Creation VS Evolution
Jim Nichols
In article <5e5ln0$n...@access1.digex.net>, hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
>Some newsgroups trimmed.
People want to know what REALLY HAPPENED
--
Best of Luck
Jim Nichols
Spam protection enabled
Michelle Malkin
ka...@polympus.net (Jim Nichols) wrote:
Then why do they keep telling you to shut up and go away?
***************************************************
Christianity says to 'witness'. It does not say to
annoy possible converts to the point of making them
your enemy.
***************************************************
Brandon M. Gorte
Jim Nichols (ka...@polympus.net) wrote:
: People want to know what REALLY HAPPENED
And they are called scientists who are studying evolution and geologic
history.
Brandon Gorte
Herb Huston
In article <karl-20029...@papm046.olympus.net>,
Jim Nichols <ka...@polympus.net> wrote:
}In article <5e5ln0$n...@access1.digex.net>, hus...@access.digex.net wrote:
}>Some newsgroups trimmed.
Well, the article to which I was following up was spammed to too many
irrelevant newsgroups, so I excised some of them. If you compare the
Newsgroups fields in the headers, you can determine which ones.
I hope that helps. Is everything clear now?
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
-- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
Robert Parson
In article <E62En...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
Alan Scott <asc...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <330F46...@mindspring.com>,
>Judson McClendon <ju...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>There are many other
>>truths in the Bible which are also inconsistent with evolution. The
>>Garden of Eden was a *real* place, just as Adam and Eve were *real*
>>individuals.
>
>That is your opinion. It is interesting that Catholics and most
>Protestant Christian denominations disagree.
Not so. Pius XII, in his 1950 encyclical _Humani Generis_, accepted
the possibility of organic evolution of man's body, but insisted
that Adam was a real person and that the Fall represents
a real historical event. It didn't necessarily happen 6000 years ago,
and it didn't necessarily involve a magic tree and a talking snake,
and Adam wasn't necessarily a modern human, but it nevertheless
really took place. Pius specifically rejected the suggestion that
"Adam" could be a generic reference to an early human population.
As far as I know this doctrine of the historicity of Adam has never
been withdrawn (John Paul II's recent announcement does not address
the point).
------
Robert
Micheal Keane
In article <5eqcuv$g...@lace.colorado.edu>,
Robert Parson <rpa...@spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>In article <E62En...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
> Not so. Pius XII, in his 1950 encyclical _Humani Generis_, accepted
> the possibility of organic evolution of man's body, but insisted
> that Adam was a real person and that the Fall represents
> a real historical event. It didn't necessarily happen 6000 years ago,
> and it didn't necessarily involve a magic tree and a talking snake,
> and Adam wasn't necessarily a modern human, but it nevertheless
> really took place. Pius specifically rejected the suggestion that
> "Adam" could be a generic reference to an early human population.
> As far as I know this doctrine of the historicity of Adam has never
> been withdrawn (John Paul II's recent announcement does not address
> the point).
IIRC, some Cardinal proposed that "Adam" may have been the first human to
acheive self-awareness. It was in the news about a month or two ago...
someone else have more details?
--
Micheal (Chris) Keane - Associate Professor of Psychogravitational Analysis
Wooden Chair of Gravitational Morality, University of Ediacara
Join the Church of Last Thursday and worship Queen Maeve! E-mail me to join.
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia/thursday.htm
Jim Nichols
In article <5ek9je$l...@geolabserver.geo>, bmg...@mtu.edu (Brandon M.
Gorte) wrote:
No I am talking about your regular people. They want to know these basic
things like "where do we come from". Our roots.
Evolutionists are basicly using up grant money. Besides, people want an
accurate report not the complicated speculation of people who have all
there lifewanted to be somebody.
There is no "maybe so" in the Word of God. He talks like He did the work
so I guess He did. Every question answered. Gods answers satisfy the 3
year old child as well as the veteran scientist.
When a master craftsman is at work, why not just kick back and enjoy his
workmanship.
"When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the
stars which thou hast ordained, what is man that thou are mindful of him
and the son of man that thou visiteth him for thou has made him a little
lower than the angels and crowned him with glory and honor" (Psalm 8)
>Brandon Gorte
Thomas Scharle
In article <karl-23029...@papm025.olympus.net>, ka...@polympus.net (Jim Nichols) writes:
...
|> There is no "maybe so" in the Word of God. He talks like He did the work
|> so I guess He did. Every question answered. Gods answers satisfy the 3
|> year old child as well as the veteran scientist.
1 Corinthians 1:16 ... I know not whether I baptized any other
7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the
Lord
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Thomas Scharle
(spam reduced posting: no more that 4 cross-posted groups. email
sent in case I don't cover your favorite group. please respond
by posting to talk.origins, to which followup has been set.)
In article <3310888b...@news.inetworld.net>, jasi...@inet1.inetworld.net (Joe & Audrey Sinisi) writes:
...
|> Just a quick question. If physics comes closer to God than most
|> theology, then how do you account for the fact that it is the laws of
|> physics (specifically, the laws of classical and statistical
|> thermodynamics) that scientifically prove that evolution is
|> impossible? I really am curious, and I would appreciate a response.
I'll leave it to others to post the standard responses to this.
I'd just like to know what your alternative is to evolution, and how
that fits with the laws of thermodynamics.
ima pseudonym
In article <3310888b...@news.inetworld.net>, Newsgroups trimmed.
jasi...@inet1.inetworld.net says...
[snip]
>Just a quick question. If physics comes closer to God than most
>theology, then how do you account for the fact that it is the laws of
>physics (specifically, the laws of classical and statistical
>thermodynamics) that scientifically prove that evolution is
>impossible? I really am curious, and I would appreciate a response.
Gee, we've never heard that one before... ;-) That sounds like a pretty
amazing "fact". Why don't you tell us all about it? Exactly what steps in
evolution violate in what way exactly what parts of which laws of
thermodynamics, and why don't any of the biologists and the physicists
who study these matters seem to agree with you?
[Hint: if what you think you are saying was at all true, the growth and
development of every living organism would also be equally in violation of
the same provisions of those physical laws]. You are yet another victim of a
standard creationist falsehood.
cheers
Thomas Scharle
In article <5et0eq$8...@newsgate.duke.edu>, ficti...@alias.incognito.myob (ima pseudonym) writes:
...
|> Gee, we've never heard that one before... ;-) That sounds like a pretty
By the miracle of DejaNews, we discover that the latest posting on
how thermodynamics shows evolution false was on February 22, in the
thread "The many, many flaws with evolution". Other threads from
the last couple of weeks dealing in part with this are "Thermodynamics
and Materialism", "Is it Rational to Believe in God or Evolution?",
"evolution or creation", and "A Question I've Always Had About
Evolution".
When t.o gets frequently asked questions, they're frequently
asked questions.
If only someone would find the "theory of creationism".
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <5et1fg$a...@news.nd.edu>,
Thomas Scharle <sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu> wrote:
[...]
TS> When t.o gets frequently asked questions, they're frequently
TS>asked questions.
TS> If only someone would find the "theory of creationism".
At the just-completed "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific
Enterprise" conference, there was much discussion about the
eligibility of claims of supernatural causation to be considered
science. There was a fair amount of bashing of Neo-Darwinian theory
coupled with claims that it was an impediment to further progress.
There was, as far as I know, no scientific theory of creation
presented by anyone there. There were questions posed to various
intelligent design advocates concerning what, specifically, a theory
of intelligent design would yield. I don't recall hearing anything
that would make me feel enthusiastic about the prospects for the
supernaturalist enterprise.
The conference web site is at
http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/main.html
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Central Neural System
BBS, 409-737-5222, 1:385/385, ANNs, GAs, Alife, AI, evolution, and more.
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry
"the son of a gun did not even blush when they passed the mint bed" - archy
Lenny Flank
Jim Nichols wrote:
> Gods answers satisfy the 3
> year old child as well as the veteran scientist.
That should tell you something.
In any case, how about if you tell me why so many evolutionary
scientists call themsleves Christians and beleive in God? Are they all
just doing the work of the Devil?
=====================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life."
Check out my herp photos:
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2421
Creation "Science" debunked:
http://www.users.fast.net/~lflank
=====================================================
Brandon M. Gorte
Jim Nichols (ka...@polympus.net) wrote:
: In article <5ek9je$l...@geolabserver.geo>, bmg...@mtu.edu (Brandon M.
: Gorte) wrote:
:
: >Jim Nichols (ka...@polympus.net) wrote:
: >
: >: People want to know what REALLY HAPPENED
: >
: >And they are called scientists who are studying evolution and geologic
: >history.
: No I am talking about your regular people. They want to know these basic
: things like "where do we come from". Our roots.
And there are people who do those things for us. Have you ever heard of
segregation of labour.
: Evolutionists are basicly using up grant money. Besides, people want an
: accurate report not the complicated speculation of people who have all
: there lifewanted to be somebody.
And you haven't wanted to be somebody. Give me a frickin' break.
: There is no "maybe so" in the Word of God. He talks like He did the work
: so I guess He did. Every question answered. Gods answers satisfy the 3
: year old child as well as the veteran scientist.
But, why would he use a contradictory book full of errors like pi=3, etc.
: When a master craftsman is at work, why not just kick back and enjoy his
: workmanship.
I do kick back and watch Mother Nature. (That's HER workmanship.)
: "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the
: stars which thou hast ordained, what is man that thou are mindful of him
: and the son of man that thou visiteth him for thou has made him a little
: lower than the angels and crowned him with glory and honor" (Psalm 8)
Quoting the Bible isn't going to help your case Jim.
Brandon Gorte
Kenneth Fair
In article <330F46...@mindspring.com>, ju...@mindspring.com wrote:
>Please explain why you are confusing 'His invisible attributes' with the
>age of the universe? I don't know for certain how old the universe is,
>because only God knows and He hasn't told us.
Of course He has. It's written all over the universe, in the evidence
that we see. Or are you suggesting that God is lying to us?
>I do know that evolution
>is false, because God told us (in brief) how He created Adam and Eve,
>and it is totally inconsistent with evolution.
Nonsense. It is only your insistence that Genesis be read completely
literally that makes it inconsistent. There are many interpretations
of Genesis that are completely consistent with evolutionary theory.
There are many other
>truths in the Bible which are also inconsistent with evolution. The
>Garden of Eden was a *real* place, just as Adam and Eve were *real*
>individuals.
Although I don't see what Eden really has to do with evolution, I
wish you'd point out to me where it is. Or are you saying it is no
longer around?
Maybe, just maybe, the Garden of Eden story shouldn't be taken to mean
that there was an actual physical garden. The theological point can
still be maintained without requiring this. Plenty of Christians,
after all, manage to do so quite adequately.
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information
is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS." - Bob McElwaine
Stix
Thomas Scharle posted the following to alt.atheism,
<snip>
> If only someone would find the "theory of creationism".
I've found it!! Here it is in all its glory;
"God did it."
Neat, huh?
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Thomas Scharle
In article <5et5is$h...@news.tamu.edu>, wels...@orca.tamu.edu (Wesley R. Elsberry) writes:
...
|> At the just-completed "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific
|> Enterprise" conference, there was much discussion about the
|> eligibility of claims of supernatural causation to be considered
|> science. There was a fair amount of bashing of Neo-Darwinian theory
|> coupled with claims that it was an impediment to further progress.
|> There was, as far as I know, no scientific theory of creation
|> presented by anyone there. There were questions posed to various
|> intelligent design advocates concerning what, specifically, a theory
|> of intelligent design would yield. I don't recall hearing anything
|> that would make me feel enthusiastic about the prospects for the
|> supernaturalist enterprise.
|>
|> The conference web site is at
|>
|> http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/main.html
Thanks for the information. I'll have to check it out.
Meanwhile ...
I have a more general question about supernatural causation as any
kind of an explanation. I understand that there are plenty of theories
outside of science ... there are theories of music, for example.
There are explanations in history ("what caused World War I") or art
("why did Picasso have a Blue Period").
I can understand that an Intelligent Designer or a Loving God can
explain some things about the world, such as that the world is
comprehensable at all. But as far as the kinds of things that I
read about, such as that the "fine-tuning of the physical constants",
I haven't heard even a hint as to why any one of them should have
the particular value that it does, even though that argument is often
adduced. Not to mention my particular concern, that is, why an
Intelligent Designer can explain things which are supposedly problems
for conventional evolutionary biology.
Robert Parson
In article <33413684...@nntp.netcom.com>,
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The quick answer is that it is not a fact. If you want some more
>details I will point out that the laws of thermodynamics govern a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>close/isolated system. The Earth is not close/isolated, it has a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>significant heat source, the Sun.
AARGH! Why do you guys keep saying this??!!!
The Laws of thermodynamics are NOT restricted to closed or isolated
systems! When I teach thermodynamics in P. Chem., I spend considerably
more time on open systems than on closed ones. They are much more
interesting.
The Laws of thermodynamics say, among other things, that the entropy
of an isolated system cannot decrease in any spontaneous process.
That does not mean that the laws of thermo apply only to isolated
systems! They say _different things_ about non-isolated systems.
This has been pointed out over and over and over again on this
newsgroup, by Paul Gans in particular but by many others as well.
------
Robert
Thomas Scharle
In article <kjfair-ya02408000...@uchinews.uchicago.edu>, kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu.REMOVETHIS (Kenneth Fair) writes:
|> In article <330F46...@mindspring.com>, ju...@mindspring.com wrote:
|> There are many other
|> >truths in the Bible which are also inconsistent with evolution. The
|> >Garden of Eden was a *real* place, just as Adam and Eve were *real*
|> >individuals.
|>
|> Although I don't see what Eden really has to do with evolution, I
|> wish you'd point out to me where it is. Or are you saying it is no
|> longer around?
|>
|> Maybe, just maybe, the Garden of Eden story shouldn't be taken to mean
|> that there was an actual physical garden. The theological point can
|> still be maintained without requiring this. Plenty of Christians,
|> after all, manage to do so quite adequately.
Origen (ca. 185-ca. 250) was the first great Christian commentator on
the Bible. He, obviously, knew nothing about evolutionary biology, yet
he wrote:
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and
the second and the third day, and the evening and the morning
existed without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day,
if we may so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so
silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted
a paradise eastward in Eden', ..."
On first principles; being Koetschau's text of the De
principiis, translated into English, together with an
introd. and notes by G. W. Butterworth. Introd. to the
Torchbook ed. by Henri De Lubac.
Gloucester, Mass., P. Smith, 1973 c1966
ISBN 0-8446-2685-6
Book 4, Chapter 3, section 1.
Matt Silberstein
I said it because I was trying for a shorthand. I did not mean to
imply that thermo just covers close/isolated systems and should not
have said "the laws of thermodynamics" but rather the 2LoT. I am sorry
and I was wrong, but I was trying to go from what the person knew to
what they did not know.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
The scariest line I can think of is:
Hi, my name is Number 6, what's yours?
Jim Nichols
I forgot about getting back to you on your post of last week. The
following is a "cut and paste" of a popular Romans One dialog
Athiesm is decieving to the holder.
For some reason a person decides to no longer acknowledge God. His
invisible attributes are clearly visible, even His eternal power and
Godhead. Why they decide to discard that knowledge is strange. Romans
One seems to give an in depth analysis of the inside of an Athiests mind.
Since I am not one this is the only way I have of explaining. Anyway,
they cease to be thankful and become involved in speculation. "Their
foolish heart was darkened." I am following the text of Romans one and am
now at verse 22. Here they PROFESS THEMSELVES TO BE WISE. Skipping over
to v.24 God gives them over to impure hearts . This impure heart leads
them to dishonor their body among themselves. They are getting it back
from God tit for tat. v.25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie.
AND FOR THIS REASON v.26 God gives them over to degrading passions.
Regarding men: here is where God makes them into a queer v.27. They are
to be TOTALLY GIVEN OVER TO A DEPRAVED MIND.
Now here begins the catalog of horrors which is the "atheist" mind. Alot
of these characteristics are deep so I don't pretend to understand. (v.
29)"filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, malice, envy,
murder, strife, deceit, malice. Gossips, slanderers, haters of God ,
insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful, and although
they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are
worthy of death, they not only do the same but also give hearty approval
to those who practice them." I was using the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD
translation, highly regarded among scholars.
The Atheist that now is bears little resemblence to the child of long ago.
I would be interested in your comments regarding ROMANS ONE. No personal
anecdotes please.
>Jim Nichols (ka...@polympus.net) wrote:
>
>: People want to know what REALLY HAPPENED
>
>And they are called scientists who are studying evolution and geologic
>history.
>
Richard Keatinge
ka...@polympus.net (Jim Nichols) wrote:
(snip)
>Now here begins the catalog of horrors which is the "atheist" mind. Alot
>of these characteristics are deep so I don't pretend to understand. (v.
>29)"filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, malice, envy,
>murder, strife, deceit, malice. Gossips, slanderers, haters of God ,
>insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
>without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful, and although
>they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are
>worthy of death, they not only do the same but also give hearty approval
>to those who practice them."
This is the sort of stuff that reminds me what a deeply unpleasant
religion Christianity can be (and, historically, often has been). And
how thoroughly insulting certain Christian beliefs are to the rest of
us (and indeed to any Christian with minimal powers of observation).
Are there any Christians out there who'd like to support Jim's holy
suggestions that athiests are all filled with wickedness and deserve
death? Or alternatively any creationists who'd like to stop whining
about scientists calling them ignorant and give their opinion of this
stuff?
Richard
Anglican, agnostic, and atheist - go figure it out
George Dyke
Jim Nichols wrote:
>
> In article <5ek9je$l...@geolabserver.geo>, bmg...@mtu.edu (Brandon M.
> Gorte) wrote:
. Here they PROFESS THEMSELVES TO BE WISE.
So if I don't believe what you believe it is impossible to be wise ?
TOTALLY GIVEN OVER TO A DEPRAVED MIND.
So if I don't believe what you believe I am depraved.
If this is the depth of your love for mankind I pity your small petty
thoughts. If this is the depth of your god then he is indeed a small
petty tyrant.
Any man who thinks he has all the answers and can quickly criticize so
many people (unbelievers of *his* faith), is truly a fool.
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> No I am talking about your regular people. They want to know these basic
> things like "where do we come from". Our roots.
> Evolutionists are basicly using up grant money. Besides, people want an
> accurate report not the complicated speculation of people who have all
> there lifewanted to be somebody.
You moron. Just where do you think that antibiotics come from? How about
all those new-fangled drugs that can kick the crap out of most of the
diseases the once decimated populations? What about immunizations, and
viruses like the common cold that evolve at a rate we cant keep up with?
I dont know about the rest of the people in this newsgroup, but I would
gladly spend research money on that. I would not, however, spend that same
money studying the effectiveness of prayer in combating the ebola virus.
> There is no "maybe so" in the Word of God. He talks like He did the work
> so I guess He did. Every question answered. Gods answers satisfy the 3
> year old child as well as the veteran scientist.
> When a master craftsman is at work, why not just kick back and enjoy his
> workmanship.
When the master craftsman is done, I usually try to figure out what he did,
why, and how. Just saying he did it isnt good enough, and has zero (count it,
0) predictive power. Unlike you, _I_ want to be able to understand the
master, and maybe even supercede him one day.
-dentin
Al Hanke
> >
> >: People want to know what REALLY HAPPENED
> >
> >And they are called scientists who are studying evolution and geologic
> >history.
> >
> >Brandon Gorte
> --
It is interesting to note that people who want to know what REALLY happened
put their trust in an uproved and undocumented theory based on one
individual's opinions. It is even more interesting to note the lengths
that learned "scientists" will go to in order to "prove" one dead man's
opinions true in the face of volumes of opposing historical evidence.
Some of you may choose to consider the following excerpts taken from
Darwin's book that clearly shows his work was based simply on his own views
and opinions...
Terms and phrases used by Charles Darwin in his book,
The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection:
List compiled by Clark A. Peterson
In my opinion- p.21
I can form no opinion- p.40, 178
seemed to me probable- p.27, 29
We may infer as highly probable- p.83
It is highly probable- p.151, 426, 437
It is not at all probable- p.384
It seems extremely probable- p.121
It does not seem probable- p.316
Nor is this at all improbable- p.209
It becomes in the highest degree improbable- p.284
we must infer- 112
It must not be inferred- 168
We may safely infer- 305, 359, 441, 459
We should be extremely cautious in inferring- 163
facts and inferences- 164, 333, 435
It is impossible to resist the conclusion- 446
We may safely conclude- 37, 91, 249
We may, I think, conclude 301
I cannot doubt the correctness of this conclusion. 265
This must be admitted as true- 38, 337
It may be doubted- 59, 116, 238, 305, 310
it cannot be doubted- 237, 264, 303, 304
I think there can be no doubt- 135
I do not doubt- 142, 163, 234
I doubt- 431
I presume that no one will doubt- 152, 153
We are still involved in some doubt- 284
it is impossible to doubt- 428
it seems impossible- 143
it does not seem impossible- 172
it appears to me almost certain- 40, 206
It is certain- 265, 284
we may feel certain- 459
it is conceivable- 127, 168, 176
it is impossible to conceive- 180
I do not believe- 43, 354, 376
I believe- 112, 113, 120, 122, 145, 163, 165, 234
We have every reason to believe- 62, 71, 309
We have no reason to believe- 336
we cannot believe- 188
there is no difficulty in believing- 222, 350
it must be assumed- 43, 44
we must not assume- 107
almost compelled to assume- 231
highly improbable assumptions- 45
We cannot suppose- 48, 372
we must suppose- 174, 250, 273, 410
it must not be supposed- 328
let us suppose- 97, 99, 240, 254
There is nothing improbable in supposing- 210, 213
it would be a great error to suppose- 252
It would be equally rash to suppose- 305
It would be somewhat rash to assert- 56, 57
we may confidently assert- 78
It cannot be asserted- 452
It has been asserted over and over again- 309
this assertion is certainly erroneous- 309
I am fully convinced- p.43, 60
Any one may readily convince himself- 267
Hardly two naturalists agree- 61
All authors agree- 346
Authors sometimes argue in a circle- 61
How liable we are to argue in a circle- 291
We may thus deceive ourselves- 108
This may be true, but it is preposterous- 28
we may feel sure- 89
we ought not to feel too sure- 199
this seemed to be true- 66
it is quite credible- 84
our imaginary case- 100
As it is difficult to imagine- 137
it is possible to imagine- 267
must have existed- 40, 149, 162, 163, 165, 362, 438
must have been- 43, 84, 126, 175, 228, 297, 311
could not have been- 194, 304
we can predict 123
no man can predict 123
this certainly cannot be disputed- 129
It is very difficult to decide- 133, 169
I can see no difficulty- 167
it seems impossible to decide- 216
It might, perhaps, have been expected- 115
we ought not to expect- 162, 337
we have every right to expect 337
we cannot even conjecture- 207
It is therefore impossible to conjecture- 221
the most probable conjecture- 227
I will not pretend to conjecture- 247
as far as we can judge by our limited faculties- 194
Whatever the cause may be- 151, 159
often from causes wholly unknown to us- 236
In accordance with the old view- 137
On the ordinary view of independent creation- 147
On the hypothesis of separate acts of creation- 181
On the theory of Creation- 184, 352, 365, 381, 383
Do not look to some unknown plan of creation- 412
How false this view is! 84
Nothing can be more false. 396
the unknown progenitor- 415
On the view of descent with modification- 147, 400
According to this view it may be inferred- 176
On my view we may suppose- 138
It is a much more probable view- 190
These views appear to explain- 54
This view removes many difficulties- 378
On the theory of natural selection- 184, 194, 329
If the theory be true, it is indisputable- 315
We may console ourselves with the full belief- 87
We may easily err on both sides- 191
The evidence is at present not decisive. 135
Although we have no good evidence- 204, 236
Negative evidence is worthless- 311
Our evidence is fragmentary in an extreme degree 300
These facts are very perplexing- 61
We cannot hope to explain such facts- 371
I can give no satisfactory answer- 316
As natural selection acts by life and death- p.185
How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than
how life itself originated- 172
Many instincts are so wonderful that their development will probably appear
to the reader a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.... I
will not attempt any definition of instinct. 233
To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of
miracle, and to leave those of Science. 232
Such doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory. 188
Passing from these difficulties- 343
A much more important rule, which I think may be trusted- 36
Some highly competent authorities are convinced- 51
This view may safely be rejected, for it is highly improbable- 156
It appears to me improbable in the highest degree. 229
We may, I think, confidently come to this conclusion- 153
We must be extremely cautious in concluding- 175
We may almost conclude, without other evidence- 362
This view may be true, and yet may never be capable of proof. 340
In a multitude of cases we can assign no reason whatever. 273
It is as unreasonable to expect a distinct answer to such a question- 207
A definite answer to the question ought not to be expected. 209
it is hopeless to attempt answering such questions- 223
it is unreasonable to expect a precise answer to such questions,
considering our ignorance of the past history of each species- 227
No one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained on the
origin of species, if we make allowances for our profound ignorance- 127
nor will this surprise anyone who reflects how ignorant we are- 79
so profound is our ignorance, and so high is our presumption- 83
This ought to convince us of our ignorance- 87
as far as our ignorance permits us to judge- 93
though we are ignorant of the precise cause- 292
Our ignorance on the laws of variation are profound. 158
But we are far too ignorant to speculate- 187
from what we must in our ignorance call an accident- 239
if we make the same allowances as before for our ignorance- 390
It cannot be denied that we are as yet very ignorant- 437
We ought not to lay too much stress on our ignorance- 187
I wish I had space here to give a fuller abstract- 220
I have not space here to enter on details- 252, 265
I can see no difficulty in natural selection- 244
After mature reflection it seems to me that this could not have been
effected through natural selection. 276
The theory of natural selection ... seems to me in the highest degree
probable. 443
By my theory these allied species are descended from a common parent. 162
We do not know the common ancestors of any natural group- 154
They must have existed- 162, 163, 165
According to the theory, there has been much extinction. 175
We surely ought to find many transitional forms- 162
There is no difficulty in supposing that such links formerly existed- 167
Intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed- 294
He who will go this far, ought not to hesitate to go one step further- 173
Some authors have maintained that the amount of variation in our domestic
productions is soon reached, and can never afterwards be exceeded. 56
It has often been asserted, but the assertion is incapable of proof, that
the amount of variation under nature is a strictly limited quantity. 442
I venture confidently to look back thousands of generations- 157
I can see no limit in the amount of change- 111
Let this process go on for millions of years- 174
Few of us, however, know what a million really means- 298
We know that organic beings appeared on this globe, at a period
incalculably remote- 439
What a struggle must have gone on during the long centuries- 84
Unfortunately we have no means of determining, according to the standards
of years, how long a period it takes to modify a species- 299
During the last several thousand years, the conditions of life, as far as
we know, have remained absolutely uniform- 197
The old notion of all the inhabitants of the earth having been swept away
by catastrophes at successive periods is very generally given up- p.232
He who can read Sir Charles Lyell's grand work on the Principles of
Geology, and yet does not admit how vast have been the past periods of
time, may at once close this volume. p.295
Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will
undoubtedly at once reject my theory. p.318
I have attempted to show that the geological record is extremely imperfect-
p.342
He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will
rightly reject the whole theory. p.343
No doubt organic beings, like all other objects, can be classed in many
ways- p.395
the belief that many ancient forms have been utterly lost- p.411
We may feel assured that they all are descended from one parent-form, and
are therefore closely related- p.426
I should without hesitation adopt this view, even if it were unsupported by
other facts or arguments. p.434
The day will come when this will be given as a curious illustration of the
blindness of preconceived opinion. p.454
The difficulties encountered on the theory of descent with modifications
are serious enough- p.437
We are often wholly unable to conjecture how this could have been effected.
p.437
As according to the theory of natural selection an interminable number of
intermediate forms must have existed, linking together all the species in
each group- p.438
Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties which may
be justly urged against the theory- 440
I have felt these difficulties far too heavily during many years to doubt
their weight. p.440
Serious as these several objections are, in my judgement they are by no
means sufficient to overthrow the theory of descent with subsequent
modification. p.441
If we admit that the geological record is imperfect to an extreme degree,
then the facts, which the record does not give, strongly support the theory
of descent with modification. p.447
It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain in so
satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection- p.452
Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained
difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will
certainly reject the theory. p.453
The belief that species were immutable productions was almost unavoidable
as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration.
p.452
Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view
that each species has been independently created. p.458
I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the
religious feelings of any one. p.452
Jim Nichols
>In article <3310888b...@news.inetworld.net>, Newsgroups trimmed.
You know, it really takes alot of FAITH to believe in evolution. It's
proponants use words like "maybe", "is thought to have been", "most
experts agree". Words like that indicate to me that they are GUESSING.
What the world needs is a complete and accurate account such as given in
Genesis. Briefly that the entire universe was created in six 24 hour
days. It is a great setup. The only folks that can know their roots are
"believers". The rest have to make stuff up.
>Gee, we've never heard that one before... ;-) That sounds like a pretty
>amazing "fact". Why don't you tell us all about it? Exactly what steps in
>evolution violate in what way exactly what parts of which laws of
>thermodynamics, and why don't any of the biologists and the physicists
>who study these matters seem to agree with you?
>
>[Hint: if what you think you are saying was at all true, the growth and
>development of every living organism would also be equally in violation of
>the same provisions of those physical laws]. You are yet another victim of a
>standard creationist falsehood.
>cheers
Tony Sleeckx
Al Hanke wrote:
>
> > >
> > >: People want to know what REALLY HAPPENED
> > >
> > >And they are called scientists who are studying evolution and geologic
> > >history.
> > >
> > >Brandon Gorte
> > --
>
> individual's opinions. It is even more interesting to note the lengths
> that learned "scientists" will go to in order to "prove" one dead man's
> opinions true in the face of volumes of opposing historical evidence.
Like ..?
> Some of you may choose to consider the following excerpts taken from
> Darwin's book that clearly shows his work was based simply on his own views
> and opinions...
Which is probably why the scientific community has studied, expanded and
corrected his first ideas. Note that, unlike some people, scientists do
have their own opinions, and do not consider the contents of just one
book to be the absolute truth. They investigate and correct where
necessary. But the basic concept of evolution still remains.
>
> Terms and phrases used by Charles Darwin in his book,
> The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection:
> List compiled by Clark A. Peterson
(long list deleted)
Well, at least one creationist has finally read this book. Let's all
hope that he/she now starts reading some more books on biology, and
doesn't stay fixed on certain expressions.
-- Tony
if ignorance is bliss, some people must be orgasmic
Brandon M. Gorte
Jim Nichols (ka...@polympus.net) wrote:
: You know, it really takes alot of FAITH to believe in evolution. It's
: proponants use words like "maybe", "is thought to have been", "most
: experts agree". Words like that indicate to me that they are GUESSING.
: What the world needs is a complete and accurate account such as given in
: Genesis. Briefly that the entire universe was created in six 24 hour
: days. It is a great setup. The only folks that can know their roots are
: "believers". The rest have to make stuff up.
Jim, do you save these and just repost them every so often?
Brandon Gorte
Lusion
In article <01bc23f1$c79ee0e0$6fc9...@Alhanke.ccsi.com>, "Al Hanke" <alh...@ccsi.com> says:
>> >: People want to know what REALLY HAPPENED
>> >And they are called scientists who are studying evolution and geologic
>> >history.
>> >Brandon Gorte
>> --
Oh shoot! It seems Charles Darwin had an opinion, and presented his
hypothesis as if it weren't absolute truth. Darn, he even said he didn't
think religious people should feel threatened by the idea.
Oh well, I guess I'll have to stop worshiping Darwin. Since he was my
only god, maybe now I'll really be an atheist.
Now, there are other issues...
>It is interesting to note that people who want to know what REALLY happened
>put their trust in an uproved and undocumented theory based on one
>individual's opinions. It is even more interesting to note the lengths
>that learned "scientists" will go to in order to "prove" one dead man's
>opinions true in the face of volumes of opposing historical evidence.
What, Darwin's old claims? No, scientists today don't buy Darwin. They
studied his writings and found them to be false, albeit enlightening.
Instead, scientists have demonstrated some interesting claims in Darwin's
old opinionated book were true.
Have you read this book, or is your only exposure to it the sentence fragments
you got from your Chicklet friend?
>Some of you may choose to consider the following excerpts taken from
>Darwin's book that clearly shows his work was based simply on his own views
>and opinions...
Yes, I snipped them. I'm also aware that they are there. It's funny, just a
few weeks ago, there were some people on alt.memetics attacking Aaron Lynch's
book "Thought Contagion" because they felt it contained outright claims which
weren't really known and DIDN'T have this opinion language. Lynch countered
by saying that Thought Contagion wasn't really another "Origin of the Species"
line, and that the publishers today don't like such language in literature.
Anyway, the point is, you see, many scientific critics even today frown on
language which doesn't sound like opinion and isn't yet tested.
Scientists have disproven much of Darwin's claims, btw. Evolution isn't a
religion either.
>Terms and phrases used by Charles Darwin in his book,
>The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection:
>List compiled by Clark A. Peterson
Curious--why did you borrow poor Clark's work, instead of compile your own
list? It's easy as hell to do. If you feel too lazy to visit your library,
and too poor to buy the thing, try:
http://www.literature.org/Works/Charles-Darwin/origin/
Also, since you're comparing to evolution today, you might actually want to
know what you're talking about. Try:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
If you're interested in some evidence which demonstrates that common descent
as an explanation of morphological similarities outweighs "good design" as
an explanation of the same, try=:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/molecular-genetics.html
After you read all of this, you'll finally be qualified to remove your foot
from your mouth. I would hope you would still be a creationist (_AND_ would
have actually absorbed the stuff), as an informed creationist would make for
a much more interesting debate than another ignorant emotional straw-attacker.
I've a question for you, though. Why do you crosspost to alt.bible.prophecy?
I mean, it's not a group I read a lot, but I would think that such a group
would be concerned about discussing bible prophecy. Perhaps that just makes
me an idiot. Regardless, I've removed it from this thread. (It seems a lot
of the stuff I'm responding to lately is cross-posted to irrelevant groups--
would someone be so kind as to inform me why people feel the need to cross
post arguments as these to irrelevant newsgroups?)
--
Lusion
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins "Al Hanke" <alh...@ccsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >: People want to know what REALLY HAPPENED
>> >
>> >And they are called scientists who are studying evolution and geologic
>> >history.
>> >
>> >Brandon Gorte
>> --
>
>
>It is interesting to note that people who want to know what REALLY happened
>put their trust in an uproved and undocumented theory based on one
>individual's opinions. It is even more interesting to note the lengths
>that learned "scientists" will go to in order to "prove" one dead man's
>opinions true in the face of volumes of opposing historical evidence.
>
>Some of you may choose to consider the following excerpts taken from
>Darwin's book that clearly shows his work was based simply on his own views
>and opinions...
>
>Terms and phrases used by Charles Darwin in his book,
>The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection:
>List compiled by Clark A. Peterson
>
_The Origin of Species_ is available on-line. Have you checked up on
any of these references and seen what Darwin was saying? And are you
aware that others have worked in the field since Darwin wrote.
[snip]
Jonathan
Im not saying evolution is solid proof, but how can you believe a book
that was written 1500 or so years ago compared to hard scientific proof
such as fossils of the horse.They have the fossils of a the first horse,
called mesohippus, and all of its descendants.every few million years it
would lose a toe and grow bigger in size.
Bowen Simmons
> ...
> Some of you may choose to consider the following excerpts taken from
> Darwin's book that clearly shows his work was based simply on his own views
> and opinions...
>
> Terms and phrases used by Charles Darwin in his book,
> The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection:
> List compiled by Clark A. Peterson
I love context. Let's supply some from the on-line version of the first
edition:
> In my opinion- p.21
Can't find it.
> I can form no opinion- p.40, 178
Can't find the first reference. The second is:
"Prof. Cope states that the teeth of certain lizards change much in shape
with advancing years; with crustaceans not only many trivial, but some
important parts assume a new character, as recorded by Fritz Muller, after
maturity. In all such cases,- and many could be given,- if the age for
reproduction were retarded, the character of the species, at least in its
adult state, would be modified; nor is it improbable that the previous and
earlier stages of development would in some cases be hurried through and
finally lost. Whether species have often or ever been modified through
this comparatively sudden mode of transition, I can form no opinion; but
if this has occurred, it is probable that the differences between the
young and the mature, and between the mature and the old, were
primordially acquired by graduated steps."
Here Darwin is stating uncertainty in the absence of evidence. Why is
this objectionable?
> seemed to me probable- p.27, 29
"It is, therefore, of the highest importance to gain a clear insight into
the means of modification and coadaptation. At the commencement of my
observations it seemed to me probable that a careful study of domesticated
animals and of cultivated plants would offer the best chance of making out
this obscure problem. Nor have I been disappointed; in this and in all
other perplexing cases I have invariably found that our knowledge,
imperfect though it be, of variation under domestication, afforded the
best and safest clue. I may venture to express my conviction of the high
value of such studies, although they have been very commonly neglected by
naturalists."
Here Darwin is not giving an opinion, but explaining how where he decided
to look for an explanation for a phenomenon.
"WHEN on board H.M.S. Beagle as naturalist, I was much struck with certain
facts in the distribution of the organic beings inhabiting South America,
and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of
that continent. These facts, as will be seen in the latter chapters of
this volume, seemed to throw some light on the origin of species- that
mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest
philosophers. On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that
something might perhaps be made out on this question by patiently
accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly
have any bearing on it. After five years' work I allowed myself to
speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes; these I enlarged
in 1844 into a sketch of the conclusions, which then seemed to me
probable: from that period to the present day I have steadily pursued the
same object. I hope that I may be excused for entering on these personal
details, as I give them to show that I have not been hasty in coming to a
decision."
Here Darwin is describing his state of mind as of 1844, after 5 years work
of investigation. Darwin then pursued the matter for 15 more years before
publishing.
> We may infer as highly probable- p.83
"I am tempted to give one more instance showing how plants and animals
remote in the scale of nature, are bound together by a web of complex
relations. I shall hereafter have occasion to show that the exotic Lobelia
fulgens is never visited in my garden by insects, and consequently, from
its peculiar structure, never sets a seed. Nearly all our orchidaceous
plants absolutely require the visits of insects to remove their
pollen-masses and thus to fertilise them. I find from experiments that
humble-bees are almost indispensable to the fertilisation of the
heartsease (Viola tricolor), for other bees do not visit this flower. I
have also found that the visits of bees are necessary for the
fertilisation of some kinds of clover; for instance, 90 heads of Dutch
clover (Trifolium repens) yielded 2,290 seeds, but 20 other heads
protected from bees produced not one. Again, 100 heads of red clover (T.
pratense) produced 2,700 seeds, but the same number of protected heads
produced not a single seed. Humble-bees alone visit red clover, as other
bees cannot reach the nectar. It has been suggested that moths may
fertilise the clovers; but I doubt whether they could do so in the case of
the red clover, from their weight not being sufficient to depress the wing
petals. Hence we may infer as highly probable that, if the whole genus of
humble-bees became extinct or very rare in England, the heartsease and red
clover would become very rare, or wholly disappear."
This of course has nothing to do with evolution, but note that the
conclusion is the result of careful experimentation, all reference to
which you have deleted. Note also that "We" did not begin the sentence
and so this appears to be an incorrect quotation.
> It is highly probable- p.151, 426, 437
No sentence beginning "It is highly probable" appears in the on-line
version. I did find two references (but not three) to phrases containing
"it is highly probable", which I have reproduced with context below.
"It is a remarkable fact, that the secondary differences between the two
sexes of the same species are generally displayed in the very same parts
of the organisation in which the species of the same genus differ from
each other. Of this fact I will give in illustration the two first
instances which happen to stand on my list; and as the differences in
these cases are of a very unusual nature, the relation can hardly be
accidental. The same number of joints in the tarsi is a character common
to very large groups of beetles, but in the Engidoe, as Westwood has
remarked, the number varies greatly; and the number likewise differs in
the two sexes of the same species. Again in the fossorial hymenoptera, the
neuration of the wings is a character of the highest importance, because
common to large groups; but in certain genera the neuration differs in the
different species, and likewise in the two sexes of the same species. Sir
J. Lubbock has recently remarked, that several minute crustaceans offer
excellent illustrations of this law. "In Pontella, for instance, the
sexual characters are afforded mainly by the anterior antennae and by the
fifth pair of legs: the specific differences also are principally given by
these organs." This relation has a clear meaning on my view: I look at all
the species of the same genus as having as certainly descended from a
common progenitor, as have the two sexes of any one species. Consequently,
whatever part of the structure of the common progenitor, or of its early
descendants, became variable, variations of this part would, it is highly
probable, be taken advantage of by natural and sexual selection, in order
to fit the several species to their several places in the economy of
nature, and likewise to fit the two sexes of the same species to each
other, or to fit the males to struggle with other males for the possession
of the females."
Here Darwin is citing a fact of nature and how it can be explained by his
theory, thus providing reinforcing evidence for the theory.
"On the other hand it is highly probable that with many animals the
embryonic or larval stages show us, more or less completely, the condition
of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state. In the great
class of the Crustacea, forms wonderfully distinct from each other,
namely, suctorial parasites, cirripedes, entomostraca, and even the
malacostraca, appear at first as larvae under the nauplius-form; and as
these larvae live and feed in the open sea, and are not adapted for any
peculiar habits of life, and from other reasons assigned by Fritz Muller
it is probable that at some very remote period an independent adult
animal, resembling the nauplius, existed, and subsequently produced, along
several divergent lines of descent, the above-named great crustacean
groups. So again it is probable, from what we know of the embryos of
mammals, birds, fishes, and reptiles, that these animals are the modified
descendants of some ancient progenitor, which was furnished in its adult
state with branchiae, a swimbladder, four finlike limbs, and a long tail,
all fitted for an aquatic life."
Here Darwin is citing another fact of nature and how it can be explained
by his theory, thus providing reinforcing evidence for the theory.
> It is not at all probable- p.384...
I could go on, but what's the point? Not only are many of these
quotations actually misquotations (par for the course with creationism),
but the entire exercise is one of misquotation by selective quotation on a
grand scale. Hundreds of pages of logic and evidence are excised to
reinforce the feel-good conclusion that Darwin never prevented any and
that evolution is all a matter of opinion.
This is all too typical of the lazy, dishonest slop that passes for
argumentation among creationists.
--
Bowen Simmons
bo...@netgate.net
Michael Grice
"Al Hanke" <alh...@ccsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >: People want to know what REALLY HAPPENED
>> >
>> >And they are called scientists who are studying evolution and geologic
>> >history.
>> >
>> >Brandon Gorte
>> --
>
>
>It is interesting to note that people who want to know what REALLY happened
>put their trust in an uproved and undocumented theory based on one
>individual's opinions. It is even more interesting to note the lengths
>that learned "scientists" will go to in order to "prove" one dead man's
>opinions true in the face of volumes of opposing historical evidence.
>
>Some of you may choose to consider the following excerpts taken from
>Darwin's book that clearly shows his work was based simply on his own views
>and opinions...
>
>Terms and phrases used by Charles Darwin in his book,
>The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection:
>List compiled by Clark A. Peterson
>
>In my opinion- p.21
>I can form no opinion- p.40, 178
>seemed to me probable- p.27, 29
[rest of list snipped]
Not to be rude, Al, but what does this prove? That he was cautious in
proposing a theory he knew in advance would be controversial? That he
wanted to address the doubts he thought his readers might have?
Of course the book was based on his "own views and opinions." You
should have noticed as you read the book, however, that he gathered
*evidence* to support those views and opinions.
You should also know that, since 1859, the scientific community has
been quite active in testing and documenting the theory of evolution.
If you want to convince anyone except the choir that evolution isn't
supported by the evidence, you'd do much better to *address the
evidence supporting evolution* and show how the "volumes of opposing
historical evidence" contradict it.
[Anyway, the modern theory of evolution certainly isn't just the work
of Darwin. For that matter, Darwin had his predecessors and
contemporaries who had similiar ideas. Alfred Wallace came up with a
similiar theory independently of Darwin, and Darwin had a number of
predecessors who had similiar ideas (Lamarck, his grandfather,
Erasmus, etc.).]
Michael Grice
Dick Craven
>
>It is interesting to note that people who want to know what REALLY happened
>put their trust in an uproved and undocumented theory based on one
>individual's opinions. It is even more interesting to note the lengths
>that learned "scientists" will go to in order to "prove" one dead man's
>opinions true in the face of volumes of opposing historical evidence.
What is really interesting is that you don't have a clue about what
science has accomplished in the past 140 years. Biologists do not
put their trust in Darwin's Theory. the have checked it out for them
selves and developed massive amounts of evidence supporting it.
I, and undoubtedly many others, would be interested in seeing
this 'opposing historical evidence.'
>
>Some of you may choose to consider the following excerpts taken from
>Darwin's book that clearly shows his work was based simply on his own views
>and opinions...
Views and opinions that have, for the most part, been shown to be
quite accurate. Especially considering, that all he had to observe
was the species that he was acquainted with, very few fossils had
been uncovered and assembled when he was forming his theory.
The modern synthesis wasn't even thought of then either.
>
>Terms and phrases used by Charles Darwin in his book,
>The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection:
>List compiled by Clark A. Peterson
I first read this about 6:00 AM today and have let it
percolate around in my mind since then. And then
when I reread it I found that I had missed the fact
that you didn't even do the research yourself,
rather cribbed it from someone else.
And my response is for you to read the book
and decide just exactly what Charles Darwin
was talking about yourself. One thing I would
like to point out, in the quote that you posted
Darwin was differentiating between fact and
his opinion. He was doing something that
modern creationist authors do very little of,
and exhibit even less of. Something called
personal honesty or integrity.He was careful
to point out where he did not have all the answers,
and where he got information or support for his ideas
from someone else. No matter how unknown these
people were.
And you can get a very good idea on how his mind
worked, along with a better understanding of his theory
and the general knowledge of natural history in the mid
19th century.
i suggest that you, and everyone else read this book,
even if you don't agree with the theory, it is still a very
excellent glimpse into England in the 19th century.
And who knows, you might actually learn something.
Mega snip of pointless quotes from Charles Darwin.
>I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the
>religious feelings of any one. p.452
But don't you just love this quote?
>
All opinions are mine, and no one elses.
to eliminate junk email I am using a junk email address
you can email me at di...@nwlink.com
http://www.nwlink.com/~dickc
Dick (Chris) Craven,
Professor of Modern Humor
from the ICR.
ima pseudonym
In article <01bc23f1$c79ee0e0$6fc9...@Alhanke.ccsi.com>,
alh...@ccsi.com says...
>> >: People want to know what REALLY HAPPENED
>> >And they are called scientists who are studying evolution and geologic
>> >history.
>> >Brandon Gorte
>
>put their trust in an uproved and undocumented theory based on one
>individual's opinions.
This is silly. Evolutionary theory is only based on one man's opinions? It's
"unproved and undocumented"? Oh, right. Never mind all the evidence...
> It is even more interesting to note the lengths
>that learned "scientists" will go to in order to "prove" one dead man's
>opinions true in the face of volumes of opposing historical evidence.
So you should have no trouble giving us many references to all these volumes
of "opposing historical evidence", right? Please tell us all about it. Do you
know that evolutionary biology has progressed quite a bit since the 1860s? [i.e.,
you haven't a clue what you are talking about...]
>Some of you may choose to consider the following excerpts taken from
>Darwin's book that clearly shows his work was based simply on his own views
>and opinions...
Silly. Try putting the phrases in context.
>Terms and phrases used by Charles Darwin in his book,
>The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection:
>List compiled by Clark A. Peterson
[ridiculous list of unconnected phrases snipped]
Bizarre. It's remarkable how fundamentalists often seem to project their own
Scriptural mindset on scientists. They assume we all treat the _Origin_ as
sacred writings and Darwin as a prophet, and think that their finding flaws
[mostly imaginary] in either is extremely cogent criticism of modern
evolutionary biology. Sheesh.
cheers
Gos890
Richard Keating wrote:
-----------------------------
And historically athiesism has done well? ( like Stalin, Adolph and Mao).
Actually I *have* noticed the odd bit of *strife, boastfulness, malice,
arrogance
and unlovingness* from say Styx, or wf3r, or others of the *bander log*
types.
Did you miss that part? :)
----------------------------------------------------------------
*Just the facts ma'm, just the facts.*
Sgt. Joe Friday, Dragnet
----------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a busy person, if you expect a reply e-mail me.
ima pseudonym
In article
<karl-27029...@papm026.olympus.net>ka...@polympus.net
says...
>(ima pseudonym) wrote:
[snipped]
>You know, it really takes alot of FAITH to believe in evolution.
Nope, it just takes careful consideration of the evidence.
> It's
>proponants use words like "maybe", "is thought to have been", "most
>experts agree". Words like that indicate to me that they are GUESSING.
I'm guessing that you have no idea what you're talking about. People do
use lots of different words. Some of these may [!] be appropriate in context.
Perhaps [!] you might [!] quote for us some whole sentences to illustrate
whatever point you are trying to make?
>What the world needs is a complete and accurate account such as given in
>Genesis. Briefly that the entire universe was created in six 24 hour
>days. It is a great setup.
Too bad there's no scientific evidence for it whatsoever.
> The only folks that can know their roots are
>"believers". The rest have to make stuff up.
The post you responded to was in reply to someone's scientific
misconceptions about evolution vs. thermodynamics; you seem to have
ignored that completely in spouting the above affirmation of your
fundamentalism. You're of course welcome to believe whatever you like,
but it is irrelevant tof the previous discussion.
cheers
Richard Keatinge
gos...@aol.com (Gos890) wrote:
No. Nor the (far more common) lies, arrogance, and ignorance from
Christian YECs in particular. To bring you back to the point, are you
saying that atheists are all filled with wickedness and deserve
death? Because that assertion is typical of a rather strong and very
unpleasant historical strain in christian thought.
Richard
Matt Silberstein
Do you mean Adolph, the good Cathloc? And Stalin the former religious
student? How do they compare to Father Juniper Siera?
However your basic claim is wrong. Religions, especially Christianity,
make specific claims about the moral behavior of their members.
Atheism makes no such claim.
>Actually I *have* noticed the odd bit of *strife, boastfulness, malice,
>arrogance
>and unlovingness* from say Styx, or wf3r, or others of the *bander log*
>types.
>Did you miss that part? :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>*Just the facts ma'm, just the facts.*
> Sgt. Joe Friday, Dragnet
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>I'm a busy person, if you expect a reply e-mail me.
Matt Silberstein
Samaritan
Brandon M. Gorte wrote:
>
> Jim Nichols (ka...@polympus.net) wrote:
>
> : You know, it really takes alot of FAITH to believe in evolution. It's
> : proponants use words like "maybe", "is thought to have been", "most
> : experts agree". Words like that indicate to me that they are GUESSING.
> : Genesis. Briefly that the entire universe was created in six 24 hour
> : "believers". The rest have to make stuff up.
>
>
> Brandon Gorte
There's nothing wrong with re-reading facts every so often.
Samaritan
Steve Henderson
In article <karl-27029...@papm026.olympus.net>,
ka...@polympus.net (Jim Nichols) wrote:
}In article <5et0eq$8...@newsgate.duke.edu>,
ficti...@alias.incognito.myob
}(ima pseudonym) wrote:
}
}>In article <3310888b...@news.inetworld.net>, Newsgroups trimmed.
}proponants use words like "maybe", "is thought to have been", "most
}experts agree". Words like that indicate to me that they are GUESSING.
}What the world needs is a complete and accurate account such as given
}in Genesis. Briefly that the entire universe was created in six 24
}hour days. It is a great setup. The only folks that can know their
}roots are "believers". The rest have to make stuff up.
Actually, to believe in evolution doesn't take faith at all.
Education, intelligence and common sense, but no faith. To take Genesis
literally now, that takes faith, not to mention little or no knowledge
of geology, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, astronomy,
mythology, ancient history, cosmology, biology, and probably many other
branches of science. It also helps if you can block out any knowledge
that doesn't fit your pre-conceptions.
Gos890
Richard Keatinge wrote
>Actually I *have* noticed the odd bit of *strife, boastfulness, malice,
>arrogance
>and unlovingness* from say Styx, or wf3r, or others of the *bander log*
>types.
>Did you miss that part? :)
No. Nor the (far more common) lies, arrogance, and ignorance from
Christian YECs in particular. To bring you back to the point, are you
saying that atheists are all filled with wickedness and deserve
death? Because that assertion is typical of a rather strong and very
unpleasant historical strain in christian thought.
Richard
>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll stipulate that there has been plenty of acremony, arrogance, (and a
few Mis-truths) and ignorance from many on both sides of the line in this
forum.
To your point: I personally do not dislike any atheists, and I personally
don't have a clue what they are filled with or what they deserve (even
styx may only be a monster by wire, and a nice guy in person).
That said, I have read that ALL have fallen short in God's eye and either
1. have been saved by Christ or 2. Will be saved by Christ or 3. Choose
for themselves the pit.
I hope you are in catagory #2 (or better #1).
good nite.
Charles Dye
Samaritan <sama...@centuryinter.net> wrote:
>Brandon M. Gorte wrote:
>>
>> Jim Nichols (ka...@polympus.net) wrote:
>>
>> : You know, it really takes alot of FAITH to believe in evolution. It's
>> : proponants use words like "maybe", "is thought to have been", "most
>> : experts agree". Words like that indicate to me that they are GUESSING.
>> : What the world needs is a complete and accurate account such as given in
>> : Genesis. Briefly that the entire universe was created in six 24 hour
>> : days. It is a great setup. The only folks that can know their roots are
>> : "believers". The rest have to make stuff up.
>>
>> Jim, do you save these and just repost them every so often?
>>
>> Brandon Gorte
>There's nothing wrong with re-reading facts every so often.
I see no facts here! The offending post would be a good deal less
irritating if it did contain some factual material. Hint, hint.
Jim Nichols
In article <5f43m9$s...@geolabserver.geo>, bmg...@mtu.edu (Brandon M.
Gorte) wrote:
*
Brandon
Sometimes!
*
>Jim Nichols (ka...@polympus.net) wrote:
>
>: You know, it really takes alot of FAITH to believe in evolution. It's
>: proponants use words like "maybe", "is thought to have been", "most
>: experts agree". Words like that indicate to me that they are GUESSING.
>: What the world needs is a complete and accurate account such as given in
>: Genesis. Briefly that the entire universe was created in six 24 hour
>: days. It is a great setup. The only folks that can know their roots are
>: "believers". The rest have to make stuff up.
>
>Jim, do you save these and just repost them every so often?
>
>Brandon Gorte
Jim Nichols
In article <332bc5f8...@nntp.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt
Silberstein) wrote:
>_The Origin of Species_ is available on-line. Have you checked up on
>any of these references and seen what Darwin was saying? And are you
>aware that others have worked in the field since Darwin wrote.
>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>
>Matt Silberstein
>-------------------------------------------
>
>The scariest line I can think of is:
>
>Hi, my name is Number 6, what's yours?
Matt
So how do you read this one?? ISAIAH 53
He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with
grief and we hid as it were our faces from him. He was despised and we
esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows
yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted but he was
wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities. The
chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are
healed. All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned every one to
his own way and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was
oppressed and he was afflicted yet he opened not his mouth. He is brought
as a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb so
he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment and
who shall declare his generation for he was cut off out of the land of the
living. For the transgression of my people was he stricken and he made
his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death because he had
done no violence neither was any deceit in his mouth yet it pleased the
Lord to bruise him. He hath put him to grief when thou shalt make his
soul an offering for sin.
Neil Aitchison
Well, the second law of thermodynamics goes against the theory of
evolution this being that the level of entropy is always
increasing.....therefore, as time goes on, more energy in the universe is
becoming unusable and if let run to it's end, all living things would
die.....There is more about this at:
http://www.on.net/users/mec/answers/63_cre.htm
Neil.
Larry Cavender
Jonathan <"what god?"@.> wrote in article <331656...@d.com>...
Jonathan
How can you believe in a theory that had it birth the mid 1800's? The hard
scientific proof is there. But it is the very unreasonable conclusions,
that people draw from that evidence, which are under dispute. Make a better
arguement against the Bible than its age, that is if you can.
Patti Rebecca King
On 26 Feb 1997, Al Hanke wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > >: People want to know what REALLY HAPPENED
> > >
> > >And they are called scientists who are studying evolution and geologic
> > >history.
> > >
> > >Brandon Gorte
> > --
>
>
> It is interesting to note that people who want to know what REALLY happened
> put their trust in an uproved and undocumented theory based on one
> individual's opinions. It is even more interesting to note the lengths
> that learned "scientists" will go to in order to "prove" one dead man's
> opinions true in the face of volumes of opposing historical evidence.
>
> Some of you may choose to consider the following excerpts taken from
> Darwin's book that clearly shows his work was based simply on his own views
> and opinions...
The Theory of evolution was not only Darwin's opinion, he just happened to
be the first person to publish the idea. Many years of scientific
observation went into The Origin of the Species, and confirming it hasn't
been too much of a stretch. All theories must begin as the hypothesis of
one or a few. Knowledge of natural laws doesn't just pop out of thin air,
we must work toward it from the best starting points we can find.
-cc
Herb Huston
Followups restricted. Resume crossposting at your own risk.
In article <01bc23f1$c79ee0e0$6fc9...@alhanke.ccsi.com>,
Al Hanke <alh...@ccsi.com> wrote:
}It is interesting to note that people who want to know what REALLY happened
}put their trust in an uproved and undocumented theory based on one
}individual's opinions.
That's because most creationists are mental defectives.
} It is even more interesting to note the lengths
}that learned "scientists" will go to in order to "prove" one dead man's
}opinions true in the face of volumes of opposing historical evidence.
That's because "creation scientists" are moral degenerates.
Al, I'm in complete agreement with your assessment of creationists. Did
you know that some of those scum even post second-hand quotations taken out
of context?
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
-- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins Neil Aitchison <m...@adelaide.on.net> wrote:
>Well, the second law of thermodynamics goes against the theory of
>evolution this being that the level of entropy is always
>increasing....
Luckily we have the Sun to pump a lot of high temperature energy into
the system. keeps those entropy affects away for quite awhile.
>.therefore, as time goes on, more energy in the universe is
>becoming unusable and if let run to it's end, all living things would
>die.....There is more about this at:
>
>http://www.on.net/users/mec/answers/63_cre.htm
>
Of course the Theory of Evolution says nothing about life existing
forever.
BTW, are you a creationist? If so I have a question. Will the rapture
come before the heat death of the universe? And if not, can the
rapture occur?
ima pseudonym
In article <3318FD...@adelaide.on.net>, m...@adelaide.on.net
says...
>
>Well, the second law of thermodynamics goes against the theory of
>evolution this being that the level of entropy is always
>increasing....
I think that on further investigation you will find that there is no step involved
in evolution as we understand it that is in conflict with the second law of
thermodynamics in any way. The alleged conflict is just an old
creationist's tale; if it were going to be true for neoDarwinian evolution
[differential success in reproduction, because of variation within
populations, (mutations, selection, etc).] it would be equally problematic
for a tree to grow form a seed or a baby from a fertilized egg. Us living
things are mostly busily transforming energy [chemical bonds, ultimately
derived (mostly) from solar radiation energy] into a less useful form
[heat].
.therefore, as time goes on, more energy in the universe is
>becoming unusable and if let run to it's end, all living things would
>die.....
In the end all living things do die.
>There is more about this at:
>http://www.on.net/users/mec/answers/63_cre.htm
cheers
Thomas Scharle
In article <3318FD...@adelaide.on.net>, Neil Aitchison <m...@adelaide.on.net> writes:
|> Well, the second law of thermodynamics goes against the theory of
|> evolution this being that the level of entropy is always
|>
|> http://www.on.net/users/mec/answers/63_cre.htm
|>
|> Neil.
How is the sorting in the Flood, as mentioned in this document,
compatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Isn't that an introduction
of order by a purely mechanical process?
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
see the constellation
Neil Aitchison <m...@adelaide.on.net> wrote in article
<3318FD...@adelaide.on.net>...
> Well, the second law of thermodynamics goes against the theory of
> evolution this being that the level of entropy is always
> increasing.....therefore, as time goes on, more energy in the universe is
> becoming unusable and if let run to it's end, all living things would
> die.....There is more about this at:
>
> http://www.on.net/users/mec/answers/63_cre.htm
>
> Neil.
I flipped through the site. In general, the supposed contradictions to
evolution resulted from failure to take some vital facts into account or
misinterpretation/misrepresentation of science's ideas.
An example is the claim that the existence of jagged mountains and cliffs
contradicts the idea that the world is old enough for evolution to have
taken place. The obvious refutation of this is that the jagged mountains
and cliffs are relatively new features on the landscape (and are still
vastly older than the creationists' world). Earth *is* constantly changing
- scientists have never claimed otherwise. How does creationism explain
the existence of heavily eroded mountains (like the Appalachians), which
must be much older than creationism claims the world to be? god made them
that way to confuse us?
My biggest problem with creation "science" is that it feeds off of public
ignorance of *real* science. If they had arguments which were not based,
at their heart, on misrepresentation of scientific ideas, they would be
much more credible, or at least a bit less annoying...
- Anne
Stoney
[snipped Jim's drivel]
>> Jim, do you save these and just repost them every so often?
>>
>> Brandon Gorte
Samariatan said;
>There's nothing wrong with re-reading facts every so often.
You misspelled 'fiction'. And reading the same fiction almost every
day is extremely boring.
>Samaritan
Regards,
Stoney
Faith is intellectual pornography.
Due to commercial spams; header address is falsified.
Real email address is: cc1...@cdsnet.net
Wesley R. Elsberry
Posted and emailed. Followups set to talk.origins.
In article <3318FD...@adelaide.on.net>,
Neil Aitchison <m...@adelaide.on.net> wrote:
NA>Well, the second law of thermodynamics goes against the theory of
NA>evolution this being that the level of entropy is always
NA>increasing.....therefore, as time goes on, more energy in the universe is
NA>becoming unusable and if let run to it's end, all living things would
NA>die.....There is more about this at:
NA>http://www.on.net/users/mec/answers/63_cre.htm
Thermodynamics and Evolutionary Mechanism Theory Challenge
Created 961229. Last updated 970303.
SciCre-ists often complain that evolutionary theory runs counter to
the second law of thermodynamics, information theory, or sometimes
just "thermodynamics".
Thermodynamics addresses processes which may involve changes in
energy distribution or availability. Because SciCre-ists challenge
evolutionary mechanism theories on the basis of thermodynamics, it
follows that some particular process or processes must have been
identified as being objectionable by those SciCre-ists.
This challenge is designed to test the rigor of the SciCre-ist's claim
regarding thermodynamics. Because the SciCre-ist has made the claim
that one or more evolutionary processes are thermodynamically invalid
or unviable, the following three questions must be answered if there
is any competence of the SciCre claim at all:
1. Specifically, which process or processes are identified
as being thermodynamically invalid? [Identify the process such that
it can be researched.]
2. Specifically, which evolutionary mechanism theory
postulates the process or processes identified in (1) as being
necessary to evolutionary change? [Identify the theory such
that the claim can be researched.]
3. Defend the claim that the process identified in (1)
and referenced in (2) has not been observed in extant populations.
[Processes which are observed to happen in extant populations
are highly unlikely to be thermodynamically invalid. Indicate
sources that tend to confirm the claim that the process is not
observed to happen.]
In my reading and research on evolutionary mechanism theories, I
have found no reliance upon any process that has not been observed in
extant populations. This leads me to treat claims of thermodynamic
inviability for these theories with great skepticism.
Roster of the challenged:
Date Name Forum Response
961229 DJ (al...@one.net) talk.origins None
970101 Bill Morgan k12.ed.science None
970224 Joe Sinisi talk.origins "I am planning to get back to you
by this upcoming weekend." (970225)
970303 Neil Aitchison talk.origins Pending
Newly challenged persons have the "Response" field listed as
"Pending". "Pending" automatically changes to "None" if no
response is sent to me at wels...@orca.tamu.edu within one
month. A later response will replace a "None" entry after
receipt.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Central Neural System
BBS, 409-737-5222, 1:385/385, ANNs, GAs, Alife, AI, evolution, and more.
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry
"yours for less justice and more charity" - archy
Capella
Thomas Scharle wrote:
>
> In article <3318FD...@adelaide.on.net>, Neil Aitchison <m...@adelaide.on.net> writes:
> |> Well, the second law of thermodynamics goes against the theory of
> |>
> |>
> |> Neil.
>
> How is the sorting in the Flood, as mentioned in this document,
> compatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Isn't that an introduction
> of order by a purely mechanical process?
>
> --
> Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
According to Neil's interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there
can't be trees because they grow from simpler to more complex. Humans
are out of the question in Neil's universe because they grow from a
single cell into trillions of cells of complexity, this is reverse
entropy, not entropy increasing.
His failure is to mention that where energy in pumped into a closed
system you can have reverse entropy within that closed system and the
total entropy in the universe will still increase. The 2nd law of
thermodynamics stands but the creationists interpretation of it falls
on it's face.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
Dallas, Texas
Thomas Scharle
In article <19970303234...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, gos...@aol.com (Gos890) writes:
|> Tom Scharle wrote:
|>
|> > I'm not an art historian, but I feel confident that, if I took an
|> >art history course, and the teacher asked, "Why is the Mona Lisa
|> >smiling?" no one would dare answer "Leonardo did it".
|>
|> You could answer with *your* speculation i.e. I love smiles so Leonardo
|> loved smiles.
That would be something like an explanation. It plays on something
that we know about Leonardo, that he was a human being.
|>
|> You could also answer with *some learned cove's* speculation i.e. I read
|> in bla bla that Leonardo bla bla bla.
Depending on what the "bla bla" is, that could be an explanation.
|>
|> Or you could make some stuff up and hope the teacher *liked* it.
Depending on what I made up, that could be an explanation.
These may not be *good* explanations, or *correct* explanations.
But they are at least attempts at giving an explanation.
What I am trying to point out is that there are some things which
are true (such as "Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa") which are not
*explanations*. Just as there are explanations which are not
necessarily good ones (maybe some of those that you suggest above).
And I'm also trying to point out that there can be such a thing as a
*non*scientific explanation.
I can explain the American Civil War as being fought against
domination of the sovereign southern states by the northern states;
or for the preservation of the Union; or lots of other reasons. They
are not scientific, they may be correct or incorrect; but they are
*explanations*.
|>
|> But unless Leonardo *told* (or wrote it down) someone why, the actual DATA
|> died with him, and so the only answer that is *not* speculation is *cause
|> Leonardo painted it that way*.
Maybe there is no explanation of the smile on the Mona Lisa which
is not pure speculation. Maybe not ... I don't know much about art.
But "Leonardo painted it that way" is not an explanation, even
though it is true. It is better IMHO to answer "I don't know" than
to give some true statement which is non-responsive to the question.
More examples of true statements which are *not* explanations:
"Why do the hands on a watch go in a clockwise direction?"
"Because watches are designed and manufactured by intelligent
watchmakers."
"Why is a triangle with sides 3, 4 and 5 a right triangle?"
"Because mathematicians are smart people."
Jim Foster
Steve Henderson wrote:
>
> In article <karl-27029...@papm026.olympus.net>,
> ka...@polympus.net (Jim Nichols) wrote:
> }In article <5et0eq$8...@newsgate.duke.edu>,
> ficti...@alias.incognito.myob
> }(ima pseudonym) wrote:
> }
> }>In article <3310888b...@news.inetworld.net>, Newsgroups trimmed.
> }proponants use words like "maybe", "is thought to have been", "most
> }experts agree". Words like that indicate to me that they are GUESSING.
> }What the world needs is a complete and accurate account such as given
> }in Genesis. Briefly that the entire universe was created in six 24
> }hour days. It is a great setup. The only folks that can know their
> }roots are "believers". The rest have to make stuff up.
>
> Education, intelligence and common sense, but no faith. To take Genesis
> literally now, that takes faith, not to mention little or no knowledge
> of geology, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, astronomy,
> mythology, ancient history, cosmology, biology, and probably many other
> branches of science. It also helps if you can block out any knowledge
> that doesn't fit your pre-conceptions.
They both take faith, one is just a larger scale view, and the other is
and the other is just a small corner of it.
Paul S. Person
A...@gwyha3.demon.co.uk.REMOVE (Richard Keatinge) wrote:
Not to spoil the mood, but traditional Christian doctrine is that
*EVERYBODY* is "filled with wickedness and deserve death". The only
exception being Jesus. This means that *all Christians*, in
particular, are "filled with wickedness and deserve death".
Singling out specific groups is the actual problem. Applying these
terms *solely* to those they don't like is the actual problem. Moving
from "deserve death" to actually murdering those they don't like is
the actual problem.
Hatred is the actual problem. Feel free to continue objecting to their
hatred whenever and wherever you find it.
Paul S. Person
George Dyke <dy...@jove.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>Jim Nichols wrote:
>>
>> In article <5ek9je$l...@geolabserver.geo>, bmg...@mtu.edu (Brandon M.
>> Gorte) wrote:
>
>. Here they PROFESS THEMSELVES TO BE WISE.
>
>So if I don't believe what you believe it is impossible to be wise ?
>
>TOTALLY GIVEN OVER TO A DEPRAVED MIND.
>
>So if I don't believe what you believe I am depraved.
>
>If this is the depth of your love for mankind I pity your small petty
>thoughts. If this is the depth of your god then he is indeed a small
>petty tyrant.
>
>Any man who thinks he has all the answers and can quickly criticize so
>many people (unbelievers of *his* faith), is truly a fool.
This sort of response is where very nearly on target. But wouldn't it
have been better to point out that, by applying the passage as he did,
he showed *that it applies to him*?
wf...@enter.net
>Well, the second law of thermodynamics goes against the theory of
>evolution this being that the level of entropy is always
>increasing...
what a bizarre and fatuous lie. of course this is just creationist
propaganda. we folks who have actually STUDIED thermo know this is a
delusion...
ima pseudonym
Newsgroups trimmed, so mailed as well as posted.
In article
<bg209oj...@janus.i-have-a-misconfigured-system-so-shoot-me>,
mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au says...
>
>gor...@elaine.drink.com (Alan Barclay) writes:
>> What sort of design is it to give nerves, even remnants of them, to
>> non-existant limbs?
>> Doesn't this seem like a perfect example of a vestigal feature?
>
>Surely you are aware of the serpent in the garden of Eden! What
>happened to it?
You really want to argue that that was really an actual type of talking
snake, not the Devil? Sheesh!
>Frankly, your comment astonishes me, since it gives remarkable
>biological confirmation of the story of the fall!!
Remarkable that you think so. You get this from vestigial hindlimbs and
limb nerves? Where are the snakes with any traces of vocal cords and
of a brain big enough to carry on a conversation? Now, _that_ would
be truly remarkable!
Snakes are a very large group [several families, many genera,
thousands of species]; they are really just one particular branch of the
lizards. [So, what species was your Eden conversationalist?] Many
other groups of lizards are also legless or nearly so. Some of these are
more completely limbless than many true snakes. BTW, some limbed
lizards [e.g, your "goannas" in .au] are probably closer kin to snakes
than to other lizards; does that also fit with your Garden scenario?
cheers
Richard Keatinge
ppe...@ix.netcom.com (Paul S. Person) wrote:
>>>>Are there any Christians out there who'd like to support Jim's holy
>>>>suggestions that athiests are all filled with wickedness and deserve
>>>>death?
(snip
)
>Not to spoil the mood, but traditional Christian doctrine is that
>*EVERYBODY* is "filled with wickedness and deserve death". The only
>exception being Jesus. This means that *all Christians*, in
>particular, are "filled with wickedness and deserve death".
>
>Singling out specific groups is the actual problem. Applying these
>terms *solely* to those they don't like is the actual problem. Moving
>from "deserve death" to actually murdering those they don't like is
>the actual problem.
Thank you Paul, this sort of response does something to restore my
acceptance of Christianity.
>
>Hatred is the actual problem. Feel free to continue objecting to their
>hatred whenever and wherever you find it.
As part of this objection, I have deleted Jim's hate-filled email
answer to my post.
Richard
Lenny Flank
ima pseudonym wrote:
>
> Snakes are a very large group [several families, many genera,
> thousands of species];
There are about 2700 species of living snakes.
>they are really just one particular branch of the
> lizards.
In fact, they are classified along with lizrads in the Order Squamata.
Many
> other groups of lizards are also legless or nearly so.
Yep. Among these are the "glass lizards" of the Anguid family, and
several of the limbless Skinks in the Scincid family. Some of these
have four limbs that are too short to reach the ground and play no
role in locomotion. Some species have small rear limbs but no front
limbs. Some, such as the Glass Lizards, have no limbs at all but have
vestigial pelvic girdles.
I guess God must have cursed them, too, eh?
BTW, some limbed
> lizards [e.g, your "goannas" in .au] are probably closer kin to snakes
> than to other lizards
True enough. Snakes share some unique skull features with the Monitor
Lizards (family Varanidae). Current theory is that snakes are
descended from burrowing or aquatic (take your pick) members of the
Varanid family (a family that included the large Mosasaurs, which
are very snakelike in their skull structure) during the Jurassic.
=====================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life."
Check out my herp photos:
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2421
Creation "Science" debunked:
http://www.users.fast.net/~lflank
=====================================================
ima pseudonym
In article <33249D...@fast.net>, lfl...@fast.net says...
>ima pseudonym wrote:
>> Snakes are a very large group [several families, many genera,
>> thousands of species];
>
>There are about 2700 species of living snakes.
>
>>they are really just one particular branch of the
>> lizards.
>
>In fact, they are classified along with lizrads in the Order Squamata.
Right, but I meant that "lizards" is probably not a monophyletic group if
snakes are excluded [i.e., it is very likely they are not sister groups within
the Squamata (and a monophyletic Lacertilia would be equal to
Squamata)].
> Many
>> other groups of lizards are also legless or nearly so.
>Yep. Among these are the "glass lizards" of the Anguid family, and
>several of the limbless Skinks in the Scincid family. Some of these
>have four limbs that are too short to reach the ground and play no
>role in locomotion. Some species have small rear limbs but no front
>limbs. Some, such as the Glass Lizards, have no limbs at all but have
>vestigial pelvic girdles.
>
>I guess God must have cursed them, too, eh?
Actually, I would think snakes would be cursed if God were to stick limbs
onto them. Legs would just get in the way; they get along quite well without
them. God in "cursing" them obviously must have redesigned them so
that they get along even better than they would have with limbs.
>> BTW, some limbed
>> lizards [e.g, your "goannas" in .au] are probably closer kin to snakes
>> than to other lizards
>True enough. Snakes share some unique skull features with the Monitor
>Lizards (family Varanidae). Current theory is that snakes are
>descended from burrowing or aquatic (take your pick) members of the
>Varanid family (a family that included the large Mosasaurs, which
>are very snakelike in their skull structure) during the Jurassic.
Well, not the family Varanidae per se, but the more inclusive group of
varanoid lizards [a.k.a. Platynota]. Mosasaurs are a separate family within
the group, as are Helodermatids, Lanthanotus etc.
It's odd that you should mention this. I just recently glanced at a paper on
the "latest journals" shelf here that suggests that snakes are actually
closest to Mosasauridae and their fossil kin within the varanoid group: Lee,
M. S. Y. 1997. The phylogeny of varanoid lizards and the affinities of
snakes. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. London B, 352: 53-91. ]
Perhaps an amphibious or shallow-water, eel-like lifestyle is now indicated
for the earliest snakes, rather than the long-popular burrowing ancestor
model?
cheers
Marcelo Cantos
ficti...@alias.incognito.myob (ima pseudonym) writes:
> Newsgroups trimmed, so mailed as well as posted.
> In article
> <bg209oj...@janus.i-have-a-misconfigured-system-so-shoot-me>,
> mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au says...
> >
> >gor...@elaine.drink.com (Alan Barclay) writes:
> >> What sort of design is it to give nerves, even remnants of them, to
> >> non-existant limbs?
> >> Doesn't this seem like a perfect example of a vestigal feature?
> >
> >Surely you are aware of the serpent in the garden of Eden! What
> >happened to it?
>
> You really want to argue that that was really an actual type of talking
> snake, not the Devil? Sheesh!
>
> >Frankly, your comment astonishes me, since it gives remarkable
> >biological confirmation of the story of the fall!!
>
> Remarkable that you think so. You get this from vestigial hindlimbs and
> limb nerves? Where are the snakes with any traces of vocal cords and
> of a brain big enough to carry on a conversation? Now, _that_ would
> be truly remarkable!
>
> Snakes are a very large group [several families, many genera,
> thousands of species]; they are really just one particular branch of the
> lizards. [So, what species was your Eden conversationalist?] Many
> other groups of lizards are also legless or nearly so. Some of these are
> more completely limbless than many true snakes. BTW, some limbed
> lizards [e.g, your "goannas" in .au] are probably closer kin to snakes
> than to other lizards; does that also fit with your Garden scenario?
> cheers
>
This entire line of argument is based on the presumption that a snake
had to talk of its own volition. The bible is clear that the snake
*was* the devil -- it seems clear to me that he came in the *form* of
a snake.
The Bible also records a donkey talking. Once again, this was clearly
stated to be a supernatural event and that donkeys don't always talk,
and nor, for that matter, do they normally have the capacity to do so.
You may repudiate this position on the premise that it invokes
miracles. But the fact is that the Bible is quite open in its
assertion that miracles are possible and do happen, whether they are
scientific or not, and whether they can be proven or not. So, if you
are going to take this line of argument, can you demonstrate to me why
miracles could not possibly exist?
Evolutionary interpretations of the relationship between snakes and
lizards are irrelevant when discussing the typological nature of
creation science. It certainly does not argue *against* creation to
say that these creatures are closely related, because creationists say
that this is only in structure not by descent. How is this a problem
for the creationist view?
Confessing a certain ignorance regarding specifics, I would be
interested to know if the aforementioned legless lizards possess the
vestigial nerve endings as do the snake. I would also like to know
how these lizards move around, and on what basis they are classified
as lizards rather than snakes. Please note: this is not a challenge;
I am simply intrigued by all this as I have never come across these
issues before.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Marcelo Cantos, Research Assistant mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au
Multimedia Database Systems Group, RMIT__/_ _ Tel 61-3-9282-2497
723 Swanston St, Carlton VIC 3053 Aus/ralia ><_> Fax 61-3-9282-2490
/
Acknowledgements: errors - me; wisdom - God; funding - RMIT
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins Marcelo Cantos <mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
[snip]
>
>This entire line of argument is based on the presumption that a snake
>had to talk of its own volition. The bible is clear that the snake
>*was* the devil -- it seems clear to me that he came in the *form* of
>a snake.
>
Full reference please. This does not seem to be in my copy of Genesis.
[snip]
ima pseudonym
posted and mailed.
In article
<bg67yzi...@janus.i-have-a-misconfigured-system-so-shoot-me>,
mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au says...
>This entire line of argument is based on the presumption that a snake
>had to talk of its own volition. The bible is clear that the snake
>*was* the devil -- it seems clear to me that he came in the *form* of
>a snake.
Well, then the notion that the limblessness of _real_ snakes is the result of
some divine curse in retaliation for the devil's misdeeds seems pretty silly, no?.
An omniscient, reasonable God would know enough not to blame the poor
innocent animals He created [I keep a bunch of them myself; they're cute little
guys, but dumb as rocks...], and would presumably zap instead the
supernatural being who'd only pretended to be a snake. Right?
>The Bible also records a donkey talking. Once again, this was clearly
>stated to be a supernatural event and that donkeys don't always talk,
>and nor, for that matter, do they normally have the capacity to do so.
Still, they are much more likely to be able to talk than any snake ever would.
Equids at least have vastly larger brains, fleshy movable lips and broad
tongues, and real vocal cords. Snakes don't Perhaps the devil/snake used
telepathy to communicate? [it's too bad they didn't make it a parrot instead...]
>You may repudiate this position on the premise that it invokes
>miracles.
No, the problems are that the notion [that all the many kinds of real snakes are
limbless because of a divine curse] makes no sense even from a
believing-in-miracles point of view. 1) snakes are all highly specialized in
important ways for their limbless existence, and are very successful at it, so it
wasn't much of a "curse" [if their limbs were taken away then many other
features must have been provided in compensation]; 2) there are many very
different kinds of snakes [so why were they all cursed? And just which species
did the devil pretend to be?]; 3) a snakelike animal with well-developed limbs
would be considered a lizard, not a snake, and such close snake relatives with
limbs do exist today [and are found as fossils] So why were these exempted
from the "curse"? 4) various unrelated groups of lizards also have members
that are very elongate, limbless and snakelike in lifestyle [so, did _they_ do
something wrong?].
> But the fact is that the Bible is quite open in its
>assertion that miracles are possible and do happen, whether they are
>scientific or not, and whether they can be proven or not. So, if you
>are going to take this line of argument, can you demonstrate to me why
>miracles could not possibly exist?
Wouldn't dream of it [besides, the thought of discussing "possibility" of miracles
seems somehow contradictory; an omnipotent being ought to be able to do
"impossible" miracles, right? It's the impossibility that makes it a miracle, after
all...].
The odd thing is that "scientific" creationists seem so eager to used strained
arguments to "explain" events in Genesis, [the Flood, etc.] as realistic and
"possible" without invoking any miracles. It would be more honest [though less
conducive to further discussion or debate] if they were to admit it must have
been miraculous from beginning to end.
>Evolutionary interpretations of the relationship between snakes and
>lizards are irrelevant when discussing the typological nature of
>creation science. It certainly does not argue *against* creation to
>say that these creatures are closely related, because creationists say
>that this is only in structure not by descent. How is this a problem
>for the creationist view?
I agree that the creationist line "well, God created it that way" is compatible with
any and all possible observations. On the other hand, evolution and common
descent specifically predicts the type of [hierarchically nested] patterns of
relationships that are in fact observed, whereas creationism wouln't necessarily
predict any patterns or any clear relationships at all...
>Confessing a certain ignorance regarding specifics, I would be
>interested to know if the aforementioned legless lizards possess the
>vestigial nerve endings as do the snake.
I'd be very surprised if some of them don't. Some types do have vestigial
external legs [and undoubtedly have nerves, bones, blood vessels, etc. in
them] , others have rudiments of pelvic girdles but no external limbs. [amusing
side note: in living snakes with small external hind limbs (pelvic spurs) such as
boas and pythons they function mainly in courtship ( the amorous males use
them to tickle the females)]
> I would also like to know
>how these lizards move around, and on what basis they are classified
>as lizards rather than snakes. Please note: this is not a challenge;
>I am simply intrigued by all this as I have never come across these
>issues before.
It's Ok with me, whether it's a challenge or not. [Glad to chat about it; it's fun to
discuss real-biology stuff for a change.]
Like most snakes, limbless lizards move by using friction and the pressure of
subtly shifting bends made in the long body pushing against the substrate
[there are actually several interesting variations in basic snake locomotion
modes, and some switch from one to another as substrate and situation
changes]. Some legless lizards are noticeably stiffer and less agile than true
snakes, which have modified vertebrae with extra interlocking facets for extra
flexibility. Some legless or reduced limb lizards [and snakes] are burrowers in
soil or are"sand-swimmers", others are good at gliding through weeds and
brush. Amphisbaenians [mole-lizards or worm lizards] are mostly
earthworm-like, completely legless, blind burrowers in soil but one genus
[_Bipes_] has short, clawed front legs only [vs. all snakes with "legs", which
have only hind limb spurs].
How do we tell the snakes from the [other] legless lizards?
By careful consideration of many details of anatomy, for the most part
[presumably other methods (e.g., phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences)
would also work, but the familial relationships are mostly clear enough from
structure].
It is generally not difficult to see the true relationships of the legless lizards:
The "glass snakes" _Ophisaurus_ (common in E. N. Amer.) is an anguid lizard
genus obviously close to other Anguidae with legs. Like most lizards they still
have external ear openings and movable eyelids [both are absent in snakes],
and very long tails that readily break off and regenerate [snakes don't do this].
In Australia you have the very snakelike "snake lizards" of the Pygopodidae;
these turn out on closer examination to be an aberrant branch of one family of
geckoes. Like most other geckos these do lack movable eyelids, and so are
more like snakes, but still have ear holes and vestigial hind limbs are present
in the form of scaly flaps. Among Australian skinks there are nice
intermediate series within single genera from species with four functional small
limbs to ones with only two tiny vestigial limbs to ones with no limbs.
cheers
RHS Linux User
In article <5g4fsu$p...@newsgate.duke.edu>,
ima pseudonym <ficti...@alias.incognito.myob> wrote:
>Equids at least have vastly larger brains, fleshy movable lips and broad
>tongues, and real vocal cords. Snakes don't Perhaps the devil/snake used
>telepathy to communicate? [it's too bad they didn't make it a parrot instead...]
The mind boggles at the thought of limbless parrots.
And it has serious implications for the dead parrot sketch.
William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
Christopher Carrell
In article <5g4g86$d...@rossby.tamu.edu> hy...@rossby.tamu.edu (RHS Linux User) writes:
>In article <5g4fsu$p...@newsgate.duke.edu>,
>ima pseudonym <ficti...@alias.incognito.myob> wrote:
>>tongues, and real vocal cords. Snakes don't Perhaps the devil/snake used
>>telepathy to communicate? [it's too bad they didn't make it a parrot instead...]
>
>
>
> And it has serious implications for the dead parrot sketch.
Well, I suppose you could saw the legs off a cat, staple a beak on, add
some feathers and then you'd have a parrot.
Chris
ima pseudonym
In article <5g4iks$m...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, c...@pandora.bio.purdue.edu says...
>In article <5g4g86$d...@rossby.tamu.edu> hy...@rossby.tamu.edu (RHS Linux User)
writes:
>>In article <5g4fsu$p...@newsgate.duke.edu>,
>>ima pseudonym <ficti...@alias.incognito.myob> wrote:
>>>tongues, and real vocal cords. Snakes don't Perhaps the devil/snake used
>>>telepathy to communicate? [it's too bad they didn't make it a parrot instead...]
>>
>> And it has serious implications for the dead parrot sketch.
>
>Well, I suppose you could saw the legs off a cat, staple a beak on, add
>some feathers and then you'd have a parrot.
But you'd still have to nail it to its perch...
cheers
Lenny Flank
ima pseudonym wrote:
>
> >True enough. Snakes share some unique skull features with the Monitor
> >Lizards (family Varanidae). Current theory is that snakes are
> >descended from burrowing or aquatic (take your pick) members of the
> >Varanid family (a family that included the large Mosasaurs, which
> >are very snakelike in their skull structure) during the Jurassic.
>
> Well, not the family Varanidae per se, but the more inclusive group of
> varanoid lizards [a.k.a. Platynota]. Mosasaurs are a separate family within
> the group, as are Helodermatids, Lanthanotus etc.
You are of course correct. I should have been more precise.
>
> It's odd that you should mention this. I just recently glanced at a paper on
> the "latest journals" shelf here that suggests that snakes are actually
> closest to Mosasauridae and their fossil kin within the varanoid group: Lee,
> M. S. Y. 1997. The phylogeny of varanoid lizards and the affinities of
> snakes. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. London B, 352: 53-91. ]
>
> Perhaps an amphibious or shallow-water, eel-like lifestyle is now indicated
> for the earliest snakes, rather than the long-popular burrowing ancestor
> model?
This is actually not a new idea---the "burrowing ancestor" theory has
been under fire for a long time now, since none of the earliest fossil
snakes--Lapparentophis or Dinilysia--show any obvious burrowing
adaptations. The "amphibious" theory has been around for a while now,
supported largely by anatomical comparison to the living varanids.
One of these, the earless Monitor (sorry, don't recall the Latin name
offhand) shows clear "windows" in its eyelids that are a functional
precursor to the brille of snakes, and, as the name implies, it lacks
external ears just as snakes. The idea is that the brille, the lack of
ears and the lack of limbs are aquatic adaptations. And indeed there
were a large number of marine and aquatic mosasaurs during the time that
snakes first appear in the fossil record. For my money, the "mosasaurs
as snake ancestors" theory is the best one going right now.
I'm curious--are you a herper?
Lenny Flank
Marcelo Cantos wrote:
>
> This entire line of argument is based on the presumption that a snake
> had to talk of its own volition. The bible is clear that the snake
> *was* the devil -- it seems clear to me that he came in the *form* of
> a snake.
(1) the bible says no such thing. YOU are assuming this to be true.
(2) if it was the Devil and not a snake, why did God curse the SNAKE?
Because God is not strong enough to punish the DEVIL?
>
> The Bible also records a donkey talking. Once again, this was clearly
> stated to be a supernatural event and that donkeys don't always talk,
> and nor, for that matter, do they normally have the capacity to do so.
Aesop's fables are full of talking animals too. I don't take them
literally either.
> You may repudiate this position on the premise that it invokes
> miracles. But the fact is that the Bible is quite open in its
> assertion that miracles are possible and do happen, whether they are
> scientific or not, and whether they can be proven or not.
You are entirely entitled to your religious belief. But you are NOT
entitled to treat your religious belief as if it were science. It is
not.
> Evolutionary interpretations of the relationship between snakes and
> lizards are irrelevant when discussing the typological nature of
> creation science. It certainly does not argue *against* creation to
> say that these creatures are closely related, because creationists say
> that this is only in structure not by descent. How is this a problem
> for the creationist view?
Are snakes and lizards the same "kind"? Why or why not? What objective
criteria can we use to determine to which "kind" any particular organism
happens to be?
> Confessing a certain ignorance regarding specifics, I would be
> interested to know if the aforementioned legless lizards possess the
> vestigial nerve endings as do the snake.
Yes. They also have pelvic girdles, which most snakes do not.
I would also like to know
> how these lizards move around
The same way snakes do.
, and on what basis they are classified
> as lizards rather than snakes.
They have movable eyelids--snakes do not. They have external ears--
snakes do not. And they have many small scales underneath their
bellies--snakes have large rectangular scales on their bellies.
Please note: this is not a challenge;
> I am simply intrigued by all this as I have never come across these
> issues before.
No surprise there.
Olog-hai
Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> wrote:
>ima pseudonym wrote:
>>
>> Snakes are a very large group [several families, many genera,
>> thousands of species];
>
>There are about 2700 species of living snakes.
>
>>they are really just one particular branch of the
>> lizards.
>
>In fact, they are classified along with lizrads in the Order Squamata.
>
> Many
>> other groups of lizards are also legless or nearly so.
>
>
>Yep. Among these are the "glass lizards" of the Anguid family, and
>several of the limbless Skinks in the Scincid family. Some of these
>have four limbs that are too short to reach the ground and play no
>role in locomotion. Some species have small rear limbs but no front
>limbs. Some, such as the Glass Lizards, have no limbs at all but have
>vestigial pelvic girdles.
>
>I guess God must have cursed them, too, eh?
Yes, this is clear evidence for microevolution within the original
created (and cursed) kind. This only requires less than one
speciation event every two years since the Creation (2,700 / 6,000
years next October 25th). See, Creationists can do complicated
mathematics TOO and even better than evilutionists 8-) It's obvious
from Genesis that there was only one kind of snake then.
>
>
> BTW, some limbed
>> lizards [e.g, your "goannas" in .au] are probably closer kin to snakes
>> than to other lizards
A typical example of evobabble. Do you have the complete breeding
records?
>
>
>True enough. Snakes share some unique skull features with the Monitor
>Lizards (family Varanidae). Current theory is that snakes are
>descended from burrowing or aquatic (take your pick) members of the
>Varanid family (a family that included the large Mosasaurs, which
>are very snakelike in their skull structure) during the Jurassic.
The "Jurassic" is a myth, these creatures were fossilized in the Flood
which is the word of God.
>
>=====================================================
>Lenny Flank
>"There are no loose threads in the web of life."
>
>Check out my herp photos:
Lenny Flank speaks with a forked tongue. He may well be a devil
worshipper, and I'm afraid that he's definitely going to hell. I'm
very sorry, gloat gloat gloat.
BTW creationism is science and evilutionism is an example of the false
religion of Darwinism, otherwise Lenny wouldn't be able to find any
meaning in his scaly friends or indeed in the whole of his miserable
earthly existence, such meaning IS religion and dn't you wicked
atheists try to fool us any more. .
The piece of cod be with you
Olog-hai
Jeremy Henty
Olog-hai wrote:
> The piece of cod be with you
Can I have fries with that?
Jeremy Henty
Atheist #152
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins acsp...@earthlink.net (Andrew Spring) wrote:
>In article <33287ac8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com
>(Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
>>In talk.origins Marcelo Cantos <mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>This entire line of argument is based on the presumption that a snake
>>>had to talk of its own volition. The bible is clear that the snake
>>>*was* the devil -- it seems clear to me that he came in the *form* of
>>>a snake.
>>>
>>Full reference please. This does not seem to be in my copy of Genesis.
>>
>
>I think the association of the serpent with the devil is traditional, not
>canonical. The only association I can find is :
>
>REV 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the
>Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into
>the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
>
>which is close, but no cigar.
>
Sorry, but when I am wearing my inerrancy hat, I support inerrency. If
God had meant to say that it was Satan who tempted Eve God would have
said Satan. God did not, Genesis clearly says that the Snake, which as
a "subtle" animal did it.
>If you look at Eden as a mortality myth, it has a lot in common with the
>epic of Gilgamesh.
>
>In both cases, the humans are denied immortality through the agency of a
>serpent. Adam and Eve miss out, because they are expelled from the Garden
>containing the (untouched) Tree of Life; Gilgamesh, because a serpent
>stole the flower of immortality from him while he slept.
>
>Since a serpent looks old and wrinkled before shedding its skin, and then
>looks 'smooth' and shiny afterwords, it's obvious why it was chosen to
>symbolize immortality.
Robert Parson
In article <3326c9f3....@news.demon.co.uk>, <Olog-hai> wrote:
[Slithery troll deleted.]
>The piece of cod be with you
Hmm - looks like the Large Mouthed Bass has evolved. No problem,
bass and cod are both members of the Fish kind, so this is merely
microevolution.
>Olog-hai
Nice touch. :-)
Puck
In article <01bc2739$df89cb20$32c7c2d0@lcav1965>, Larry Cavender
<lcav...@flash.net> writes
> How can you believe in a theory that had it birth the mid 1800's? The
>hard
>scientific proof is there. But it is the very unreasonable conclusions,
>that people draw from that evidence, which are under dispute. Make a better
>arguement against the Bible than its age, that is if you can.
>
Ok, tell me then, if the world is only 6000 years old, and was
only 2000 years old when Noah built his ark, how come that there
is no referance to any of these now extinct animals in the
bible, giving special consideration to the fact that several of
these creatures would have been bigger than the ark, the
diplidocus (sp?) is one example.
And two.
Did they ever exist at all, if so when, and if not where did the
fossil remains come from.
--
Puck
Larry Cavender
Puck <pu...@theelf.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<+$2QRsAjL...@theelf.demon.co.uk>...
Well Puck
Only a fool would walk up to skeleton, Lean on it and say "Na this
isn't real!"
Yes they did exsist! I have seen the evidence. And to the dimay of many
there is reference to them in the Bible. If you would care to open to the
book of Job. The reference is found in the 40th chapter begining at verse
15. I would ask you to please read a description from a palentologist
first.
Larry Cavender
Puck <pu...@theelf.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<+$2QRsAjL...@theelf.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bc2739$df89cb20$32c7c2d0@lcav1965>, Larry Cavender
> <lcav...@flash.net> writes
> > How can you believe in a theory that had it birth the mid 1800's?
The
> >hard
> >scientific proof is there. But it is the very unreasonable conclusions,
> >that people draw from that evidence, which are under dispute. Make a
better
> >arguement against the Bible than its age, that is if you can.
> >
> Ok, tell me then, if the world is only 6000 years old, and was
> only 2000 years old when Noah built his ark, how come that there
> is no referance to any of these now extinct animals in the
> bible, giving special consideration to the fact that several of
> these creatures would have been bigger than the ark, the
> diplidocus (sp?) is one example.
> And two.
> Did they ever exist at all, if so when, and if not where did the
> fossil remains come from.
> --
> Puck
>
Well Puck
Just how big were the eggs?
Jim Nichols
In article <acspring-130...@max4-vgd-ca-45.earthlink.net>,
acsp...@earthlink.net (Andrew Spring) wrote:
>In article <332be209...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com
>(Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
>>In talk.origins acsp...@earthlink.net (Andrew Spring) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <33287ac8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com
>>>(Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In talk.origins Marcelo Cantos <mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>[snip]
>>>>>This entire line of argument is based on the presumption that a snake
>>>>>had to talk of its own volition. The bible is clear that the snake
>>>>>*was* the devil -- it seems clear to me that he came in the *form* of
>>>>>a snake.
It was the Serpent that tempted Eve. And the Serpent could talk. The
Serpents name is Satan. I know you are going to ask. Yes, the language
was Hebrew. The proof text is Rev 12:9, and 20:2. He (It) was a snake in
the beginning, was changed into a lower snake by the curse, and was a
snake in the end. He was a snake all in between. The name Lucifer is not
a translation but transliteration and can only be applied to the snake
with great effort. The name only appears once in the scriptures. I
understand Lucifer is not in the Hebrew "naming case" so cant be a name.
There is a real snake here right now somewhere and can talk Hebrew and
possibly Aramaic and has great power in a rather narrow department. See
"Prince of the power of the air", etc. The department Satan has control
of the called "Fiction", also possibly weather. Any fiction any place is
created (sired) by the snake. And Spielberg goes to the bank . See John
8:44.
Pardon the following expression: The snake has no power at all but such
as God allows. He has to ask permission to go to the latrine. Mat 28:18
shows all power in the hand of Jesus Christ.
*
Hollywood trys to unsnake the snake and give him human form and walk thru
wall s and lift up little kids and throw stuff around. Understand
"fiction" is the realm of Satan. So he is spreading his own
disinformation.
Theologians have Satan as an Angel and are just as bad as Spielberg. The
Bible never presents Satan as a Messenger or Angel but theologians have
done so for some reason.(2Cor 11:14 See NAS) It is probably the same
crowd that put wings on the angels. Angels are not Cherubim so they dont
have wings.
>>>>Full reference please. This does not seem to be in my copy of Genesis.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think the association of the serpent with the devil is traditional, not
>>>canonical. The only association I can find is :
>>>
>>>REV 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the
>>>Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into
>>>the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
>>>
>>>which is close, but no cigar.
>>>
>>Sorry, but when I am wearing my inerrancy hat, I support inerrency. If
>
>Then you're supporting inerrancy as a Devil's Advocate? I like that.
>
>>God had meant to say that it was Satan who tempted Eve God would have
>>said Satan. God did not, Genesis clearly says that the Snake, which as
>>a "subtle" animal did it.
>>
>
>Yahweh didn't get around to inventing Satan until 1 Chronicles.
--
Best of Luck
Jim Nichols
Spam protection enabled
Boring Boring Boring
Thomas Scharle
In article <karl-17039...@papm032.olympus.net>, ka...@polympus.net (Jim Nichols) writes:
...
|> was Hebrew. The proof text is Rev 12:9, and 20:2. He (It) was a snake in
...
People actually talk like this? "Proof text"?
Chloe Carter
In article <332ACD...@centuryinter.net>, Samaritan
<sama...@centuryinter.net> writes:
>Lester wrote:
>>
>> Let me ask all the fundamentalist christians a question:
>>
>> If you heard about a talking snake or donkey in the Koran or thr Rig
>> Veda would YOU believe it?
>
>With sufficient evidence, yes. The devil has a voice also.
>--
>Samaritan********sama...@centuryinter.net
But you can't ask for evidence. All you have is the text before
you. Christians commonly say that they believe things solely on
the authority of the Bible. Why should the Bible have more
authority than the Koran?
- Chloe
Christopher Hemme
In talk.origins Olog-hai wrote:
->Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> wrote:
->>
->>I guess God must have cursed them, too, eh?
->Yes, this is clear evidence for microevolution within the original
->created (and cursed) kind. This only requires less than one
->speciation event every two years since the Creation (2,700 / 6,000
->years next October 25th). See, Creationists can do complicated
->mathematics TOO and even better than evilutionists 8-) It's obvious
->from Genesis that there was only one kind of snake then.
That's complicated math?
->>True enough. Snakes share some unique skull features with the Monitor
->>Lizards (family Varanidae). Current theory is that snakes are
->>descended from burrowing or aquatic (take your pick) members of the
->>Varanid family (a family that included the large Mosasaurs, which
->>are very snakelike in their skull structure) during the Jurassic.
->The "Jurassic" is a myth, these creatures were fossilized in the Flood
->which is the word of God.
So there were dinosaurs running around before the flood? Why
didn't Noah take them on the ark?
->Lenny Flank speaks with a forked tongue. He may well be a devil
->worshipper, and I'm afraid that he's definitely going to hell. I'm
->very sorry, gloat gloat gloat.
That's a lovely Christian attitude.
->BTW creationism is science and evilutionism is an example of the false
->religion of Darwinism, otherwise Lenny wouldn't be able to find any
->meaning in his scaly friends or indeed in the whole of his miserable
->earthly existence, such meaning IS religion and dn't you wicked
->atheists try to fool us any more. .
I'm sure this has been brought up before, but are you aware that
Darwin was not responsible for evolutionary theory? He proposed the
concept of Natural Selection. Evolution was being debated long before
Darwin took his voyage.
Lenny Flank
Jim Nichols wrote:
>
> It was the Serpent that tempted Eve. And the Serpent could talk. The
> Serpents name is Satan. I know you are going to ask. Yes, the language
> snake in the end. He was a snake all in between. The name Lucifer is not
> a translation but transliteration and can only be applied to the snake
> with great effort. The name only appears once in the scriptures. I
> understand Lucifer is not in the Hebrew "naming case" so cant be a name.
> There is a real snake here right now somewhere and can talk Hebrew and
> possibly Aramaic and has great power in a rather narrow department. See
> "Prince of the power of the air", etc. The department Satan has control
> of the called "Fiction", also possibly weather. Any fiction any place is
> created (sired) by the snake. And Spielberg goes to the bank . See John
> 8:44.
> Pardon the following expression: The snake has no power at all but such
> as God allows. He has to ask permission to go to the latrine. Mat 28:18
> shows all power in the hand of Jesus Christ.
> *
> Hollywood trys to unsnake the snake and give him human form and walk thru
> wall s and lift up little kids and throw stuff around. Understand
> "fiction" is the realm of Satan. So he is spreading his own
> disinformation.
> Theologians have Satan as an Angel and are just as bad as Spielberg. The
> Bible never presents Satan as a Messenger or Angel but theologians have
> done so for some reason.(2Cor 11:14 See NAS) It is probably the same
> crowd that put wings on the angels. Angels are not Cherubim so they dont
> have wings.
>
Does anybody have the slightest idea what this poor guy is yammering
about?
=====================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life."
Check out my herp photos:
Gully Foyle
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997 18:47:59 -0500, Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net>
wrote:
>> Hollywood trys to unsnake the snake and give him human form and walk thru
>> wall s and lift up little kids and throw stuff around. Understand
>> "fiction" is the realm of Satan. So he is spreading his own
>> disinformation.
>> Theologians have Satan as an Angel and are just as bad as Spielberg. The
>> Bible never presents Satan as a Messenger or Angel but theologians have
>> done so for some reason.(2Cor 11:14 See NAS) It is probably the same
>> crowd that put wings on the angels. Angels are not Cherubim so they dont
>> have wings.
>>
>
>
>
>Does anybody have the slightest idea what this poor guy is yammering
>about?
>
I think he's saying Spielberg is a Satanist. I believe Jim is not
alone as someone else has already accused SS of that for making
Jurassic. He's made some crappy movies but I wouldn't go that far.
_________________________________________________________________
Remove the Z at the end of my e-mail address,
this has been placed there to stop junk mail.
_________________________________________________________________
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they
are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the
Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce
_________________________________________________________________
Obadiah
Chloe Carter <qpc...@frontiernet.net> wrote in article
<5gmod4$1l...@node2.frontiernet.net>...
The Koran is not a valid book to rely on. It came from a man that believed
Jews and Christians were mislead...
Dick Craven
In article <01bc3408$01ac8f00$458592cf@crowe1>, "Obadiah" <toaste...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>The Koran is not a valid book to rely on. It came from a man that believed
>Jews and Christians were mislead...
>
And your point is?
Nathan Hartshorn
Obadiah (toaste...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: The Koran is not a valid book to rely on. It came from a man that believed
: Jews and Christians were mislead...
The New Testament is not a valid book to rely on. It came from a man that
believed (orthodox) Jews were misled...
- Nathan Hartshorn
Chris
The Judaeo-Christian tradition cleaves from that of the Graeco-Romans in
many ways, among which is a difference in epistemological methodology. The
former rely upon anecdotal narrative, seeking to find Truth in the
particular, while the latter look to the archetypes, the Forms. Both these
traditions have been at odds with one another through to the present day.
And if you ask me, they're both misled because they both seek the big 'T'
Truth. In other words, absolutes, the universal, God, etc. Human
endeavour has been misled, not in its search for the answer, but in asking
the wrong question. That is, to seek the Truth to a question is senseless
because, there really isn't anything but the subjective. Religion is a
management tool (Marx, sort of). And to top it off, altruism is nothing
short of conscious or unconscious instrumentalism which is somehow geared
to benefit the practitioner. So there. Jesus Christ, Mohamed, Moses, all
of those fellows are pretty important. But as historical figures. As men
of the world.
Chris Chew
Nathan Hartshorn <njha...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote in article
<5gp9hh$4...@tom.unix.amherst.edu>...
Shooty
Nathan Hartshorn wrote:
>
> Obadiah (toaste...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>
> : The Koran is not a valid book to rely on. It came from a man that believed
> : Jews and Christians were mislead...
>
> The New Testament is not a valid book to rely on. It came from a man that
> believed (orthodox) Jews were misled...
>
> - Nathan Hartshorn
example) and also there are parts that are included that were originaly
not part of the bible and there are parts now left oout that used to be
part of the bible.
What we have left is what the leaders of the various churches wanted us
to have.
Also isnt it true that the new Testament is supposed to replace the old
one.
Thats the idea of Christianity, it is supposedly wh yJesus was sent.
Fundamentalists take a lot of their quotes and reasoning from the Old
Testament, which was set aside by Jesus.
Shooty
Nathan Hartshorn
Shooty (an...@mrent.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I wrote:
: > Obadiah (toaste...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: > : The Koran is not a valid book to rely on. It came from a man that
: > : believed Jews and Christians were mislead...
: >
: > The New Testament is not a valid book to rely on. It came from a man that
: > believed (orthodox) Jews were misled...
: >
: > - Nathan Hartshorn
:
: Most of the new testament was written much later, (Revelations for
: example) and also there are parts that are included that were originaly
: not part of the bible and there are parts now left oout that used to be
: part of the bible.
Um, yes.
: What we have left is what the leaders of the various churches wanted us
: to have.
Right. Are you agreeing with me?
: Also isnt it true that the new Testament is supposed to replace the old
: one.
I don't _think_ so; but I'm hardly an authority on such matters.
: Thats the idea of Christianity, it is supposedly wh yJesus was sent.
: Fundamentalists take a lot of their quotes and reasoning from the Old
: Testament, which was set aside by Jesus.
Well, not entirely.
Anyway, I don't much care. I was just pointing out that "Obadiah's" logic,
if extended, called for books that (I have a feeling) he thinks are neat-o
to be thrown out, along with the Koran, etc....
- Nathan Hartshorn
Ooh! Ooh! I'm #334!
Mel Turner
Newsgroups trimmed, so posted and mailed.
In article
<bgd8sxe...@janus.i-have-a-misconfigured-system-so-shoot-me>,
mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au says...
>Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> writes:
>> Marcelo Cantos wrote:
[snip of Biblical refs. for snake=devil]
>> > My point about the devil being in control of a real snake is
>> > speculative, but fits in with the story and what christians believe
>> > about demonic activity.
>>
>> Do Christians believe that innocent creatures (and all future
>
>The term innocent keeps rearing up in this thread. Innocence has
>nothing to do with it as I have pointed out many times. The curse was
>symbolic, did not adversly affect the lifestyle of snakes (only their
>status), and your implied assumption that snakes have rights is merely
>an opinion which has no rational basis.
This notion that there is some divine curse on snakes rendering them limbless
still seems very silly. "Symbolic"? What on earth does it symbolize? Does
the curse really apply to all the many different kinds of snakes, or just to the
one in the story? [If all, then did each lose their limbs separately or are you
really arguing for an insane explosion of snake evolution from a single
curesed common ancestor?] Perhaps the curse applied to only the one
individual talking snake? Is it supposed to apply to all snakes or only
to the venomous snakes? Did the many other types of limbless lizards also
fall under the broad umbrella of the curse? What about the reduced-limb and
limbless types of amphibians [amphiumas, sirens, and caecilians]? Moray
eels? And why did various close relatives of true snakes escape with their
limbs?
We know that snakes were in fact limbless long before there were anything
like modern humans around to talk to. [BTW, not only don't snakes have the
ability to talk, but they probably can't even hear most airborne sounds (no
eardrums or ear canals)].
>A plate is innocent (it has done no wrong), greeks smash dozens of
>them repeatedly at wedding ceremonies and no-one mourns the plight of
>the plate!
Why not? It's a waste of crockery.
> Why is a God who curses animals to be considered evil? Do
>animals have more rights than plates? Do they have the same rights as
>humans? If you believe evolution, then the answers are no and yes.
This is erroneous; evolutionary biology says nothing about rights; it is about
organisms and their evolution. There are other newsgroups where
you can discuss pros and cons of the animal rights movements if you really
want to get into that.
>If you believe the Bible, then the answers are yes and no.
>So the bottom line is that if you believe God exists then he had every
>right to curse the snake regardless of its innocence. If you don't
>believe in God then you don't believe any part of the story and this
>entire discussion is meaningless.
Or you can still believe in god and agree that the story is symbolic and of
some sort of deep theological import, but is not historical at all...
> But my point is that your arguments do not trouble the Biblical viewpoint one
little bit.
The arguments are that the biblical story seems to make no particular sense
from any viewpoint.
regards, mdt
Lenny Flank
Gully Foyle wrote:
>
>
> I think he's saying Spielberg is a Satanist. I believe Jim is not
> alone as someone else has already accused SS of that for making
> Jurassic.
Ahhh, that "someone" was none other than our favorite cretinist, Henry
Morris. Here's Morris's "reasoning": After pointing out that the Book
of Revelation refers to Satan as "the great dragon . . . that old
serpent, called the Devil" (Revelation 12:9), Henry Morris goes on to
conclude: "That old Dragon had invaded Paradise, and God had cast him
out into the earth, where he continues to this day leading men and women
to rebel against God and His Word . . . The New Testament word
"paradise" is transliterated directly from the Greek, which in turn was
taken over from the Hebrew 'pardec' (pronounced "par-dace"). It's basic
meaning is 'park'. It may, therefore, be no coincidence that
Hollywood's leading 'New Age' producer has chosen to fill his 'Jurassic
Park' with a bestiary of revived dinosaurs. The great dragon once again
symbolically is living in Paradise." (Morris, ICR Impact, "Dragons in
Paradise", July 1993)
Thus, according to His Holiness Henry, Spielberg is indeed a member in
good standing of the international satanic conspiracy . . . . .
After all, he *IS* Jewish . . . . . . . . .
Jack DeLong
> Ok, tell me then, if the world is only 6000 years old, and was
> only 2000 years old when Noah built his ark, how come that there
> is no referance to any of these now extinct animals in the
> bible, giving special consideration to the fact that several of
> these creatures would have been bigger than the ark, the
> diplidocus (sp?) is one example.
> And two.
> Did they ever exist at all, if so when, and if not where did the
> fossil remains come from.
> --
> Puck
Dear Puck,
Please consider the following option: since creation versus evolution
mainly comes down to a choice of convictions, I contend that it is
entirely possible that Noah did not house full size animals/creatures on
the ark. The time period for Noah and his passengers in the ark appears
to be around a year and it is very feasible that he took small, if not
infant, animals (dinosaurs, etc.) on the trip. This could have allowed
for less space requirements, less food requirements and less
reproduction during the flood.
In the end we each choose between theories and I find enough
disagreement among evolutionists and more evidence pointing towards a
creator that my decision currently sides with creation.
Jack
Bryant
>>>>>This entire line of argument is based on the presumption that a snake
>>>>>had to talk of its own volition. The bible is clear that the snake
>>>>>*was* the devil -- it seems clear to me that he came in the *form* of
>>>>>a snake.
Wait a minute. Why is it that you biblical literalists keep
changing the damned rules?! You want to interpret that Bible literally
until doing so runs you into a contradiction cul-de-sac. Then you
momentarily need to interpret? How conveeeeeeenient.
Bryant
Gully Foyle
>
>Dear Puck,
>
>Please consider the following option: since creation versus evolution
>mainly comes down to a choice of convictions, I contend that it is
>entirely possible that Noah did not house full size animals/creatures on
>the ark. The time period for Noah and his passengers in the ark appears
>to be around a year and it is very feasible that he took small, if not
>infant, animals (dinosaurs, etc.) on the trip. This could have allowed
>for less space requirements, less food requirements and less
>reproduction during the flood.
Tell me you are kidding, please tell me you are kidding. Why not just
take frozen sperm and egg samples (it would certainly answer all the
questions about space and logistics) and whip them up in the lab after
the flood.
>
>In the end we each choose between theories and I find enough
>disagreement among evolutionists and more evidence pointing towards a
>creator that my decision currently sides with creation.
>
So because creationists agree (its a very simple idea: god did it all)
and evolutionists (or realists) are still finding and fitting the
pieces together, you go for the simple and complete answer. Regardless
of the evidence of course. But then life is like that isn't it, all
answers are found and complex problems solved in the time between
commercial breaks.
Fred McGalliard
Shooty wrote:
> Most of the new testament was written much later, (Revelations for
> example) and also there are parts that are included that were originaly
> not part of the bible and there are parts now left oout that used to be
> part of the bible.
> What we have left is what the leaders of the various churches wanted us
> to have.
>
> Also isnt it true that the new Testament is supposed to replace the old
> one.
> Thats the idea of Christianity, it is supposedly wh yJesus was sent.
> Fundamentalists take a lot of their quotes and reasoning from the Old
> Testament, which was set aside by Jesus.
>
> Shooty
I would suggest that you study this topic a bit before you get really
tangled up in error. First, the old testament is part of the Jewish
Torah, and much of it goes back around 3-4000 years. I am not an expert
but I think that it is pretty well accepted core material so that a Jew
would not be too offended by the translation. The new testament is
actually a well selected collection out of several collections of
letters that were used around 600 years AD (I am not real accurate on
that) along with a lot of prayer and perhaps some politics to construct
an authorative core for the Church. While there are a lot of really hot
arguments over some otherwise minor details of translation and
inclusion, you will find that most "mainstream" Christians have a pretty
sound and clear theology and Bible. If the wierd groups at the edges
confuse you, I am sorry, but we don't burn heretics any more. Didn't
work at all well when we did. We ended up burning God's messangers along
with the true heretics.
Any way, most of them will, I think, agree with the following. Christ
fulfilled the old testament. Because of this some things are set aside
as no longer applicable. Mostly sacrifices and the rigid laws of the
temple as example. But nothing there is truely set aside. In fact, the
Christian is tasked beyond the old Law. By the old law you were tasked
to do no more than injure your enemy as he injures you. But the
Christian must find a way to love even his enemy. The Jew may tithe his
temple tax, but the Christian must give all he has to his God. Any way,
I see that you have a lot to learn and I would suggest that you find a
willing teacher and see what is really behind all the rubarb.
Joseph M. Piazza
>> Ok, tell me then, if the world is only 6000 years old, and was
>> only 2000 years old when Noah built his ark, how come that there
>> is no referance to any of these now extinct animals in the
>> bible, giving special consideration to the fact that several of
>> these creatures would have been bigger than the ark, the
>> diplidocus (sp?) is one example.
>> And two.
>> Did they ever exist at all, if so when, and if not where did the
>> fossil remains come from.
>> --
>> Puck
>
>Dear Puck,
>
>Please consider the following option: since creation versus evolution
>mainly comes down to a choice of convictions,
Only for the uneducated. Creation vs. evolution is mythology vs.
science. Calling it a choice between "convictions" is indicitive of gross
ignorance.
>I contend that it is
>entirely possible that Noah did not house full size animals/creatures on
>the ark. The time period for Noah and his passengers in the ark appears
>to be around a year and it is very feasible that he took small, if not
>infant, animals (dinosaurs, etc.) on the trip. This could have allowed
>for less space requirements, less food requirements and less
>reproduction during the flood.
Good. Now demonstrate how large the ark needed to be to carry each and
every species now on the earth. Add the amount of space needed to carry
all the food necessary to keep all those animals alive for that year.
Contentions don't count; you need good *numbers* to convince anybody who's
not a creationist.
>In the end we each choose between theories and I find enough
>disagreement among evolutionists and more evidence pointing towards a
>creator that my decision currently sides with creation.
That makes you an idiot. You obviously don't have even a vague idea of
how much evidence there is that supports evolution and an even worse
undertanding of what the evidence means. Besides, creationism doesn't even
qualify as a theory so if you reject evolution you don't *have* a theory.
--
"God is an overwhelming responsibility" -- I. Anderson
jmpi...@earthlink.net [List #238]
Shooty
Nathan Hartshorn wrote:
>
> Anyway, I don't much care. I was just pointing out that "Obadiah's" logic,
> if extended, called for books that (I have a feeling) he thinks are neat-o
> to be thrown out, along with the Koran, etc....
>
> - Nathan Hartshorn
> Ooh! Ooh! I'm #334!
I agree, the Koran is as insubstantial as the Bible, doubly so as it has
only one source