A new post for evolution vs creation
George
free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence. I only see
conjecture which is fine where a person looks to speculate his
imagination or his faith. Lu 1:51 He hath shewed strength with his
arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
However, I am seeking the truth and it will not do to speculate the
imagination and say it is the truth until a better speculation arises
when we are looking for the truth! Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the
truth, and the truth shall make you free. The biggest problem that I
have with evolution and most evolutionists is the great lack of moral
integrity regarding fact and opinion. De 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear
false witness against thy neighbour. But, then if evolutionists have
reject the holiness and integrity of God who must be required to be
moral or ethical? It is not ethical to give a theory, opinion, or
imagination and to present it as a fact, or imply it as a fact. Ro
10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God. As a Christian I admit that I live by faith because I do not have
all the facts! Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God
revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by
faith. Did you know that it is the Bible revelation that is honest and
ethical about this truth of origins! Ec 3:11 He hath made everything
beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so
that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning
to the end. The truth is that we do not know factually how creation
occurred nor is how it sustained itself, all we have is our
revelations and the faith we place in them. For the evolutionist it is
the conjecture or theory or opinion of a part of the scientific
community, for me as a Christian it is the revelation of scriptures.
What we a left with at this time is a preponderance of the evidence
and not a conviction do to fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Lu 11:9
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall
find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Yes often both sides
are disingenuous when they claim to have the complete truth unless
they honestly state that they have it by faith! Heb 11:1 � Now faith
is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Much criticism has been placed on the scriptures for light being in
existence before the sun can you as educated scientist explain this
scriptural dilemma for me as I suppose this is one of the many reasons
men reject the revelation of scripture when I believe that the
scriptures are the revelation of true science! Ge 1:3 � And God said,
Let there be light: and there was light. What does this reveal about
the physics of light? Ge 1:16 And God made two great lights; the
greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
he made the stars also. Ge 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of
the heaven to give light upon the earth, Ge 1:18 And to rule over the
day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and
God saw that it was good. Ge 1:19 And the evening and the morning were
the fourth day. thebibilicalview.com
Bob T.
> Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get free time
It would save some of your "free time" if you only made each post one
time.
- Bob T.
Ernest Major
<9daed537-1334-4146...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
George <gbur...@twcny.rr.com> writes
>Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
>free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
>appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
>to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence. I only see
>conjecture which is fine where a person looks to speculate his
>imagination or his faith. Lu 1:51 He hath shewed strength with his
>arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
As I said before, paragraph breaks are our friends.
Beyond that, did you mean to condemn yourself with your own words?
>However, I am seeking the truth and it will not do to speculate the
>imagination and say it is the truth until a better speculation arises
>when we are looking for the truth!
You are bearing false witness. That is not a fair characterisation of
science. (An inference is more than a speculation.) You are also at
least flirting with epistemological nihilism.
> Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the
>truth, and the truth shall make you free.
> The biggest problem that I
>have with evolution and most evolutionists is the great lack of moral
>integrity regarding fact and opinion.
You are still bearing false witness. You might also like to do something
about that beam in your eye.
> De 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear
>false witness against thy neighbour. But, then if evolutionists have
>reject the holiness and integrity of God who must be required to be
>moral or ethical?
You are continuing to bear false witness. The factuality of common
descent with modification through the agency of natural selection and
other processes is accepted by scientists of most religions and none,
including the majority of branches of Christianity.
> It is not ethical to give a theory, opinion, or
>imagination and to present it as a fact, or imply it as a fact.
You really ought to do something about that beam in your eye.
> Ro
>10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
>God. As a Christian I admit that I live by faith because I do not have
>all the facts! Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God
>revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by
>faith. Did you know that it is the Bible revelation that is honest and
>ethical about this truth of origins! Ec 3:11 He hath made everything
>beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so
>that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning
>to the end. The truth is that we do not know factually how creation
>occurred nor is how it sustained itself, all we have is our
>revelations and the faith we place in them.
You're flirting with nihilism again. We have evidence.
> For the evolutionist it is
>the conjecture or theory or opinion of a part of the scientific
>community, for me as a Christian it is the revelation of scriptures.
And you're still bearing false witness. What "evolutionists" have faith
in is that evidence means something. For Christians who accept the
factuality of common descent, you could rephrase this as faith that God
is not lying to them.
>What we a left with at this time is a preponderance of the evidence
>and not a conviction do to fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
We haven't seen any reason to suspect that you are familiar with the
evidence, and therefore entitled to make the above statement. The
factuality of common descent is beyond reasonable doubt; if you wasn't
for demonstrations to the contrary I would be tempted to say that it's
beyond unreasonable doubt.
> Lu 11:9
>And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall
>find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Yes often both sides
>are disingenuous when they claim to have the complete truth unless
>they honestly state that they have it by faith! Heb 11:1 � Now faith
>is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
>Much criticism has been placed on the scriptures for light being in
>existence before the sun can you as educated scientist explain this
>scriptural dilemma for me as I suppose this is one of the many reasons
>men reject the revelation of scripture when I believe that the
>scriptures are the revelation of true science! Ge 1:3 � And God said,
>Let there be light: and there was light. What does this reveal about
>the physics of light? Ge 1:16 And God made two great lights; the
>greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
>he made the stars also. Ge 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of
>the heaven to give light upon the earth, Ge 1:18 And to rule over the
>day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and
>God saw that it was good. Ge 1:19 And the evening and the morning were
>the fourth day. thebibilicalview.com
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Davej
> Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
> free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
> appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
> to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence. I only see
> conjecture which is fine where a person looks to speculate his
As a member of the ministry why do you feel you deserve any specific
facts? Your entire livelihood depends on the promotion of fear,
uncertainty, and doubt and you would probably seek to misuse,
misquote, or corrupt any specific information offered to you. Don't
you already have all the answers?
el cid
> ... The biggest problem that I
> have with evolution and most evolutionists is the great lack of moral
> integrity regarding fact and opinion.
You, sir, have asserted something about "most" evolutionists.
Do you regard this as opinion or fact? What is your basis
for this assertion?
Would you rather restate it with some more precise
wording now that I focus on it?
I have a problem with creationists who throw together an
undisciplined collection of assertions, few of which
they ever bother to support. Now I don't assert that all
creationists do this but I've noted that a large number
have stopped by talk.origins to do this very thing and
then tend to leave, having resolved nothing. I'd be happy
to give you a chance to distinguish yourself as better
so I'm keeping it simple and direct. Provide better
context for the above assertion. Show clarity of thought.
Louann Miller
6797d7...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
> free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
> appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
> to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence.
There you go again, multiple-posting the same material under different
threads. I tell you, this is rude.
It is also rude, I mention becuase you genuinely may not know, to post a
question and ignore the answers. The usual format for this group (and all
of usenet) is to continue a discussion in one thread until it concludes
or (grin) breaks down into a series of puns.
Argument by Bible quote doesn't work here. You immediately start getting
replies asking (a) why your sacred text, rather than somebody else's _or
nobody's_ should be given unquestioning credence. And people will really
want to know the answer. There will also be (b) people asking why given
that you have the right sacred text, your _interpretation_ of it should
be the one given unquestioning credence. Asked by people who want to hear
an answer, and who can explain in some detail why "I'm not interpreting
it, I'm just reading it absolutely literally" won't fly.
You probably remember the fairy tale of 'The Emperor's New Clothes,'
where the hero is a child who blurts out the blunt truth which everyone
else is pretending to ignore. And the part of "The Wizard of Oz" where
Toto pulls back the curtain to reveal that the huge, terrifying wizard is
only a con man with a loudspeaker. These are our heroes. Expect us to
give unquestioning credence to ANYTHING (as opposed to strenuously
questioning something and then giving reasoned assent when it has good
answers) and you are so, so in the wrong crowd.
Augray
<gbur...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in
<9daed537-1334-4146...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com> :
>Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
>free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
>appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
>to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence.
Are you claiming that there would be no energy available in the
environment to sustain life?
[snip]
That's actually www.thebiblicalview.com
raven1
>Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
>free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days.
Think you can find the time to break your posts down into paragraphs?
Your formatting makes them nearly impossible to read.
richardal...@googlemail.com
I suggest that rather than simply posting and disappearing, you
respond to some of the thoughtful responses which have been made to
your previous posts. That way we'll know that you are not simply
posting to gain credits on some silly creationist "education" course,
or simply trolling.
RF
Grandbank
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 07:02:31 -0800 (PST), George
>
> >Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
> >free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days.
>
> Think you can find the time to break your posts down into paragraphs?
> Your formatting makes them nearly impossible to read.
Sloppy writing / sloppy thinking.
KP
Burkhard
> Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
> free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days.
Does your ministry have religious objections against the use of
paragraphs?If not, it helps believers and unbelievers alike to read a
text
It
> appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
> to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence. I only see
> conjecture which is fine where a person looks to speculate his
> imagination or his faith. Lu 1:51 He hath shewed strength with his
> arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
> However, I am seeking the truth and it will not do to speculate the
> imagination and say it is the truth until a better speculation arises
> when we are looking for the truth!
Then you are not interested in science. That is what science, every
science, does: collect the available evidence, develop a theory tah
explains the evidence, test and modify the theory if better explanations
or more data comes along
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the
> truth, and the truth shall make you free. The biggest problem that I
> have with evolution and most evolutionists is the great lack of moral
> integrity regarding fact and opinion. De 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear
> false witness against thy neighbour.
These two sentences seem to contradict each other. In the first you make
an unsupported allegation (bearing false witness)
But, then if evolutionists have
> reject the holiness and integrity of God who must be required to be
> moral or ethical? It is not ethical to give a theory, opinion, or
> imagination and to present it as a fact, or imply it as a fact.
No serious scientist does. The theory of evolution is an extremely well
supported theory that explains certain facts. Facts and theories are
categorically different entities.
Ro
> 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
> God. As a Christian I admit that I live by faith because I do not have
> all the facts!
Yep, I would wholeheartedly agree with that. Some of course have fewer
facts than others....
Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God
> revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by
> faith. Did you know that it is the Bible revelation that is honest and
> ethical about this truth of origins!
Well, that would be subject to debate. So far you have asserted, not
argued.
Ec 3:11 He hath made everything
> beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so
> that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning
> to the end. The truth is that we do not know factually how creation
> occurred nor is how it sustained itself, all we have is our
> revelations and the faith we place in them. For the evolutionist it is
> the conjecture or theory or opinion of a part of the scientific
> community, for me as a Christian it is the revelation of scriptures.
> What we a left with at this time is a preponderance of the evidence
> and not a conviction do to fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
Preponderance of evidence and beyond reasonable doubt are legal terms
that make sense in a legal setting only. I fail to see how they can
apply here. Generally, scientists accept those theories that are better
supported by the evidence than their competitor theories. This means of
course also that some scientific theories are better supported/less
likely to fail than others.
Lu 11:9
> And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall
> find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Yes often both sides
> are disingenuous when they claim to have the complete truth unless
> they honestly state that they have it by faith!
Well, scientists don't. All scientific knowledge is conjectural and open
tot revision in the light of better evidence/better theories. So you
need to talk to your own folks about this.
Heb 11:1 � Now faith
> is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
> Much criticism has been placed on the scriptures for light being in
> existence before the sun can you as educated scientist explain this
> scriptural dilemma for me as I suppose this is one of the many reasons
> men reject the revelation of scripture when I believe that the
> scriptures are the revelation of true science!
Then you have an inconsistent belief set. Only you can remedy that, not
science.
Ge 1:3 � And God said,
> Let there be light: and there was light. What does this reveal about
> the physics of light?
Not a lot, I'd say
Ge 1:16 And God made two great lights; the
> greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
> he made the stars also. Ge 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of
> the heaven to give light upon the earth, Ge 1:18 And to rule over the
> day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and
> God saw that it was good. Ge 1:19 And the evening and the morning were
> the fourth day. thebibilicalview.com
>
Yes, of course the moon is not a light in its own right.
VoiceOfReason
Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. It's mostly US-based
evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
All-seeing-I
U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
If evolution is ever to gain any respect with christians then the
evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
Evolution is NOT biblical
Bible version:
God "created" man "from" the dust of the ground and blew life into his
nosterals
Evolution's version
Man evolved from an ape
Bible version:
God created the animals
Evolutions version:
Everything evolved from a single molecule
See the difference?
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 2, 10:45�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> Massive false dichotomy. �Religion and evolution are not opposites.
>> Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. �It's mostly US-based
>> evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>
>U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
Biblical literalists clearly don't.
Bob T.
> On Dec 2, 10:45�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > Massive false dichotomy. �Religion and evolution are not opposites.
> > Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. �It's mostly US-based
> > evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>
> U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
Well, you are certainly an expert on bullshit.
>
> If evolution is ever to gain any respect with christians then the
> evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
>
> Evolution is NOT biblical
Indeed it is not. Nor, of course, are geology, physics and chemistry,
or any other science. It's almost as if the Bible were a religious
document, not a scientific one.
>
> Bible version:
> God "created" man "from" the dust of the ground and blew life into his
> nosterals
>
> Evolution's version
> Man evolved from an ape
Actually, we are apes, just as we are mammals and vertebrates.
>
> Bible version:
> God created the animals
>
> Evolutions version:
> Everything evolved from a single molecule
>
> See the difference?
Of course I see the difference - the Bible is mythology and evolution
is a fact.
- Bob T.
Friar Broccoli
> Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as
> I get free time so I apologize if I can only post on various
> days. It appears to me that no one has answered my post with
> specific facts as to how life sustained itself after the moment
> of existence.
That's because we don't know. If we said we knew we would be
bearing false witness. There are lots of things we do know,
such as:
- people and chimps are close cousins with a common ancestor
that lived about 6 million years ago.
Would you like to see some of the supporting evidence?
> I only see conjecture which is fine where a person
> looks to speculate his imagination or his faith.
> Lu 1:51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered
> the proud in the imagination of their hearts. However, I am
> seeking the truth and it will not do to speculate the
> imagination and say it is the truth until a better speculation
> arises when we are looking for the truth! Joh 8:32 And ye shall
> know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
.
> The biggest problem that I have with evolution and most
> evolutionists is the great lack of moral integrity regarding
> fact and opinion. De 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness
> against thy neighbour. But, then if evolutionists have reject
> the holiness and integrity of God who must be required to be
> moral or ethical? It is not ethical to give a theory, opinion,
> or imagination and to present it as a fact, or imply it as a
> fact.
But we don't know the facts about how the earliest life forms
sustained themselves, so we presented no misrepresentation
on that question.
However, assuming only that God and Nature are not lying to us
we can state that COMMON DESCENT IS A FACT, and we can provide
you with the evidence if you are interested.
Would you like to see some evidence?
> Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by
> the word of God. As a Christian I admit that I live by faith
> because I do not have all the facts! Ro 1:17 For therein is the
> righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is
> written, The just shall live by faith. Did you know that it is
> the Bible revelation that is honest and ethical about this truth
> of origins! Ec 3:11 He hath made everything beautiful in his
> time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man
> can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the
> end. The truth is that we do not know factually how creation
> occurred nor is how it sustained itself, all we have is our
> revelations and the faith we place in them.
>
>
> For the evolutionist it is the conjecture or theory or opinion
> of a part of the scientific community, for me as a Christian it
> is the revelation of scriptures. What we a left with at this
> time is a preponderance of the evidence and not a conviction do
> to fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
The EVIDENCE for evolution is so compelling that it can be
denied only on the basis of UNreasonable doubt. Would you like
to see some evidence?
> Lu 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you;
> seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
> Yes often both sides are disingenuous when they claim to have
> the complete truth unless they honestly state that they have it
> by faith!
No scientist will ever tell you he has the "complete truth"
which is part of the reason no one here tried to tell you the
truth about how primordial life sustained itself.
> Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
> evidence of things not seen. Much criticism has been placed on
> the scriptures for light being in existence before the sun can
> you as educated scientist explain this scriptural dilemma for me
> as I suppose this is one of the many reasons men reject the
> revelation of scripture when I believe that the scriptures are
> the revelation of true science!
>
>
> Ge 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> What does this reveal about the physics of light? Ge 1:16 And
> God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day,
> and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
> Ge 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give
> light upon the earth, Ge 1:18 And to rule over the day and over
> the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God
> saw that it was good. Ge 1:19 And the evening and the morning
> were the fourth day. thebibilicalview.com
And all this happened billions of years ago.
Would you like to know the evidence that allows me to make that
assertion?
Friar Broccoli
> On Dec 2, 10:45�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > Massive false dichotomy. �Religion and evolution are not opposites.
> > Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. �It's mostly US-based
> > evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>
> U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
>
> If evolution is ever to gain any respect with christians then the
> evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
>
> Evolution is NOT biblical
>
> Bible version:
> God "created" man "from" the dust of the ground and blew life into his
> nosterals
God "created" man using evolution.
All life begins "from" dust.
Blowing life into man is clearly a metaphor unless
you are asserting that God has lungs.
> Evolution's version
> Man evolved from an ape
No conflict.
> Bible version:
> God created the animals
using evolution
> Evolutions version:
> Everything evolved from a single molecule
This statement is nonsense.
> See the difference?
You imagine a difference that is not there.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Dec 2, 10:45�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > Massive false dichotomy. �Religion and evolution are not opposites.
> > Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. �It's mostly US-based
> > evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>
> U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
...yes, and over 12,000 of them signed the Clergy Letter.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
What do you know about Christianity that all those Christian clergy
don't?
>
> If evolution is ever to gain any respect with christians then the
> evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
No scientist has *ever* tried to "insert evolution into the bible". It
is the insistence of creationists that their crabbed, "literal"
interpretation of the Bible should be treated as science and taught as
science in science classes. They fail to gain any respect because they
are incapable of promoting their cause without deep and systematic
dishonesty.
>
> Evolution is NOT biblical
No scientist ever claimed that it is.
>
> Bible version:
> God "created" man "from" the dust of the ground and blew life into his
> nosterals
>
> Evolution's version
> Man evolved from an ape
No, man is an ape, most closely related to Pan.
>
> Bible version:
> God created the animals
>
> Evolutions version:
> Everything evolved from a single molecule
No, because
1) Abiogenesis is not evolution and
2) No scientist has ever proposed that abiogenesis started with a
single molecule.
RF
>
> See the difference?
Roaming Rider
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 5:17�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > If evolution is ever to gain any respect with christians then the
> > evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
>
> No scientist has *ever* tried to "insert evolution into the bible". It
> is the insistence of creationists that their crabbed, "literal"
> interpretation of the Bible should be treated as science and taught as
> science in science classes. They fail to gain any respect because they
> are incapable of promoting their cause without deep and systematic
> dishonesty.
>
>
>
> > Evolution is NOT biblical
>
> No scientist ever claimed that it is.
>
Are you sure about that?
In the Bible, snakes had first legs and now they don't. Isn't that
what evolutionary biologists also have inferred? ;-)
/RR
Mike Dworetsky
> On Dec 2, 12:17 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 10:45 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Massive false dichotomy. Religion and evolution are not opposites.
>>> Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. It's mostly US-based
>>> evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>>
>> U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
>>
>> If evolution is ever to gain any respect with christians then the
>> evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
>>
>> Evolution is NOT biblical
>>
>> Bible version:
>> God "created" man "from" the dust of the ground and blew life into
>> his nosterals
>
> God "created" man using evolution.
> All life begins "from" dust.
> Blowing life into man is clearly a metaphor unless
> you are asserting that God has lungs.
Eagerly awaiting clarification of ASI's metaphor filter for Biblical
passages. So far it seems to be, "It's a metaphor if I say it is."
>> Evolution's version
>> Man evolved from an ape
>
> No conflict.
>
>
>> Bible version:
>> God created the animals
>
> using evolution
>
>> Evolutions version:
>> Everything evolved from a single molecule
>
> This statement is nonsense.
>
>> See the difference?
>
> You imagine a difference that is not there.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Mike Dworetsky
As the man said, paragraphs are your friend. Not just little � symbols.
> Much criticism has been placed on the scriptures for light being in
> existence before the sun can you as educated scientist explain this
> scriptural dilemma for me as I suppose this is one of the many reasons
Sure. Light existed ever since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. The
Sun did not form until 4.56 billion years ago.
> men reject the revelation of scripture when I believe that the
> scriptures are the revelation of true science!
Well, you have a problem for yourself there if you believe that. I think
the Bible is a sort of poetic metaphor about our relationship to other
humans, to other life, and to the Universe, and definitely *not* a science
text.
Ge 1:3 � And God said,
> Let there be light: and there was light. What does this reveal about
> the physics of light?
It shows that light comes from many sources, not just the Sun.
Ge 1:16 And God made two great lights; the
> greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
> he made the stars also.
We now know that the Moon (the lesser light) shines only by reflected
sunlight, so it isn't a source of light but only a reflector.
Some stars formed before, and others after, the Sun. We now know stars are
much more important in the Universe than the Moon. But back when the
creation myths were being written down, the priests did not know that. It's
a very anthropocentric text.
Ge 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of
> the heaven to give light upon the earth, Ge 1:18 And to rule over the
> day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and
> God saw that it was good.
Good. Well, yes, because otherwise we would all be stumbling around and
tripping over stuff.
Ge 1:19 And the evening and the morning were
> the fourth day. thebibilicalview.com
If there was no one around to see it, who were the eyewitnesses to creation
on days 1-4?
Dana Tweedy
> Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
> free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days.
May I suggest that paragraphs are your friend?
? It
> appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
> to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence.
That's incorrect. Several persons, including myself gave you that.
>I only see
> conjecture which is fine where a person looks to speculate his
> imagination or his faith. Lu 1:51 He hath shewed strength with his
> arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
> However, I am seeking the truth and it will not do to speculate the
> imagination and say it is the truth until a better speculation arises
> when we are looking for the truth!
It appears you aren't looking for "the truth" but only what you will accept.
> Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the
> truth, and the truth shall make you free. The biggest problem that I
> have with evolution and most evolutionists is the great lack of moral
> integrity regarding fact and opinion.
Pot kettle black moment.
> De 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear
> false witness against thy neighbour. But, then if evolutionists have
> reject the holiness and integrity of God who must be required to be
> moral or ethical?
This is entirely irrelevant to the science of evolution. In any case, many
people who accept evolution also believe in the "holiness and integrity of
God". More to the point, people can be moral, and have integrity without
believing in God, or gods.
>It is not ethical to give a theory, opinion, or
> imagination and to present it as a fact, or imply it as a fact.
Evolution is a fact, not just opinion, or imagination. "Theory" in science
means something quite different than in common use.
> Ro
> 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
> God. As a Christian I admit that I live by faith because I do not have
> all the facts!
But science isn't like that. One doesn't have to have "all" the facts to
know something about the situtation. In science, faith is irrelevant, as
all ideas must be backed up by evidence.
> Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God
> revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by
> faith. Did you know that it is the Bible revelation that is honest and
> ethical about this truth of origins!
The "Bible revelation" is a religious belief, not a "truth".
> Ec 3:11 He hath made everything
> beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so
> that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning
> to the end. The truth is that we do not know factually how creation
> occurred nor is how it sustained itself, all we have is our
> revelations and the faith we place in them.
Well, no. We have evidence and theoretical constructs that explain that
evidence. In science, faith is not an issue.
> For the evolutionist it is
> the conjecture or theory or opinion of a part of the scientific
> community, for me as a Christian it is the revelation of scriptures.
Again, in science "theory" does not mean conjecture, or guesses. A theory
is a overall construct that explains and coordinates a collection of
observations. "Revelation of scriptures" is a religious belief, is not
testable, not falsifiable, and not open to investigation. It's an
intellectual dead end.
> What we a left with at this time is a preponderance of the evidence
> and not a conviction do to fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
Evolution is a fact, accepted by scientists beyond any reasonable doubt.
The theory of evolution is what explains this fact.
> Lu 11:9
> And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall
> find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Yes often both sides
> are disingenuous when they claim to have the complete truth unless
> they honestly state that they have it by faith!
Science never claims to have the "complete truth". All that can be
accheived is a close approximation, based on the available evidence.
Again, faith is enitrely irrelevant to science. No scientist takes their
work on faith. All of it has to be supported by evidence.
> Heb 11:1 � Now faith
> is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Which is why it's useless for science.
> Much criticism has been placed on the scriptures for light being in
> existence before the sun can you as educated scientist explain this
> scriptural dilemma for me as I suppose this is one of the many reasons
> men reject the revelation of scripture when I believe that the
> scriptures are the revelation of true science!
The "revelation of scripture" is not considered science because it doesn't
match the evidence. You can believe what you want, but unless you can show
evidence, no one is going to take you seriously.
> Ge 1:3 � And God said,
> Let there be light: and there was light. What does this reveal about
> the physics of light?
Nothing. It wasn't meant to.
> Ge 1:16 And God made two great lights; the
> greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
However the moon has no light of it's own. It only reflects light from the
sun.
> he made the stars also.
The stars are millions, and billions of light years away. Why create
stars that won't become visible for a long time, if the Earth is only a few
thousand years old?
> Ge 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of
> the heaven to give light upon the earth, Ge 1:18 And to rule over the
> day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and
> God saw that it was good. Ge 1:19 And the evening and the morning were
> the fourth day. thebibilicalview.com
Quoting bible verses isn't a way to conduct a scientific discussion.
DJT
TomS
<9daed537-1334-4146...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, George
stated..."
>
>Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
>free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
>appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
>to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence. I only see
>conjecture which is fine where a person looks to speculate his
>imagination or his faith. Lu 1:51 He hath shewed strength with his
I notice that you have answered your own question.
How did life sustain itself after the first moment of existence?
If you don't have an answer to that question, then you have no
right to complain about others not answering it.
Actually, if people make conjectures, then they do better than you,
for you don't even have a conjecture.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 2, 10:45 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> Massive false dichotomy. Religion and evolution are not opposites.
>> Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. It's mostly US-based
>> evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>
> U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
Which is why many reject creationism.
>
> If evolution is ever to gain any respect with christians then the
> evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
No one is trying to insert evolution into the Bible. The Bible is
religion, evolution is science.
>
> Evolution is NOT biblical
So what? Neither is physics, or chemistry.
>
> Bible version:
> God "created" man "from" the dust of the ground and blew life into his
> nosterals
Which can be seen as a metaphor, if one wishes. If humans are created from
the "dust of the ground" directly, they would be primarily silicon and
aluminum. If they developed from the Earth, by natural processes, then
there's no problem.
>
> Evolution's version
> Man evolved from an ape
Apes are just the most recent common ancestor. All life came from the
Earth, by natural processes.
>
>
> Bible version:
> God created the animals
And why can't God create by evolution?
>
> Evolutions version:
> Everything evolved from a single molecule
No one claims that everything evovled from a "single molecule". Every
modern life form evolved from a common ancestor, which was made up of many
different molecules.
>
>
> See the difference?
Yes, Evolution is a scientific theory. The Bible presents mythical
accounts, which can be seen as metaphorical.
DJT
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 10:45�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > Massive false dichotomy. �Religion and evolution are not opposites.
> > Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. �It's mostly US-based
> > evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
> U.S. christians (sic) know bullshit when they smell it too.
Yes, but they believe it anyhow.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Ye Old One
>On Dec 2, 10:45�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> Massive false dichotomy. �Religion and evolution are not opposites.
>> Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. �It's mostly US-based
>> evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>
>U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
>
>If evolution is ever to gain any respect with christians then the
>evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
The bible has nothing to do with science. Most christians accept
evolution.
>
>Evolution is NOT biblical
Thank Darwin for that.
>
>Bible version:
>God "created" man "from" the dust of the ground and blew life into his
>nosterals
Totally ridiculous.
>
>Evolution's version
>Man evolved from an ape
No, man is an ape. Man evolved, along with the other apes.
>
>
>Bible version:
>God created the animals
Totally harpic.
>
>Evolutions version:
>Everything evolved from a single molecule
Oh no, you need far more than one molecule.
>
>
>See the difference?
I see that you are an idiot.
--
Bob.
You are depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
Desertphile
<gbur...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> Due to many responsibilities of the ministry....
Robbing people and keeping them superstitious, fearful, and
ignorant is a "responsibility?"
Will in New Haven
Sure:
Evolution version: supported by evidence that any educated person can
see and.
Bible version: Supported because it SAYS so. The only evidence being
internal to the document.
Very clear dichotomy.
--
Will in New Haven
Eric Root
>
> > Massive false dichotomy. �Religion and evolution are not opposites.
> > Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. �It's mostly US-based
> > evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>
> U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
Which is why we reject creationism and Biblical literalism.
>
> If evolution is ever to gain any respect with christians
It already has great respect among Christians. The only people who
have a beef with it disrespect creation and are really book-
worshipping idolators.
> then the
> evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
>
The idea that we insert evolution into the Bible is as stupid as the
ideea we insert chemistry into the Bible.
> Evolution is NOT biblical
>
So what? Neither is gravity or germ theory.
> Bible version:
> God "created" man "from" the dust of the ground and blew life into his
> nosterals
>
So what? Not relevant to the scientific evidence.
> Evolution's version
> Man evolved from an ape
>
> Bible version:
> God created the animals
>
> Evolutions version:
> Everything evolved from a single molecule
>
> See the difference?
So what? the Bible is wrong about lots of stuff to do with the
physical world. Doesn't mean it's not valuable as a religious book.
Eric Root
Eric Root
>
(snip)
�Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the
> truth, and the truth shall make you free. The biggest problem that I
> have with evolution and most evolutionists is the great lack of moral
> integrity regarding fact and opinion.
And that lack of moral integrity is on the part of creationsts, who
constantly dishonestly pretend that the evidence for evolution soesn't
count, and that it is just opinion. It is lack or integrity regarding
fact and opinion that drives many normal Christians away from
fundamentalism.
> De 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear
> false witness against thy neighbour.
Which is why you shouldn't pretend that evolution has anything to do
with atheism, that people that accept evolution are less more than the
crackpots that deny it. All are bearing false witness.
> But, then if evolutionists have
> reject the holiness and integrity of God who must be required to be
> moral or ethical?
But many engineers, plumbers, and feedlot management consultants also
reject the holiness and integrity of God. Isn't it dishonest of you
to especially select out evolutionists to pick on?
> It is not ethical to give a theory, opinion, or
> imagination and to present it as a fact,
Which is one reason people who accept evolution are more honorable and
honest and worthwhile as people than those who reject it. There is
vast amounts of evidence for evolution and not really any for
creationism. The opinions of thousands of experts who are studying it
today vastly trumps the what-somebody-said what-somebody-said what-
somebody-said some pre-scientific folks with no expertise at all said.
> or imply it as a fact. Ro
> 10:17 �So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
> God. As a Christian I admit that I live by faith because I do not have
> all the facts!
me too! And evolution is some of the facts! And the idea that
evolution isn't true is not a fact at all!
> Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God
> revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by
> faith. Did you know that it is the Bible revelation that is honest and
> ethical about this truth of origins!
Insofar as nobody tries to use it as an excuse to reject chemistry,
physics, or evolution.
> Ec 3:11 He hath made everything
> beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so
> that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning
> to the end. The truth is that we do not know factually how creation
> occurred nor is how it sustained itself, all we have is our
> revelations and the faith we place in them.
But we know it was billions of years ago, and that evolution played a
part in it.
> For the evolutionist it is
> the conjecture or theory or opinion of a part of the scientific
> community,
Nearly all of the scientific community, except for a less-than-one-
percent lunatic fringe.
> for me as a Christian it is the revelation of scriptures.
for me as a Christian, it is what the world reveals about itself,
since it is a more direct communication from God than a book that has
passed through so many hands.
> What we a left with at this time is a preponderance of the evidence
> and not a conviction do to fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is honest of you to admit the preponderance of evidence. And that
is all that is required of science.
>� Lu 11:9
> And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall
> find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. �
You knock by doing research.
> Yes often both sides
> are disingenuous when they claim to have the complete truth unless
> they honestly state that they have it by faith!
Science always admits it doesn't have the complete truth.
Brian
>On Dec 2, 10:45�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> Massive false dichotomy. �Religion and evolution are not opposites.
>> Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. �It's mostly US-based
>> evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>
>U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
They certainly do, that's why most of them reject creationist
clap-trap for the dishonest stinking pile that it is.
>If evolution is ever to gain any respect with christians then the
>evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
>
>Evolution is NOT biblical
If evolution was biblical we'd know beyond any reasonable doubt that
it was wrong; dishonest, ignorant bronze age goat herders do not
scientists make.
>Bible version:
>God "created" man "from" the dust of the ground and blew life into his
>nosterals
That's the thing about fiction, the author(s) can make the protagonist
do anything they like.
>Evolution's version
>Man evolved from an ape
Human beings are apes.
>Bible version:
>God created the animals
That's the thing about fiction, the author(s) can make the protagonist
do anything they like.
>Evolutions version:
>Everything evolved from a single molecule
Just one?
>See the difference?
Absolutely! Fairy tales about space daddies versus reality.
bpuharic
<gbur...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
>free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
>appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
>to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence.
because this is a god of the gaps argument.
I only see
>conjecture which is fine where a person looks to speculate his
>imagination or his faith
that's what happens when you ask god of the gaps questions.
you creationists pretend that, because science doesn't have ALL the
answers, it has NO answers.
that's dishonest.
Lu 1:51 He hath shewed strength with his
>arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
>However, I am seeking the truth and it will not do to speculate the
>imagination
sure you do. you say 'god did it'. that's a lie.
and say it is the truth until a better speculation arises
>when we are looking for the truth! Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the
>truth, and the truth shall make you free. The biggest problem that I
>have with evolution and most evolutionists is the great lack of moral
>integrity regarding fact and opinion
now let's see....
you ask a question. you get, as you say, SPECULATION, then you accuse
us of being dishonest
uh...why?
oh. because you're a taliban christian and want to replace science
with religion
.. De 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear
>false witness against thy neighbour. But, then if evolutionists have
>reject the holiness and integrity of God who must be required to be
>moral or ethical? It is not ethical to give a theory, opinion, or
>imagination and to present it as a fact,
hey idiot. you yourself said you got SPECULATION. NOW you say we
presented it as fact
do you read your own stuff? because you just contradicted yourself
or imply it as a fact. Ro
>10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
>God. As a Christian I admit that I live by faith because I do not have
>all the facts!
but you say it's a fact god created the earth in 6 days
you just contradicted yourself
Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God
>revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by
>faith. Did you know that it is the Bible revelation that is honest and
>ethical about this truth of origins!
so you say you have the facts...then you say you don't
you j ust contradicted yourself
Ec 3:11 He hath made everything
>beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so
>that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning
>to the end. The truth is that we do not know factually how creation
>occurred nor is how it sustained itself, all we have is our
>revelations and the faith we place in them
first you say scientists SPECULATE about how life got started
THEN you say we present this as fact
that's a contradiction
and evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis
you don't even know THAT FACT
creationism is useless
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 2, 10:45�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> Massive false dichotomy. �Religion and evolution are not opposites.
>> Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. �It's mostly US-based
>> evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>
>U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
if this was true creationism would be science. it aint.
for 2000 years it aint
>
>If evolution is ever to gain any respect with christians then the
>evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
no one cares what your view of christians is. you don't speak for all
of them
and no one is inserting it into the bible except you.
>
>Evolution is NOT biblical
in your opinion
>
>Bible version:
>God "created" man "from" the dust of the ground and blew life into his
>nosterals
>
>Evolution's version
>Man evolved from an ape
via god breathing life into the dust of the earth
looks biblical to me
>
>
>Bible version:
>God created the animals
>
>Evolutions version:
>Everything evolved from a single molecule
god created animals by evolution from a single molecule
>
>
>See the difference?
yeah. you're wrong.
sorry
magicus
> Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
<snip>
Obviously you don't get it.
I deleted most of your post as it was a massive object of inanity. Others
have graciously pointed out the insanity of posting the way that you do.
They are being quite kind, instructing you thusly. I can't be bothered to
read any further so welcome to my killfile. I am primarily a lurker here
and having to parse what you are posting is, quite frankly, not worth my
time.
<plonk>
Have a nice lifetime...
ciao,
f
--
aa #2301
If you can't handle reality, it *will* handle you.
Sapient Fridge
<9daed537-1334-4146...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
George <gbur...@twcny.rr.com> writes
>Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
>appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
>to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence.
We don't know for sure, so it can never be presented as fact. What can
be presented is probable scenarios which can then be tested for
feasibility.
What does creationism offer?
> I only see
>conjecture which is fine where a person looks to speculate his
>imagination or his faith.
Religion is certainty *without* evidence, science is probability *with*
evidence. The way to disprove a scientific hypothesis or theory is by
providing evidence that is wrong. That's how science progresses.
Where is your evidence?
<snip>
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Mark Isaak
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 07:02:31 -0800 (PST), George <gbur...@twcny.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
>>free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days.
>
> Think you can find the time to break your posts down into paragraphs?
> Your formatting makes them nearly impossible to read.
Quotation marks, where appropriate, would help greatly, too. As your
posts are, you give the impression that you want NOT to communicate.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Greg G.
VoiceOfReason
>
> > Massive false dichotomy. �Religion and evolution are not opposites.
> > Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. �It's mostly US-based
> > evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>
> U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
Hence the American Christians who reject the stupidity of creationism.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
> If evolution is ever to gain any respect with christians then the
> evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
>
> Evolution is NOT biblical
>
> Bible version:
> God "created" man "from" the dust of the ground and blew life into his
> nosterals
>
> Evolution's version
> Man evolved from an ape
>
> Bible version:
> God created the animals
>
> Evolutions version:
> Everything evolved from a single molecule
>
> See the difference?
Yes, the difference is you have a literalist view of the Bible
suitable only for kindergarten class. Most Christians moved past that
point a long time ago.
SkyEyes
> Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
> free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
> appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
> to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence.
Oh, indeed they have. It appears that you are using the creationist's
primary weapon, willful ignorance. Please go back and read our
responses. Then do the gentlemanly thing, and respond to us.
> I only see
> conjecture which is fine where a person looks to speculate his
> imagination or his faith.
1. That's because you haven't read our responses for comprehension.
2. Faith has *nothing* to do with it.
> Lu 1:51 He hath shewed strength with his
> arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
> However, I am seeking the truth
No you're not, George, or you would have replied to at least *one* of
our posts in the other threads you started.
What you are doing - and we *all* know it - is Lying For Jesus. I'm
hip to it. When I was an itty-bitty Baptist and born-again christian,
I used to do it, too.
> and it will not do to speculate the
> imagination and say it is the truth until a better speculation arises
> when we are looking for the truth!
You would be well advised to be less interested in "truth" and more
interested in "fact."
"Truth" is information with a psychological component. Everybody is
selling their rap as "truth." You. The Scientologists. The
Muslims. The Mormons. The Raelians. And there are many, many more.
*Fact*, on the other hand, is straightforward: it a unit of knowledge
that is subject to verification for accuracy. It is a *fact* that
life forms on earth evolve, just like it is a *fact* that the earth
orbits the sun and it is a *fact* that gravity makes stuff fall down
instead of up.
Facts are your friends.
> �Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the
> truth, and the truth shall make you free. The biggest problem that I
> have with evolution and most evolutionists is the great lack of moral
> integrity regarding fact and opinion.
Funny you should mention it, but it was the *utter* lack of moral
integrity that first drove me away from (in order): the Baptist
church --> Fundamentalism --> Christianity in general --> all
organized religion.
And once I got to that point, it was simple to ask the question, "What
evidence is there that *any* god exists?" Answer: "None at all."
So what is it you think "evolutionists" (a pejorative term, by the
way) are doing or saying that demonstrates their/our lack of moral
integrity?
> De 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear
> false witness against thy neighbour.
And yet you are bearing false witness against us right now, by not
reading and responding to the answers we gave you, point-by-point, in
the first couple of posts. You, sir, are a hypocrite of the First
Water.
> But, then if evolutionists have
> reject the holiness and integrity of God who must be required to be
> moral or ethical?
It's like this, George: to you have *any* objective, verifiable
evidence - and bible verses do *not* count - that any god exists? If
so, please post it here:
Humans are not moral and ethical because they think a God is watching
them. (Well, okay, there are some people like that, but I try to stay
as far away from them as I possibly can because they're psychopaths.)
Humans have a tendency to behave morally because we are social
animals, and having and adhering to a social code makes living in a
big group safer and more pleasant, and contributes to the survival of
the gene pool. Other social animals have rudimentary moral codes,
including gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and wolves. I'm sure there are
more; those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head.
> It is not ethical to give a theory, opinion, or
> imagination and to present it as a fact, or imply it as a fact.
Evolution *is* a fact. It has been observed in the wild and in the
laboratory. It is going on around you every single day.
> Ro
> 10:17 �So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
> God.
Well George, those words were written in a simpler time. Now we have
a better way of knowing: it's called *science*. I do not believe
something someone tells me unless s/he has evidence to back up her/his
claim. During bible times, everyone believed in magic and the
supernatural, so if someone claimed that he talked to a god, folks
tended to believe him.
We know better today.
> As a Christian I admit that I live by faith because I do not have
> all the facts! Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God
> revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by
> faith. Did you know that it is the Bible revelation that is honest and
> ethical about this truth of origins!
No, the bible was written by goat herders during the Bronze and Iron
Ages, when all humans (pretty much) believed in magic and the
supernatural.
Genesis is *metaphor*. It is not factual, however much you think that
it's *true*.
>Ec 3:11 He hath made everything
> beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so
> that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning
> to the end. The truth is that we do not know factually how creation
> occurred nor is how it sustained itself, all we have is our
> revelations and the faith we place in them. For the evolutionist it is
> the conjecture or theory or opinion
You need to be schooled on what these words mean, George.
"Conjecture" in science is called an "hypothesis." When a scientist
has a conjecture/hypothesis, s/he devises a way to test it. Then s/he
publishes the results of the test, so that other scientists can do the
test themselves. The facts they gather about the hypothesis by this
method are called "data."
A "theory" does NOT mean "a wild guess" in science. It means "a
systematic explanation of a phenomenon that accounts for all the known
data."
And opinions? Opinions are like belly buttons, George: everybody has
'em. However, in *science*, your opinion doesn't mean squat unless
you can back it up with *data*.
And we have *data* to back up evolution, George. *Mountains* of it.
From quite a few different scientific disciplines.
> of a part of the scientific
> community, for me as a Christian it is the revelation of scriptures.
Well, that's very Bronze Age of you, George. But here in the 21st
Century, we tend not to put too much stock into revealed knowledge if
it contradicts the data.
Have you ever thought about the problem that revealed knowledge
presents? I'll tell you what it is: *anybody* can claim that a god
is revealing knowledge to her/him. And if you believe that
supernatural beings ("gods") exist and that they communicate with
humans, then there's no way you can tell whether this new revelation
is "from God" or just an active case of schizophrenia.
That's why science trumps revelation, George: every single time,
hands-down and walkin' away.
> What we a left with at this time is a preponderance of the evidence
> and not a conviction do to fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
And the preponderance of evidence supports evolution, George. Sorry
about that. Why don't you read the talk.origins archive and find out
what our evidence really is?
By the way: I've read the bible, cover-to-cover, several times, lest
you make the mistake of thinking that I come to my present position
out of ignorance.
> � Lu 11:9
> And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall
> find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. �Yes often both sides
> are disingenuous when they claim to have the complete truth unless
> they honestly state that they have it by faith! Heb 11:1 � Now faith
> is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you: I was about to quote Hebrews 11:1 to *you*. Here's
another way of saying the same thing that Hebrews 11:1 says: "Faith
is believin' what you know ain't so." That's a quote from Mark Twain.
Faith is *not* a virtue, George. Faith is a character flaw.
> Much criticism has been placed on the scriptures for light being in
> existence before the sun can you as educated scientist explain this
> scriptural dilemma for me as I suppose this is one of the many reasons
> men reject the revelation of scripture when I believe that the
> scriptures are the revelation of true science! Ge 1:3 � And God said,
> Let there be light: and there was light. What does this reveal about
> the physics of light? Ge 1:16 And God made two great lights; the
> greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
> he made the stars also. Ge 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of
> the heaven to give light upon the earth, Ge 1:18 And to rule over the
> day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and
> God saw that it was good. Ge 1:19 And the evening and the morning were
> the fourth day. thebibilicalview.com
If the Genesis myth resonates for you, George, that's fine. For you,
it's true - although it is *NOT FACTUAL*.
What you need to realize is that what resonates for *us* is the
grandeur and beauty of the natural world that has evolved. Nothing in
your book of Middle Eastern mythology can come anywhere close to how
stupendous the natural world really is. I came to understand this
when I ceased being a christian. Instead of spending my days longing
for heaven and singing "This world is not my home/I'm just a-passin'
through/If heaven's not my home/then Lord, what will I do?/The angels
beckon me/from heaven's open door/and I can't feel at home in this
world anymore," I could walk my beloved Sonoran Desert and know that I
was kin to every tree, every bee, every snake, every hawk, every
bobcat. It is a deep and profound joy to know that I am *where I
belong.*
You know that song I quoted, George? That sums it up for me. People
waiting to die so they can go "home," all the while blind and ignorant
to the factual marvels around them on earth.
Been there, done that, George. Not interested.
Now kindly start replying to people who post answers to your messages,
okay? It's the honorable thing to do.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Boikat
> On Dec 2, 10:45�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > Massive false dichotomy. �Religion and evolution are not opposites.
> > Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. �It's mostly US-based
> > evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>
> U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
>
> evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
I see the need to start a new list of asinine adman claims.
>
> Evolution is NOT biblical
The Bible is not science.
>
> Bible version:
> God "created" man "from" the dust of the ground and blew life into his
> nosterals
>
> Evolution's version
> Man evolved from an ape
And has supporting evidence.
>
> Bible version:
> God created the animals
>
> Evolutions version:
> Everything evolved from a single molecule
No, liar.
>
> See the difference?
Yes. The ToE hs evidence, Creationism has myths and lies.
Boikat
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by George
<gbur...@twcny.rr.com>:
>Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
>free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
>appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
>to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence.
This question contains an unsupported assumption, that there
was an instantaneous beginning of life. As far as we can
tell, there was no magic "moment of existence" (by which I
assume you mean "moment of creation"); life appears to have
been a continuum all the way back to the
imperfectly-replicating chemicals preceding the first true
alive (or semi-alive) organisms. This being true, there was
no problem with sustenance; it was all around in the form of
everything back to those same chemicals. This is also why
the creationist complaint ("Why don't we see abiogenesis
occurring now?") is a strawman; any newly developing life
today would best be characterized as "food".
<snip irrelevancies>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
chris thompson
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:06:41 -0500, raven1 wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> >>Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
> >>free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days.
>
> > Think you can find the time to break your posts down into paragraphs?
> > Your formatting makes them nearly impossible to read.
>
> Quotation marks, where appropriate, would help greatly, too. �As your
> posts are, you give the impression that you want NOT to communicate.
He doesn't want to communicate; he wants to pontificate.
Chris
chris thompson
snip
If you cannot be bothered with the simple courtesy of posting your
screeds in reasonable paragraphs, then fuck you.
Presentation is half of your argument. If you cannot think clearly
enough to organize your position into coherent English, then your
argument is crap- simple as that.
Go away, learn some basic courtesy, and learn to write.
Chris
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:17:14 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Dec 2, 10:45�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> >> Massive false dichotomy. �Religion and evolution are not opposites.
> >> Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. �It's mostly US-based
> >> evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
> >
> >U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
> >
> >If evolution is ever to gain any respect with christians then the
> >evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
> The bible has nothing to do with science. Most christians accept
> evolution.
Someone else in talk.origins pointed out that most Christians who
accept the fact that evolution happened and happens do not know
much about evolution.
>> Evolution is NOT biblical
Therefore the Bible is wrong.
> Thank Darwin for that.
Darwin had nothing to do with evolution, nor with writing the
Bible.
> >Bible version:
> >God "created" man "from" the dust of the ground and blew life into his
> >nosterals
The Bible says the gods did that, not a god.
> Totally ridiculous.
Of course.
> >Evolution's version
> >Man evolved from an ape
Evolution doesn't have a version of any explanation: evolutionary
theory does.
> No, man is an ape. Man evolved, along with the other apes.
Even Reba McEntire?
Stephen
> Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
> free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
> appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
> to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence. I only see
> conjecture which is fine where a person looks to speculate his
> imagination or his faith. Lu 1:51 He hath shewed strength with his
> arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
> However, I am seeking the truth and it will not do to speculate the
> imagination and say it is the truth until a better speculation arises
> when we are looking for the truth! Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the
> truth, and the truth shall make you free. The biggest problem that I
> have with evolution and most evolutionists is the great lack of moral
> integrity regarding fact and opinion. De 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear
> false witness against thy neighbour. But, then if evolutionists have
> reject the holiness and integrity of God who must be required to be
> moral or ethical? It is not ethical to give a theory, opinion, or
> imagination and to present it as a fact, or imply it as a fact. Ro
> 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
> God. As a Christian I admit that I live by faith because I do not have
> all the facts! Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God
> revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by
> faith. Did you know that it is the Bible revelation that is honest and
> ethical about this truth of origins! Ec 3:11 He hath made everything
> beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so
> that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning
> to the end. The truth is that we do not know factually how creation
> occurred nor is how it sustained itself, all we have is our
> revelations and the faith we place in them. For the evolutionist it is
> the conjecture or theory or opinion of a part of the scientific
> community, for me as a Christian it is the revelation of scriptures.
> What we a left with at this time is a preponderance of the evidence
> and not a conviction do to fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Lu 11:9
> And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall
> find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Yes often both sides
> are disingenuous when they claim to have the complete truth unless
> they honestly state that they have it by faith! Heb 11:1 � Now faith
> is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
> Much criticism has been placed on the scriptures for light being in
> existence before the sun can you as educated scientist explain this
> scriptural dilemma for me as I suppose this is one of the many reasons
> men reject the revelation of scripture when I believe that the
> scriptures are the revelation of true science! Ge 1:3 � And God said,
> Let there be light: and there was light. What does this reveal about
> the physics of light? Ge 1:16 And God made two great lights; the
> greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
> he made the stars also. Ge 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of
> the heaven to give light upon the earth, Ge 1:18 And to rule over the
> day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and
> God saw that it was good. Ge 1:19 And the evening and the morning were
> the fourth day. thebibilicalview.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVxe43HPZy8
--
Andre Lieven
> On Dec 2, 8:02�am, George <gburk...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
> > free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
> > appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
> > to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence.
>
> Oh, indeed they have. �It appears that you are using the creationist's
> primary weapon, willful ignorance. �Please go back and read our
> responses. �Then do the gentlemanly thing, and respond to us.
>
>
> If the Genesis myth resonates for you, George, that's fine. �For you,
> it's true - although it is *NOT FACTUAL*.
>
> What you need to realize is that what resonates for *us* is the
> grandeur and beauty of the natural world that has evolved. �Nothing in
> your book of Middle Eastern mythology can come anywhere close to how
> stupendous the natural world really is. �I came to understand this
> when I ceased being a christian. Instead of spending my days longing
> for heaven and singing "This world is not my home/I'm just a-passin'
> through/If heaven's not my home/then Lord, what will I do?/The angels
> beckon me/from heaven's open door/and I can't feel at home in this
> world anymore," I could walk my beloved Sonoran Desert and know that I
> was kin to every tree, every bee, every snake, every hawk, every
> bobcat. �It is a deep and profound joy to know that I am *where I
> belong.*
>
> You know that song I quoted, George? �That sums it up for me. �People
> waiting to die so they can go "home," all the while blind and ignorant
> to the factual marvels around them on earth.
>
> Been there, done that, George. �Not interested.
>
> Now kindly start replying to people who post answers to your messages,
> okay? �It's the honorable thing to do.
Just one word: Bravo.
Andre
Stephen
> On Dec 2, 8:02�am, George <gburk...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I
> > get free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
> > appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts
> > as to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence.
>
> Oh, indeed they have. It appears that you are using the creationist's
> primary weapon, willful ignorance. Please go back and read our
> responses. Then do the gentlemanly thing, and respond to us.
He is using another creationist trick ... keep talking, no listening
allowed. Certainly no real interaction with anyone ...
>
(...snip...)
>
> > and it will not do to speculate the
> > imagination and say it is the truth until a better speculation
> > arises when we are looking for the truth!
>
> You would be well advised to be less interested in "truth" and more
> interested in "fact."
>
> "Truth" is information with a psychological component. Everybody is
> selling their rap as "truth." You. The Scientologists. The
> Muslims. The Mormons. The Raelians. And there are many, many more.
>
> *Fact*, on the other hand, is straightforward: it a unit of knowledge
> that is subject to verification for accuracy. It is a fact that
> life forms on earth evolve, just like it is a fact that the earth
> orbits the sun and it is a fact that gravity makes stuff fall down
> instead of up.
>
> Facts are your friends.
Puts me in mind of ...
"What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts?
Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars
foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind
the unguessable "verdict of history" -- what are the facts, and to how
many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are
your single clue. Get the facts!"
-- from The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
>
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Regards,
Stephen
--
Sapient Fridge
<6f06d335-53aa-49ac...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
"richardal...@googlemail.com" <richardal...@googlemail.com>
writes
>On Dec 2, 3:02�pm, George <gburk...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>> Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
>> free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
>> appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
>> conjecture which is fine where a person looks to speculate his
>> imagination or his faith. Lu 1:51 He hath shewed strength with his
>> arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
>> imagination and say it is the truth until a better speculation arises
>respond to some of the thoughtful responses which have been made to
>your previous posts. That way we'll know that you are not simply
>posting to gain credits on some silly creationist "education" course,
>or simply trolling.
Ten posts in a "hostile" newsgroup or web page I do believe. Maybe he's
trying to get extra credit by posting the same material multiple times.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"George" <gbur...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9daed537-1334-4146...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I get
> free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
> appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts as
> to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence.
Maybe there aren't any "specific facts"!
Do YOU have any "specific facts" to support spiritual and religious claims
in YOUR bible?
Maybe there are specific facts, but the people on here don't know them ....
why don't YOU do a little research and find out?
The lack of specific facts in abiogenesis, or evolution, means absolutely
nothing to the claims about your religious beliefs or your god.
Do YOU have any facts to support ANY claims?
Obviously, not!
Will in New Haven
wrote:
While the orthodox theory is that evolution has no goal, it is clear
to any reasonable observer that there will never be a higher or more
divine life-form than Emmylou Harris and that the universe was created
for her to adorn it with her perfection.
--
Will in New Haven
Pete Rose will never get into the Hall of Fame alive
Will in New Haven
in the novel _Time Enough for Love_
Lazarus Long is a fictional character and these days not everyone
knows that Robert A. Heinlein should be credited.
--
Will in New Haven
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine" Sgt. Zim in Robert
Heinlein's _Startship Troopers_
Stephen
> > > Fact, on the other hand, is straightforward: �it a unit of
> > > knowledge that is subject to verification for accuracy. �It is a
> > > fact that life forms on earth evolve, just like it is a fact that
> > > the earth orbits the sun and it is a fact that gravity makes
> > > stuff fall down instead of up.
> >
> > > Facts are your friends.
> >
> > Puts me in mind of ...
> >
> > "What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the
> > facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget
> > what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the
> > neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" --
> > what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot
> > always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the
> > facts!"
> >
> > -- from The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
>
> in the novel _Time Enough for Love_
> Lazarus Long is a fictional character and these days not everyone
> knows that Robert A. Heinlein should be credited.
I thought it would be well enough known, but you are correct. Apologies
to all, especially Heinlein, wherever he may or may not be, for the
incomplete citation ...
Regards,
Stephen
--
Kermit
wrote:
>
> > > > Due to many responsibilities of the ministry I can only post as I
> > > > get free time so I apologize if I can only post on various days. It
> > > > appears to me that no one has answered my post with specific facts
> > > > as to how life sustained itself after the moment of existence.
>
> > > primary weapon, willful ignorance. 锟絇lease go back and read our
> > > responses. 锟絋hen do the gentlemanly thing, and respond to us.
>
> > He is using another creationist trick ... keep talking, no listening
>
> > (...snip...)
>
> > > > and it will not do to speculate the
> > > > imagination and say it is the truth until a better speculation
> > > > arises when we are looking for the truth!
>
> > > You would be well advised to be less interested in "truth" and more
> > > interested in "fact."
>
> > > "Truth" is information with a psychological component. Everybody is
> > > Muslims. 锟絋he Mormons. 锟絋he Raelians. 锟紸nd there are many, many more.
>
> > > *Fact*, on the other hand, is straightforward: 锟絠t a unit of knowledge
> > > that is subject to verification for accuracy. 锟絀t is a fact that
> > > life forms on earth evolve, just like it is a fact that the earth
> > > orbits the sun and it is a fact that gravity makes stuff fall down
> > > instead of up.
>
> > > Facts are your friends.
>
> > Puts me in mind of ...
>
> > "What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts?
> > Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars
> > foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind
> > the unguessable "verdict of history" -- what are the facts, and to how
> > many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are
> > your single clue. Get the facts!"
>
> > -- from The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
>
> in the novel _Time Enough for Love_
> Lazarus Long is a fictional character and these days not everyone
> knows that Robert A. Heinlein should be credited.
<sputter>
What do they *teach the kids these days?
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
> "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine" Sgt. Zim in Robert
> Heinlein's _Startship Troopers_
Kermit
Kermit
My Philosophy 101 professor said he only gives A+ grades to papers he
wishes he had written.
A+, Brenda.
Kermit
Steven L.
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 12:17 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 10:45 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. It's mostly US-based
>>>> evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>>> U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
>>>
>>> If evolution is ever to gain any respect with christians then the
>>> evolutionist must stop trying to insert evolution into the bible.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bible version:
>>> God "created" man "from" the dust of the ground and blew life into
>>> his nosterals
>> All life begins "from" dust.
>> Blowing life into man is clearly a metaphor unless
>> you are asserting that God has lungs.
>
> Eagerly awaiting clarification of ASI's metaphor filter for Biblical
> passages. So far it seems to be, "It's a metaphor if I say it is."
Unfortunately,
"It's a metaphor if I say it is" describes much of Biblical exegesis
perfectly.
All-Seeing-I has his interpretation.
But let's face it, the Vatican has their own, and so on.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
Who is "us"?
I'm saddened by the fact that 95% of the evolutionists on this NG are
atheists.
On the one hand, evolutionists claim that "Oh, there's no conflict
between evolution and religion." But when chips are down, here on this
NG there are perhaps one or two religious evolutionists and all the rest
are atheists. These evolutionists who say that there's no conflict,
don't ever try to convince YOU, or "Ye Old One," or any other confirmed
atheists on this NG. They just drag out that argument when arguing with
creationists, knowing full well that they don't believe it themselves.
That's utterly duplicitous.
That's true on scienceblogs.com as well
It's true among biologists who belong to AAAS as well.
Atheism predominates.
You should be proud.
Atheism has a lock on science.
Why don't you just say it proudly?
Louann Miller
45a6-925f-6...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> He doesn't want to communicate; he wants to pontificate.
(g) Given the terminology he uses, I'd be very suprised if he's Roman
Catholic. On the contrary he may think they're the Antichrist, or one of
them.
Louann, ex (desk) cathedra.
raven1
raven1
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> What you need to realize is that what resonates for *us* is the
>> grandeur and beauty of the natural world that has evolved.
>
>
>Who is "us"?
>
>I'm saddened by the fact that 95% of the evolutionists on this NG are
>atheists.
>
>On the one hand, evolutionists claim that "Oh, there's no conflict
>between evolution and religion." But when chips are down, here on this
>NG there are perhaps one or two religious evolutionists and all the rest
>are atheists.
And this proves what?
> These evolutionists who say that there's no conflict,
>don't ever try to convince YOU, or "Ye Old One," or any other confirmed
>atheists on this NG. They just drag out that argument when arguing with
>creationists, knowing full well that they don't believe it themselves.
I'm an atheist, and I see no conflict between the ToE and religion. It
does conflict with some people's specific religious beliefs, but
that's not the same as a conflict with religion in general.
>That's utterly duplicitous.
It's fairly uncharitable, to say the least, to accuse 95% (your
estimate) of the posters here of duplicity.
Ernest Major
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes
>Who is "us"?
>
>I'm saddened by the fact that 95% of the evolutionists on this NG are
>atheists.
You were asked to support this claim when you made it recently. You
didn't.
>
>On the one hand, evolutionists claim that "Oh, there's no conflict
>between evolution and religion." But when chips are down, here on this
>NG there are perhaps one or two religious evolutionists and all the
>rest are atheists.
But here you've advanced to a transparently false statement.
>These evolutionists who say that there's no conflict, don't ever try to
>convince YOU, or "Ye Old One," or any other confirmed atheists on this
>NG. They just drag out that argument when arguing with creationists,
>knowing full well that they don't believe it themselves. That's utterly
>duplicitous.
You have a problem here. Apart from this statement also being false, the
existence of more that one or two people who argue with snex is not
compatible with the claim that there's only one or two religious
evolutionists.
You might also note that there are confirmed atheists (such as myself or
John Harshman) who don't need to be convinced, as we already hold the
position that the factuality of common descent is not particularly
germane to the question of divine existence.
--
alias Ernest Major
Will in New Haven
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:55:16 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> Seconds?
>
Seconded.
Walter Bushell
Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:17:14 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 10:45�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > > Massive false dichotomy. �Religion and evolution are not opposites.
> > > Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. �It's mostly US-based
> > > evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>
> > U.S. christians (sic) know bullshit when they smell it too.
>
> Yes, but they believe it anyhow.
And they will accept no substitute.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Desertphile
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 9:00�pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:05:02 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> > wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > > No, man is an ape. Man evolved, along with the other apes.
> >
> > Even Reba McEntire?
> While the orthodox theory is that evolution has no goal, it is clear
> to any reasonable observer that there will never be a higher or more
> divine life-form than Emmylou Harris and that the universe was created
> for her to adorn it with her perfection.
I find no fault with your evidence-based conclusion.
Desertphile
Yes, but he should be shot for "Number of the Beast."
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Louann Miller
<loua...@yahoo.com>:
They do seem to be proliferating, don't they?
Ernest Major
Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> writes
They do say that Protestantism is every man his own Pope.
>
>Louann, ex (desk) cathedra.
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
heekster
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:53:58 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
><bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 2, 11:28�pm, "Stephen" <ssan...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > Puts me in mind of ...
>> >
>> > "What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts?
>> > Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars
>> > foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind
>> > the unguessable "verdict of history" -- what are the facts, and to how
>> > many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are
>> > your single clue. Get the facts!"
>> >
>> > -- from The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
>
>> in the novel _Time Enough for Love_
>> Lazarus Long is a fictional character and these days not everyone
>> knows that Robert A. Heinlein should be credited.
>
>Yes, but he should be shot for "Number of the Beast."
What do you gain from shooting a dead guy?
Waste of ammunition.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:53:58 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
>
> > On Dec 2, 11:28 pm, "Stephen" <ssan...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Puts me in mind of ...
>
> > > "What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts?
> > > Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars
> > > foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind
> > > the unguessable "verdict of history" -- what are the facts, and to how
> > > many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are
> > > your single clue. Get the facts!"
>
> > > -- from The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
> > in the novel _Time Enough for Love_
> > Lazarus Long is a fictional character and these days not everyone
> > knows that Robert A. Heinlein should be credited.
>
> Yes, but he should be shot for "Number of the Beast."
I wish I had the URL for Gharlane of Eddore's defense of #Beast but it
doesn't matter. Being shot wouldn't bother Mr. Heinlein any more.
Mark Isaak
> On Dec 2, 10:45�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> Massive false dichotomy. �Religion and evolution are not opposites.
>> Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. �It's mostly US-based
>> evangelicals that have heartburn with it.
>
> U.S. christians know bullshit when they smell it too.
Which is why they are increasingly turning to atheism. U.S.
Christianity, in much of its public appearance, has become irrelevant,
irrational, and/or immoral. The atheist groups that you, ASI, for your
contribution.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Andre Lieven
Anyone and everyone who is able to take in the wonders of the
Universe as we, humanity, find them to be.
> I'm saddened by the fact that 95% of the evolutionists on this NG are
> atheists.
<shrug>
> On the one hand, evolutionists claim that "Oh, there's no conflict
> between evolution and religion." �But when chips are down, here on this
> NG there are perhaps one or two religious evolutionists and all the rest
> are atheists. �These evolutionists who say that there's no conflict,
> don't ever try to convince YOU, or "Ye Old One," or any other confirmed
> atheists on this NG. �They just drag out that argument when arguing with
> creationists, knowing full well that they don't believe it themselves.
> That's utterly duplicitous.
And, utterly wrong. I do grant that many atheists' atheism is a useful
device to grasping the range of science, but, it is not an essential
connection, just *one useful* one.
> That's true on scienceblogs.com as well
>
> It's true among biologists who belong to AAAS as well.
>
> Atheism predominates.
>
> You should be proud.
Well, I am pleased, in any case.
> Atheism has a lock on science.
For a good *reason*; That people who really study the issues
work out that religion holds no water at all, over matters of
fact and science, does often (But, hardly always) correlate.
> Why don't you just say it proudly?
Because you seem to want it to be said as if it were a
pre-requisite, which it really isn't. Corelation and causation
aren't synonyms, you should know...
Andre
Desertphile
My main objection to the book, other than having TikTok exist, is
that one is required to read several books before "Number of the
Beast" (not just Heinlein's) before one can follow the book, and
no where in the book is that necessity mentioned. My third
objection is that I am not into geeky soft porn.
Stephen
> On Dec 2, 8:02�am, George <gburk...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
(...snip-a-lot...)
>
> What you need to realize is that what resonates for us is the
> grandeur and beauty of the natural world that has evolved. Nothing in
> your book of Middle Eastern mythology can come anywhere close to how
> stupendous the natural world really is. I came to understand this
> when I ceased being a christian. Instead of spending my days longing
> for heaven and singing "This world is not my home/I'm just a-passin'
> through/If heaven's not my home/then Lord, what will I do?/The angels
> beckon me/from heaven's open door/and I can't feel at home in this
> world anymore," I could walk my beloved Sonoran Desert and know that I
> was kin to every tree, every bee, every snake, every hawk, every
> bobcat. It is a deep and profound joy to know that I am *where I
> belong.*
>
And this puts me in mind of
In the house made of the dawn,
In the house made of the evening twilight,
In the house made of the dark cloud,
In the house made of the he-rain,
In the house made of the dark mist,
In the house made of the she-rain,
...
In beauty I walk.
With beauty before me, I walk.
With beauty behind me, I walk.
With beauty below me, I walk.
With beauty above me, I walk.
With beauty all around me, I walk.
It is finished in beauty,
...
located here: http://hanksville.org/voyage/poems/fulldawn.html
and credited as follows:
"From _Four Masterworks of American Indian Literature_ edited by John
Bierhorst, University of Arizona Press. The text is the translation of
Washington Matthews.
� 1974 John Bierhorst"
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Regards,
Stephen
--
raven1
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <Hb-dnc7oW5f4e4rW...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
><sdli...@earthlink.net> writes
>>Who is "us"?
>>
>>I'm saddened by the fact that 95% of the evolutionists on this NG are
>>atheists.
>
>You were asked to support this claim when you made it recently. You
>didn't.
>>
>>On the one hand, evolutionists claim that "Oh, there's no conflict
>>between evolution and religion." But when chips are down, here on this
>>NG there are perhaps one or two religious evolutionists and all the
>>rest are atheists.
>
>But here you've advanced to a transparently false statement.
>
>>These evolutionists who say that there's no conflict, don't ever try to
>>convince YOU, or "Ye Old One," or any other confirmed atheists on this
>>NG. They just drag out that argument when arguing with creationists,
>>knowing full well that they don't believe it themselves. That's utterly
>>duplicitous.
>
>You have a problem here. Apart from this statement also being false, the
>existence of more that one or two people who argue with snex is not
>compatible with the claim that there's only one or two religious
>evolutionists.
One doesn't have to be religious to disagree with snex. I'm an
atheist, and on quick review, he's one of two posters here that I have
permanently killfiled (Nashton being the other).
>You might also note that there are confirmed atheists (such as myself or
>John Harshman) who don't need to be convinced, as we already hold the
>position that the factuality of common descent is not particularly
>germane to the question of divine existence.
Agreed. I don't see how the two issues are related.
chris thompson
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in news:88e1c981-fa51-
> 45a6-925f-69484cef5...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
> > He doesn't want to communicate; he wants to pontificate.
>
> (g) Given the terminology he uses, I'd be very suprised if he's Roman
> Catholic. On the contrary he may think they're the Antichrist, or one of
> them.
>
> Louann, ex (desk) cathedra.
Funny how he manages it all the same, isn't it?
Chris
Ernest Major
<quotht...@nevermore.com> writes
>On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:01:28 +0000, Ernest Major
><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <Hb-dnc7oW5f4e4rW...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
>><sdli...@earthlink.net> writes
>>>Who is "us"?
>>>
>>>I'm saddened by the fact that 95% of the evolutionists on this NG are
>>>atheists.
>>
>>You were asked to support this claim when you made it recently. You
>>didn't.
>>>
>>>On the one hand, evolutionists claim that "Oh, there's no conflict
>>>between evolution and religion." But when chips are down, here on this
>>>NG there are perhaps one or two religious evolutionists and all the
>>>rest are atheists.
>>
>>But here you've advanced to a transparently false statement.
>>
>>>These evolutionists who say that there's no conflict, don't ever try to
>>>convince YOU, or "Ye Old One," or any other confirmed atheists on this
>>>NG. They just drag out that argument when arguing with creationists,
>>>knowing full well that they don't believe it themselves. That's utterly
>>>duplicitous.
>>
>>You have a problem here. Apart from this statement also being false, the
>>existence of more that one or two people who argue with snex is not
>>compatible with the claim that there's only one or two religious
>>evolutionists.
>
>One doesn't have to be religious to disagree with snex.
I wasn't suggesting that. Several atheists (myself included) have argued
with snex.
> I'm an
>atheist, and on quick review, he's one of two posters here that I have
>permanently killfiled (Nashton being the other).
>
>>You might also note that there are confirmed atheists (such as myself or
>>John Harshman) who don't need to be convinced, as we already hold the
>>position that the factuality of common descent is not particularly
>>germane to the question of divine existence.
>
>Agreed. I don't see how the two issues are related.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Will in New Haven
wrote:
I understand your main objection. However, any artist of film-maker
who relies on a shared culture is going to lose some of his audience.
Heinlein couldn't very well write an homage to the Barsoom novels,
among other works, for an audience that had not read those works.
All sexual content in novels runs into the second objection. As Spider
Robinson points out, nothing sold in a porn shop (like the one he
worked in before he started selling his SF work) attracts more than
ten percent or so of the customers. So no sex scene is going to please
more than ten percent of your readers. I think Spider's estimates are
a little low.
SkyEyes
> Regards,
> Stephen
Oh, The Night Chant! I haven't heard that in many years! What a
beautiful song.
Thanks, Stephen. I bookmarked the site.
Brenda
Garamond Lethe
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:01:28 +0000, Ernest Major
><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
<snip>
> One doesn't have to be religious to disagree with snex. I'm an
> atheist, and on quick review, he's one of two posters here that I have
> permanently killfiled (Nashton being the other).
You have now been added to the list of people who are smarter that I am.
Walter Bushell
Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:53:58 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
> <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 11:28�pm, "Stephen" <ssan...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > Puts me in mind of ...
> > >
> > > "What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts?
> > > Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars
> > > foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind
> > > the unguessable "verdict of history" -- what are the facts, and to how
> > > many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are
> > > your single clue. Get the facts!"
> > >
> > > -- from The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
>
> > in the novel _Time Enough for Love_
> > Lazarus Long is a fictional character and these days not everyone
> > knows that Robert A. Heinlein should be credited.
>
> Yes, but he should be shot for "Number of the Beast."
Well being shot won't hurt him any.