
Through faith Jesus gives Everlasting Life to all who believe in Him.
John 3 : 16.
Eternal life follows this life for all who put their faith in Jesus Christ.

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:27:06 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 26, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Sunday, May 26, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> >Barry, You and your evolutionist friends cannot tell how something came from
>> >nothing and diversified.....millions of years ago.
>
>That's true.
>
>Gladys, you and your creationist friends cannot tell how something
>came from nothing and created.....thousands of years ago.

What do you get out of pretending you wrote that?

What do you hope to achieve by refusing to follow societal norms?

You must learn to take responsibility for your own actions.
If you won't use a proper newsreader at least have a talk
to Google support.

>Yes, we can. God created. The record is in the bible.

Are you going to tell me how something came from nothing and
created.....thousands of years ago?

>Jesus Chrsit would have known the record of the Old Testament.

Are you going to apologise for misspelling Christ?

>>The idea that we can shed our responsibility by having someone killed is
>>morally repugnant.
>
>It was the persons who did not accept the teachings that Jesus had
>given who were responsible for His death.

And it was the creator of all that was responsible for making them
that way. You must remember not to blame God's victims.

>However, Jesus was resurrected, overcame death, and is alive for evermore.

Then it was no sacrifice.

>Through faith Jesus gives Everlasting Life to all who believe in Him.
> John 3 : 16.

Have you forgotten that God gave everlasting life to all living
things in the garden as there was no death in the beginning(tm)?

>Eternal life follows this life for all who put their faith in Jesus Christ.

Do you think the global flood was successful in correcting all
God's mistakes?

==============

[gladys swager]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:14:30 PM UTC+10, Barry OGrady wrote:

You are a very devious individual, Barry.
Evolution 'goo-to-you-via-the-zoo' did not happen, could not have happened
because the previous creature on 'the ladder of life'
did not have the necessary DNA to progress to the next higher life. FULL STOP.

God created. Your atheism is 'dead-in-the-water'!!

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:28:58 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:14:30 PM UTC+10, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>You are a very devious individual, Barry.
>Evolution 'goo-to-you-via-the-zoo' did not happen, could not have happened
>because the previous creature on 'the ladder of life'
>did not have the necessary DNA to progress to the next higher life. FULL STOP.

You must learn to take responsibility for your own actions.
If you won't use a proper newsreader at least have a talk
to Google support.

How could there be an almighty and all-knowing creator when there
wasn't the knowledge available?

>God created. Your atheism is 'dead-in-the-water'!!

Certainly fossils are in the water and the ground and the rocks!
Fossils are everywhere and tell a wonderful story of life changing
over millions of years.

Do you think the creationists will succeed in destroying
science and education in your time?

[gladys swager]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:13:32 PM UTC+10, Barry OGrady wrote:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:

Do you think the creationists will succeed in destroying science and education in your time?

Creationists have not plans 'to kill science'. You use emotive language for the effects and hopefully credentaials you can gain.

There are changes within a species....
I am very much as my mother was, but not a complete replica of her....
but not changes from one species to another....

but tell School students that there were changes from one species to another species and the chances are they will believe you,
because they are inexperienced.
As I am aware, evolution was taught to High School students from 1963,
and with the use of dinosaurs from about 1983, and that also in media programmes. A calculated release of information, I would say! -
but without any scientific proof!

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:09:53 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:13:32 PM UTC+10, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>
>Do you think the creationists will succeed in destroying science and
>education in your time?

I asked you first!

>Creationists have not plans 'to kill science'. You use emotive
>language for the effects and hopefully credentaials you can gain.

Why did you ask me?

>There are changes within a species....
>I am very much as my mother was, but not a complete replica of her....
>but not changes from one species to another....

What caused the fossil record?

>but tell School students that there were changes from one species to
>another species and the chances are they will believe you, because
>they are inexperienced.

That's how creationists work because they have no truth.

>As I am aware, evolution was taught to High School students from 1963,
>and with the use of dinosaurs from about 1983, and that also in media
>programmes. A calculated release of information, I would say! -
>but without any scientific proof!

[gladys swager]

On Monday, May 27, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:

>On Sunday, May 26, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:

I would suggest to you, Barry, that you have had experiences in life which guides you to not want the Biblical record to be true.
I have had experiences that lead me to accept that the Bible is true.

So the issue is which of us has the truth?

> >Do you think the creationists will succeed in destroying science and >education in your time?

>Creationists have not plans 'to kill science'. You use emotive language for the effects and hopefully credentaials you can gain. Why did you ask me?

>There are changes within a species.... I am very much as my mother was, but not a complete replica of her....not changes from one species to another....

What caused the fossil record?

creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers

but tell School students that there were changes from one species to another species and the chances are they will believe you, because they are inexperienced.

That's how creationists work because they have no truth.

I wonder if you realaly know how Creationists are working.
You want evolution - changes of within organisms - all of themselves -
to bolster your 'No God theory'. Any proof there is in Nature that you are aware of is immediately discredited by you ---
and is rationalised into your Atheistic mind-set.
There are Atheists who have moved out of that mind-set as they have come to understand the natural world much better -
but you probably term them weaklings or deviants or....?

>As I am aware, evolution was taught to High School students from 1963, >and with the use of dinosaurs from about 1983, and that also in media >programmes. A calculated release of information, I would say! - >but without any scientific proof!

The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described science as the search for truth. Science does this by continuously comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world. When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time.

And that comment does not come from your thinking about the issues.
Yes, there are very learned professionals who accept evolution, from their training....but there are other learned scientists of similar calibre who reject evolution. So there is controversy within the Scientific 'camp'.

Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified. Because of this fundamental difference in the approach to understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is not a science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of the biological sciences. However, religious creation stories and the idea of "intelligent design" can be taught in philosophy, religion, or history courses.

There are scientists who are Christians and who reject evolution on a scientific basis. So are those in legal profesions who reject Creation
really making a judgement from their 'anti-religious' alignment?

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time. Overwhelming evidence supports this fact.

But all I have read has not had any evidence supporting 'billions of years'-
the time frame gets longer and longer as teh evolution story is told -
I can't see taht millions/billions of years can be calculated - just a random guess is how I would dscribe those time periods.

Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago. The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story. These lines of evidence include: Fossil evidence Homologies Distribution in time and space

creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers

Barry, Are you afraid to read what the Creation (University-degreed) Scientists
are publishing??? Scientists as also teachers can come to understandings
in theirfield-work that differs from the instructions they/we were given earlier. (The way subtraction - smaller number on top line, larger number to be subtrcted was changed after I made comments to a Schools Inspector -
later a system of 'Trading' was adopted, but my system was easier.

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:37:04 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 27, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>On Sunday, May 26, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:

When are you going to take responsibility for your actions?
Have you contacted Google support?
Or is that you think it gives you some sort of advantage?
You want to be able to say I am unable answer your questions.

>I would suggest to you, Barry, that you have had experiences in life
>which guides you to not want the Biblical record to be true.

You are lucky the bible is not true!

>I have had experiences that lead me to accept that the Bible is true.

What sort of experiences. Why should I believe you?

>So the issue is which of us has the truth?

We both have some truth.
We do know for sure the bible God does not exist.

>> >Do you think the creationists will succeed in destroying science and >education in your time?
>
>>Creationists have not plans 'to kill science'. You use emotive language for the effects and hopefully credentaials you can gain. Why did you ask me?

That would be the result if they succeeded.

>>There are changes within a species.... I am very much as my mother was, but not a complete replica of her....not changes from one species to another....
>
>What caused the fossil record?
>
>creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers

You will never understand science while you restrict yourself to
Creation Ministries Irrational.

>but tell School students that there were changes from one species to another species and the chances are they will believe you, because they are inexperienced.
>
>That's how creationists work because they have no truth.
>
>I wonder if you realaly know how Creationists are working.

I know they are not working very well.
Creationism is a mental illness which causes them to babble
irrationally.

>You want evolution - changes of within organisms - all of themselves -
>to bolster your 'No God theory'. Any proof there is in Nature that you are aware of is immediately discredited by you ---
>and is rationalised into your Atheistic mind-set.
>There are Atheists who have moved out of that mind-set as they have come to understand the natural world much better -
>but you probably term them weaklings or deviants or....?

God is far too complex to have come from nowhere.

>>As I am aware, evolution was taught to High School students from 1963,
>>and with the use of dinosaurs from about 1983, and that also in media
>>programmes. A calculated release of information, I would say! - >but without any scientific proof!
>
>>The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described
>>science as the search for truth. Science does this by continuously
>>comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world.
>>When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or
>>rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. In other words,
>>science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and
>>rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge
>>and understanding grow over time.

>And that comment does not come from your thinking about the issues.

It is true regardless.

>Yes, there are very learned professionals who accept evolution, from
>their training....but there are other learned scientists of similar
>calibre who reject evolution. So there is controversy within the
>Scientific 'camp'.

There are discussions about the details but everybody agrees
evolution happened, and no serious alternatives have been
offered.

>>Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because
>>they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be
>>objectively falsified. Because of this fundamental difference in the
>>approach to understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in
>>effect decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is
>>not a science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an
>>alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of
>>the biological sciences. However, religious creation stories and the
>>idea of "intelligent design" can be taught in philosophy, religion, or
>>history courses.

>There are scientists who are Christians and who reject evolution on a scientific basis.

They reject it on a religious basis. See creation.com.

>So are those in legal profesions who reject Creation really making a
>judgement from their 'anti-religious' alignment?

Are Christians 'anti-religious'?

>>Lines of evidence: The science of evolution At the heart of
>>evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for
>>billions of years and has changed over time. Overwhelming evidence
>>supports this fact.

>But all I have read has not had any evidence supporting 'billions of years'-
>the time frame gets longer and longer as teh evolution story is told -
>I can't see taht millions/billions of years can be calculated - just a
>random guess is how I would dscribe those time periods.

That's the impression you would get from Creation Ministries
Irrational but they have their agenda and they don't care who
they hurt. I hate the way they abuse weak minded people
like you.

>>Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the
>>question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the
>>affirmative at least two centuries ago. The history of living things
>>is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell
>>the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the
>>lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story. These lines
>>of evidence include: Fossil evidence Homologies Distribution in time
>>and space

>creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers

Gladys, why are you afraid to read what real scientists are saying?
The only reason would be that you know only evolution explains
why we are where we are. A good God would never abuse us the
way you say your God does but an impersonal and amoral process
explains everything.
Your God is evil personified. Your theology is corrupt.

>Barry, Are you afraid to read what the Creation (University-degreed) Scientists
>are publishing???

I follow some of your links but they have no credibility.
Creation Ministries Irrational admit they follow the bible
for no good reason.

>Scientists as also teachers can come to understandings

>in their field-work that differs from the instructions they/we were

>given earlier. (The way subtraction - smaller number on top line,
>larger number to be subtrcted was changed after I made comments to a
>Schools Inspector - later a system of 'Trading' was adopted, but my
>system was easier.

You must hate God for the way he holds back knowledge that would
make our life excellent.
But you don't believe your own claims.
You make Christianity look ridiculous.

Here's some of the evidence you delete then claim you never saw.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described
science as the search for truth. Science does this by continuously
comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world.
When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or
rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. In other words,
science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and
rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge

and understanding grow over time. Religious explanations for the

order of things are not science because they are based primarily on
faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified.
Because of this fundamental difference in the approach to
understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect
decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is not a
science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an
alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of
the biological sciences. However, religious creation stories and the
idea of "intelligent design" can be taught in philosophy, religion, or
history courses.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has
existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue

about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a
long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two
centuries ago.

The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of
evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this
section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to
reconstruct this story.
These lines of evidence include:

<links>

Fossil evidence

Homologies

Distribution in time and space

Evidence by example

http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence

Scientists and crime solvers have something in common. They can both
figure out what happened, even if no one was there to see it.
Scientists do the same thing that crime solvers do. They look for
clues. The more clues that were left behind, the more likely they are
to figure it out. If all of the clues point to the same conclusion,
then they know what happened.

Consider the case of the origin of species. There are many thousands
of clues, and they all point to the conclusion that life evolved.
There are so many clues that they fall under multiple disciplines of
science. Each of these disciplines provides a separate line of
evidence for evolution.

Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because
they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be
objectively falsified. Because of this fundamental difference in the
approach to understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in
effect decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is
not a science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an
alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of
the biological sciences. However, religious creation stories and the
idea of "intelligent design" can be taught in philosophy, religion, or
history courses.

[gladys swager]

On Monday, May 27, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager:

Did God create at the beginning of time? Yes/No

Did organisms change within their species,
but not to become another type of organism? Yes/No

Scientific creationists say that happened within the last
less than 6000 years. Yes/No

Scientific creationists have high-le.vel Tertiary degrees in
their scientific studies. Yes/No

Give your reasons for your answers.

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 23:28:28 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 27, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager:
>

>Did God create at the beginning of time? Yes/(No)

There is no God.

>Did organisms change within their species,

>but not to become another type of organism? Yes/(No)

The evidence shows otherwise.

>Scientific creationists say that happened within the last

>less than 6000 years. Yes/(No)

Creation is not scientific.

>Scientific creationists have high-le.vel Tertiary degrees in

>their scientific studies. Yes/(No)

There are no scientific creationists.

>Give your reasons for your answers.

Yes mine komendant!!


The human brain is too complex to have come from nowhere?

Yes/No

God is too complex to have come from nowhere?
Yes/No

First life is not part of evolution?
Yes/No

Creation was thrown out a court by a religious judge?

Yes/No

Give your reasons for your answers.

[Barry OGrady]

[gladys swager]

On Monday, May 27, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager:
>On Monday, May 27, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager:

> >Did God create at the beginning of time? Yes/(No) There is no God.

And you have no proof that there is no God? Have you been everywhere in and out of our Universe to be able to say, "There is no God?"

>Did organisms change within their species, but not to become another type of organism? Yes/(No) The evidence shows otherwise.

And you do not give your evidence for 'otherwise'.

>Scientific creationists say that happened within the last less than 6000 years. Yes/(No)
Creation is not scientific.

And long ages of millions of years is not scientific, but you are of
the impression that evlutionary descent from millions of years ago
did actaully happen Where is your scientific proof???

>Scientific creationists have high-level Tertiary degrees in their scientific studies. Yes/(No)

They do ...at least one of them has a triple doctorate that is in three scientific disciplines and he has come to reject the Evolutionary indoctrination he had in his studies.

There are no scientific creationists.

>Give your reasons for your answers. Yes mine komendant!!

Barry, this is not a joke, even though you seem to accept that it is so.

>The human brain is too complex to have come from nowhere? Yes/No

Question not answered.
The human brain is very complex, all memories are stored in it
and later can be retrieved, as I am doing after having experienced Amnesia.
Recovery of memories can take time and later experiences can assist in recovery

God is too complex to have come from nowhere? Yes/No

God did not come from 'nowhere'. God is Eternal.
Isaiah 9 : 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given;
and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,
The everlating Father, the Prince of Peace.
This prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

> First life is not part of evolution? Yes/No

Creation was thrown out a court by a religious judge? Yes/No
Give your reasons for your answers.

============== The idea that we can shed our responsibility by having someone killed is morally repugnant.

God did not kill Jesus. The authorities in Jerusalem did that.
And Jesus rose on the third day
Mark 16: v 9 Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene
v 12 to two of His disciples
v 14 he appeared unto eleven of His disciples
to whom He said, he who believes and is baptised shall be saved;
but he who believes not shall be damned.

[Barry OGrady]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 15:19:55 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 27, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager:
>>On Monday, May 27, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager:
>
>> >Did God create at the beginning of time? Yes/(No) There is no God.
>
>And you have no proof that there is no God? Have you been everywhere in and out of our Universe to be able to say, "There is no God?"

By changing the formatting you said "There is no God."
Is that what you intended?
Did you contact Google support to find out what you
are doing wrong?

>>Did organisms change within their species, but not to become another type of organism? Yes/(No) The evidence shows otherwise.
>
>And you do not give your evidence for 'otherwise'.

And you do not give your reason for saying "The evidence shows
otherwise."

>>Scientific creationists say that happened within the last less than 6000 years. Yes/(No)
>Creation is not scientific.

Thank you for admitting creation is not scientific.

>And long ages of millions of years is not scientific, but you are of
>the impression that evlutionary descent from millions of years ago
>did actaully happen Where is your scientific proof???

See the end of this post.

>>Scientific creationists have high-level Tertiary degrees in their scientific studies. Yes/(No)
>
>They do ...at least one of them has a triple doctorate that is in
>three scientific disciplines and he has come to reject the
>Evolutionary indoctrination he had in his studies.

Doctorates in creationism?

>There are no scientific creationists.

I agree.

>>Give your reasons for your answers. Yes mine komendant!!
>
>Barry, this is not a joke, even though you seem to accept that it is so.

Lighten up Gladys. Creation is a joke except when used to
indoctrinate weak minded people such as yourself.

>>The human brain is too complex to have come from nowhere? Yes/No
>
>Question not answered.

I answered your questions. What are you afraid of?

>The human brain is very complex, all memories are stored in it
>and later can be retrieved, as I am doing after having experienced Amnesia.
>Recovery of memories can take time and later experiences can assist in recovery

Who do you blame when things go wrong with the human brain.
Who do you say is responsible for us having the same type
of brain as other mammals?

>God is too complex to have come from nowhere? Yes/No
>
>God did not come from 'nowhere'. God is Eternal.
>Isaiah 9 : 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given;
>and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,
>The everlating Father, the Prince of Peace.
>This prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Was Jesus ever called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God,
or the everlasting Father?

Is God too complex to have come from nowhere?
Where did God come from?

First life is not part of evolution? Yes/No

Creation was thrown out a court by a religious judge? Yes/No

Give your reasons for your answers.

>==============
>The idea that we can shed our responsibility by having someone killed
>is morally repugnant.

I agree.

>God did not kill Jesus. The authorities in Jerusalem did that.
>And Jesus rose on the third day
>Mark 16: v 9 Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene
> v 12 to two of His disciples
> v 14 he appeared unto eleven of His disciples
>to whom He said, he who believes and is baptised shall be saved;
> but he who believes not shall be damned.

That makes God sound like a thoroughly nasty piece of work.
How can you tolerate such a God?

The idea that we can shed our responsibility by having someone killed

is still morally repugnant.
You really should take a look at your religion.

I don't know how you missed it but here it is again.
Once you have done all the things I suggest you
will no longer be a creationist as you will be in awe
at the wonderful things science has discovered.

Does a Good God Exist? A Debate Between Hitchens and Dembski
(November 2010)
and its found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctuloBOYolE
Its just what you asked for so please don't ignore it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Eo5MdHMNcw
Watch the first 50 seconds.
Then watch the last 4 hours and 28 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U

Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/32620

The creationists get to have their say. See if you agree with them.
Another good video for creationists is at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc

The ending is very good.

Then watch all the David Attenborough documentaries and
other science programs.

>>>Christian faith is a mental illness.
>
>You haven't any idea what a mental illness is....

I gave you the example of Christian faith.

>nor that in fact the term is a misnomer. Thoughts and emotions can't
>be ill - illness is a term for Physical conditions.

Unless its a mental illness.

>What are termed Mental Illnesses were at their height in numbers of
>persons affected ....in the Middle Ages....it was a means to
>categorise persons who hade become overly distressed, an by golly,
>there were some situations then, as in later centuries when some
>persosn did become overly distressed....

That's because they did not have modern medicine and science.
They depended on God.

>and some of the tratments that have been used were enough to keep persons
>in that distressed, distraught and whatever...state of mind.

God seems to enjoy holding back information.

>An Italian doctor invented ECT Shock treatments in 1939, he later withdrew
>his support, (but that was not advertised publically) he has since died.
>
>You are tagging onto a term that has had reasonably high media
>coverage since 1975, when psyciatrists used the media for publicity. I
>am aware of one Psychiatrist who moved to criminal Psychiatry, and
>then became prominent on television, after changes had been made in
>the treatments he had previously given.
>However, Medicine has not always perfect in its treatments, as also in
>Teaching methods change as better means are assessed for treating and
>giving knowledge.

I am surprised you never told me that before. :)

>I would think, Barry, that you are using second-hand knowledge,
>and then only part of it, to make you seem to be a 'Big I Am" in these
>newsgroups. In your schooling you may have been the Class Clown and
>spent some time in the corridor away from other students.
>You have gained some information on computers, how much I cannot
>assess from your postings, and you think tha ttellin gme wha tI should
>do with my computer gives you kudos, that you then can go on and
>further dictate to me.

What do you hope to achieve by refusing to follow societal norms?

You must learn to take responsibility for your own actions.
If you won't use a proper newsreader at least have a talk
to Google support.

>Your Evolution is dead in the water --- has been dead every since it was first proposed.

Not just in the water!!!!! Fossils are in the ground and the rocks!

Fossils are everywhere and tell a wonderful story of life changing
over millions of years.

If you don't like the idea of coming from evolution say so, but
don't pretend it didn't happen.
Real science is a wonderful and truthful thing.
Religion can only lie.

>But the moral level of its advocates was at zero when they introduced
>it tto school children in 1963.

Creationists lowered even their already low standards when they
tried to force religion into science classes. Even after being
rebuffed by the courts they still try to indoctrinate children.

>There is no experimental proof...
>You do not have that proof....otherwise you would have given it to me
>in your previous postings.

>However, I am of thee opinion that the way the Christian faith is
>given, ie sermons from the pulipit with church members whatever their
>ages seated in pews, does not always meet the needs of some of those
>in the pews.

Victims of the mental illness known as Christian faith should be
told the truth that Christianity is fiction.

>And well I know, the problems when a new church building is planned
>and the divisions that can be caused, especially when there was no
>prior consultation.

The fancy churches and dress are necessary to hympnotise the
Christianity's victims into 'seeing' God.

>In such circumstances
>"God is not always with the majority, He can be with the minority,'

God should be with everybody at all times.
It is morally repugnant for a creator to make divisions.

Thank you for once again showing how morally bankrupt
Christianity is.

==============
On Tues, 28 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>Creation is not scientific.