Put up or shut up, Lani-girl
Cyde Weys
you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY that
is testable and (dis)provable.
Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't worth
anything.
Richard Morey
"Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%d6X8.14975$AL6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
withot posing an alternative idea. Lani_girl's criticisms are not worth
much, but this is independent of her ability to pose an alternative theory.
Richard Morey
-----------------
Graduate Research Assistant
Cognition and Neuroscience
University of Missouri-Columbia
CB
Cyde Weys wrote:
If her comments are worth anything, why do you read her posts?
And since you seem to be so intelligent, maybe you could explain what came
first, the chicken or the egg?
I know evolutionists have an answer for that, right?
And maybe you could explain why, if man evolved from apes, why are there still
apes?
http://doesgodexist.org/
http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/corrcourse1/course.html
CB
Cyde Weys wrote:
If her comments are worth anything, why do you read her posts?
Caillean McMahon
CB wrote:
>
> Cyde Weys wrote:
>
> > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time for
> > you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY that
> > is testable and (dis)provable.
> >
> > Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't worth
> > anything.
>
> If her comments are worth anything, why do you read her posts?
> And since you seem to be so intelligent, maybe you could explain what came
> first, the chicken or the egg?
> I know evolutionists have an answer for that, right?
> And maybe you could explain why, if man evolved from apes, why are there still
> apes?
>
The actual theory is that hominids arose from ancient apes, that also
gave rise to modern apes.
Blessings;
Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
> http://doesgodexist.org/
> http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/corrcourse1/course.html
Caerbannog
CB <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D2D0659...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> Cyde Weys wrote:
>
> > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time
for
> > you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY
that
> > is testable and (dis)provable.
> >
> > Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't
worth
> > anything.
>
> If her comments are worth anything, why do you read her posts?
For the cheap laughs that you creationists are kind enough to
provide...
> And since you seem to be so intelligent, maybe you could explain what came
> first, the chicken or the egg?
The egg, of course. Lots of critters that pre-dated chickens by millions
of years laid eggs. (Birds and t.o. creationists continue to lay them
today!)
> I know evolutionists have an answer for that, right?
> And maybe you could explain why, if man evolved from apes, why are there
still
> apes?
>
If dogs (micro)evolved from wolves (as most creationists acknowledge),
then why are there still wolves?
And if many Americans are descendents of Europeans, why are there still
Europeans?
--
To reply by mail, nuke the 'bago.
m_h_burch
>
> > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time
for
> > you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY
that
> > is testable and (dis)provable.
> >
> > Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't
worth
> > anything.
>
> If her comments are worth anything, why do you read her posts?
Note the above usage of the word "Otherwise"
The comments might be worth something if she offered a (and I quote) "a
SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY that is testable and (dis)provable."
> And since you seem to be so intelligent, maybe you could explain what came
> first, the chicken or the egg?
> I know evolutionists have an answer for that, right?
Yup, the egg - eggs have been around a lot longer than chickens.
> And maybe you could explain why, if man evolved from apes, why are there
still
> apes?
Because evolution doesn't work that way. Just because one population
evolves, does not mean another will evolve in the same way. If all
populations of a species evolved in the same way, regardless of location or
environment, there would likely only be one single type of living organism
on the entire planet.
Matt
m_h_burch
response - one can criticize without needing to offer an opposing theory.
Though his response was not to me directly, I thank Richard Morey for
bringing that up.
Matt
"m_h_burch" <Mremoveth...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IH8X8.6076$Sb3.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
SPLAT!!!
<snippity-snip>
> And maybe you could explain why, if man evolved from apes, why are there
still
> apes?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance
about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that
humans descended from monkeys, but instead states that both have a common
ancestor. The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking,
"If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species
evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of
organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire
sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may
survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
(I know it sounds like common sense to most, but creationists do seem to
turm a blind eye to common sense at every opportunity, so I figured I'd try
to help ol' CB out a bit.)
--
SPLAT!!!
Forest Ghost
CB wrote:
>
> Cyde Weys wrote:
>
> > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time for
> > you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY that
> > is testable and (dis)provable.
> >
> > Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't worth
> > anything.
>
> If her comments are worth anything, why do you read her posts?
> And since you seem to be so intelligent, maybe you could explain what came
> first, the chicken or the egg?
> I know evolutionists have an answer for that, right?
> And maybe you could explain why, if man evolved from apes, why are there still
> apes?
>
Ok, then, smart guy. You asked for it.
Her comments are worth diddly, but she is so venomously stupid that it's
funny. Her posts are the verbal equivalent to watching the WWF.
Eggs, of course. Long before there were birds there were all sorts of
critters coming from eggs. Now ask if the chicken or the chicken egg
came first, and you'll have a good but pointless discussion for the
philosophers.
And last but certainly not least:
If God made Adam from dust, then why is there still dust?
Ponder that for a while.
(My apologies to Florian, but I just had to use it.)
Surely you can do better than that.
-Forest Ghost
Cyde Weys
>
>
> Cyde Weys wrote:
>
> > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time
for
> > you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY
that
> > is testable and (dis)provable.
> >
> > Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't
worth
> > anything.
>
> If her comments are worth anything, why do you read her posts?
> And since you seem to be so intelligent, maybe you could explain what came
> first, the chicken or the egg?
> I know evolutionists have an answer for that, right?
> And maybe you could explain why, if man evolved from apes, why are there
still
> apes?
Hehehe, cross-posting to a religious newsgroup always brings the idiots out
of th woodwork :-)
Cyde Weys
"Richard Morey" <mo...@banta.psyc.spamspam.missouri.edu> wrote in message
news:Rk6X8.7242$I02...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
>
> "Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:%d6X8.14975$AL6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time
> for
> > you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY
> that
> > is testable and (dis)provable.
> >
> > Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't
worth
> > anything.
> >
> This is simply not true. A person can make valid criticisms of an idea
> withot posing an alternative idea. Lani_girl's criticisms are not worth
> much, but this is independent of her ability to pose an alternative
theory.
I don't care; I want an alternative idea from her.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> Cyde Weys wrote:
>
> > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time for
> > you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY that
> > is testable and (dis)provable.
> >
> > Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't worth
> > anything.
>
> If her comments are worth anything, why do you read her posts?
In order to correct her?
> And since you seem to be so intelligent, maybe you could explain what came
> first, the chicken or the egg?
The egg (if one were really able to draw a clear distinction between
chickens and non-chickens).
> I know evolutionists have an answer for that, right?
Yes.
> And maybe you could explain why, if man evolved from apes, why are there still
> apes?
*yawn*
If Adam was created from dust, why is there still dust?
> http://doesgodexist.org/
> http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/corrcourse1/course.html
I tried to read the part "Why I Left Atheism", but gave up after just a
few paragraphs. It is full of errors, and the man who wrote this clearly
doesn't know what he is talking about. Either he didn't understand
anything which was told in his science courses and misunderstood his
teachers, too, or he simply lies about them.
Aardvark
> Cyde Weys wrote:
>
> > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time for
> > you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY that
> > is testable and (dis)provable.
> >
> > Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't worth
> > anything.
>
> If her comments are worth anything, why do you read her posts?
> And since you seem to be so intelligent, maybe you could explain what came
> first, the chicken or the egg?
> I know evolutionists have an answer for that, right?
> And maybe you could explain why, if man evolved from apes, why are there still
> apes?
>
Do acoustic guitars still exist?
I thought so.
Next moron, please.
Richard Uhrich
> "Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:%d6X8.14975$AL6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>> You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time
>>
> for
>
>>you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY
>>
> that
>
>>is testable and (dis)provable.
>>
>> Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't worth
>>anything.
>>
>>
> This is simply not true. A person can make valid criticisms of an idea
> withot posing an alternative idea. Lani_girl's criticisms are not worth
> much, but this is independent of her ability to pose an alternative theory.
>
> Richard Morey
> -----------------
Did you spot a valid criticism of evolution (or of anything else) by Lani_girl somewhere? Could you point it out?
--
Richard Uhrich
---
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. --
Charles Darwin
Richard Morey
"Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3D2D956F...@san.rr.com...
> Richard Morey wrote:
>
> > "Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:%d6X8.14975$AL6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >
> >> You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time
> >>
> > for
> >
> >>you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY
> >>
> > that
> >
> >>is testable and (dis)provable.
> >>
> >> Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't
worth
> >>anything.
> >>
> >>
> > This is simply not true. A person can make valid criticisms of an idea
> > withot posing an alternative idea. Lani_girl's criticisms are not worth
> > much, but this is independent of her ability to pose an alternative
theory.
> >
> > Richard Morey
> > -----------------
>
> Did you spot a valid criticism of evolution (or of anything else) by
Lani_girl somewhere? Could you point it out?
>
No. But that does not mean that a person's criticisms "aren't worth
anything" simply becuase they don't have an alternative theory. Lani_girl's
criticisms are worthless on their own merits, as far as I have seen, even if
she DID have an alternative theory.
Richard Morey
>
Nicholas II
page... http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm I only list "10" major
ones, but the links on the bottom of the page ESPECIALLY the "Creation
evidence museum" have hundreds more facts. I highly recommend the video
series Dr Car Baugh has at the Creation Museum. They are a little over
$150.00 but it's well worth it! This scientist covers every nook and cranny
of the Evolution. He proves evolution is false using undeniable scientific
evidence.
--
~
[=] Presents of God ministry [=]
Devastatingly accurate prophecies authenticated with
historic facts confirming Antichrist resides in Vatican!
Over "2000" pages of documented researchable facts.
Site locations:
USA - www.remnantofgod.org
USA2 - www.localline2.com/~nicholas
AUST - www.linearg.com/remnantofgod/
EGF-CHURCH SITE
www.egfellowship.org
3ANGELS MESSENGERS SERVER COMMUNITY
www.3angelsmessengers.net
19 MAJOR PROPHETIC/HISTORIC EVENTS OF ANTICHRIST
http://www.remnantofgod.org/666-CHAR.htm
_-.~'`'~.-_-.~'`'~.-_-.~'`'~.-_
!!! FLASH ANIMATIONS !!!
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
ANTICHRIST SLIDESHOW
http://www.remnantofgod.org/flash/acssmenu.html
NEW!!! WHORE OF BABYLON REVEALED
http://www.remnantofgod.org/flash/whore/whoremenu.html
"Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people
their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins." -Isaiah 58:1
Truth is truth.
....Nicholas
"Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%d6X8.14975$AL6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Paul J Gans
>"Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:%d6X8.14975$AL6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time
>for
>> you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY
>that
>> is testable and (dis)provable.
>>
>> Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't worth
>> anything.
>>
>This is simply not true. A person can make valid criticisms of an idea
>withot posing an alternative idea. Lani_girl's criticisms are not worth
>much, but this is independent of her ability to pose an alternative theory.
It has been my experience in my time on talk.origins that often
(but not always) folks pop up with a bang to criticize evolution,
godless atheists, immoral scientists, etc., etc., etc.
They are not at all interested in discussion or listening to
any particular rebuttals. They poke and prod until the
folks here lose their tempers, at Cyde Weys seems to have done.
At that point the provacateur (for that is what they are) feels
happy and marks up one point scored.
As soon as the provacateur is recognized for what he or she is,
one should either *not* bother with them or have some fun with
them. By fun I mean answer their questions (but briefly, they
aren't going to read the answers anyway) and keep one's temper.
So while I agree that Lani_girl need not present any alternatives
of her own, it is also quite clear that she is not interested
in any discussion at all.
For myself, I prefer to move the argument onto factual grounds
as soon as possible. I prefer to leave the complexities of
modern evolutionary theory alone at the start and deal with
the age of the earth and the fact that species now alive were
not alive a long time ago. That's my feeling. Others will
differ.
---- Paul J. Gans
R. Tang
Richard Morey <mo...@banta.psyc.spamspam.missouri.edu> wrote:
>> Did you spot a valid criticism of evolution (or of anything else) by
>Lani_girl somewhere? Could you point it out?
>>
>
>No. But that does not mean that a person's criticisms "aren't worth
>anything" simply becuase they don't have an alternative theory.
Actually, I think it does...at least on a scientific basis.
Scientific theories are never complete, whole and perfect. They
are, at best, approximations of reality that are constantly being revised.
They are EXPECTED to have holes in them, and the scientific response is to
extend the theory to explain those wholes or propose an alternative
explanation. Weaknesses in theories are often because the proposed
explanation does not rule out alternative explanations.
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
TomS
<agkhba$1o20$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, gwan...@u.washington.edu stated..."
>
>In article <ZhhX8.31916$5f3....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
>Richard Morey <mo...@banta.psyc.spamspam.missouri.edu> wrote:
>>> Did you spot a valid criticism of evolution (or of anything else) by
>>Lani_girl somewhere? Could you point it out?
>>>
>>
>>No. But that does not mean that a person's criticisms "aren't worth
>>anything" simply becuase they don't have an alternative theory.
>
> Actually, I think it does...at least on a scientific basis.
>
> Scientific theories are never complete, whole and perfect. They
>are, at best, approximations of reality that are constantly being revised.
>They are EXPECTED to have holes in them, and the scientific response is to
>extend the theory to explain those wholes or propose an alternative
>explanation. Weaknesses in theories are often because the proposed
>explanation does not rule out alternative explanations.
My question is whether anyone can think of a contrary case.
That is, whether a generally accepted scientific theory was discarded,
not because it was replaced by a better theory, but because there was
some fatal flaw. Something that it couldn't explain, but nobody had
a better explanation.
Of course, when a theory is first proposed, it is fair enough to
point out failures, without giving a better explanation.
I have read some of the pro-birds-from-dinosaurs people make the
charge against the anti-birds-from-dinosaurs people, that the anti
camp doesn't propose an alternative.
Tom S.
CB
Caerbannog wrote:
Nice try.
But no prize for you.
>
>
> And if many Americans are descendents of Europeans, why are there still
> Europeans?
>
Thanks for the stupid responses.
Now I know which post not to read.
>
> --
>
Intellectual
CB
Forest Ghost wrote:
>
<snip nonsesne>
Are all evolutionists as unintelligent as you? (I didn't want to use the word
"stupid")
Boikat
"Intellectual" <kaz.h...@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:agkk7r$8el$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> PUT EM UP!
Hi.
Friendly advice
1) "POST ALL CAPS" is bad form. It's taken to mean that you are "shouting".
2) Please include at least some text of the post you are responding to.
That way, the particular person you are responding to knows you are replying
to him/her/it/them.
Please enjoy your stay on this planet.
Boikat
>
>
Cyde Weys
Wow, you're being exceedingly ignorant here. Let me recommend to you
www.talkorigins.org ... it'll clear up some of the stupid "beliefs" you
hold.
The populations do not act as a whole when they are isolated. Some parts of
the simian family ended up becoming Neandertals (now extinct), or us. Some
other simians are still around too. Why you insist that if a follows b,
then b must be gone, makes no sense.
> > And if many Americans are descendents of Europeans, why are there still
> > Europeans?
> >
>
> Thanks for the stupid responses.
> Now I know which post not to read.
I know not to read your posts, anyway ...
Scott
How'd you get out of my kill file?
Cyde Weys
"Nicholas II" <nich...@see-proof-pope-is-beast-at-remnantofgod.org> wrote
in message news:3d2da41e$1...@news5.nntpserver.com...
> Want MANY scientific facts PROVING evolution an easy to expose LIE? See
this
> page... http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm I only list "10" major
> ones, but the links on the bottom of the page ESPECIALLY the "Creation
> evidence museum" have hundreds more facts. I highly recommend the video
> series Dr Car Baugh has at the Creation Museum. They are a little over
> $150.00 but it's well worth it! This scientist covers every nook and
cranny
> of the Evolution. He proves evolution is false using undeniable scientific
> evidence.
You lie. Evolution has not been proven false. If I were to order those
videos I'd just be wasting my money, because I'm sure they'd be employing
techniques already thorougly covered and shown for their falsities at the
talk origins website:
Chas. 'Mark' Bee
> different than you do. Don't sweat it, the world isn't going to stop
> spinning if creationists don't believe in evolution.
My bet is he's tired of the constant unending nyah-nyah from an
obvious know-nothing.
Cyde Weys
Cyde Weys
>
> >
>
> <snip nonsesne>
>
word
> "stupid")
Yes, CB. Yes they are ...
Kat
> Cyde Weys wrote:
>
> > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time for
> > you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY that
> > is testable and (dis)provable.
> >
> > Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't worth
> > anything.
>
> first, the chicken or the egg?
> And maybe you could explain why, if man evolved from apes, why are there still
> apes?
>
> http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/corrcourse1/course.html
Oh ho, looks like Lani brought some smart-mouthed and equally daft friends.
David Fritzinger
Why not? That argument is at least as valid as yours.
>
> >
> >
> > And if many Americans are descendents of Europeans, why are there still
> > Europeans?
> >
>
> Thanks for the stupid responses.
> Now I know which post not to read.
And why is that a stupid response? Another question is that, if you
are descended from your parents, why are they still alive? The logic
is just as (in)valid as your statement.
Dave Fritzinger
CB
Paul J Gans wrote:
> Richard Morey <mo...@banta.psyc.spamspam.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
> >"Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:%d6X8.14975$AL6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >> You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time
> >for
> >> you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY
> >that
> >> is testable and (dis)provable.
> >>
> >> Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't worth
> >> anything.
> >>
> >This is simply not true. A person can make valid criticisms of an idea
> >withot posing an alternative idea. Lani_girl's criticisms are not worth
> >much, but this is independent of her ability to pose an alternative theory.
>
> It has been my experience in my time on talk.origins that often
> (but not always) folks pop up with a bang to criticize evolution,
> godless atheists, immoral scientists, etc., etc., etc.
>
> They are not at all interested in discussion or listening to
> any particular rebuttals. They poke and prod until the
> folks here lose their tempers, at Cyde Weys seems to have done.
>
> At that point the provacateur (for that is what they are) feels
> happy and marks up one point scored.
>
>
Mark one more up for Truth.
>
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
CB
Scott wrote:
Oh, please put me back in.
CB
Cyde Weys wrote:
Sory but I don't hang around "stupid" people.
>
>
>
freehand
Gosh. What a cutting and brilliant response. I know that there are
Christians who can think clearly (altho offhand, I can't think of any
such who are Creationists), but you're just a little too subtle for
me. Could you explain, pray tell, just why these observations don't
apply?
You see, we humans bred some wolves over many centuries and ended up
with dogs. We did not capture and breed all wolves, just some of them.
Now we have wolves, and a subspecies called the domestic dog, with its
many breeds. But we still have wolves.
Now, assuming natural selection shaped the development of our species
from an earlier ape, please explain why there cannot be other apes.
It's no crime (or sin) to be ignorant. But to be ignorant, arrogant,
and hostile is just... baffling.
I guess it must be a reproductive advantage somehow. There seem to be
so many folks like you.
>
> >
> > --
> >
Robert A. Walker
> page... http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm
Nicholas II loves to show off his ignorance.
Forest Ghost
No fair. I didn't snip your nonsense in my post, and you produced
easily as much drivel as I did.
Well, the truth is I'm not really an evolutionist. Would you believe
they make you pay $1500 for the annual membership fee? That's
outrageous! I mean, yeah I want to be a part of the world enslaving
conspiracy too, but who has that kind of cash?
Maybe one of you kind readers could sponsor me?
But, addressing your lack of response:
I fail to see the nonsense in my answers. I gave you my honest opinion
of Lani_girl. I answered the chicken / egg question from an evolutionary
standpoint. And your ape question was just plain silly, so I gave an
equally silly response, hoping you might understand the fallacy of the
logic used. I noticed Cyde did the same thing, but again you just
dismissed his answer.
Why is that?
Why did you bother to post if you just plan to blindly dismiss all
replies without even taking the time to think about what people are
saying to you?
Oh, I get it. We were supposed to just be flabbergasted with your
amazing "proof" destroying evolutionary theory and not respond at all,
or maybe just come up with some half assed answers to explain away this
obvious flaw. And then you could smugly laugh, shoot down our answers,
and once again the world would be safe for Christ.
Oh well. I don't really expect you to understand what I'm saying or
even attempt to honestly respond. But if you are going to just try to
insult me in the future could you be at least a little more creative
about it? In particular, any comments about me being "the son of a she
goat" would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
-Forest Ghost
Cyde Weys
Good point, you have nothing to be "sory" about, you don't hang out with the
stupid people! You hang out with the creationists ...
Greg
<SNIP>
> My question is whether anyone can think of a contrary case.
> That is, whether a generally accepted scientific theory was discarded,
> not because it was replaced by a better theory, but because there was
> some fatal flaw. Something that it couldn't explain, but nobody had
> a better explanation.
Until the late 1700's, it was the general scientific consensus that
species did not change. The fossils found by the geologists of the day
were unlike any creature alive but the fossils in the upper strata
were more similar than those in the lower strata. They accepted that
species changed over time but nobody had an explanation for it.
Charles Darwin wasn't even born yet, though his grandfather, Erasmus
Darwin, had a theory in the early 1800's.
>
> Of course, when a theory is first proposed, it is fair enough to
> point out failures, without giving a better explanation.
>
> I have read some of the pro-birds-from-dinosaurs people make the
> charge against the anti-birds-from-dinosaurs people, that the anti
> camp doesn't propose an alternative.
>
> Tom S.
--
Greg
What about this new species of maul rats I heard about on the radio?
How big are they? Do they attack in packs? Can I shoot them?
John Drayton
Translation: I have no answer to this so, so I'll pretend that
it doesn't matter
> >
> >
> > And if many Americans are descendents of Europeans, why are there still
> > Europeans?
> >
>
> Thanks for the stupid responses.
> Now I know which post not to read.
Translation: I'm frustrated that I'm unable to answer this, and
that it clearly shows how stupid and thoughtless my comment was.
So I'll just loudly claim that it's *others* who are stupid.
And shortly I'll run away from any discussion, because when
it comes to the frequent battle of wits sen in t.o, I've realised
than I'm not only outgunned ... I'm unarmed
So ... do you have ANY answer to the questions asked, CB?
Thought not
--
John Drayton
Mark VandeWettering
> Want MANY scientific facts PROVING evolution an easy to expose LIE? See this
> page... http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm I only list "10" major
> ones, but the links on the bottom of the page ESPECIALLY the "Creation
> evidence museum" have hundreds more facts. I highly recommend the video
> series Dr Car Baugh has at the Creation Museum. They are a little over
> $150.00 but it's well worth it! This scientist covers every nook and cranny
> of the Evolution. He proves evolution is false using undeniable scientific
> evidence.
Pfft!
We are really supposed to take seriously a web page that touts that it has
a 47" human femur? What is really priceless is the fact that if you read
the text, you find that the femur prominently displayed ISN'T EVEN A REAL
BONE.
"Joe Taylor, Director of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum in Crosbyton,
Texas was commissioned to scupt this anotomically correct, and to
scale, juan femur."
Priceless.
The rest of the arguments on this page are time worn cliches.
By the way, Baugh is a fraud.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html
Mark
Boikat
"Greg" <gg...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:f7c25302.02071...@posting.google.com...
"Rous? They don't exist."
Boikat
>
John Wilkins
Get it right:
<bq>
BUTTERCUP: Westley, what about the R.O.U.S.'s?
WESTLEY: Rodents of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist...
And as he says that, a R.0.U.S. comes flying at him from off-screen.
<eq>
--
John Wilkins
Sweet Analytics, 'tis thou hast ravished me [Marlowe's Faust]
Nicholas II
>
> "Nicholas II" <nich...@see-proof-pope-is-beast-at-remnantofgod.org> wrote
> in message news:3d2da41e$1...@news5.nntpserver.com...
> > Want MANY scientific facts PROVING evolution an easy to expose LIE? See
> this
> > page... http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm I only list "10"
major
> > ones, but the links on the bottom of the page ESPECIALLY the "Creation
> > evidence museum" have hundreds more facts. I highly recommend the video
> > series Dr Car Baugh has at the Creation Museum. They are a little over
> > $150.00 but it's well worth it! This scientist covers every nook and
> cranny
> > of the Evolution. He proves evolution is false using undeniable
scientific
> > evidence.
>
> You lie. Evolution has not been proven false.
No.. you lied... and i PROVED it.
If I were to order those
> videos I'd just be wasting my money, because I'm sure they'd be employing
> techniques already thorougly covered and shown for their falsities at the
> talk origins website:
LOL.. sure ok.. whatever.. BUT you CAN view the FACTS on the Creation
Museums website too. Hmmmmm I wonder why you failed to look at that page?
--
~
[=] Presents of God ministry [=]
Devastatingly accurate prophecies authenticated with
historic facts confirming Antichrist resides in Vatican!
Over "2000" pages of documented researchable facts.
Site locations:
USA - www.remnantofgod.org
USA2 - www.localline2.com/~nicholas
AUST - www.linearg.com/remnantofgod/
EGF-CHURCH SITE
www.egfellowship.org
3ANGELS MESSENGERS SERVER COMMUNITY
www.3angelsmessengers.net
19 MAJOR PROPHETIC/HISTORIC EVENTS OF ANTICHRIST
http://www.remnantofgod.org/666-CHAR.htm
_-.~'`'~.-_-.~'`'~.-_-.~'`'~.-_
!!! FLASH ANIMATIONS !!!
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
ANTICHRIST SLIDESHOW
http://www.remnantofgod.org/flash/acssmenu.html
NEW!!! WHORE OF BABYLON REVEALED
http://www.remnantofgod.org/flash/whore/whoremenu.html
"Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people
their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins." -Isaiah 58:1
Truth is truth.
....Nicholas
Tim Norfolk
>Don't sweat it, the world isn't going to stop
>spinning if creationists don't believe in evolution.
Nor will it stop spinning if all non-bacterial life were wiped out, which I
consider a very bad idea.
On talk.origins, or at my doorstep, creationists provide a slight increase in
blood pressure and/or amusement.
However, when they take their willful ignorance into the public and political
arena, it is imperative that their lies and self-deception be brightly exposed.
I very much fear that such movements pose a significant risk to democracy and
freedom in this country, largely through the unwitting fairness and ignorance
of the general populace. They have the ears of many elected officials in this
country, and the heart of the Attorney General. This is my adopted country, in
which I am trying to raise my children with open but rational minds, and I
don't want them buggering that up.
My family history and associations become relevant at this point. My mother's
family were French Hugenots, who fled to East Prussia, and happily farmed
there, until the Nazis came to power. My mother was a teenager at the time, and
saw her history teacher and most books vanish, to be replaced by the school
janitor, a loyal Party member. Being free-thinkers, they were in constant
danger, and had several friends executed after the attempt on Hitler's life in
1944. Then, they fled from the Russian army, who were no better.
I have a friend who was a professor in Iran, until the mullahs came to power,
and decided that religion mattered more than science.
I have other friends who were persecuted as students or teachers in China, and
had their lives devastated as a consequence.
Don't believe that it can't happen here, because it could. The recent court
decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, the Supreme Court decision on school
vouchers and the Intelligent Design fight here in Ohio make that very clear to
me.
This is much more important than some comfortable armchair debate. Many
revolutions occur because the average person does nothing.
Timsn274
"Just when we manage to idiot-proof something, Nature comes along and builds a
better idiot."
Excelsior
The Baugh character mentioned above was central to the completely
debunked Paluxy footprints: dinosaur and alleged human footprints side
by side in a Cretaceous deposit.
It must be pretty bad when even the other creationists think you're a
bozo.
m_h_burch
>
> "CB" <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3D2D0659...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > Cyde Weys wrote:
> >
> > > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's
time
> for
> > > you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific
THEORY
> that
> > > is testable and (dis)provable.
> > >
> > > Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't
> worth
> > > anything.
> >
> > If her comments are worth anything, why do you read her posts?
came
> > first, the chicken or the egg?
> > And maybe you could explain why, if man evolved from apes, why are there
> still
> > apes?
>
out
> of th woodwork :-)
>
Ummm, if this were cross posted to alt.religion.christian.fundamentalist
(if such a newsgroup even exists) then I might agree with what you seem to
be implying.
BUT
Remember that Roman Catholic church is officially in agreement with the
Theory of Evolution, even if the level of agreement varies widely. The
evidence over the years has weighed in, and the Roman Catholics have
_started_ to steer a course more and more distant from fundamentalism.
Don't take this to mean that they are even considering abandoning
Creationism entirely, but the Roman Catholic church does agree that
Evolution/Natural Selection is a valid natural process.
There is room both for Creationism and Evolution, and likely always will
be room until there is definitive proof that there is or is not a divine
being that has the capacity to perform deeds of creation on a galactic
scale. There are Roman Catholics out there that believe strongly in
Evolution, while still believing in their God. Don't isolate them and label
them unjustly. Those Roman Catholics that can reconcile Evolution and
Christianity could be valuable allies in helping to bring logical thought to
the less rabid fundamentalists, if they are treated with respect.
In case you are wondering, the best way to describe my own beliefs would
be to say that I believe that there _might_ be some sort of Divine being,
but if so, the extent of it's involvement in the evolution of life was an
occasional poke or prod after getting the ball rolling, whether that start
was at the Big Bang, or when the solar system formed. In other words, I see
no proof of either the existence OR the non-existence of "God".
Matt
m_h_burch
This is an advertisement for a product, not anything that can be
intelligently responded to. If the poster would like to join in some
conversations, thats fine, but plopping down a ADVERTISEMENT is uncalled
for.
Matt
"Nicholas II" <nich...@see-proof-pope-is-beast-at-remnantofgod.org> wrote
in message news:3d2da41e$1...@news5.nntpserver.com...
> Want MANY scientific facts PROVING evolution an easy to expose LIE? See
this
> page... http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm I only list "10" major
> ones, but the links on the bottom of the page ESPECIALLY the "Creation
> evidence museum" have hundreds more facts. I highly recommend the video
> series Dr Car Baugh has at the Creation Museum. They are a little over
> $150.00 but it's well worth it! This scientist covers every nook and
cranny
> of the Evolution. He proves evolution is false using undeniable scientific
> evidence.
>
>
> "Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:%d6X8.14975$AL6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Boikat
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1ff7hrb.o4mom77a1ipN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
It's been a while. To make up for my err, I shall have to force myself to
dig out the tape and watch it again, and again.
Anyone want a peanut?
Boikat
Cyde Weys
"Nicholas II" <nich...@see-proof-pope-is-beast-at-remnantofgod.org> wrote
in message news:3d2e34a2$1...@news5.nntpserver.com...
> > You lie. Evolution has not been proven false.
>
> No.. you lied... and i PROVED it.
What exactly did you prove?
Science works like this: MILLIONS of researchers work on building up a huge
body of knowledge about the world. Evolution is so undoubtedly true when
compared to the newfangled theories, such as multiverse and brane theories.
No ignorant fool such as yourself is EVER going to be able to disprove
something millions more knowledgeable than you HAVE proved.
> LOL.. sure ok.. whatever.. BUT you CAN view the FACTS on the Creation
> Museums website too. Hmmmmm I wonder why you failed to look at that page?
And you CAN view the "facts" in Mein Kampf, too. And Al Qur'an. Face it:
for something to be fact, it must be proven true. That lies in the realm of
science, not in religious philosophy.
Michael Painter
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsloth.net> wrote in message
news:3d2e446c$1...@news5.nntpserver.com...
Victor Eijkhout
> I don't care; I want an alternative idea from her.
And I want a lollipop from you.
V.
John Wilkins
CB
Forest Ghost wrote:
> CB wrote:
> >
> > Forest Ghost wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > <snip nonsesne>
> >
> > Are all evolutionists as unintelligent as you? (I didn't want to use the word
> > "stupid")
>
> No fair. I didn't snip your nonsense in my post,
That's because there wasn't any.
Next???!!!
>
> -Forest Ghost
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> Caerbannog wrote:
>
> > CB <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D2D0659...@yahoo.com...
[snip]
> > > And maybe you could explain why, if man evolved from apes, why are there
> > > still apes?
> > >
> >
> > If dogs (micro)evolved from wolves (as most creationists acknowledge),
> > then why are there still wolves?
>
> Nice try.
> But no prize for you.
Why? Qhat's your problem with this answer?
> > And if many Americans are descendents of Europeans, why are there still
> > Europeans?
> >
>
> Thanks for the stupid responses.
> Now I know which post not to read.
Hint: not the responses were stupid. The question was.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Could you please explain why you think we are stupid? Could you please
explain why you think our responses make no sense?
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> Forest Ghost wrote:
>
> >
>
> <snip nonsesne>
*Why* it was nonsense in your opinion?
> Are all evolutionists as unintelligent as you?
Why do you think he is unintelligent?
> (I didn't want to use the word "stupid")
You did use it quite frankly in other posts.
Shut up, moron.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> Want MANY scientific facts PROVING evolution an easy to expose LIE? See this
> page... http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm I only list "10" major
> ones,
*yawn* Nothing new there. And even the stupid argument from population
growth! Amazing how ignorant one can be...
Hint: try reading www.talkorigins.org for an easy rebuttal of each of
the claims you made.
> but the links on the bottom of the page ESPECIALLY the "Creation
> evidence museum" have hundreds more facts.
More lies, you wanted to say, yes?
> I highly recommend the video
> series Dr Car Baugh has at the Creation Museum.
LOL! You even believe the things this moron has to say? Did you know
that he isn't even respected by most creationist organisations, like
Answers in Genesis, for example?
> They are a little over
> $150.00 but it's well worth it! This scientist
Scientist?!? Fraud, you wanted to say, yes?
> covers every nook and cranny
> of the Evolution. He proves evolution is false using undeniable scientific
> evidence.
Good laugh.
> [=] Presents of God ministry [=]
>
> Devastatingly accurate prophecies
Good joke!
> authenticated with
> historic facts confirming Antichrist resides in Vatican!
Do you *really* believe this nonsense? Then you are beyond any hope of
learning something.
[snip links]
Joe Cummings
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time for
>you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY that
>is testable and (dis)provable.
>
> Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't worth
>anything.
>
The big problem is with her credibility.
It's been pointed out that she snips answers without
indicating this, and therefore does not honestly reply to points made.
She also uses a fake address; I posted a copy of Noelie's
invitation to her with a covering note and it was returned.
I suppose it's the old, old story - lying for the Lord.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
--
"If a probable solution, consistent with the ordinary
course of nature, can be found, we must not invoke
an abnormal act of Creative Power."
W.Thompson (aka Lord Kelvin)
Forest Ghost
Yup, that's about what I thought. You have nothing to say and you
ignore and snip away what is said to you. How very pathetic. Is it any
wonder why I think you creationists are all a bunch of dishonest twits?
Good job convincing me on the validity of your arguments. Kudos on
showing me why evolution is wrong and a literal interpretation of your
version of the bible is the one true answer.
Good-bye.
-Forest Ghost, amused with the true believers once again.
John Wilkins
> Can we get this post moderated out please?
>
> This is an advertisement for a product, not anything that can be
> intelligently responded to. If the poster would like to join in some
> conversations, thats fine, but plopping down a ADVERTISEMENT is uncalled
> for.
>
> Matt
It's not that kind of moderation - we only moderate using a bot to
ensure that crossposts are limited and some groups are not crossposted
to. There is no content moderation. You want that, you have to graduate
to sci.bio.evolution...
Forest Ghost
Ah, Bjoern, he's just another one like Lani. He's only posting so that
we'll open ourselves up to his insults. Poor guy's obviously got low
self esteem and needs a boost by making fun of people smarter than he
is. Else, why did he respond in every post by calling us stupid or
unintelligent?
It's very sad, really.
-Forest Ghost
Cyde Weys
"Victor Eijkhout" <eijk...@cs.utk.edu> wrote in message
news:1ff6njb.kuhbz0rqummlN%eijk...@cs.utk.edu...
> Cyde Weys <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't care; I want an alternative idea from her.
>
> And I want a lollipop from you.
Just send me three easy installments of $39.95 and it'll be in the mail
shortly.
Lani_girl
"Scout Lady" <0x2t...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:aglt11$muell$2...@ID-87237.news.dfncis.de...
> Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:
> > Scout Lady wrote:
> >>
> >> Cyde Weys wrote:
> >>> "Richard Morey" <mo...@banta.psyc.spamspam.missouri.edu> wrote in
> >>> message news:Rk6X8.7242$I02...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:%d6X8.14975$AL6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >>>>> You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's
> >>>>> time for you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative
> >>>>> scientific THEORY that is testable and (dis)provable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments
> >>>>> aren't worth anything.
> >>>>>
> >>>> idea withot posing an alternative idea. Lani_girl's criticisms are
> >>>> not worth much, but this is independent of her ability to pose an
> >>>> alternative theory.
> >>>
> >>> I don't care; I want an alternative idea from her.
> >>
> >> different than you do. Don't sweat it, the world isn't going to stop
> >> spinning if creationists don't believe in evolution.
> >
> > obvious know-nothing.
>
> Then killfile her. Irritant easily removed.....if only it was this easy in
> RL.
Precisely, Scout Lady. Poor little Sideways is just troubled that anyone
would DARE ("how DARE they!") to criticize, poke holes in, and illustrate
the foibles and follies of Sacred Evolution Theory.
But lacking the intellectual firepower to rebut those criticisms of little
Sideways' unquestioning faith in his Sacred Evolution Theory, he now finds
himself compelled to "demand" of me that I produce an Alternative Theory
that HE will find acceptable.
I guffawed intensely at little Sideways when he issued that "demand", but
didn't bother wasting my time telling him that I was laughing at him on that
one. I simply laughed at him behind his back, and figured with time one or
two of the others of you would point out that he was wrong and illogical to
issue such a "demand", and to point out to poor little Sideways that PLENTY
of theories in science are dismissed WITHOUT having an alternative theory to
take its place, much less having a theory which lil' Sideways will find
acceptable!
Meanwhile, I continue to guffaw at Sideways, and will probably continue
guffawing at him even if he killfiles me. Plus I retain the option of
responding to and rebutting HIS posts even IF he decides to killfile me.
Caerbannog
CB <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D2DD44C...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> Caerbannog wrote:
>
......
>
> >
> >
> > And if many Americans are descendents of Europeans, why are there still
> > Europeans?
> >
>
> Thanks for the stupid responses.
> Now I know which post not to read.
>
Rest assured, I'll continue to read your posts. But not for
reasons that you'd like...
--
To reply by mail, nuke the 'bago.
Cyde Weys
"Lani_girl" <nurse_watso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yRzX8.95246$UT.62...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I'm all too happy when people honestly, scientifically, try to test out a
theory. That just makes it even more stronger. But what you are doing is
simply ignoring the facts and stating untruths. I'm not troubled at all by
you; in fact, I'm rather amused.
> But lacking the intellectual firepower to rebut those criticisms of little
> Sideways' unquestioning faith in his Sacred Evolution Theory,
I do not have faith in evolution. If a lot more evolution comes this way
that clearly shows evolution to be false, I'll start believing in whatever
the alternative theory is that explains better. This is totally unlike
creationists - over the centuries time and time has proven them false, yet
they cling on and move the goalposts. They simply ignore the facts.
It's a huge difference. I believe in evolution, because so far as science
has shown us, it is true.
You believe in religion because of blind faith, and I'm willing to bet there
isn't ANYTHING that's going to change that about you? You're stiff,
immobile. Inevitably the unchangeable get destroyed by those that adapt.
Evolution in action, right there.
> he now finds
> himself compelled to "demand" of me that I produce an Alternative Theory
> that HE will find acceptable.
No, I demand an alternative theory that SCIENCE will find acceptable. And
you haven't even tried yet.
> I guffawed intensely at little Sideways when he issued that "demand", but
> didn't bother wasting my time telling him that I was laughing at him on
that
> one.
Well, you've told me now.
> I simply laughed at him behind his back, and figured with time one or
> two of the others of you would point out that he was wrong and illogical
to
> issue such a "demand", and to point out to poor little Sideways that
PLENTY
> of theories in science are dismissed WITHOUT having an alternative theory
to
> take its place, much less having a theory which lil' Sideways will find
> acceptable!
Wow, talk about a hen amongst wolves. Anyway ... please give a SINGLE
example of a theory that was thrown out by science without any alternatives
existing to try to explain the data. Science simply doesn't work that way.
We have theories for EVERYTHING: there's no thing we will point at and say,
"We just can't figure it out, so we're not going to bother with theories."
If you do, well, then you're clearly not a scientist.
> Meanwhile, I continue to guffaw at Sideways, and will probably continue
> guffawing at him even if he killfiles me. Plus I retain the option of
> responding to and rebutting HIS posts even IF he decides to killfile me.
The only thing you've rebutted is your ass.
Lani_girl
No, I believe in religion because of the sufficiency of the evidence
concerning the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension into Heaven
of God (and the Savior of the world) Jesus Christ.
Cyde Weys
> > I do not have faith in evolution. If a lot more evolution comes this
way
> > that clearly shows evolution to be false, I'll start believing in
whatever
> > the alternative theory is that explains better. This is totally unlike
> > creationists - over the centuries time and time has proven them false,
yet
> > they cling on and move the goalposts. They simply ignore the facts.
> >
> > It's a huge difference. I believe in evolution, because so far as
science
> > has shown us, it is true.
> >
> > You believe in religion because of blind faith, and I'm willing to bet
> there
>
>
> No, I believe in religion because of the sufficiency of the evidence
> concerning the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension into
Heaven
> of God (and the Savior of the world) Jesus Christ.
You don't have a single shred of evidence of Jesus' supposed resurrection.
You want to know my evidence? In all the millions of people studied by
scientists, never has there been found a mechanism for resurrection. I'll
believe it when it's observed in the lab, not because some incorrect book
from 2,000 years ago happens to mention it.
Simplicius
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
I know there are Christians in this group who will be able to do a
better job of this than I can, but here goes. You are making a mistake to
treat the Resurrection as a scientific question. If the Resurrection
could be explained by science, it would lose its religious meaning.
It would be just another event, and we all could believe it happened.
The Resurrection has to be harder than that. It has to be a miracle.
It has to require its believers to acknowledge something more than
what's plainly visible.
This kind of belief is not a threat or insult to science. In my
experience, what really drives scientists is questions more than
answers; it's nice to find an answer, but it would be really dreadful
if we ran out of questions. Myself, I don't think we will run out of
questions. I think there's a pool of irreducible mystery out there.
I think that no matter how much we learn about the evolution and
mechanism of consciousness, for instance, there will still be room
for one more "yeah, but what IS it?" question. Same for "why is
there anything?" That's my religious sense, the sense that the
universe has irreducible mystery. I can't prove it, and I won't
argue it, and it's as close as I can get to understanding what people
seem to mean by "God".
I believe there's a reason why the charge on an electron has
precisely the same magnitude as the charge on a proton, and I
have no idea what that reason is. It's a good mystery. I suspect
the Resurrection is a good mystery, too. It doesn't hurt to let
people have their mysteries.
John McKendry
Otho
"Simplicius" <jmck...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:OiPX8.338652$R61.3...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
believing that Jesus did physically appear to his disciples as related in
the biblical narratives of the Resurrection.
Did Jesus appear to the Disciples or did it appear to Disciples that Jesus
was alive. Not so sure the Jerusalem church believed he had returned since
it appears to me that they were waiting for an imminent return. Some still
do to this day.
He will come back in a similar way he left, that could well mean that he
will never return to this planet.
> John McKendry
>
Otho
"Otho" <Wi...@witless.com> wrote in message
news:PwQX8.875$WF6.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
I meant to add physically, as a human being, to our human condition, earthly
creature.
>
> > John McKendry
> >
>
Lani_girl
Tell us, Oh Consistent One, what is the "mechanism" for the Big Bang?
(assuming you believe in such a thing, that is)
Excelsior
<nurse_watso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[]
>>
>> You don't have a single shred of evidence of Jesus' supposed resurrection.
>> You want to know my evidence? In all the millions of people studied by
>> scientists, never has there been found a mechanism for resurrection. I'll
>> believe it when it's observed in the lab, not because some incorrect book
>> from 2,000 years ago happens to mention it.
>
>
>Tell us, Oh Consistent One, what is the "mechanism" for the Big Bang?
>(assuming you believe in such a thing, that is)
First of all, he said 'a' mechanism. Any mechanism at all which could
produce the results. This is much braoder than showing 'the' mechanism
actually used. Demonstrating 'a' mechanism at least allows the
possibility.
And here is 'a' mechanism which could produce the results of the Big
Bang:
----------
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth3.html
THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE
Although the properties of the Big Bang are very special, we now know
that the laws of physics provide a mechanism that produces exactly
this sort of a bang. The mechanism is known as cosmic inflation.
The crucial property of physical law that makes inflation possible is
the existence of states of matter that have a high energy density that
cannot be rapidly lowered. Such a state is called a "false vacuum,"
where the word "vacuum" indicates a state of lowest possible energy
density, and the word "false" is used to mean temporary.
.. . .
----------
Lani_girl
"Excelsior" <exce...@usexpress.net> wrote in message
news:3d313b18...@news.teranews.com...
Fine, then the question becomes, "What is a mechanism by which an 'existence
of states of matter that have a high energy density that cannot be rapidly
lowered' could come into being?"
DO you have a mechanism for THAT Excelsior, or not? As you said, "I'll
believe it when it's observed in the lab".
waiting for your mechanism......
Excelsior
<nurse_watso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[]
>
>DO you have a mechanism for THAT Excelsior, or not? As you said, "I'll
>believe it when it's observed in the lab".
>
>waiting for your mechanism......
BTW, I wasn't the one who said "I'll believe it when it's observed in
the lab".
Excelsior
<nurse_watso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What is the mechanism of the mechanism?
What is the mechanism of the mechanism of the mechanism of the
mecahism of the mechanism ...
Not necessary for the Big Bang to work.
We observe that masses 'attract' by the mechanism of gravity. Whether
or not we now the mechanism of gravity and the mechanism behind the
mechanism behind gravity, we can use the fact that masses attract via
gravitation.
The further you go on, the more you display that you don't know (or
refurse to acknowledge) the basics of the scientific method in the
formations of theories.
Pastor Brian
The Big Bang Theory vs. God's Word
by Wayne Jackson
Article Description
John Clayton has virtually made a career of lecturing most weekends of
the year to churches across the country. His knowledge of science is
woefully skewed with ideas of evolution; unfortunately, his acquaintance
with the Bible is even more deficient.
"We have tried over and over again to point out to readers that the big bang
theory is not at odds with the Bible nor with the concept of God as
Creator." So wrote John N. Clayton, of South Bend, Indiana, in the
September/October, 1999 issue of his paper, Does God Exist? In addition to
teaching high school, Mr. Clayton has virtually made a career of lecturing
most weekends of the year to churches across the country. His knowledge of
science is woefully skewed with ideas of evolution; unfortunately, his
acquaintance with the Bible is even more deficient.
A number of conservative Bible students have tried, "over and over again,"
to get John Clayton to see that it is a serious compromise of scriptural
truth to give credence to the "Big Bang" theory. In this article, we examine
this materialistic concept of the origin of the Universe.
Basically there are two views of the origin of the Universe. One of these is
the supernatural position set forth in the book of Genesis (Chapters 1-2),
with ample confirmation from other inspired writings. The Genesis narrative
affirms that God created the heavens and the earth on the first day of the
initial week of earth's history. Subsequently, during the remaining five
days of creation activity, attention was directed to this planet, the abode
of man - who was uniquely fashioned in the image of the Creator (Gen.
1:26,27). The sun, moon, and stars were also made (14ff). The Scriptures
make it perfectly clear that the whole creation (inorganic and organic) came
into being during this six-day period (see Ex. 20:11).
The second view of the beginning of the Universe is wholly materialistic.
Modern "scientism" prefers to grapple with its problems without appealing to
God, although, as science writer Lincoln Barnett observed, "this seems to
become more difficult all the time" (1957, p. 22). Isaac Asimov wrote: "The
Bible describes a Universe created by God, maintained by him, and intimately
and constantly directed by him, while science describes a Universe in which
it is not necessary to postulate the existence of God at all" (1981, p. 13).
Theories concerning the mechanistic origin of the Universe come and go.
Today's "science" is tomorrow's superstition. A few years ago scientists
were touting the Steady-State Theory as the most reasonable explanation of
the origin of the Universe. It asserted that new matter is constantly being
created to replace that which is lost by the expanding Universe. "Today most
astronomers regard the steady-state theory as dead" (Weaver, 1974, p. 625).
The current inclination concerning the beginning of our Universe is known as
the Big Bang Theory, but even the "Bang" notion it is receiving competition
from a newer view called the "Plasma Theory" (DeYoung, 1992, pp. i-iv).
The Theory Defined
The Big Bang concept alleges that some 20 billion years ago (give or take 10
billion), all of the matter in the known Universe was tightly packed into a
microscopic cosmic "egg." One writer expresses it this way: "Astonishingly,
scientists now calculate that everything in this vast universe grew out of a
region many billions of times smaller than a single proton, one of the atom'
s basic particles" (Gore, 1983, p. 705). This is truly an incredible
statement!
In one of his books, Dr. Robert Jastrow asserts that in the beginning "all
matter in the Universe was compressed into an infinitely dense and hot mass"
that exploded. Over many eons, supposedly, "the primordial cloud of the
Universe expands and cools, stars are born and die, the sun and earth are
formed, and life arises on the earth" (1977, pp. 2-3). Dr. Jastrow is
describing, of course, what is commonly known as the Big Bang Theory, and it
does not require much critical acumen to conclude that the concept is
evolutionary to the core.
Where the cosmic egg came from no one seems to know. Certainly no cosmic
chicken has been located! Some allege that the egg always existed. They
speculate that it possibly resulted from some earlier universe that
collapsed upon itself. This assumes that matter is eternal. But this idea is
refuted by our knowledge of physics (e.g., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics). Jastrow concedes that "modern science denies an eternal
existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future" (p. 15).
Others, like Professor Victor Stenger of the University of Hawaii, muse that
perhaps the Universe came from nothing (the egg laid itself!).
"... [T]he universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation
in a spaceless, timeless void ... the earth and humanity, are not conscious
creations but an accident.... it is not sufficient merely to say, 'You can't
get something from nothing.' While everyday experience and common sense seem
to support this principle, if there is anything that we have learned from
twentieth-century physics, it is this: Common sense is often wrong, and our
normal experiences are but a tiny fraction of reality" (1987, pp. 26-27).
One thing is certain. One is required to lay aside his "common sense" in
order to accept the foregoing incomprehensible speculation. None of these
materialistic theories has any credibility - biblically or scientifically.
Some scientists should take a hint from the Scottish skeptic David Hume: "I
have never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise
without a cause" (1932, p. 187).
Dr. Mart de Groot, who views the Big Bang concept as "a possible way of
understanding the opening statement of the Bible, "in the beginning God...",
admits that there is an objective difficulty to the theory. And it is this.
Even if the "primordial matter" exploded, he says, resulting in our present
Universe, "what is the origin or source of this matter?". He confesses that
"probably the most serious shortcoming of the Big Bang is its inability to
go back to the very beginning of time and space" (1999, pp. 20-23). The
theory has far more shortcomings than the matter of "matter commencement"!
Flaws in the Big Bang scenario
There are a number of logical problems with the Big Bang scheme of origins.
The Big Bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered Universe
randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion - a "holocaust," to use Jastrow'
s term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion
been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An
explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado
sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building
contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then
waits for a completed home from the resulting "bang." The idea is absurd.
Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: "There is no mechanism
known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state
and then evolve to its present highly ordered state" (1983, p. 40).
If the Universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all
matter/energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion
center - consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be
expected that the Universe would be characterized by the curving and
orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our
earth around the sun (cf. Morris, 1984, p. 150).
For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation
that is coming in from all parts of the Universe. It is conjectured that
this radiation is the left-over heat from the original Big Bang. The problem
is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be
extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the Universe
itself is not uniform; rather, it is "clumpy," i.e., composed of
intermittent galaxies and voids. If the Big Bang Theory were true, there
should be a correlation between the material composition of the Universe
(since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation
temperature. But such is not the case.
Over the past few years, the news media have made much of the report that
new measurements of background radiation reveal some variation. The press
has hailed this as proof of the Big Bang. The facts are:
(a) the temperature differential supposedly detected was only about thirty
millionths of one degree, and there are other possible explanations for this
circumstance apart from the hypothetical Bang;
(b) some of the scientists involved in the project question that the
instruments employed for measuring the radiation are sensitive enough to
warrant the conclusions that are being drawn;
(c) others, who claim that additional testing has confirmed their assertion
of temperature "ripples," confess now that it is "harder than ever" to
explain "how these ripples grew into the starry structures that fill the
universe" (Flam, 1993, p. 31).
Even the respected science journal Nature suggested it is a "cause of some
alarm" that the media have characterized this flimsy evidence as "proof" of
the Big Bang (1992, p. 731). Why do some religionists gravitate to these
groundless theories in deference to plain Bible statements?
We will not, at this point, discuss other flaws in the Big Bang hypothesis,
but simply refer the reader to several other sources (Morris, 1984, pp.
149-151; Thompson, 1987, pp. 42-43; Major, 1991, pp. 21-24; Morris, 1992, p.
d; Humphreys, 1992, pp. i-iv).
Fatal compromises
It is to be expected, of course, when "science" announces some amazing new
"discovery," which purportedly supports its view of the origin of the
Universe, that liberal religionists will jump on the band wagon - in this
case the "Bang" wagon - affirming that such is consistent with the Genesis
record. When the Big Bang Theory was first heralded, Pope Pius XII wrote
that "scientists are beginning to find the finger of God in the creation of
the universe." More recently (1990), Gerald L. Schroeder, an Israeli nuclear
physicist, wrote a book titled, Genesis and the Big Bang. Therein he
contended that there is no contradiction between the biblical account of
creation and the current Big Bang Theory (see Ostling, 1992, pp. 42-43).
In addition to Clayton (cited above), Arlie Hoover, a professor at Abilene
Christian University, has argued similarly:
It is entirely possible, though not at all firmly established, that God used
a big bang as His method of creation. You cannot affirm it as a certainty,
but neither can you deny it apodictically. Because the Bible does not
specify how God did it, we are left to choose the hypothesis that seems to
have the best supporting material....nothing in the biblical doctrine
excludes the big bang (1992, pp. 34,35).
In an incredible display of illogical meandering, the professor attempted to
show why it is possible to accept both the Big Bang concept and the Genesis
account. He suggested, for example, that the question: "Where did I come
from?" can be answered a number of correct ways. From God. From mother's
womb. From a hospital, etc. Similarly, he says, one might suggest that the
Universe came both from God and the Big Bang.
The problem with this line of argument is this. In Hoover's illustration,
each of the possible answers - God, mother, hospital - can be supported with
evidence. In the matter of the Big Bang, this alleged "cause" has not been
proved. It is just that simple. But let us go back for a moment to the
"Where-did-I-come-from?" question. Suppose one responded in this way. "From
God. From the hospital. From the stork!" Is each of these answers equally
valid? If not, where is the flaw?
The Bible versus the Big Bang
Are the Bible and the Big Bang Theory in agreement? No. And informed
persons, on both sides of the issue are aware of this fact. Paul Steidl, an
astronomer, has noted that "no astronomers would ever think of the big bang
as the creation event of Genesis. The big bang was invented specifically for
the purpose of doing away with the creation event. An astronomer would laugh
at the naivety of anyone who chose to equate the two events" (1979, p. 197).
Evolutionist Paul Davies, in a discussion of the Big Bang, says that this
theory of origins "differs greatly in detail from the biblical version." He
then quotes Ernan McMullin of Notre Dame University: "What one cannot say
is, first, that the Christian doctrine of creation 'supports' the Big Bang
model, or second, that the Big Bang model 'supports' the doctrine of
creation" (Davies, 1983, pp. 17-20).
The fact is, there are significant contradictions between the Big Bang
Theory and the Bible record. Let us reflect on some of these.
As noted earlier, the Bible plainly teaches that the entire Universe,
including the earth with its various "kinds" of biological organisms, came
into being during the six, literal days of the creation week (Gen. 1; Ex.
20:11). The Big Bang theory postulates eons of time.
Some, of course, contend that:
(a) there may have been a vast "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, thus
accommodating the alleged time involved in the expansion and development of
the Universe following the Big Bang;
(b) the "days" of Genesis 1 were not "literal" days;
(c) perhaps there were gaps between the days of the creation week, etc.
But none of these twisted theories has an ounce of credibility if one
seriously considers that God has communicated the historical record in an
understandable fashion through His inspired Word. Each of the theories
mentioned above is designed to bring the Bible into harmony with
evolutionary chronology (for further study, see my book Evolution, Creation,
and the Age of the Earth). (See catalog section.)
The Big Bang myth allows that the sun was formed long before the earth.
Various theories have been formulated to explain how the Universe came to be
organized after the initial explosion. Take your choice - the planetesimal
theory, the nebular theory, the dust cloud theory - they all have one thing
in common. They assert that the earth is a new-comer compared to the sun.
However, the Bible teaches that the earth was created first, and the sun
came later - on the fourth day of the first week (Genesis 1:1;14-16). The
same point can be made regarding the stars. The Bible puts them after the
earth; the evolutionary model teaches otherwise. Of course some have
attempted to solve this difficulty with yet another slippery compromise.
They allege that the "creative acts" of Genesis 1 are not necessarily "in
chronological order" (Willis, 1979, p. 92).
The Big Bang Theory supposes that the Universe started with a chaotic
explosion which then proceeded toward order. The Bible teaches the exact
opposite. God created the Universe as a beautiful and orderly masterpiece,
but it has been degenerating toward disorder in the intervening millennia
(Psa. 102:25ff; Heb. 1:10-12).
Big Bang cosmology postulates a Universe that is near 20 billion years old,
with the human race evolving only 3 or 4 million years ago. According to
this view, a vast period of time separates the origin of the Universe from
that of mankind.
But the Scriptures affirm:
(a) The human family came into existence the same week as the Universe (Gen.
1; Ex. 20:11). Man has thus existed from the beginning of the creation (Isa.
40:21; Mk. 10:6; Lk. 11:50; Rom. 1:20).
(b) Human antiquity extends to only a few thousand years before Christ, as
evinced by the genealogical records of the Lord's ancestry all the way back
to Adam - the first man (1 Cor. 15:45). There are some two millennia
spanning the present back to Jesus Christ; another 2,000 years push history
back to the time of Abraham. There are only 20 generations between Abraham
and Adam (Lk. 3:23-38). Even if one concedes that some minor gaps exist in
the Old Testament narrative (cf. Gen. 11:12; Lk. 3:35-36), surely no
responsible Bible student will contend that 20 billion years can be squeezed
into those 20 generations. The Universe thus cannot be billions of years
old.
Big Bang chronology and biblical chronology are woefully at variance.
Conclusion
The Big Bang Theory is without validity. It has the support of neither
genuine science nor responsible biblical exegesis. For once we agree with
several evolutionists who admit: "Cosmology is unique in science in that it
is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts" (Arp, et al.,
1990, p. 812).
In view of that, it can hardly be classified as "science."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
SOURCES
Arp, H.C., G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J.V. Narliker, N.C. Wickramasinghe (1990),
"The extragalactic Universe: an alternative view," Nature 346, August 30.
Asimov, Isaac (1981), In The Beginning (New York: Crown).
Barnett, Lincoln (1957), The Universe and Dr. Einstein (New York: Mentor).
Davies, Paul (1983), God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster).
(p>de Groot, Mart (1999), "The Search For A Plausible Cosmology," Ministry,
November.
DeYoung, Don (1992), "The Plasma Universe," Impact 228, June.
Flam, Faye (1993), "Microwave Ripples Have a Reprise," Science, 1 January.
Gore, Rick (1983), "The Once and Future Universe," National Geographic,
June.
Hoover, Arlie (1992), "God and the Big Bang," Gospel Advocate, September.
Hume, David (1932), Letters, ed. J.Y.T. Greig (Oxford: Clarendon), Vol. I.
Humphreys, Russell (1992), "Bumps in the Big Bang," Impact 233, November.
Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until The Sun Dies (New York: Warner Books).
Major, Trevor (1991), "The Big Bang In Crisis," Reason & Revelation, June.
Morris, Henry (1984), The Biblical Basis For Modern Science (Grand Rapids:
Baker).
Morris, John (1992), "Has The Big Bang Been Saved?" Impact 228, June.
Nature 356 (1992), "Big Bang brouhaha," April 30.
Ostling, Richard N. (1992), "Galileo and Other Faithful Scientists," Time,
December 28.
Page, Donald N. (1983), "Inflation Does Not Explain Asymmetry," Nature, July
7.
Steidl, Paul M. (1979), The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed).
Stenger, Victor J. (1987), "Was the Universe Created?" Free Inquiry, 7:3,
Summer.
Thompson, Bert (1987), "Cosmic Evolution and the Origin of Life," Reason &
Revelation, November.
Weaver, Kenneth F. (1974), "The Incredible Universe," National Geographic,
May.
Willis, John T. (1979), Genesis (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Co.).
--
Get the facts on Steve Winter at:
http://www.stevewinter.com/
http://www.enteract.com/~sadams/winfaq.html
http://www.enteract.com/~sadams/winbible.html
Catholicism VS Bible/Jesus/God
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/bibletruths/catholic.htm
Frank J
> > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time
> for
> > you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY
> that
> > is testable and (dis)provable.
> >
> > Otherwise, you're just full of hot air, and your comments aren't worth
> > anything.
> >
> This is simply not true. A person can make valid criticisms of an idea
> withot posing an alternative idea. Lani_girl's criticisms are not worth
> much, but this is independent of her ability to pose an alternative theory.
>
those creationist arguments that differ from theirs just as much as
evolution does. In fact, they actually ignore evolution too, and focus
on a caricature of it. Actually, I wouldn't mind that either if they
didn't claim to be scientific. A scientist would first and foremost
want to promote her own theory, and secondarily criticize all other
alternatives.
> Richard Morey
> -----------------
> Graduate Research Assistant
> Cognition and Neuroscience
> University of Missouri-Columbia
Mark Johnson
> You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time for
>you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY that
>is testable and (dis)provable.
Is evolution considered "testable and (dis)provable"?
And is it not a THEORY, as you type it, that is rather simply
considered fact - even if the fact . . . seems to keep changing?
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
m_h_burch
moderation is not happening - I know I wouldn't want the job :P
Matt
"John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1ff83ls.6ejia51phrb4vN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
maf1029
"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:5762ju0qkvg7tb311...@4ax.com...
<snip>
Hey, Markie --
How's buzzardnews working out for you since newsfeeds, shall we say,
"relieved" you of the burden of membership?
Maybe next time you'll read what you write BEFORE you hit send........ here.
http://www.geocities.com/zmjcath/
1. Why is On Eagle's Wings not liturgically acceptable in your non-Catholic
sect?
2. Name a church where the children's choir regularly sings in Latin.
3. Why do you consistently break the 9th Commandment regarding the religion
and integrity of posters on this thread?
4. What's your musical background?
5. Why do you insist that Latin is not a dead language?
6. Do you really think it's honest to ignore huge chucks of posts that you
can't answer or don't like?
7. Why do you insist that "everyone sings" in church, when you have been
shown that this statement is demonstrably false (mute people, people with
laryngitis, me at the organ, etc.)?
8. What is the order of worship service at your church? Please post it
yourself (no URL's) so that we can all see.
9. Why, since "Latin is not a dead language"-this means that you should not
need the crutch of English..."everybody understands Latin"...so why do you
need the translations?
10. Since you say the whole Mass is said in Latin, is the homily/sermon in
Latin as well?
11. Which sacraments in your sect are parenthetical, compared to the
sacraments in the real Catholic church?
12. Who ran the Russian Orthodox church in the USA during the years that the
Communist government was in control of Russia?
13. Exactly what do you mean by the word "sing"?
14. When your priest chants the readings, does he do so in syllabic or
neumatic style?
15. You still have not explained what Greek is doing on the "all Latin"
site.
16. What is your definition of "screwtape"? How is this not derogatory
name-calling?
17. If, as you maintain, Aquinas is correct that the Tridentine form is
essential to a valid consecration, then how could the Roman Church of the
first centuries have had a valid
consecration without using the Tridentine form?
18. Please provide comparative quotes from the Vulgate and the Gutenberg
Bible which show that Martin Luther mistranslated.
19. Since you don't seem to think that Mr. Alan Turing (or any other gay
person) made any "great accomplishments," then could you explain what you're
doing using a computer?
Do try to answer soon, as the list seems to be growing, and we wouldn't want
these issues to hang in the air too long, would we? Moving on to new issues
before clearing up the old wouldn't be quite............ honest... of
you.... here.
http://www.geocities.com/zmjcath/
DJT
Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:<5762ju0qkvg7tb311...@4ax.com>...
> "Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time for
> >you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY that
> >is testable and (dis)provable.
>
> Is evolution considered "testable and (dis)provable"?
Hi Mark. Yes, evolution is testable and disprovable.
>
> And is it not a THEORY, as you type it, that is rather simply
> considered fact - even if the fact . . . seems to keep changing?
Oh, dear, you seem to be unaware that the word "Theory" has a specific
meaning as used in science. You seem to think that "fact" outranks
"theory". This is not true. A theory is an idea that connects and
explains a group of observations, and makes testable predictions about
future observations. A theory is made up of facts, in the way a
jigsaw puzzle picture is made up of pieces. As more pieces are added,
the picture becomes clearer. As new facts are gathered, a theory may
need to be updated, and the "picture" revised as new observations are
intergrated into the "image".
Science may never have the whole picture, and some of the "pieces"
may never be found. However, enough of the "puzzle" has been put
together to get a good idea of what the "picture" represents. It's
highly unlikely the picture will be overturned by any one or two
missing pieces.
Hope this helps.
DJT
m_h_burch
"Pastor Brian" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:R04Y8.125389$uk2.49...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> The Big Bang Theory vs. God's Word
> by Wayne Jackson
> Article Description
> John Clayton has virtually made a career of lecturing most weekends
of
> the year to churches across the country. His knowledge of science is
> woefully skewed with ideas of evolution; unfortunately, his acquaintance
> with the Bible is even more deficient.
>
>
Hrm, 1932 - I do believe this gentleman's quote is significantly before any
sort of study of Quantum mechanics, and therefore should be considered to be
of the same cloth as those scientists who believed that the detonation of a
nuclear device would start a chain reaction which would destroy all life on
Earth in a single massive conflagration. Or perhaps the scientists that
believed that it was impossible to exceed the sound barrier in a plane.
David Hume's quote is appropriate for the science of his day. A better
example might be a six-year-old boy saying "I'll never like girls". Science
has developed just like that hypothetical little boy would, changing and
developing.
Wow, and here I thought that thunderstorms formed tornados and waterspouts
on occasion. That's not an exact match to the type of chaotic event
referred to here, but it is an example of large natural chaotic events that
create highly directed energy, of a much higher order of organization than
the events which created it.
Anything that we observe here on earth is an extremely poor example of
what happened back then. We have a planet here - the planet's gravity tends
to control things somewhat forcibly, making it difficult to create our own
nebulae. However, we know enough about what gravity does to be able to know
for certain that, in the absence of a large, close gravity source, gas
clouds that are expanding at a sufficiently slow rate, will cease expanding
and begin to contract. Once that happens, stellar and planetary formation
is merely a question of reasonably straightforward physics.
Donald Page perhaps was correct in 1983 when he said, and I quote, "no
mechanism KNOWN" This seems to indicate a proper statement, considering
that stating that there was a KNOWNmechanism to do this would have been an
indication of an incredible breakthrough.
>
> If the Universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all
> matter/energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion
> center - consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not
be
> expected that the Universe would be characterized by the curving and
> orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our
> earth around the sun (cf. Morris, 1984, p. 150).
Is this entire paragraph a quote? Not that it matters.
Whoever wrote this must have completely forgotten about gravity.
>
> For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave
radiation
> that is coming in from all parts of the Universe. It is conjectured that
> this radiation is the left-over heat from the original Big Bang. The
problem
> is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be
> extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the
Universe
> itself is not uniform; rather, it is "clumpy," i.e., composed of
> intermittent galaxies and voids. If the Big Bang Theory were true, there
> should be a correlation between the material composition of the Universe
> (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation
> temperature. But such is not the case.
> Over the past few years, the news media have made much of the report that
> new measurements of background radiation reveal some variation. The press
> has hailed this as proof of the Big Bang. The facts are:
>
> (a) the temperature differential supposedly detected was only about thirty
> millionths of one degree, and there are other possible explanations for
this
> circumstance apart from the hypothetical Bang;
No doubt there are other possible explanations, which explanations are the
most logical
>
> (b) some of the scientists involved in the project question that the
> instruments employed for measuring the radiation are sensitive enough to
> warrant the conclusions that are being drawn;
Good - that questioning, coiupled by research and funding, will yield
better equipment, which in turn will either help solidify the theory, or
perhaps begin another
>
> (c) others, who claim that additional testing has confirmed their
assertion
> of temperature "ripples," confess now that it is "harder than ever" to
> explain "how these ripples grew into the starry structures that fill the
> universe" (Flam, 1993, p. 31).
Please provide the full quote from Flam, or a hyperlink to a copy of the
article. It appears that there should be something between "harder than
ever" and "how these ripples...universe"
>
> Even the respected science journal Nature suggested it is a "cause of some
> alarm" that the media have characterized this flimsy evidence as "proof"
of
> the Big Bang (1992, p. 731). Why do some religionists gravitate to these
> groundless theories in deference to plain Bible statements?
There are several personality types/traits that might result in someone
considering the theories as groundless:
A) True ignorance of science.
B) No interest in science at all, despite some knowledge.
C) Simple stupidity
D) Religious indoctrination
E) Belief that scientists believe themselves infallible
>
> We will not, at this point, discuss other flaws in the Big Bang
hypothesis,
> but simply refer the reader to several other sources (Morris, 1984, pp.
> 149-151; Thompson, 1987, pp. 42-43; Major, 1991, pp. 21-24; Morris, 1992,
p.
> d; Humphreys, 1992, pp. i-iv).
Of course there are flaws - thats what science is for - finding the flaws
and finding out WHY they are flaws. Big Bang theory is by no means
something that has been around a long time - there will be large numbers of
edits and changes and what-not before a final concensus is reached by the
science community as a while. And before that happens we need to know more
about particle physics than we already do.
Heck, it might even be discovered that the Big Bang theory really is an
unsupportable theory in a few years, but for the time being, it is plausible
according to what we know
>
>
> Fatal compromises
> It is to be expected, of course, when "science" announces some amazing new
> "discovery," which purportedly supports its view of the origin of the
> Universe, that liberal religionists will jump on the band wagon - in this
> case the "Bang" wagon - affirming that such is consistent with the Genesis
> record. When the Big Bang Theory was first heralded, Pope Pius XII wrote
> that "scientists are beginning to find the finger of God in the creation
of
> the universe." More recently (1990), Gerald L. Schroeder, an Israeli
nuclear
> physicist, wrote a book titled, Genesis and the Big Bang. Therein he
> contended that there is no contradiction between the biblical account of
> creation and the current Big Bang Theory (see Ostling, 1992, pp. 42-43).
>
> In addition to Clayton (cited above), Arlie Hoover, a professor at Abilene
> Christian University, has argued similarly:
>
> It is entirely possible, though not at all firmly established, that God
used
> a big bang as His method of creation. You cannot affirm it as a certainty,
> but neither can you deny it apodictically. Because the Bible does not
> specify how God did it, we are left to choose the hypothesis that seems to
> have the best supporting material....nothing in the biblical doctrine
> excludes the big bang (1992, pp. 34,35).
Agreed
>
> In an incredible display of illogical meandering, the professor attempted
to
> show why it is possible to accept both the Big Bang concept and the
Genesis
> account. He suggested, for example, that the question: "Where did I come
> from?" can be answered a number of correct ways. From God. From mother's
> womb. From a hospital, etc. Similarly, he says, one might suggest that the
> Universe came both from God and the Big Bang.
>
> The problem with this line of argument is this. In Hoover's illustration,
> each of the possible answers - God, mother, hospital - can be supported
with
> evidence.
Mother and/or hospital may be proven or disproven in some cases, but God's
existence is not proven, there is no reliable evidence of the existence of
God. There is also nothing to prove that there is not a God. Thats why
they call it faith.
> In the matter of the Big Bang, this alleged "cause" has not been
> proved. It is just that simple. But let us go back for a moment to the
> "Where-did-I-come-from?" question. Suppose one responded in this way.
"From
> God. From the hospital. From the stork!" Is each of these answers equally
> valid? If not, where is the flaw?
>
1) From God: not supportable by scientific measurement at this time.
2) From the hospital. If you have a copy of your birth certificate with
the hospital data on it, and the hospital has the original, and they match,
then that is evidence. Throw in some eyewitness accounts, a newspaper
clipping, the family bible, parents memories, and those memories of parents'
friends and together you can make a pretty strong case for being from the
hospital.
3) Ask your mother, if you have a good adult-to-adult relationship with
your mother, I will imagine that she will happily tell you of all the misery
you put her through during carriage and birth, then, with a twinkle in her
eye, mention that the front lawn needs to be cut. No need to go into DNA
analysis here.
>
> The Bible versus the Big Bang
> Are the Bible and the Big Bang Theory in agreement? No. And informed
> persons, on both sides of the issue are aware of this fact. Paul Steidl,
an
> astronomer, has noted that "no astronomers would ever think of the big
bang
> as the creation event of Genesis. The big bang was invented specifically
for
> the purpose of doing away with the creation event. An astronomer would
laugh
> at the naivety of anyone who chose to equate the two events" (1979, p.
197).
>
Amazing, considering that there are religious astronomers out there. Take
out the term "informed persons" above, and replace it with "opinionated
persons" and you would have a closer approximation to a meaningful
statement. This Steidl fellow seems, at first quote, to be just as
irrational in his fear of religion as your yourself seem to have an
irrational fear of science.
> Evolutionist Paul Davies, in a discussion of the Big Bang, says that this
> theory of origins "differs greatly in detail from the biblical version."
He
> then quotes Ernan McMullin of Notre Dame University: "What one cannot say
> is, first, that the Christian doctrine of creation 'supports' the Big Bang
> model, or second, that the Big Bang model 'supports' the doctrine of
> creation" (Davies, 1983, pp. 17-20).
You cannot say they support each other, you also cannot say for certain
that they don't.
>
> The fact is, there are significant contradictions between the Big Bang
> Theory and the Bible record. Let us reflect on some of these.
>
>
> As noted earlier, the Bible plainly teaches that the entire Universe,
> including the earth with its various "kinds" of biological organisms, came
> into being during the six, literal days of the creation week (Gen. 1; Ex.
> 20:11). The Big Bang theory postulates eons of time.
> Some, of course, contend that:
>
> (a) there may have been a vast "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, thus
> accommodating the alleged time involved in the expansion and development
of
> the Universe following the Big Bang;
>
> (b) the "days" of Genesis 1 were not "literal" days;
>
> (c) perhaps there were gaps between the days of the creation week, etc.
>
> But none of these twisted theories has an ounce of credibility if one
> seriously considers that God has communicated the historical record in an
> understandable fashion through His inspired Word. Each of the theories
> mentioned above is designed to bring the Bible into harmony with
> evolutionary chronology (for further study, see my book Evolution,
Creation,
> and the Age of the Earth). (See catalog section.)
But all of these "twisted" theories would fit perfectly well to describe
actions performed by a omnipotent being. Remember also: even if the Bible
were written by truly divine inspiration, the hand wielding the pen to write
in the language must stay within the bounds of the language.
Here is a question for you:
For what reason does the fossil record exist? There are only two
possibilities.
A) The fossil record exists because creatures lived and died thousands -
even millions of years before the birth of Jesus.
B) The fossil record exists because God created it with the rest of the
world a few thousands of years ago.
Answer A is feasable. Answer B is not. Quite simply the creation of a
false fossil record would be a lie. God has no need to lie, so the history
is a true history. This places the age of the Earth to at least a Billion
or so years - I am not certain what the oldest known fossils are, but I
believe they approach a billion years.
The same might be said for rocks themselves, which could push back the
verified age of the Earth to where science believes it to be. Then there
would be the cosmic data, sources of emissions, and the study of the
features of emissions. Again I ask, why would God need to lie to humans,
his creations? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that God could
possibly have to do such a thing, so:
A) God exists and guided the development of all, rather than creating it
as whole cloth.
OR
B) God does not exist.
I'll not comment on the rest of the post yet, but will preserve rather than
snip, at least for now.
Matt
That is correct. Unfortunately there is actual evidence to support
Daniel Hoehr
killfiled him:
--
Well-written, well-reasoned, carefully considered,
unrevised and still there, MJ, for your benefit.
http://geocities.com/zmjcath
What Mark Johnson has failed to understand:
http://members.surfeu.de/dhoehr/catholic/markjohnsoniswrong.html
Boikat
>
> > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time
for
> >you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY
that
> >is testable and (dis)provable.
>
> Is evolution considered "testable and (dis)provable"?
Yes. Evolution could be disproven if it was discovered that humans actually
did live during the precambrian, before any other land animals evolved. It
can be tested by verifying predictions, such as the order of appearances of
various lineages in the fossil record, genetic comparisons, and so on.
>
> And is it not a THEORY, as you type it, that is rather simply
> considered fact - even if the fact . . . seems to keep changing?
Evolution is a fact (an observed phenomena) and a theory (a body of works
that attempt to explain the observations). It is the *theory* which
occasionally gets a minor work-over as more data is discovered.
Is that a problem?
Boikat
m_h_burch
>
> > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's time
for
> >you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific THEORY
that
> >is testable and (dis)provable.
>
> Is evolution considered "testable and (dis)provable"?
>
> And is it not a THEORY, as you type it, that is rather simply
> considered fact - even if the fact . . . seems to keep changing?
That evolution happens is a fact. Exactly how it works is theory.
A good comparison would be the average automobile driver. It is a fact
that the automobile (provided it is in good working condition) can be used
by the driver to move him/herself from one place to another with great
speed.
It is a theory (to MOST drivers anyway) exactly how their automobile
works. Most drivers can't tell you in more than very simple terms how the
transmission and engine work. Changing the brake pads on their car seems,
from my experience, about the most knowledge intensive work that the averags
joe or jane feels comfortable doing on their automobile.
Every year new auto models come out, in response to research by designers
and customer service, the average public very seldom understands much about
the changes (unless the changes affect appearance or significantly affect
function), but the specialists do.
Matt
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:5762ju0qkvg7tb311...@4ax.com...
>> "Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Yes. Evolution could be disproven if it was discovered that humans actually
>did live during the precambrian, before any other land animals evolved. It
>can be tested by verifying predictions, such as the order of appearances of
>various lineages in the fossil record, genetic comparisons, and so on.
Predictions? Maybe you could elaborate on these . . predictions.
>> And is it not a THEORY, as you type it, that is rather simply
>> considered fact - even if the fact . . . seems to keep changing?
>Evolution is a fact (an observed phenomena)
Is the theory established as one theory, or many theories - one or
more of which are tailored to describe what is observed?
>and a theory (a body of works
>that attempt to explain the observations). It is the *theory* which
>occasionally gets a minor work-over as more data is discovered.
I think you're wrong, there. The history of evolution is that of
scientific fraud, pseudo-science - and in related studies, in other
disciplines, that presume the 'fact' of evolution.
It's not merely the theory that changes. And the observations are not
synonymous, with that, or with any theory rendering it a . . fact.
They are observations - data. What to make of it, assuming the data is
not fraudulent or unreliable, is what the debate between creationists,
of various sorts, and evolutionist is about, I would think. It's
religion on both sides, to be sure. And it's fact, on both sides. And
it's fraud - on both sides.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:5762ju0qkvg7tb311...@4ax.com...
>> "Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Is evolution considered "testable and (dis)provable"?
>> And is it not a THEORY, as you type it, that is rather simply
>> considered fact - even if the fact . . . seems to keep changing?
> That evolution happens is a fact. Exactly how it works is theory.
> A good comparison would be the average automobile driver. It is a fact
>that the automobile (provided it is in good working condition) can be used
>by the driver to move him/herself from one place to another with great
>speed.
That assumes a lot. One goes nowhere in CA metroplexes around 'rush
hour', or particularly early morning rush hour (the worst). One drives
at great speed, at other times, at the risk of being cited for
speeding - of all things. And so on.
What's the fact, here? Never mind the theory.
>It is a theory (to MOST drivers anyway) exactly how their automobile
>works. Most drivers can't tell you in more than very simple terms how the
>transmission and engine work. Changing the brake pads on their car seems,
>from my experience, about the most knowledge intensive work that the averags
>joe or jane feels comfortable doing on their automobile.
Because they've been alienated and disenfranchised by the odd
fasteners, special tools, electronics, that didn't alienate previous
generations from their cars - which were more reliable, more powerful,
and easier to maintain on cheap, and very high performance fuel. Then
the librals took over. Oh yes - we live in a virtual paradise.
Cause the reality of it all . . . .
And just like evolution. It sounds good in theory. But what are the
facts on, or in, the ground? What's the reality. What are the
assumptions in explaining how they got there, from where, and when?
>Every year new auto models come out, in response to research by designers
>and customer service, the average public very seldom understands much about
>the changes (unless the changes affect appearance or significantly affect
>function), but the specialists do.
That they do. Whether it makes any sense, is something else. Whether
they can sell the notion, is something else, as well. Some people just
know more about cars, and won't stand for a lot of bull.
Patrick James
(in message <eq05jucf4t36s395u...@4ax.com>):
> Because they've been alienated and disenfranchised by the odd
> fasteners, special tools, electronics, that didn't alienate previous
> generations from their cars - which were more reliable, more powerful,
> and easier to maintain on cheap, and very high performance fuel. Then
> the librals took over. Oh yes - we live in a virtual paradise.
ooh, boy... there's a _reason_ why Ford has meant 'found on road dead' for
_generations_. I can remember my father having to, ahem, tinker with his
Fords (he had several) during Ye Glorious Daze of Yore just to get the damn
things moving long enough to get to a garage where a pro could tinker with
'em. I drive a Honda. I never have to tinker with it. It's got all that
'tronic stuff you don't like... and it runs. Hell, my father (now retired)
has another Ford (his first in 20 years) and _it_ just runs, a minor miracle
in of itself. (He likes Fords. Why, I have _no_ idea.)
As for the liberal bit, it's amazing how often little ol' way to the right of
Maggie 'pin a medal on Pinnochet' Thatcher me finds that he's a liberal.
Gotta go off to the Party metting now. The Comrade General Secreatry is going
to be speaking on the Labour Theory of Value.
Matt Silberstein
<1023...@compuserve.com>:
[snip]
>Because they've been alienated and disenfranchised by the odd
>fasteners, special tools, electronics, that didn't alienate previous
>generations from their cars - which were more reliable, more powerful,
>and easier to maintain on cheap, and very high performance fuel. Then
>the librals took over. Oh yes - we live in a virtual paradise.
I am happy riding in one of those Nader inspired cars, with seat
belts and air bags and safety concerns, one of those cars that
gets recalled if they find a problem. Want to look at the number
dead/mile driven now vs. before the liberals changed things? And
I can actually breath and see the mountains when I visit L.A. You
may have a moral sense that says it is ok to spew poisons in the
air, I believe in a bit more personal responsibility.
>Cause the reality of it all . . . .
>
>And just like evolution. It sounds good in theory. But what are the
>facts on, or in, the ground? What's the reality. What are the
>assumptions in explaining how they got there, from where, and when?
Where is the reality? Open your eyes? Where can you read about
it? I would suggest the peer-reviewed literature, but you might
want to start with www.talkorigins.org. The assumptions behind
evolution are the same assumptions behind all of science.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
They will like us when we win.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
[snip]
> I think you're wrong, there. The history of evolution is that of
> scientific fraud, pseudo-science -
Evidence for that assertion, please.
[snip]
> It's not merely the theory that changes.
What is it, then, please?
> And the observations are not
> synonymous, with that, or with any theory rendering it a . . fact.
Err, you *do* know what is mean by "the fact of evolution"?
> They are observations - data. What to make of it, assuming the data is
> not fraudulent or unreliable, is what the debate between creationists,
> of various sorts, and evolutionist is about, I would think.
The creationists say that all (or most) fossils were laid down during
the flood and that the layering can be explained by hydraulic sorting
and more nonsense like that. The evolutionist says that they were laid
down during billions of years and that the layering and the changes can
be explained by evolution. The second proposal has lots of evidence for
it, the first none.
> It's religion on both sides, to be sure.
No, evidence.
> And it's fact, on both sides.
What the "fact" of creation, please? Have you ever observed it?
> And it's fraud - on both sides.
Evidence for this assertion, please.
> Peace.
Hypocrite.
Greetings,
Bjoern
Dana Tweedy
> "m_h_burch" <Mremoveth...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >news:5762ju0qkvg7tb311...@4ax.com...
> >> "Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> Is evolution considered "testable and (dis)provable"?
>
> >> And is it not a THEORY, as you type it, that is rather simply
> >> considered fact - even if the fact . . . seems to keep changing?
>
> > That evolution happens is a fact. Exactly how it works is theory.
>
> > A good comparison would be the average automobile driver. It is a fact
> >that the automobile (provided it is in good working condition) can be
used
> >by the driver to move him/herself from one place to another with great
> >speed.
>
> That assumes a lot. One goes nowhere in CA metroplexes around 'rush
> hour', or particularly early morning rush hour (the worst). One drives
> at great speed, at other times, at the risk of being cited for
> speeding - of all things. And so on.
>
> What's the fact, here? Never mind the theory.
You seem to have missed the point entirely, is that deliberate, or are you
really that obtuse? Automobiles exist, and are capable of movement. How
they work is another field of study. Pherhaps that analogy was too difficult
for you.
Personally I like the analogy that a theory is like a jigsaw puzzle. If
you have ever assembled a jigsaw puzzle, you know they are usually a an
image from a photograph, or a painting, that has been broken up into tiny
pieces. When you assemble the puzzle, you complete the picture, and are
able to see the image. A theory in science is a prediction of what that
"picture" will be (i.e. is it a landscape, or a still life, or a portrait?).
The more pieces you have assembled, the more you can tell about the picture,
and you can make predictions about what pieces you should be finding next,
ie what color, and shapes they most likely will have. In science,
observations, (facts) are the puzzle pieces, and the theory is the working
concept of what the image will turn out to be. Having an idea about what
the image is, gives you an understanding of what pieces represent, where
they fit in the image, and what pieces you should be able to find next.
Sometimes, you may find pieces that don't seem to fit, until more of the
puzzle is completed. Sometimes you will find that your idea about the image
is wrong, and needs to be revised to fit what the pieces are telling you.
In the Theory of Evolution, we have a pretty good idea of what the
"image" is, and so far all the pieces we have found seem to fit that
concept. Scientists may argue over where a particular piece fits into the
image, but the concept of the image itself is not seriously doubted. While
it's potentally possible that as more puzzle pieces are gathered, the idea
of the picture may have to be changed, but that is not really likely at this
point.
>
>
> >It is a theory (to MOST drivers anyway) exactly how their automobile
> >works. Most drivers can't tell you in more than very simple terms how
the
> >transmission and engine work. Changing the brake pads on their car
seems,
> >from my experience, about the most knowledge intensive work that the
averags
> >joe or jane feels comfortable doing on their automobile.
>
> Because they've been alienated and disenfranchised by the odd
> fasteners, special tools, electronics, that didn't alienate previous
> generations from their cars - which were more reliable, more powerful,
> and easier to maintain on cheap, and very high performance fuel. Then
> the librals took over. Oh yes - we live in a virtual paradise.
Again, the point whooshes over your head. The point is not that modern
automobiles are complex, but that their drivers usually don't know how they
work.
>
> Cause the reality of it all . . . .
>
> And just like evolution. It sounds good in theory. But what are the
> facts on, or in, the ground? What's the reality. What are the
> assumptions in explaining how they got there, from where, and when?
The reality is that we have evidence from many different lines of study that
lead independently to the conclusion that life has evolved over the
existance of this planet. The assumptions are that the evidence we study is
real, and that natural laws are consistent and predictable. The facts are
observations from the world around us. The theory is the idea that explains
those observations.
>
>
> >Every year new auto models come out, in response to research by designers
> >and customer service, the average public very seldom understands much
about
> >the changes (unless the changes affect appearance or significantly affect
> >function), but the specialists do.
>
> That they do. Whether it makes any sense, is something else. Whether
> they can sell the notion, is something else, as well. Some people just
> know more about cars, and won't stand for a lot of bull.
Some people think they know about cars, and are fooled by those selling
100mpg carburetors. ( In case you miss the point, pseudoscience such as
Creationism will appeal to those who's personal and religious bias won't
allow them to accept science's findings)
DJT
Nicholas II
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:slrnais8ki.a...@peewee.vandewettering.net...
> In article <3d2da41e$1...@news5.nntpserver.com>, Nicholas II wrote:
> > Want MANY scientific facts PROVING evolution an easy to expose LIE? See
this
> > page... http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm I only list "10"
major
> > ones, but the links on the bottom of the page ESPECIALLY the "Creation
> > evidence museum" have hundreds more facts. I highly recommend the video
> > series Dr Car Baugh has at the Creation Museum. They are a little over
> > $150.00 but it's well worth it! This scientist covers every nook and
cranny
> > of the Evolution. He proves evolution is false using undeniable
scientific
> > evidence.
>
snip
> By the way, Baugh is a fraud.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html
>
> Mark
LOL! This LIAR attacks the CREDENTIALS of the man? LOL! Why is it you are
UNABLE TO PROVE HIS FINDINGS FALSE?
Ain't it always the way? If ya CAN'T prove the FACTS a lie, attack the
messenger of them
You are SoOOoOoOoO obvious mark
Nicholas II
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerba...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:3D2EA0B1...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de...
> Nicholas II wrote:
> >
> > Want MANY scientific facts PROVING evolution an easy to expose LIE? See
this
> > page... http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm I only list "10"
major
> > ones,
>
> growth! Amazing how ignorant one can be...
what? no PROOF just insults and lies? -figures-
>
> Hint: try reading www.talkorigins.org for an easy rebuttal of each of
> the claims you made.
Now THAT's a joke! The site I shared proved that. All that site does is LIE
and attack "credentials" of the men PROVING your theories a LIE. The videos
I have are so amazingingly easy to understand that evolutionists are
actually EVIL ELLUSIONISTS. In fact, every claim an evolutionist makes
concerning their "theory" that we evolved from monkeys (regardless that
monkeys are STILL HERE! LOL) the video's from Baugh expose EACH AND EVERY
theory of the evolutionists. Not just one, (even though "just one" makes
their entire theory crumble) Dr Baugh goes after EACH theory with the
precision of scientific FACT and Biblical TRUTH.
( I wonder.. ... is that why you Catholic evolutionists hate him? He uses
the BIBLE to prove you wrong along WITH your Science? Just like I use the
Bible to expose your popes along with historic facts?)
>
>
> > but the links on the bottom of the page ESPECIALLY the "Creation
> > evidence museum" have hundreds more facts.
>
> More lies, you wanted to say, yes?
Here's just the "first" page FILLED with proof easily exposing you as a bold
faced liar, (and ya don't even
have to buy the videos to PROVE it)
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/scien_eviden_creatn.html
(tooo easy!)
>
>
> > I highly recommend the video
> > series Dr Car Baugh has at the Creation Museum.
>
> LOL! You even believe the things this moron has to say? Did you know
> that he isn't even respected by most creationist organisations, like
> Answers in Genesis, for example?
Why is it so many scientists from all over the world visit his museum?
Hmmmmmm Did
you LIE and say he isn't respected? (DUH) And by the way.. WHO CARES if he's
accepted. LOOK AT THE FACTS, not the man! That's what ALL you liars do, you
KNOW you can't prove him wrong, so you try to do as a lawyer who defends
PEDOPHILE PRIESTS and you try instead to soil the one WITH the evidence to
make your LIES appear truthful.
Your lies are SoOOoOoOo transparent. All one needs to do is investigate what
Dr Baugh is saying. It's THAT EASY to prove you a liar.
>
>
> > They are a little over
> > $150.00 but it's well worth it! This scientist
>
> Scientist?!? Fraud, you wanted to say, yes?
prove it. LIAR.
....waiting
>
>
> > covers every nook and cranny
> > of the Evolution. He proves evolution is false using undeniable
scientific
> > evidence.
>
> Good laugh.
Ya know what I noticed here folks? This Catholic has no proof, so like all
good catholics, they fling insults, lies, and hate instead.
>
>
> > [=] Presents of God ministry [=]
> >
> > Devastatingly accurate prophecies
>
> Good joke!
Now I know your a Catholic as well as a liar.
>
>
> > authenticated with
> > historic facts confirming Antichrist resides in Vatican!
>
> Do you *really* believe this nonsense? Then you are beyond any hope of
> learning something.
Care to take a single prochecy listed on my site and prove it wrong? Or are
you going to seek my CREDENTIALS first? ROTFL!
Nicholas II
>
> "Nicholas II" <nich...@see-proof-pope-is-beast-at-remnantofgod.org> wrote
> in message news:3d2da41e$1...@news5.nntpserver.com...
> this
> > page... http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm I only list "10"
major
> > evidence museum" have hundreds more facts. I highly recommend the video
> > series Dr Car Baugh has at the Creation Museum. They are a little over
> > $150.00 but it's well worth it! This scientist covers every nook and
> cranny
> > of the Evolution. He proves evolution is false using undeniable
scientific
> > evidence.
>
Really? Then shall I share just a FEW to prove in fact that YOU lie?
Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate
the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems
we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface
obeys even a . portion of the geologic column.the claim of their having
taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time.over the earth is
therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of
transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of
material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This
supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils
extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one
time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor
of special creation." 3
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas
at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific
observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been
measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to
be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000
years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions
many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data
demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of
years.
The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day.
Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through
cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated
the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering
we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid
sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's
sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of
the Biblical Flood.8
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year.
Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be
about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out
approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years.
Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood
of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at
just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time
scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000
years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9The universe does
not have space to hold so many bodies.
Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in
crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To
record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite
must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to
evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.
Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal
print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in
Cretaceous rock - point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods
actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.11
Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our
atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present
rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than
10,000 years.12
Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting
data. 13The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the
Creator14. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space
expansion would dilate time in distant space.15 This could explain a recent
creation with great distances to the stars.
A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components
stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell
contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance
of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17
The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.18
It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections
to other brain cells.19 This structure receives over 100 million separate
signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new
every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the
capacity of the human brain. 20 In addition to conscious thought, people can
actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without
knowing they are doing so.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1Woodmorappe, John, "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary
Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment," Creation
Research Society Quarterly, vol. 18, no.1 (Terre Haute, Indiana, June
1981),pp. 46-71
2 Nilsson, N. Heribert, as quoted in Arthur C. Custance, The Earth Before
Man, Part II, Doorway Papers, no. 20 (Ontario, Canada: Doorway
Publications), p. 51
3Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought, ed. A.M. MacLeod and L.S.
Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97
4Barnes, Thomas, ICR Technical Monograph #4, Origin and Destiny of the
Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983)
5Blick, Edward, A Scientific Analysis of Genesis (Oklahoma City:
Hearthstone, 1991) p. 103
6Clark, M.E. and Voss, H.D., "Fluid Mechanic Examination of the Tial
Mechanism for Producing Mega-Sedimantary Layering" (Third International
Conference on Creation, Pittsburg, July 1994)
7Ager, Derek, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (New York: John Wiley
and Sons) p. 43 and p. 86
8West, John Anthony, Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt
(New York: Julian Press, 1987) pp. 13-14
9 See Morris, Henry, Scientific Creationism (El Cajon, CA: Master Books)
10Gentry, Robert, Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, Tenn.: Earth Science
Assoc.,1988)
11 Baugh, Carl, Why Do Men Believe Evolution AGAINST ALL ODDS? (Oklahoma
City: Hearthstone, 1999)
12Cook, Melvin, "Where is The Earth's Radiogenic Helium?" Nature, Vol. 179,
p. 213
13Cowan, R., "Further Evidence of a Youthful Universe," Science News, Vol.
148, p. 166
14Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22
15Humphries, Russell, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books,
1994)
16Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler
& Adler, 1986) p. 263
17 Mastropaolo, Joseph, "Evolution Is Biologically Impossible," Impact # 317
(El Cajon, CA: Institute For Creation Research,1999) p. 4
18Restak, Richard, The Brain: The Last Frontier, 1979, p. 390
19The Brain, Our Universe Within, PBS Video
20Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Video Series
21Weiss, Joseph, "Unconscious Mental Functioning," Scientific American,
March 1990, p. 103
IT'S TRULY THAT EASY TO EXPOSE THE LIARS FOLKS.
Nicholas II
--
~
EGF-CHURCH SITE
www.egfellowship.org
ANTICHRIST SLIDESHOW
http://www.remnantofgod.org/flash/acssmenu.html
Truth is truth.
....Nicholas
"John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1ff83ls.6ejia51phrb4vN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> m_h_burch <Mremoveth...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Can we get this post moderated out please?
> >
> > This is an advertisement for a product, not anything that can be
> > intelligently responded to. If the poster would like to join in some
> > conversations, thats fine, but plopping down a ADVERTISEMENT is uncalled
> > for.
> >
> > Matt
>
> It's not that kind of moderation - we only moderate using a bot to
> ensure that crossposts are limited and some groups are not crossposted
> to. There is no content moderation. You want that, you have to graduate
> to sci.bio.evolution...
> >
> >
> > "Nicholas II" <nich...@see-proof-pope-is-beast-at-remnantofgod.org>
wrote
> > in message news:3d2da41e$1...@news5.nntpserver.com...
> > > Want MANY scientific facts PROVING evolution an easy to expose LIE?
See
> > this
> > > page... http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm I only list "10"
major
> > > ones, but the links on the bottom of the page ESPECIALLY the "Creation
> > > evidence museum" have hundreds more facts. I highly recommend the
video
> > > series Dr Car Baugh has at the Creation Museum. They are a little over
> > > $150.00 but it's well worth it! This scientist covers every nook and
> > cranny
> > > of the Evolution. He proves evolution is false using undeniable
scientific
> > > evidence.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > news:%d6X8.14975$AL6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > > > You've recently been arguing against evolution, eh? Well it's
time
> > > for
> > > > you to put up or shut up. Offer a SINGLE alternative scientific
THEORY
> > > that
> > > > is testable and (dis)provable.
> > > >
Nicholas II
TomS
<3d32f074$1...@news5.nntpserver.com>, "Nicholas stated..."
[...snip...]
>
>World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year.
>Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be
>about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out
>approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years.
>Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood
>of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at
>just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time
>scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000
>years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9The universe does
>not have space to hold so many bodies.
Could you follow up on this idea, and give us an estimate on the
population of the earth half-way between Noah's day and the present,
that is, about 250 BC?
Here's my estimate, according to your model. The population in
4500 years grew by a factor of 6,000,000,000/8 = 750,000,000. In
half that time, it should grow by a factor of the square root of
750,000,000 =~ 28,000. That would make the population of the world
in 250 BC to be about 8 x 28,000 = 450,000. Or, if we'd go back
half of that time, to about 1400 BC (about the time of the Exodus):
square root of 28,000 =~ 170, so the total population of the world,
according to your model, seems to have been about 8 x 170 = 1,350
in 1400 BC.
Perhaps I've made a mistake, here. So I'd like to hear your
numbers, according to your model, about the population of the world
in ancient times.
Tom S.
PS: The reason that I'm taking the square root is this. If the
population grows by a factor of N in M years, and then grows again
by a factor of N in the next M years, that means that in the total
time of 2M years, the population grows by a factor of N x N = N^2.
Turning that around, that means that in half of 2M years, the
population grows by a factor of the square root of N^2.
m_h_burch
"Nicholas II" <nich...@see-proof-pope-is-beast-at-remnantofgod.org> wrote
in message news:3d32f07c$1...@news5.nntpserver.com...
>
> "Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnais8ki.a...@peewee.vandewettering.net...
> > In article <3d2da41e$1...@news5.nntpserver.com>, Nicholas II wrote:
> > > Want MANY scientific facts PROVING evolution an easy to expose LIE?
See
> this
> > > page... http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm I only list "10"
> major
> > > ones, but the links on the bottom of the page ESPECIALLY the "Creation
> > > evidence museum" have hundreds more facts. I highly recommend the
video
> > > series Dr Car Baugh has at the Creation Museum. They are a little over
> > > $150.00 but it's well worth it! This scientist covers every nook and
> cranny
> > > of the Evolution. He proves evolution is false using undeniable
> scientific
> > > evidence.
> >
> > Pfft!
>
> snip
>
> > By the way, Baugh is a fraud.
> >
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html
> >
> > Mark
>
> LOL! This LIAR attacks the CREDENTIALS of the man? LOL! Why is it you are
> UNABLE TO PROVE HIS FINDINGS FALSE?
Because I am not going to bother paying $150 for materials which, if they
were in fact of a reliable nature, would likely already be in scientific
circulation. Not necessarily the tapes or whatever, but the ideas.
>
> Ain't it always the way? If ya CAN'T prove the FACTS a lie, attack the
> messenger of them
If someone offered to sell you a magic jellybean for $150, would you buy
it?
If someone offered to DEMONSTRATE a magic jellybean for free, would you
watch?
Put the theories offered in the tapes out here on the internet, for free,
and I'd be happy to look at the data.
Matt