Joining
Pure Christian
I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence, and
the ability to collect even more! Much of it has already probably been
presented, but there are also alot of new commers
So let the debate begin, challenge me with you unanswered questions,
try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus, give me your
evolution evidence, and then let me begin to ask you questions as
well.
William
(By the way, I'm 19 and I'm from Zimbabwe)
Tiny Bulcher
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
>
> I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence,
Consider us underwhelmed, and also unboggled. We've heard 'em all
before, kid.
> and
> the ability to collect even more! Much of it has already probably been
> presented, but there are also alot of new commers
>
> So let the debate begin, challenge me with you unanswered questions,
> try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus,
Sorry, we're disproving the Bhagavad-Gita and the I-Ching this week.
> give me your
> evolution evidence,
Work your way through this lot, and then get back to us:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
> and then let me begin to ask you questions as
> well.
>
> William
>
> (By the way, I'm 19 and I'm from Zimbabwe)
My advice to you is to move.
Cheezits
> I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence, and
> the ability to collect even more!
Finally! Let's see some.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Dana Tweedy
> Greetings everyone,
hello.
>
> I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
Ok, we always could use some fresh meat....
>
> I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence,
Do tell. I suspect that you won't have anything that's not already been
shot down hundreds of times...
> and
> the ability to collect even more! Much of it has already probably been
> presented, but there are also alot of new commers
>
> So let the debate begin, challenge me with you unanswered questions,
Ok. What is the scientific theory of creation, and how can it be tested?
> try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus,
Why would I want to do that? The Bible, God and Jesus are not problems
for evolution.
> give me your
> evolution evidence,
Ok, start here
> and then let me begin to ask you questions as
> well.
Fire away, but you might want to check:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
first.
DJT
Mujin
news:1192911496....@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
>
> I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence, and
> the ability to collect even more!
I have no doubt it's mind boggling, though perhaps not for the reasons you
think. What is the single best piece of evidence in favour of Creationism,
in your opinion?
> Much of it has already probably been
> presented, but there are also alot of new commers
>
> So let the debate begin, challenge me with you unanswered questions,
> try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus,
This is a fallacy; the truth or error of the Bible has no influence on the
existence or non-existence of God. If you really have faith in God,
discovering that the Bible is actually a work of man intended by the
authors to *celebrate* their idea of God should be no problem for your
faith. If, on the other hand, your faith is really in the book and not in
God then you will probably find the truth disturbing.
> give me your
> evolution evidence, and then let me begin to ask you questions as
> well.
start here: www.talkorigins.org
Pure Christian
> Consider us underwhelmed, and also unboggled. We've heard 'em all
> before, kid.
So why do you still support the dumb, stupid hypothesis?
> Work your way through this lot, and then get back to us:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
Wow, that is one huge load! While I'm going through that though...
> My advice to you is to move.
Nope, nope, the Pascal conferences were boring and dull, so I moved
here! Besides, you don't intimidate or discourage me.
William
geo...@hotmail.com
The Bible can't be disproven. That's like asking people to disprove
that invisible unicorns exist.
Your evidence is welcomed, however. You are aware, I hope, that Bible
passages cannot be counted as scientific evidence, since they rely on
the personal authority of unknown people?
The 29+ Evidences is a great place to see the evidence for common
descent (which is effectively macro-evolution). However, Modern
Evolutionary Theory, which arose from Darwin's works, is a more tricky
subject. Try not to confuse the two - the first is the observation, or
'fact' of evolution, and does not rely on Darwin. The second is the
explanation of the fact of evolution, and was built upon Darwin's
research.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Enjoy your stay!
Pure Christian
> Finally! Let's see some.
Well where would you like me to start??
By proving that the earth isn't billions and billions of years old
maybe?
William
Dana Tweedy
>
>> Consider us underwhelmed, and also unboggled. We've heard 'em all
>> before, kid.
>
> So why do you still support the dumb, stupid hypothesis?
He doesn't. He supports evolution.
>
>> Work your way through this lot, and then get back to us:
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
>
> Wow, that is one huge load! While I'm going through that though...
what?
>
>> My advice to you is to move.
>
> Nope, nope, the Pascal conferences were boring and dull, so I moved
> here! Besides, you don't intimidate or discourage me.
Ah, the naivety of youth.
DJT
Pure Christian
> Do tell. I suspect that you won't have anything that's not already been
> shot down hundreds of times...
I might have a few new things. And again I ask, why do you believe
that silly hypothesis if you have already considered the evidence.
Anyway, give me time to "gather my files"
> Ok. What is the scientific theory of creation, and how can it be tested?
I don't think there is a way to test creation. However there is
evidence that promotes it and disproves evolution in the process.
> > try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus,
> Why would I want to do that? The Bible, God and Jesus are not problems
> for evolution.
Yes they do. If they exist then evolution is rubbish.
William
Cubist
depends on a specific interpretation of Scripture -- like, say, "the
'days' of genesis *really were* 24-hour days" -- you should be aware
that there are many other Christians who have no problems accepting
that the Earth is billions of years old, so your argument will carry
no weight *unless* you ALSO show how all those *other* Christians'
interpretations of Scripture are invalid...
Dana Tweedy
>> Finally! Let's see some.
>
> Well where would you like me to start??
How about the theory of creation, and how to test it?
>
> By proving that the earth isn't billions and billions of years old
> maybe?
No, that's not evidence for creation. You'd need to provide evidence
that the Earth began approximately 6000 years ago, and that it was
created in a very short time.
Please remember that "evidence" supposedly refuting evolution is not
necessarily evidence for creation. There are thousands of religious
creation stories which are competing with the Bible's two, contradictory
creation stories.
Please select which creation story you are providing evidence for, and
how the evidence you offer applies.
DJT
Pure Christian
> that invisible unicorns exist.
Is that maybe because it's completely accurate and all previous
attempts have failed?
> Your evidence is welcomed, however. You are aware, I hope, that Bible
> passages cannot be counted as scientific evidence, since they rely on
> the personal authority of unknown people?
At this moment it's extremely late in Zimbabwe, and I need to get some
rest, and also disconnect from the expensive internet!
So time permitting I will present some interesting things tomorrow!
Stand by!
William
Dana Tweedy
>> Do tell. I suspect that you won't have anything that's not already been
>> shot down hundreds of times...
>
> I might have a few new things.
Ok, let's hear them.
> And again I ask, why do you believe
> that silly hypothesis if you have already considered the evidence.
I don't believe the "silly hypothesis",ie Creationism. I accept the
scientific theory of evolution. I support it because it's the
scientific theory that best explains the evidence.
> Anyway, give me time to "gather my files"
Fine, take your time.
>
>> Ok. What is the scientific theory of creation, and how can it be tested?
>
> I don't think there is a way to test creation.
Then it's not a scientific theory. Game over, you lose.
> However there is
> evidence that promotes it and disproves evolution in the process.
Then you have nothing to support your own view, just claims to refute an
opposing view. I also suspect you will find that your "evidence" is
not as solid as you thought.
>
>>> try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus,
>
>> Why would I want to do that? The Bible, God and Jesus are not problems
>> for evolution.
>
> Yes they do. If they exist then evolution is rubbish.
No, even if God, Jesus and the Bible exist, (incidentally, I believe in
God, and Jesus, and I've actually seen the Bible) the theory of
evolution still is the best scientific explanation for the evidence.
What makes you think that a belief in God is incompatible with the
science of evolution?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> The Bible can't be disproven. That's like asking people to disprove
>> that invisible unicorns exist.
>
> Is that maybe because it's completely accurate and all previous
> attempts have failed?
I'm sorry, but that's false. Early scientist who were looking for
evidence for a literal reading of Genesis found out that the evidence
doesn't match the story. For example, it was found that there is no
evidence of a global flood. There was also discovered the concept of
"faunal succession" (this was about 100 years before Darwin) that showed
that life, and all organisms, did not begin at once.
>
>> Your evidence is welcomed, however. You are aware, I hope, that Bible
>> passages cannot be counted as scientific evidence, since they rely on
>> the personal authority of unknown people?
>
> At this moment it's extremely late in Zimbabwe, and I need to get some
> rest, and also disconnect from the expensive internet!
>
> So time permitting I will present some interesting things tomorrow!
> Stand by!
I suspect that we will be treated to already refuted claims...
DJT
Tiny Bulcher
> Pure Christian wrote:
>>
>>> Consider us underwhelmed, and also unboggled. We've heard 'em all
>>> before, kid.
>>
>> So why do you still support the dumb, stupid hypothesis?
>
> He doesn't. He supports evolution.
Indeed. I am, as Nashton says, an evo-cheerleader :-)
>>> Work your way through this lot, and then get back to us:
>>>
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
>>
>> Wow, that is one huge load! While I'm going through that though...
>
> what?
>
>>> My advice to you is to move.
>>
>> Nope, nope, the Pascal conferences were boring and dull, so I moved
>> here! Besides, you don't intimidate or discourage me.
Well, if you like living in interesting times, Zimbabwe is certainly the
place to be.
> Ah, the naivety of youth.
When I was 15, I thought I knew everything. By the time I was 19, like
young feller-me-lad here, I was beginning to realise I didn't. Nowadays,
I discover things I am ignorant of almost daily.
wf3h
what does the bible have to do with evolution? if you believe
literalism is the answer, then it's your job to put up the evidence.
otherwise you're just another fundamentalist.
Frank J
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
>
> I'm on the Creationist side
Which creationist side? OEC (if so, day-age, gap, progressive, etc.),
YEC, geocentrist, FEC, "don't ask, don't tell ID?
What about Vedic, Native American? You say you're a Christian, but
since the mutually contradictory Biblical creationisms are all Old
Testament, I shouldn't assume that you follow any particular one.
So which is it, and how does your "mind boggling evidence" refute all
the others?
Frank J
Have you run that by OEC groups?
>
> William
wf3h
> > Do tell. I suspect that you won't have anything that's not already been
> > shot down hundreds of times...
>
> I might have a few new things. And again I ask, why do you believe
> that silly hypothesis if you have already considered the evidence.
> Anyway, give me time to "gather my files"
>
> > Ok. What is the scientific theory of creation, and how can it be tested?
>
> I don't think there is a way to test creation. However there is
> evidence that promotes it and disproves evolution in the process.
>
well, no there's not.
see how easy that is!
> > > try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus,
> > Why would I want to do that? The Bible, God and Jesus are not problems
> > for evolution.
>
> Yes they do. If they exist then evolution is rubbish.
except, of course, a number of scientists who happen to be xtians
disagree. you're basing your views on 1 of 30,000 different bible
interpretations. and one that, by the way, is not biblical
>
> William
r norman
Nothing makes you more stupid than having teenage children. When they
get into their late thirties, you start to regain some of your
smarts.
Cheezits
You ask a lot of questions. You said you have evidence, you ought to
have an idea where to start. Prove whatever you like!
Cory Albrecht
Oh, by all means, please do so. I shall especially be awaiting to see
how you disprove all of physics relating to nuclear decay. By the by,
"God created it with an appearance of age" will not be an acceptable
answer because it can neither be proved nor disproved.
Oh, and when I am church tomorrow morning, I shall pray for your ability
to accept the facts of science and to ask for God to give you the
ability to understand proper science.
TeaWrecks
"Pure Christian" <wdup...@HotPOP.com> wrote in message
news:1192914224.7...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> Consider us underwhelmed, and also unboggled. We've heard 'em all
>> before, kid.
>
> So why do you still support the dumb, stupid hypothesis?
>
>> Work your way through this lot, and then get back to us:
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
>
> Wow, that is one huge load! While I'm going through that though...
Looking at the time stamps on your posts, you read all that in 45
minutes..??
The creationist lies begin...
[if op's credibility lost then snip rest end if]
Cory Albrecht
>> The Bible can't be disproven. That's like asking people to disprove
>> that invisible unicorns exist.
>
> Is that maybe because it's completely accurate and all previous
> attempts have failed?
You mean just like how attempts at disproving invisible unicorns have
failed? Seriously - if you don't get the point in that then you really
need to work on understanding logic.
A for Biblical accuracy, let us just look at Noah's Flood. Try as they
might, Creationists have yet to prove that there was a global deluge
with enough water to cover even Mount Everest. In fact, pretty much all
of geology shows that there has never been a world-wide flood.
Cory Albrecht
>> Do tell. I suspect that you won't have anything that's not already been
>> shot down hundreds of times...
>
> I might have a few new things. And again I ask, why do you believe
> that silly hypothesis if you have already considered the evidence.
> Anyway, give me time to "gather my files"
One would have hoped that you had already "gathered your files" when you
essentially threw down the gauntlet with that first post of yours.
You do realize, of course, that in this newsgroup we have seen many
people claim they have disproved evolution or multi-billion year
cosmology, yet they all use the same old, repetitive logical fallacies
and misrepresentations of biology, physics, etc...
Sometimes those misrepresentations happen because out of honest
ignorance - the person thought they had all the facts or they thought
they understood the subject. After all, we can't all be completely
knowledgeable on every subject in existence.
Other times, the misrepresentations are made by people who have been
more than once shown where they have made mistakes, and yet they
continue to use the same dishonest lies over and over again.
So which will you be? Will you be the honest person who is able to admit
when they are wrong and accept correction? Or will you be one of the
dishonest liars who continues to use mistruths even after they have been
pointed out to you?
>> Ok. What is the scientific theory of creation, and how can it be tested?
> I don't think there is a way to test creation. However there is
> evidence that promotes it and disproves evolution in the process.
And what evidence would that be? Please stop making assertions and
actually provide proof.
>>> try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus,
>> Why would I want to do that? The Bible, God and Jesus are not problems
>> for evolution.
> Yes they do. If they exist then evolution is rubbish.
Oh? How is that? Is it impossible for God to have used evolution?
raven1
<wdup...@HotPOP.com> wrote:
>Greetings everyone,
>
>I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
>
>I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence,
Then present it.
---
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."
geo...@hotmail.com
> God, and Jesus, and I've actually seen the Bible)
It's just your Christian worldview that makes you interpret whatever
book you saw as the Bible. ;)
Richard Clayton
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
>
> the ability to collect even more! Much of it has already probably been
> presented, but there are also alot of new commers
>
> So let the debate begin, challenge me with you unanswered questions,
> try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus, give me your
> evolution evidence, and then let me begin to ask you questions as
> well.
>
> William
>
> (By the way, I'm 19 and I'm from Zimbabwe)
Welcome to talk.origins! Please enjoy your stay. I hope you find it
educational.
Mind if I start with a couple of questions?
What is the scientific theory of creationism? How can it be tested?
What predictions does it make? What evidence supports it? (Please note:
Evidence against the theory of evolution is not evidence for Biblical
creation, as it is logically possible for both to be false.)
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." — Optimus Prime
Ron O
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
>
> I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence, and
> the ability to collect even more! Much of it has already probably been
> presented, but there are also alot of new commers
>
> So let the debate begin, challenge me with you unanswered questions,
> try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus, give me your
> evolution evidence, and then let me begin to ask you questions as
> well.
>
> William
>
> (By the way, I'm 19 and I'm from Zimbabwe)
My recommendation is that you read the posts of your fellows in belief
before you post very many more posts. That would be the best remedy
for realizing how deep a hole you are trying to dig yourself out of.
Right now there is pretty slim pickings, but Ray, backspace,
Spintronic, Nando, and some clueless newbie called Leonard Abbott have
posted. Someone else can add to the list. Pagano would be a good
one to look up as a prime example of what not to do, but I haven't
noticed him posting recently.
If you can read half a dozen posts by these guys and still believe
that you might have an argument, then welcome to the madhouse. You
will fit right in, but it won't be anything to brag about.
Ron Okimoto
the heekster
<alyc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Then there's that vague feeling that you have learned something
before, but forgotten it, and now you are learning it all over again.
I call it deja clue.
And, I get it a lot.
Robert Carnegie
That's usually fun! I'm extremely sceptical. I think the scientific
figure is 4.54 billion years.
Sometimes people come here to argue a sincere belief, and sometimes
they come to pull the leg.
Do you want to argue from the bible? You may do so, but you will not
persuade people who have already considered that book, considered also
the testament of rocks, and arrived at a different conclusion. People
who look at natural evidence first.
Perhaps you will reconsider one or more particular opinions of your
own.
Since in another post you mention the bible being accurate, we ought
to know exactly which bible you mean, since there are so many
different ones. For instance, if you have in mind King James's
"Authorised Version", we can discuss the natural history of dragons.
Politics also may be an interesting subject - I don't mean King
James's politics, I am looking for things that we could talk about
here.
(If you /are/ interested in King James's politics, I can point you to
a relevant audio streamcast.)
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Pure Christian
<wdup...@HotPOP.com>:
>Greetings everyone,
>
>I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
[yawn]
>I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence, and
>the ability to collect even more! Much of it has already probably been
>presented, but there are also alot of new commers
So present your evidence. Until you do you're just flapping
your gums.
>So let the debate begin, challenge me with you unanswered questions,
>try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus
Ummm... We don't do that. The person making the claim is
responsible for supporting that claim, and your claim that
the Bible is correct (I assume you mean literally true) is
just such a claim.
>, give me your
>evolution evidence
A good place to start is school. Another place is the t.o
FAQ...
...where you'll find links to the literature on the subject.
>, and then let me begin to ask you questions as
>well.
Sure. But if you reject the evidence contradicting your
beliefs prepare to be flamed as just another willfully blind
"Liar for Christ".
>William
>
>(By the way, I'm 19 and I'm from Zimbabwe)
I hope you mean "from" and not "in". If the latter you have
my sympathy and my advice to get out while you still can.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
bob
>> Do tell. I suspect that you won't have anything that's not already
>> been shot down hundreds of times...
>
> I might have a few new things. And again I ask, why do you believe that
> silly hypothesis if you have already considered the evidence. Anyway,
> give me time to "gather my files"
>
>> Ok. What is the scientific theory of creation, and how can it be
>> tested?
>
> I don't think there is a way to test creation. However there is evidence
> that promotes it and disproves evolution in the process.
Really? Impressive. Present this evidence that disproves evolution and
then get ready to accept your Nobel prize!!
>
William Wingstedt
<wdup...@HotPOP.com> wrote:
>Greetings everyone,
>
>I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
>
>I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence, and
>the ability to collect even more! Much of it has already probably been
>presented, but there are also alot of new commers
>
>So let the debate begin, challenge me with you unanswered questions,
>try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus, give me your
>evolution evidence, and then let me begin to ask you questions as
>well.
Oh boy, this oughta be good...I can hardly wait...
Baron Bodissey
I've found that you start getting your smarts back almost the instant
they have children of their own.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
- Amazon Women on the Moon
Mark VandeWettering
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
>
> I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence,
I suspect that this means rather that our mind will be boggled that
you consider your misconceptions "evidence".
> and
> the ability to collect even more! Much of it has already probably been
> presented, but there are also alot of new commers
>
> So let the debate begin, challenge me with you unanswered questions,
> try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus, give me your
> evolution evidence, and then let me begin to ask you questions as
> well.
Uh, you'll have to lead with your chin. What do you believe?
Mark
Josh Hayes
news:41ukh3psm0e3ahrta...@4ax.com:
> Nothing makes you more stupid than having teenage children. When they
> get into their late thirties, you start to regain some of your
> smarts.
Lessee, when my kids get into their late thirties, I'll be, uh....
carry the two, and, umm.....
Oh! I'll be dead! Right-o!
-JAH
but regaining my smarts all the same
Ken Rode
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
>
> I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence,
Have you got anything better than "Creationism is true because the Great
Pyramid is numerologically perfect" or "Creationism is true because eels
breed in the Sargasso Sea"? Those are my favourites so far.
> and
> the ability to collect even more! Much of it has already probably been
> presented, but there are also alot of new commers
>
> So let the debate begin, challenge me with you unanswered questions,
> try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus, give me your
> evolution evidence, and then let me begin to ask you questions as
> well.
>
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence
No you don't.
No babblical cretinist or IDiot has any objective, verifiable evidence
backing up its claims. Furthermore, no cretinist or IDiot knows anything
about evolutionary theory (or science in general, for that matter).
All your "evidence" is either of the personal kind (fine for you, worthless
for us) or based upon pseudoscience and willful idiocy (worthless in any
case).
Harsh words? Of course. After some four years of examining both sides of
this "controversy", this is the perfect rule governing it all. I have not
found a single exception in all those years.
But hey, prove me wrong. Show me some of your "new" stuff. Maybe you, out of
the countless cretinists in the world, are the only one with valid
evidence?
Oh by the way, don't start ranting about how as an atheist I would be
immoral, evil, blah yadda. I am not an atheist. If you don't get this
simple message, expect the finest mockery from me.
Your turn.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Thurisaz the Einherjer
>> The Bible can't be disproven. That's like asking people to disprove
>> that invisible unicorns exist.
> Is that maybe because it's completely accurate and all previous
> attempts have failed?
Try "because 'gawd did it / gawd wanted it this way / gawd works in
mysterious ways' can explain _everything"._
Although I do disagree with the claim that da wholly babble cannot be
disproven. The book refers to a flat earth, four-legged insects, talking
snakes, et cetera, ad nauseam, let alone a gawd that cannot possibly exist
due to the attributes assigned to it by the book that is supposedly its
revealed word. Methinks this pretty much disproves the book. What indeed
can't be disproven is the existence of _some_ deity, of whatever kind.
>> Your evidence is welcomed, however. You are aware, I hope, that Bible
>> passages cannot be counted as scientific evidence, since they rely on
>> the personal authority of unknown people?
> At this moment it's extremely late in Zimbabwe, and I need to get some
> rest, and also disconnect from the expensive internet!
Farewell. And get some brains and education.
Yes we know what you really mean by your words above. You know you've lost
and won't come back, but you can't admit it for the life of you.
Is there, anywhere out there, a morontheist with balls, or is this sad state
of eternal cowardice "natural" for them?
Never mind, we all know the answer.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
>> Why would I want to do that? The Bible, God and Jesus are not problems
>> for evolution.
> Yes they do. If they exist then evolution is rubbish.
Prepare for some shocking news:
The bible clearly talks about your gawd using evolution. Read your Genesis.
The lawd there "tells the earth to bring forth (whatever)". You lose.
Of course the book _also_ says that your heavenly sadist created everything
on its own. And this is the shocking news:
We don't believe the bible? You don't either.
What now?
Thurisaz the Einherjer
>> Consider us underwhelmed, and also unboggled. We've heard 'em all
>> before, kid.
> So why do you still support the dumb, stupid hypothesis?
We don't. _You_ are the cretinist, not us.
(In case you don't get it: That means that "we've heard them all before _and
we know they are crap")_
> Besides, you don't intimidate or discourage me.
Fine. That means you'll continue to make a fool of yourself and show how
willfully braindead one must be to join your cult.
John Wilkins
Ditto. In fact, when I'm dead, I'll be smarter than I've ever been.
[BTW: I'm applying for a position at UW, Josh. You might get me as a
neighbo[u]r]
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Bobby Bryant
Pure Christian <wdup...@HotPOP.com> writes:
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
>
> the ability to collect even more! Much of it has already probably been
> presented, but there are also alot of new commers
>
> So let the debate begin, challenge me with you unanswered questions,
> try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus, give me your
> evolution evidence, and then let me begin to ask you questions as
> well.
>
> William
>
> (By the way, I'm 19 and I'm from Zimbabwe)
Well, that only stirs a yawn. Go ahead and post the evidence that's
going to stir up a storm.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
Pure Christian <wdup...@HotPOP.com> writes:
>
>> Finally! Let's see some.
>
> Well where would you like me to start??
>
> By proving that the earth isn't billions and billions of years old
> maybe?
Only if you've got something other than the standard nonsense we've
already heard. Otherwise don't waste our time and yours.
Bobby Bryant
Pure Christian <wdup...@HotPOP.com> writes:
>> The Bible can't be disproven. That's like asking people to disprove
>> that invisible unicorns exist.
>
> Is that maybe because it's completely accurate and all previous
> attempts have failed?
No, that's because literalists are always willing to misrepresent
what it says and/or reality in order to convince themselves that
they actually match.
Bobby Bryant
Pure Christian <wdup...@HotPOP.com> writes:
>
>> Do tell. I suspect that you won't have anything that's not already been
>> shot down hundreds of times...
>
> I might have a few new things.
I'm guessing that you don't. You could have posted several for less
trouble than you've already spent claiming that you could if you
wanted to.
Free Lunch
>
>> Do tell. I suspect that you won't have anything that's not already been
>> shot down hundreds of times...
>
>that silly hypothesis if you have already considered the evidence.
The evidence tells us that evolution has happened and is happening.
>Anyway, give me time to "gather my files"
>
>> Ok. What is the scientific theory of creation, and how can it be tested?
>
>I don't think there is a way to test creation. However there is
>evidence that promotes it and disproves evolution in the process.
None that has ever been provided.
>> > try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus,
>
>> Why would I want to do that? The Bible, God and Jesus are not problems
>> for evolution.
>
>Yes they do. If they exist then evolution is rubbish.
Why? Have you never heard of theistic evolution?
SeppoP
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
>
> I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence, and
> the ability to collect even more! Much of it has already probably been
> presented, but there are also alot of new commers
>
> So let the debate begin, challenge me with you unanswered questions,
> try to disprove the Bible and therefore God and Jesus, give me your
> evolution evidence, and then let me begin to ask you questions as
> well.
>
> William
>
> (By the way, I'm 19 and I'm from Zimbabwe)
>
Welcome!
It is always nice to have a brand new ignorant and arrogant religious freak on board!
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Pure Christian
First off, Evolution and Creation are completely different from each
other. You can't believe in both at the same time. They clearly
conflict with each other. As one author said, "it's like trying to
ride two horses in opposite directions."
When I say I'm a creationist, I meant a TRUE creationist. People who
call themselves creationists and then say the 6 days used to create
the earth were actually periods of million of years are just
"compromising evolutionists" and are probably worse than downright
evolutionists.
I believe there is a God who created EVERYTHING (including you!) by
divine power. I believe He merely spoke everything into existence and
that the Bible is 100% accurate. I believe all of it by the way. Those
who don't are not true Christians, or creationists or also fall into
the category of "compromising evolutionists". I fully believe in
Salvation and everything that Jesus did in the process of obtaining
it.
Another problem is that of the age of the earth. It's quite annoying
to have evolutionists quote that creationists claim the earth is 6000
years old. The Bible is silent, except for genealogies, and even those
are incomplete. (Considering the Bible isn't a science book, I
wouldn't expect otherwise.) We believe the earth is "about" 6000 years
old. We don't say 6000 exactly as evolutionist quotes seem to suggest.
It could be 6525, it could even be closer to 7000. But I think it is
safe to assume that it is not more than 10,000 and definitely not
higher than 15,000. Anything other than this is starting to turn into
evolution. Even 10,000 is starting to stretch it a bit.
Concerning literal days in which the earth was created. We can't be
exactly sure there were 24 hours in each, but if not, then it can't be
more than just a few hours extra. That the six days were actually
periods of time sometimes numbering millions of years is rubbish, and
not creationism at all. It's a compromise between the two, and as
stated earlier, probably worse than plain evolution itself.
Creation can't be tested by the way. Only God can make life, and only
God can make the earth. No human has that power. So don't ask me to
test it. And no, that doesn't put the creation story to rest. If you
say it does you're just being a sore looser and want to purposely
ignore the other evidence, which by the way is coming in due time.
When I referred to that "silly hypothesis", I was actually meaning
Evolution. In my view, it doesn't even deserve to be called a theory,
much less a fact. Actually it shouldn't be allowed to be called a
hypothesis either. It should still be an idea in the forming!
About the flood. Now that's an interesting topic and most vital as
evidence against evolution and indeed vital to creation. I do believe
there was a flood, and that it was universal, meaning the entire earth
was covered with water. It is possible. A brief explanation: Some say
it's impossible to cover Mount Everest with water to a height of 6
meters. Well first of all this is possible, because back then Mount
Everest wasn't as high as it was now. Yes there is evidence to suggest
such.
Also, did you know that if all the ice in Antarctica melted, it would
raise the ocean by 61 meters. Yes, it's possible because Antarctica
has ice that is more than 2 km thick in most places. Also, the
Greenland ice shelves are enough to add 7 meters to the ocean level.
The arctic is believed to contain enough ice to raise it by 2 meters
although the latter admittedly is a bit questionable.
It is also believed that if all the water in the atmosphere were to
drop, including all the clouds, there could well be enough water to
cover the earth--specially if Mount Everest were not as high as it is
now.
And look at the evidence: How do you think the Grand Canyon was
formed, by a slow trickle over millions and billions of years. Yeah
right! Trillions of Quadrillions of years would never be enough for a
trickle to forms such impressive canyons!
Not to mention there are places all over the earth where there appear
to be water marks (i.e. marks made by water-and I mean lots of water,
not just a stream.) Odd, these places seem to be in some places where
you don't find much water, like the deserts. The flood is real.
I also realize the Ark and all the living species cause a lot of
trouble for evolutionists. Some say it's impossible to put all those
species in one little boat. But many fail to see just how big the ark
really way. It was about just over 3/4 the size of the Titanic, and
had about the same displacement. I also think Noah was clever enough
to bring babies and young animals into the ark; I doubt he had to
necessarily take the biggest of every kind! I also say an extremely
dumb question on the Talk Origins website: Namely how did the fish
survive. Hello, fish live in water! Many of them probably perished
because they couldn't adapt, but quite a few species lived. Perhaps
the salt and fresh water are what bother you?? Well, the ocean is
becoming more salty (that's been proven and observed by the way). So
it means back then the water was less salty! "Hand up those who can
figure this out." Which means if a whole lot of fresh water was added
to slightly salty water, there wasn't much difference on both sides. I
once read that any fresh water fish can adapt to salt water if the
change is gradual enough. Well there you go, fresh water and salt
water mixing: the change was just slight enough for both sides to
adapt.
Of course some of this is mere speculation, there is no way to know
for sure. It is reasonable and logical, and some of it can be tested.
(Like adapting fresh water fish to salt water and v.v.). There are
still some questions that remain a mystery but that's probably because
human knowledge is so limited. (That's probably also a defense for
evolution, but I still don't believe it.). One other thing. I would
like to believe that Noah's Ark is still on Mount Ararat, and have
even heard several (questionable) testimonies of sightings. I feel
that if it is there, it's not God's will to reveal it yet. One day He
might, and my gosh I would love to see the world's reaction to such a
discovery. Wouldn't it be grand, Noah's ark in a museum?
Now then, let's move onto the Definition of Evolution
All Evolution quotes herein were taken from the "What is Evolution"
pdf file @ talk origins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-definition.pdf
Quote: "But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that
results in heritable changes in a population spread over many
generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes
religion!"
I don't know which religion is being talked about here, but it's
certainly not Christianity, upon which the whole Creation story rests.
Also: I hate the word religion, because it implies a wide field. I
prefer the word "Christianity". So please use the word Christianity
instead of religion when addressing my belief. Thank you. There are
other "religions" out there, the majority of which I don't believe in.
Just as you guys don't like misrepresented evolution, so I don't like
misrepresented Religion!
Quote: "On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in
particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand
science. Reading a textbook would help."
Do you know how hilarious and sometimes even downright boring it is
for some of us creationists to read a "scientific evolution" textbook?
Also another question I have to ask, and I expect a proper answer to
this one, why do evolutionists have to use such complex language. Is
it to make your points seem more impressive and convincing? That's
probably why the general public can't understand what they read about
evolution, thus all the misunderstanding! It's also probably why they
don't read the textbooks to begin with! Can't you all just use simple
words, simple language--something understandable by all? Forgive us if
we are not all as "intellectual" as you are. Perhaps my youth is
showing by saying this, but how many of you really understand the
evolution material you read? Honestly!
Take this for example, the definition of Evolution from the
"Scientific" Point of view: "One of the most respected evolutionary
biologists has defined biological evolution as follows: "In the
broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive;
galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological
evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms
that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an
individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not
evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary
are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one
generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or
substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the
proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those
determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from
the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986"
Now in English please!
So what exactly does all that mean?? Let me put my version of it in
plain language, and then you confirm it if I'm right:
NOT Evolution: The gradual change and development as seen in the
Mercedes Line of Vehicles--from the old cars to the
modern ones
YES Evolution: When a Mercedes begins to change into a jet
Is that about right?? If not, then could you please explain in simple
language!
And my most favorite and one I laughed at endlessly:
Quote: "When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they
cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of
evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to
demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in
gravity!"
OK, I'll believe evolution if you demonstrate before me a reptile
changing into a bird, or an amphibian changing into a reptile. You're
probably going to say it takes millions of years. The common phrase!
Evolutionists seem to think that given enough time, anything is
possible, no? So why then does the file you wrote and support say it
can be "easily" demonstrated. That line ought to be taken out of the
file because it's misleading!
My apologies at the apparent lack of evidence in this posting, and
also the length, but we need to clear these things up before we bother
presenting evidence.
William
Ken Rode
>
<snip>
I'm going to let others deal with the material that I snipped above. I
will note that you seem to have covered the major logical fallacies
remarkably well. I certainly noted No True Scotsman, and the argument
from personal incredulity seems to figure prominently as well. Perhaps
not the best basis for strong and well-formed arguments, but hey, you
have to work with what you have.
> Now then, let's move onto the Definition of Evolution
>
>
> All Evolution quotes herein were taken from the "What is Evolution"
> pdf file @ talk origins:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-definition.pdf
>
>
> Quote: "But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that
> results in heritable changes in a population spread over many
> generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes
> religion!"
>
> I don't know which religion is being talked about here, but it's
> certainly not Christianity, upon which the whole Creation story rests.
Well, you learn something new every day. I had always assumed that
Christianity rested on... well... Christ. But a Christian is telling us
that this isn't so.
> Also: I hate the word religion, because it implies a wide field. I
> prefer the word "Christianity". So please use the word Christianity
> instead of religion when addressing my belief. Thank you. There are
> other "religions" out there, the majority of which I don't believe in.
> Just as you guys don't like misrepresented evolution, so I don't like
> misrepresented Religion!
"Christianity" implies a wide field as well. There are something like
30,000 different Christian sects, and most of them don't believe all of
the things that you believe. You would consider most of them to be
atheistic, no doubt. I think you should ask yourself whether or not you
are really intended to be the arbiter of other peoples' beliefs.
> Quote: "On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in
> particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand
> science. Reading a textbook would help."
>
> Do you know how hilarious and sometimes even downright boring it is
> for some of us creationists to read a "scientific evolution" textbook?
Ultimately, this is the problem, isn't it? Why bother to understand
something when you can simply deny it? Your failure to understand what
evolution is has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not.
> Also another question I have to ask, and I expect a proper answer to
> this one, why do evolutionists have to use such complex language.
Every field of human endeavour uses its own specialized vocabulary.
These are used because they add precision to the language. Usually, the
only people who actually complain about these specialized words are the
people who are too lazy to bother to learn what they mean. I'm guessing
that that includes you.
> Is
> it to make your points seem more impressive and convincing? That's
> probably why the general public can't understand what they read about
> evolution, thus all the misunderstanding! It's also probably why they
> don't read the textbooks to begin with! Can't you all just use simple
> words, simple language--something understandable by all? Forgive us if
> we are not all as "intellectual" as you are. Perhaps my youth is
> showing by saying this, but how many of you really understand the
> evolution material you read? Honestly!
I suspect that most people here can understand the material that they
read. I can't really imagine why someone would take the time to read
material that they don't understand, except to gain the understanding
that they need to appreciate the material. Your experience seems to be
otherwise however.
> Take this for example, the definition of Evolution from the
> "Scientific" Point of view: "One of the most respected evolutionary
> biologists has defined biological evolution as follows: "In the
> broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive;
> galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological
> evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms
> that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an
> individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not
> evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary
> are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one
> generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or
> substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the
> proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those
> determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from
> the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
> - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986"
The only specialized words in that quote that I noticed were 'ontogeny'
and 'allele'. I don't think that looking these words up is too much to ask.
> Now in English please!
>
> So what exactly does all that mean?? Let me put my version of it in
> plain language, and then you confirm it if I'm right:
>
> NOT Evolution: The gradual change and development as seen in the
> Mercedes Line of Vehicles--from the old cars to the
> modern ones
> YES Evolution: When a Mercedes begins to change into a jet
>
> Is that about right?? If not, then could you please explain in simple
> language!
Cars are not biological organisms, so no, that isn't right.
It's pretty clear, I thought: evolution is the change in the properties
of populations of organisms over time, where the properties that are
addressed are inheritable.
> And my most favorite and one I laughed at endlessly:
>
> Quote: "When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they
> cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of
> evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to
> demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in
> gravity!"
>
> OK, I'll believe evolution if you demonstrate before me a reptile
> changing into a bird, or an amphibian changing into a reptile.
The fossil record, although not as complete as some would like it to be,
shows both of these adequately well, I'm sure.
> You're
> probably going to say it takes millions of years. The common phrase!
Apart from the fact that you don't believe that millions of years (let
alone billions) have elapsed since the beginning of the universe, do you
have some other problem with this? Small amounts of change take a bit of
time, but large amounts of change take longer.
> Evolutionists seem to think that given enough time, anything is
> possible, no?
No. Lots of interesting things are possible, but it is not the case that
anything is possible.
> So why then does the file you wrote and support say it
> can be "easily" demonstrated. That line ought to be taken out of the
> file because it's misleading!
>
> My apologies at the apparent lack of evidence in this posting, and
> also the length, but we need to clear these things up before we bother
> presenting evidence.
'Apparent' lack of evidence? There wasn't anything apparent about it.
> William
>
Ernest Major
Christian <wdup...@HotPOP.com> writes
>
>First off, Evolution and Creation are completely different from each
>other. You can't believe in both at the same time. They clearly
>conflict with each other. As one author said, "it's like trying to ride
>two horses in opposite directions."
Only for particular values of evolution and creation.
>
>When I say I'm a creationist, I meant a TRUE creationist. People who
>call themselves creationists and then say the 6 days used to create the
>earth were actually periods of million of years are just "compromising
>evolutionists" and are probably worse than downright evolutionists.
>
>I believe there is a God who created EVERYTHING (including you!) by
>divine power. I believe He merely spoke everything into existence and
>that the Bible is 100% accurate. I believe all of it by the way. Those
>who don't are not true Christians, or creationists or also fall into
>the category of "compromising evolutionists". I fully believe in
>Salvation and everything that Jesus did in the process of obtaining it.
Please compare Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:21-38.
Also, as a Christian, you ought to place a higher weight on the works of
God (the natural world) than on the words of men (the Bible). You might
like to consider the applicability of Exodus 20:3-6.
http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML
Furthermore, by claiming that those who are not Young Earth (Flat Earth?
Geocentric?) Creationists are not true Christians, you are espousing a
heresy - it is not orthodox Christian doctrine to exclude such persons
from the definition of Christian. Does not Exodus 20:7 apply here?
(Matthew 7:1 is also widely interpreted as meaning that you shouldn't
take it upon yourself to say who is and isn't a Christian.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Guido
> About the flood. Now that's an interesting topic and most vital as
> evidence against evolution and indeed vital to creation. I do believe
> there was a flood, and that it was universal, meaning the entire earth
> was covered with water. It is possible. A brief explanation: Some say
> it's impossible to cover Mount Everest with water to a height of 6
> meters. Well first of all this is possible, because back then Mount
> Everest wasn't as high as it was now. Yes there is evidence to suggest
> such.
> Also, did you know that if all the ice in Antarctica melted, it would
> raise the ocean by 61 meters. Yes, it's possible because Antarctica
> has ice that is more than 2 km thick in most places. Also, the
> Greenland ice shelves are enough to add 7 meters to the ocean level.
> The arctic is believed to contain enough ice to raise it by 2 meters
> although the latter admittedly is a bit questionable.
>
> It is also believed that if all the water in the atmosphere were to
> drop, including all the clouds, there could well be enough water to
> cover the earth--specially if Mount Everest were not as high as it is
> now.
I am aware that Antarctica's ice shelf contains enough water to raise
the sea level by approximately 60 meters. I am also aware that Greenland
contains enough ice for several meters more. I would not be surprised if
there would be enough ice in Siberia, Canada and Alaska to raise the sea
level by 2 meters. The ice in the arctic ocean, however, floats, so if
it were to melt it would not raise the sea level at all. This is a
direct consequence of Archimedes' law.
Your assertion that if all the water in the atmosphere were to condense
(why would it do so, by the way?} the sea level would rise appreciably
is false. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapour:
"The annual mean global concentration of water vapor would yield about
25 mm of liquid water over the entire surface of the Earth if it were to
instantly condense."
Note that this is much less than tidal effects, which means you would
hardly notice it.
About your assertion that Mount Everest and, presumably, other mountains
as well, were lower at the time of the flood (which could not have been
more than about 10.000 years ago, if the creation date you cite is
correct): what's the evidence for this? Also, you do realise that the
difference between 70 meters and 8.8 kilometers is a factor of more than
100, don't you? This is not a trivial matter. What is the mechanism that
caused the mountains to rise up to 8 kilometers in less than 10000
years, or about 80cm per year? Note that the Himalayas currently rise at
a rate of about 5mm per year, another discrepancy of a factor of 100.
> And look at the evidence: How do you think the Grand Canyon was
> formed, by a slow trickle over millions and billions of years. Yeah
> right! Trillions of Quadrillions of years would never be enough for a
> trickle to forms such impressive canyons!
Evidence? Note that the Colorado river is called that way because its
water is coloured by all the silt it carried. Were does the silt come from?
> Not to mention there are places all over the earth where there appear
> to be water marks (i.e. marks made by water-and I mean lots of water,
> not just a stream.) Odd, these places seem to be in some places where
> you don't find much water, like the deserts. The flood is real.
At best you could conclude from this that local flooding was common in
the past, just like it is today. It is not evidence of a global flood,
as geologists proved several centuries ago.
<snip remainder>
Frank J
> First off, Evolution and Creation are completely different from each
> other. You can't believe in both at the same time. They clearly
> conflict with each other. As one author said, "it's like trying to
> ride two horses in opposite directions."
>
> When I say I'm a creationist, I meant a TRUE creationist. People who
> call themselves creationists and then say the 6 days used to create
> the earth were actually periods of million of years are just
> "compromising evolutionists" and are probably worse than downright
> evolutionists.
No, they are called "old earth creationists" (OECs). Many of them
argue against evolution *and* common descent, and while their
arguments are still flawed, are actually better (as in requiring
refutations that are longer and not as easily understandable by their
target audience) than YEC arguments.
>
> I believe there is a God who created EVERYTHING (including you!) by
> divine power. I believe He merely spoke everything into existence and
> that the Bible is 100% accurate. I believe all of it by the way. Those
> who don't are not true Christians, or creationists or also fall into
> the category of "compromising evolutionists". I fully believe in
> Salvation and everything that Jesus did in the process of obtaining
> it.
>
> Another problem is that of the age of the earth. It's quite annoying
> to have evolutionists quote that creationists claim the earth is 6000
> years old. The Bible is silent, except for genealogies, and even those
> are incomplete. (Considering the Bible isn't a science book, I
> wouldn't expect otherwise.) We believe the earth is "about" 6000 years
> old. We don't say 6000 exactly as evolutionist quotes seem to suggest.
> It could be 6525, it could even be closer to 7000. But I think it is
> safe to assume that it is not more than 10,000 and definitely not
> higher than 15,000. Anything other than this is starting to turn into
> evolution. Even 10,000 is starting to stretch it a bit.
>
> Concerning literal days in which the earth was created. We can't be
> exactly sure there were 24 hours in each, but if not, then it can't be
> more than just a few hours extra. That the six days were actually
> periods of time sometimes numbering millions of years is rubbish, and
> not creationism at all. It's a compromise between the two, and as
> stated earlier, probably worse than plain evolution itself.
>
> Creation can't be tested by the way.
But the hows and whens of creation can, so I hope that you will back
up your pretense of being motivated by evidence only (rather than
revelation or an emotional commitment to what you want to believe) by
addressing at least half of your charges against OECs and IDers. But I
suspect that you won't.
> Only God can make life, and only
> God can make the earth. No human has that power. So don't ask me to
> test it. And no, that doesn't put the creation story to rest. If you
> say it does you're just being a sore looser and want to purposely
> ignore the other evidence, which by the way is coming in due time.
>
> When I referred to that "silly hypothesis", I was actually meaning
> Evolution.
But you imply that OEC - the independent creation of many "kinds" over
millions or more year - is also silly. Why not address that? And what
about the "don't ask, don't tell" tactics of the IDers? That must
really drive you nuts, correct?
(snip YEC arguments - I'll let others determine if any are new ones)
> Now then, let's move onto the Definition of Evolution
>
> All Evolution quotes herein were taken from the "What is Evolution"
> pdf file @ talk origins:http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-definition.pdf
>
> Quote: "But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that
> results in heritable changes in a population spread over many
> generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes
> religion!"
And it doesn't. It only precludes the falsified accounts that have
been rejected by mainstream religion. Those accounts (not theories),
include the OEC you apparently despise, and yours - BTW, before I call
you a YEC, do you also think that the Earth is flat and/or at the
center of the universe?
>
> I don't know which religion is being talked about here, but it's
> certainly not Christianity, upon which the whole Creation story rests.
>
> Also: I hate the word religion, because it implies a wide field. I
> prefer the word "Christianity". So please use the word Christianity
> instead of religion when addressing my belief. Thank you. There are
> other "religions" out there, the majority of which I don't believe in.
> Just as you guys don't like misrepresented evolution, so I don't like
> misrepresented Religion!
>
> Quote: "On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in
> particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand
> science. Reading a textbook would help."
And many of them have. Rank and file creationists read the textbooks
and often reject creationism. But anti-evolution activists read the
textbooks only for quotes to mine.
(snip even more whining about evolution that should equally pertain to
OEC and ID if you are serious about having "evidence")
Martin Kaletsch
> Pure Christian wrote:
>> Greetings everyone,
>>
>> I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
>>
>> I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence,
>
> Have you got anything better than "Creationism is true because the Great
> Pyramid is numerologically perfect" or "Creationism is true because eels
> breed in the Sargasso Sea"? Those are my favourites so far.
I personally like "Creationism is true because uranium flys apart all by
itself".
--
"It was the laugh of the Elder Gods observing their creature man and noting
their omissions, miscalculations and mistakes." Fritz Leiber
Pure Christian
> Please compare Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:21-38.
It would take a little time to sort that out and figure it out. There
IS an explanation. Besides, that, we are not talking about small,
seeming discrepancies in the Bible, nor which religion is correct.
Rather we are talking about why evolution is not possible.
> Also, as a Christian, you ought to place a higher weight on the works of
> God (the natural world) than on the words of men (the Bible). You might
> like to consider the applicability of Exodus 20:3-6.
That's where you're wrong. While the works of God are amazing, they
can't save us. And the Bible is not what you say. It is the words of
God not of men.
> Furthermore, by claiming that those who are not Young Earth Creationists
> are not true Christians, you are espousing a heresy - it is not orthodox
>Christian docine to exclude such persons from the definition of Christian.
> (Matthew 7:1 is also widely interpreted as meaning that you shouldn't
> take it upon yourself to say who is and isn't a Christian.)
Oh, I'm not judging. I'm just filtering using the standard in
Galatians 1:6-9
There is only one way to Salvation; anything short of this is not
Christianity. And there can be no Salvation if you deny Christ. And
Christ Himself supported the Literal, 6 Day Creation as told in
Genesis. Christianity as a whole is built upon the foundation in
Genesis. If you compromise that foundation, you are destroying
Christianity as a whole. So those that say Creation and Evolution can
work side to side are wrong.
Concerning denominational differences between various groups of
Christians. I'm not overly concerned about that. After all, all
Christians worship the same God, whether they eat certain foods or
not, and whether other minor beliefs are different or not. So long as
all our ways to Salvation are the same, I'm not bothered.
The people who I refuse to accept as Christians, are the ones who
don't "go through the door", but rather try to climb over the fence!
These are the people that partly believe in Evolution and partly in
Creation. I can't stress enough who different the two are.
I've been reading so more of your Evolution stuff on the Talk Origins
website. Quite interesting actually, but totally worthless. My
comments:
Evolution is a fact and theory, http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-fact.pdf
Quote: "It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than
3.6 billion years old."
(Yes, because whoever wrote that was there at the time and saw all
this happening.)
Quote: "It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least
half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least
800 million years old."
(Same comment as above.)
Quote: "It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth
were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or
mammals 250 million years ago."
(Same comment as above)
Quote: "It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer
living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are
none now."
(Lies. There are dinosaurs alive today. Watch Kent Hovind's video on
the topic and then argue with me. (They can be downloaded from the Dr.
Dino website: www.drdino.com What are you saying about the decomposing
body of a dinosaur that was brought to the surface by the Japanese
fishing vessel, photographed, and then released again? What about all
those thousands of testimonies to encounters. Are you saying all those
people are lying, or mad?
Let me tell you a quick story: Year ago people didn't believe that
rocks fell from the sky. Scientists were killing themselves with
laughter at reports that rocks were falling from the sky. Eventually
after severely damaging a city in America, scientists finally accepted
it: Falling rocks are called comets! It's the same moral here.)
Quote: "No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural
world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the
earth is round,
rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
(I can deny such "facts" quite plainly. By the way concerning the
round, spherical earth--the Bible was the first to tell us this, and
this while people believed it was flat! Isaiah 40:22)
These quotes by - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time
for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus
Creationism, op cit.
Quote: Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has
accumulated supporting the fact of evolution"
Evolutionists are quick to point the finger to Creationists telling us
to show our evidence, and yet you guys have nothing. So where is this
"massive additional evidence" talked about above?
In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various
theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.
(I'm not overly concerned about the "mechanism". What I have a problem
with is the fact. You can think up silly mechanisms all you want.
Evolution is not a fact, it did not happen, plain and simple. Any
evidence that fits evolution fits creationism even better. Try
disproving that.)
---
God and Evolution: Can you accept both? http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-god.pdf
Quote: "So the answer is no, evolution is no more a religion than any
other scientific theory."
(First you say it's silly to exclude religion, then you say evolution
is not religious??)
Quote: "If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal
interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical
account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only,
point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and
creationists."
(This is the creation I believe in. This is the TRUE Creation account.
Any "creation" story short of this is not creation at all.)
Quote: "Q4. If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?
First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of
Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever
been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by
God, and one that appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations
of Genesis can be disproven. Second, let us turn the question around.
What if I asked you "If the story of the prodigal son didn't really
happen, then is the whole Bible wrong?" Remember that the Bible is a
collection of both stories and
historical accounts. Because one part is a figurative story does not
make the entire Bible so. Even if it did, the underlying message of
the Bible would remain.
(Notice the way you try to avoid the actual question. A simple yes or
no answer would be nice! And the answer is yes! There is no need for
salvation if evolution is true, because according to it, we die and
that's the end, there's nothing more. So those of you who believe the
Bible and Evolution, you are making fools out of yourself. It's one or
the other, there's no two ways about it.)
Quote: "There are many people who believe in the existence of God and
in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God.
Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this
interpretation is a valid one within evolution."
(Impossible. If God used evolution to create earth, and all living
things, He would be an extremely cruel, mean God, not at all the one
described in the Bible--because evolution as a whole is Cruel. Anyway,
besides that, may I ask why so many people are not living according to
the rest of the Bible. Why are so many evolutionists totally
disregarding it. Perhaps it's like "Natural Selection" where you
select which parts you will believe and which parts you don't want to
believe. So tell me, do you believe in the verse in the Bible that
says the Bible is completely accurate?"
One other problem between the Bible and Evolution is the creation of
the Universe. But of course evolutionists won't tell you what hurts
their theory. The Bible says God created the Heavens and the Earth.
Heavens meaning the universe. Evolution tells that a big band caused
the universe. And this is the part that make me laugh uncontrollably:
I refer to Kent Hovind's seminars, where he takes evolutionists
explanation from school text books:
"Nothing exploded to create the Universe"
One author wrote that if such folly were in the Bible it would be
scoffed at endlessly.
So the two completely disagree. God made it, God fashioned it, He
didn't cause nothing to explode or it would be clearly stated in the
Bible. I still want an answer as to what caused this huge explosion.
Anyway, enough "spitting in the wind" as it were. Tell me, darling
evolutionists, if evolution is true, then how do you explain your
hero's (Darwin) claim in which he says that any organ that is useless
to the organism is quickly discarded. Seems to me there are several
violent contradictions in that statement. Take for example a reptile
that begins evolving into a bird. It's been discovered that a bird's
wings are so remarkable and so complex that anything less than fully
formed wings would not work. So if a lizard began to develop wings and
features, which were at that time still forming and uselss, wouldn't
it discard them. That means it would hamper the evolving stage,
because whenever a change was about to take place, it would initially
be useless and then be discarded???
Another contradiction, if our appendix, which by the way was found to
have a function, it's not a vestigial organ. As I was saying if it
were vestigial, why wasn't it discarded. And what about the coccyx.
Oops, evolution is slacking!!
And this is one of my favorites: If evolution is possible, perhaps you
would like to tell me how termites are still around. Did you know that
termites eat wood, but can't actually digest it. So how do they
survive on a food they can't digest. Flagellates. Tiny organisms
inside the Termites digestive system digest the wood for the termite
and provide nutrition to the termite and to the flagellate in the
process. But here's the catch. A flagellate can't survive in free
oxygen--something that abounds in the air around us! Naughty naughty,
evolutionists would have us believe flagellates evolved before
termites. Neither can survive without the other. They had to exist
together at the same time, one within the other to survive. Seems that
if God put one within the other at the same time, the puzzle would fit
perfectly! That also pretty much kills the theory of God using
evolution, doesn't it. I can just see it now. God sitting up there,
trying to keep the flagellates alive while the termites are still
forming! Hogwash.
One other thing, before I run off and do some more evolution reading:
No one has ever seen life happen by chance. No one has ever seen a
living transitional form. Interesting. When God put Adam and Even on
earth they were fully grown (Fully evolved forms). So how come we have
children, teenagers, young adults, adults, middle aged, and old people
on earth today (all transitional forms.) If evolution were true, why
did it stop after the first transition has taken place. Why didn't it
continue so that we have living transitional forms on earth today--
animals that are still developing into complete forms. The only
evidence you have of transitional forms, which isn't actually
transitional forms at all, are fossils. (I'm going to touch on that
soon, and goodness are you going to be in on the shock!) Back to my
point though, no one has ever seen a living transitional form, so if
things that have never happened, and never been observed are still not
happening or being observed, what makes you think they ever happened
in the first place? Life always comes from life (Period). That fact
alone nails the lid shut on the evolutionary coffin. And in fact
points to a living, divine God who has always existed.
Life has never been produced before through evolution, or by chance.
Whatever gives people the idea that it could have happened
4,500,000,000 years ago, or even 5 Quadrillion years ago? The time
that evolutionists add to the whole process makes it believable. Take
away the time frame and see just how ridiculous the entire hypothesis
is:
Nothing exploded to form the universe. A piece broke off from the sun
and cooled down-somehow with water on it. From that water life some
how by chance, sprung into being. Then it evolved into fish, then into
amphibians, then into reptiles, then into birds, then mammals, then
apes, and finally man!
Wow! Mind boggling isn't it.
I think it was once Sir Isaac Newton who created a model of the Solar
System. When it was done an atheist walked in and asked who has made
the wonderful model. His answer was simply: "No one, all these little
bits and pieces, gears and paint, just all came together by
themselves."
William
Noelie S. Alito
> "Pure Christian" <wdup...@HotPOP.com> wrote in message
> news:1192914224.7...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Consider us underwhelmed, and also unboggled. We've heard 'em all
>>> before, kid.
>> So why do you still support the dumb, stupid hypothesis?
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
>> Wow, that is one huge load! While I'm going through that though...
>
> minutes..??
>
> The creationist lies begin...
Huh? He didn't say he'd read it all. He just commented that
it was a lot.
>
> [if op's credibility lost then snip rest end if]
>
You're being a [knee-]jerk.
Pure Christian
> The ice in the arctic ocean, however, floats, so if
> it were to melt it would not raise the sea level at all.
> This is a direct consequence of Archimedes' law.
Hence why I said the latter is questionable! Try not to repeat things
I'm already saying.
> Your assertion that if all the water in the atmosphere were to condense
> (why would it do so, by the way?}
No particular reason. But it the God I know is strong enough to create
the universe, perhaps He's strong enough to cause such. Also 2.5 cm is
not that small. Every little bit counts!
> the sea level would rise appreciably is false.
Is you read properly you will see I also mentioned Clouds! Do you know
how much water they contain. Do a little research then tell me it's
still impossible.
> Note that this is much less than tidal effects, which means you would
> hardly notice it.
Another thing that could raise water level tremendously is
temeperature. A 4*C water is most dense. Anything below or above this
and it begins to expand. Imagine how much rise you would get is all
the water on the planet were to heat up a little. It would be quite
big.
> About your assertion that Mount Everest and, presumably, other mountains
> as well, were lower at the time of the flood (which could not have been
> more than about 10.000 years ago, if the creation date you cite is
> correct):
Please use 6000. I always prefer 6000.
> what's the evidence for this?
I'll certainly gather some and let you have it in due course.
> Also, you do realise that the difference between 70 meters
> and 8.8 kilometers is a factor of more than 100, don't you?
>This is not a trivial matter. What is the mechanism that
> caused the mountains to rise up to 8 kilometers in less than 10000
> years, or about 80cm per year?
The pressure of all the water at the base. Already there are fears
that silt is making the sea beds heavier and causing continets to rise
and the oean floor to sink. It a little silt can disturb the balance,
then imagine what a lot of water can do.
> Note that the Himalayas currently rise at
> a rate of about 5mm per year, another discrepancy of a factor of 100.
That's because of natural causes. Back then it was a catastrophic
phenomenon.
> Evidence? Note that the Colorado river is called that way because its
> water is coloured by all the silt it carried. Were does the silt come from?
Again, the water from the flood caused all this.
> At best you could conclude from this that local flooding was common in
> the past, just like it is today. It is not evidence of a global flood,
> as geologists proved several centuries ago.
No, not at the magnitude that people believe it would take.
William
TomS
<1192914784.6...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Pure Christian
stated..."
>
>
>> Do tell. I suspect that you won't have anything that's not already been
>> shot down hundreds of times...
>
>I might have a few new things. And again I ask, why do you believe
>that silly hypothesis if you have already considered the evidence.
>
>> Ok. What is the scientific theory of creation, and how can it be tested?
>
>I don't think there is a way to test creation. However there is
>evidence that promotes it and disproves evolution in the process.
There were two parts to that question, and you have only mentioned
the "tested" part.
What is the theory of creation?
That is, give us some idea of what the theory of creation tells us
about what happened (or what happens) when there is a creation.
What sorts of things result.
That would include telling us what the difference is between things
that are created and those things which are not. For a beginning,
some examples of created things and some examples of uncreated
things.
A brief expository essay, answering the questions of Who, What,
Where, When, Why and How.
And then, to make it a <i>theory</i>, there would have to be
some sort of connection between the explanator factors and
the things explained. A chain of causes, for example.
And a theory would also tell us "why this and not that". Is there
some state of affairs that is ruled out (or even less likely) with
this theory of creation? Is there something that can't be done
by creation?
These are just some helpful hints for what a theory of creation
might look like.
Then, I suggest, only <i>after</i> you have given us a theory
of creation, can we get around to the evidence for it. Although,
in anticipation, it should be evidence <i>for</i> the theory,
not just evidence <i>against</i> some other theory.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
TomS
<1192953687.6...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Pure Christian
stated..."
[...snip...]
>When I say I'm a creationist, I meant a TRUE creationist. People who
>call themselves creationists and then say the 6 days used to create
>the earth were actually periods of million of years are just
>"compromising evolutionists" and are probably worse than downright
>evolutionists.
It is a kind of warning flag for me, when I see someone rate their
closest allies as "probably worse than" their opponents.
You are closing yourself off from people like Augustine. Not
to mention a whole lot of today's Christians.
Ernest Major
Christian <wdup...@HotPOP.com> writes
>Quote: Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has
>accumulated supporting the fact of evolution"
>
>Evolutionists are quick to point the finger to Creationists telling us
>to show our evidence, and yet you guys have nothing. So where is this
>"massive additional evidence" talked about above?
You can find some of it at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Undef&id=131
567&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
Christian <wdup...@HotPOP.com> writes
>
>Quote: "It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer
>living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are
>none now."
As a matter of terminology a case can be made that dinosaurs are still
living, if one defines dinosaurs cladistically as including birds.
Otherwise no living dinosaurs are known.
>
>(Lies. There are dinosaurs alive today. Watch Kent Hovind's video on
>the topic and then argue with me. (They can be downloaded from the Dr.
>Dino website: www.drdino.com What are you saying about the decomposing
>body of a dinosaur that was brought to the surface by the Japanese
>fishing vessel, photographed, and then released again? What about all
>those thousands of testimonies to encounters. Are you saying all those
>people are lying, or mad?
>
First, as a matter of terminology, plesiosaurs are not dinosaurs. (We
have a plesiosaur specialist participating here who if you ask him
nicely may explain the differences in bony detail.)
Second, dead basking sharks tend to shed their lower jaw, producing a
carcass which has a superficial similarity to a plesiosaur. Because the
carcass was thrown away it may not be possible to demonstrate beyond
unreasonable doubt that the carcass brought to the surface by the
Japanese trawler was a basking shark, but that would be the way to bet.
In the case of Kent Hovind, there's good reason to suspect that he is
lying; most of the other people reporting plesiosaur carcasses are
mistaken.
What "thousands of testimonies to encounters" refers to is unclear. I
assume that your not referring to UFSnauts, but nothing relevant with
thousands of encounters comes to mind.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
Christian <wdup...@HotPOP.com> writes
>
>Please use 6000. I always prefer 6000.
>
sincerity.
--
alias Ernest Major
Augray
<wdup...@HotPOP.com> wrote in
<1192969372....@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> :
[snip]
>Anyway, enough "spitting in the wind" as it were. Tell me, darling
>evolutionists, if evolution is true, then how do you explain your
>hero's (Darwin) claim in which he says that any organ that is useless
>to the organism is quickly discarded. Seems to me there are several
>violent contradictions in that statement. Take for example a reptile
>that begins evolving into a bird. It's been discovered that a bird's
>wings are so remarkable and so complex that anything less than fully
>formed wings would not work.
That's not true. Less sophisticated wings can still be used for
gliding, and in fact Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird, had wings
that are less sophisticated than those of living birds.
>So if a lizard began to develop wings and
>features,
Minor quibble: no one says that birds evolved from lizards. Rather,
the consensus is that they evolved from dinosaurs.
>which were at that time still forming and uselss, wouldn't
>it discard them. That means it would hamper the evolving stage,
>because whenever a change was about to take place, it would initially
>be useless and then be discarded???
Primitive wings can still be used for gliding, hence they wouldn't be
useless.
[snip]
>And this is one of my favorites: If evolution is possible, perhaps you
>would like to tell me how termites are still around. Did you know that
>termites eat wood, but can't actually digest it. So how do they
>survive on a food they can't digest. Flagellates.
"Flagellates" doesn't mean what you think it means. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellates
>Tiny organisms
>inside the Termites digestive system digest the wood for the termite
>and provide nutrition to the termite and to the flagellate in the
>process. But here's the catch. A flagellate can't survive in free
>oxygen--something that abounds in the air around us! Naughty naughty,
>evolutionists would have us believe flagellates evolved before
>termites. Neither can survive without the other.
Some forms of algae are flagellates, and sperm cells fit the
definition too. The claim that they can't survive in the presence of
oxygen is false.
>They had to exist
>together at the same time, one within the other to survive. Seems that
>if God put one within the other at the same time, the puzzle would fit
>perfectly! That also pretty much kills the theory of God using
>evolution, doesn't it. I can just see it now. God sitting up there,
>trying to keep the flagellates alive while the termites are still
>forming! Hogwash.
[snip]
Ken Rode
<snip>
> So tell me, do you believe in the verse in the Bible that
> says the Bible is completely accurate?"
Umm... no. The history of the New Testament indicates, fairly clearly,
that it was first and foremost assembled as a political document, that
its main purpose is to encapsulate 'orthodox' beliefs so that heretical
thought could be driven out of the churches of the time. The main thing
that is completely accurate about the New Testament is that it reflects
orthodox Christian belief at that time. I doubt that it does so now. In
particular, a belief in a 6-day creation event does not constitute part
of modern Christian orthodox teaching.
Additionally, the text of the New Testament has changed over time. The
original manuscripts for the N.T. books have apparently been destroyed,
leaving us with a plethora of secondary and tertiary manuscripts, most
of which vary with each other. Some of these variances are fairly
substantial, and some are doctrinally significant. The differences arose
during copying of the documents by scribes, and the reasons for the
differences are varied, ranging from simple copying errors to outright
revisionism which was often used to bring ambiguously interpreted
passages into line with orthodox belief.
When you blindly accept everything that is written in a political
document (especially one with a track record for errors), you
essentially surrender your brain to someone else.
<snip>
Ron O
> "On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:01:27 -0700, in article
Oh, but this clown is a Pure Christian. How does he compare to the
True Christians like they have at the Discovery Institute or that are
accepting the various scams in places like Kansas. Not much different
from the jerk that claimed that all the Christians that were against
the bogus attempts to manipulate the science standards in Kansas were
not true Christians. Just recall the moron that claimed that teaching
creationism in the public schools wasn't against the establishment
clause because Christians and Jews (forgetting all the other worlds
religions) believed the same things. This guy would hack out the
Jews, and probably believes that other Christian sects would be better
off not existing also.
You can't make this junk up. Who would believe you? This guy only
has one thing going for him. He is only 19 and unless he trips over
his shoelaces and breaks his neck today, he has time to figure out
what a bogus load of crap he has been fed.
Ron Okimoto
Inez
So far, you've presented no actual evidence. Interesting.
> Creation can't be tested by the way. Only God can make life, and only
> God can make the earth. No human has that power. So don't ask me to
> test it.
But you don't have to replicate something to test it. If the fossil
record showed that all animals suddenly appeared in their current form
at the same time, that would be evidence, for example. Does it show
that?
> And no, that doesn't put the creation story to rest. If you
> say it does you're just being a sore looser and want to purposely
> ignore the other evidence, which by the way is coming in due time.
>
When will you get to this evidence?
> When I referred to that "silly hypothesis", I was actually meaning
> Evolution. In my view, it doesn't even deserve to be called a theory,
> much less a fact. Actually it shouldn't be allowed to be called a
> hypothesis either. It should still be an idea in the forming!
>
> About the flood. Now that's an interesting topic and most vital as
> evidence against evolution and indeed vital to creation. I do believe
> there was a flood, and that it was universal, meaning the entire earth
> was covered with water. It is possible. A brief explanation: Some say
> it's impossible to cover Mount Everest with water to a height of 6
> meters. Well first of all this is possible, because back then Mount
> Everest wasn't as high as it was now. Yes there is evidence to suggest
> such.
And where is that evidence? You made all sorts of claims, aren't you
going to back any of them up?
> Also, did you know that if all the ice in Antarctica melted, it would
> raise the ocean by 61 meters. Yes, it's possible because Antarctica
> has ice that is more than 2 km thick in most places. Also, the
> Greenland ice shelves are enough to add 7 meters to the ocean level.
> The arctic is believed to contain enough ice to raise it by 2 meters
> although the latter admittedly is a bit questionable.
That isn't enough to cover the world, now is it?
> It is also believed that if all the water in the atmosphere were to
> drop, including all the clouds, there could well be enough water to
> cover the earth--specially if Mount Everest were not as high as it is
> now.
Really? You believe it? No calculations or anything, just belief?
Good plan.
> And look at the evidence: How do you think the Grand Canyon was
> formed, by a slow trickle over millions and billions of years. Yeah
> right! Trillions of Quadrillions of years would never be enough for a
> trickle to forms such impressive canyons!
Again, this is just a rather silly personal opinion. And you consider
the Colorado river to be a "trickle?"
> Not to mention there are places all over the earth where there appear
> to be water marks (i.e. marks made by water-and I mean lots of water,
> not just a stream.) Odd, these places seem to be in some places where
> you don't find much water, like the deserts. The flood is real.
Why aren't they everywhere? Wasn't the flood worldwide?
> I also realize the Ark and all the living species cause a lot of
> trouble for evolutionists.
No no, that's a problem for creationist, being as it's fictional. And
stolen from previous religions, by the way.
> Some say it's impossible to put all those
> species in one little boat. But many fail to see just how big the ark
> really way. It was about just over 3/4 the size of the Titanic, and
> had about the same displacement. I also think Noah was clever enough
> to bring babies and young animals into the ark; I doubt he had to
> necessarily take the biggest of every kind! I also say an extremely
> dumb question on the Talk Origins website: Namely how did the fish
> survive. Hello, fish live in water! Many of them probably perished
> because they couldn't adapt, but quite a few species lived. Perhaps
> the salt and fresh water are what bother you?? Well, the ocean is
> becoming more salty (that's been proven and observed by the way). So
> it means back then the water was less salty! "Hand up those who can
> figure this out." Which means if a whole lot of fresh water was added
> to slightly salty water, there wasn't much difference on both sides. I
> once read that any fresh water fish can adapt to salt water if the
> change is gradual enough. Well there you go, fresh water and salt
> water mixing: the change was just slight enough for both sides to
> adapt.
So, you're idea of evidence is just making things up? You don't have
any scientific facts at all?
> Of course some of this is mere speculation,
I fear I missed the part that wasn't mere speculation.
> there is no way to know
> for sure.
There is actually a way- looking at the evidence. That won't go so
well for you so perhaps you'd better not.
> It is reasonable and logical, and some of it can be tested.
> (Like adapting fresh water fish to salt water and v.v.). There are
> still some questions that remain a mystery but that's probably because
> human knowledge is so limited. (That's probably also a defense for
> evolution, but I still don't believe it.). One other thing. I would
> like to believe that Noah's Ark is still on Mount Ararat, and have
> even heard several (questionable) testimonies of sightings.
On that logic do you believe in the Lochness monster, and that Elvis
is still alive, and aliens in Roswell?
TomS
<1192969372....@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Pure Christian
stated..."
[...snip...]
>(Impossible. If God used evolution to create earth, and all living
>things, He would be an extremely cruel, mean God, not at all the one
>described in the Bible--because evolution as a whole is Cruel. Anyway,
>besides that, may I ask why so many people are not living according to
>the rest of the Bible. Why are so many evolutionists totally
>disregarding it. Perhaps it's like "Natural Selection" where you
>select which parts you will believe and which parts you don't want to
>believe. So tell me, do you believe in the verse in the Bible that
>says the Bible is completely accurate?"
First of all, evolution as a whole is not cruel.
There are aspects of life which we can count as cruel. But
those things happen, as was recognized long ago, before
evolution was thought of. Those things won't go away if
evolution is denied. Dare I mention
John 12:24 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into
the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much
fruit."
Moreoever, do you deny the productivity of earthquakes and
volcanos? They produce new land and fertile soil, but involve
destruction.
But evolution is much more than death. So it is misleading
to say that "evolution as a whole" is cruel.
On a point that I don't really want to dwell on, for I realize that
it is futile to argue interpretations of the Bible. There is enough
there that everyone at some point must say "it can't possibly
mean that". But I have never found a verse in the Bible that
says that the Bible is completely accurate. I just did a search,
and the word "accurate" does not occur.
Pure Christian
The Theory of Creation
To figure out what my theory is, just read Genesis, and interpret it
literally. Also read the account of the flood. These are found in the
first 9 chapters of Genesis. For those who are too lazy to look it up:
God created the heavens and the earth, in short everything that exists
in six literal days. The creation was perfect. There was absolutely
nothing wrong with it-that is, until man sinned, upon which time, he
became mortal. His intellectual abilities also greatly suffered after
that, although not immediately. Eventually man became so wicked that
in order for the promise of a Messiah to be fulfilled God would have
to destroy the earth. Only Noah and his immediate family were saved
from the flood that then commenced. Before the flood, there were
numerous more species of animals on earth than there are now. I
believe there was one climate throughout the earth. Some also theorize
that there was a canopy (some say of water vapor, other say of ice)
surrounding the earth that blocked out harmful UV radiation. Because
this theory seems to solve a lot of problems on the Creation side, I
generally accept it. Of course the Bible doesn't say anything about
it, it's man's idea, and is therefore open to debate and questionable.
I believe that a universal flood greatly changed the world both during
and after. It is believed that great volcanoes, earthquakes and other
violent disturbances greatly changed the earth.
I also believe that man was created along with dinosaurs and such. In
fact the Bible mentions Dinosaurs twice as existing with man. There
are also fossils of footprints made by man inside footprints made by
dinosaurs ( http://www.icr.org/articles/print/255/ A Google Search
"man and dinosaur footprints together" will reveal a wealth of
evidence against evolution). There also seems to be evidence that
there are a few dinosaurs in existence today. There are many other
testimonies recorded by ancient civilizations that dinosaurs exited
with man, even for a little while after the flood. I believe the
reason so many species died out was because of the drastic changes to
the climate and environment after the flood. With the canopy gone,
polar regions and deserts began, including seasons and rain-all
characteristics that were never there before the flood.
I believe God's promise of the Messiah, Jesus being that Saviour. I
also believe in man's need for salvation, and in everything promised
by the Bible after this life and this earth end.
That's the basis of my believe, and of creationism and Christianity.
Any questions? By the way, more flood posting coming soon!
William
SeppoP
> Here's my theory of Creation:
>
<snip brainless blather>
> William
>
Your "theory" is utterly worthless unless you can provide incontrovertible, independently verifiable evidence for it.
So far you've provided nothing but brainless blather.
wf3h
> Here's my theory of Creation:
>
> The Theory of Creation
>
> To figure out what my theory is, just read Genesis, and interpret it
> literally
why? it's not biblical to read it literally. it's an arbitrary way of
looking at genesis.
>
> I also believe that man was created along with dinosaurs and such. In
> fact the Bible mentions Dinosaurs twice as existing with man.
where? is that in ephesians, where slaves are told to obey their
masters, perhaps?
>
> That's the basis of my believe, and of creationism and Christianity.
> Any questions? By the way, more flood posting coming soon!
>
yeah. why do you interpret the bible literally? there's no bibllical
basis for doing so.
and if people SAW dinosaurs, where are the dinosaurs today?
Ron O
> "man and dinosaur footprints together" will reveal a wealth of
> evidence against evolution). There also seems to be evidence that
> there are a few dinosaurs in existence today. There are many other
> testimonies recorded by ancient civilizations that dinosaurs exited
> with man, even for a little while after the flood. I believe the
> reason so many species died out was because of the drastic changes to
> the climate and environment after the flood. With the canopy gone,
> polar regions and deserts began, including seasons and rain-all
> characteristics that were never there before the flood.
>
> I believe God's promise of the Messiah, Jesus being that Saviour. I
> also believe in man's need for salvation, and in everything promised
> by the Bible after this life and this earth end.
>
> That's the basis of my believe, and of creationism and Christianity.
> Any questions? By the way, more flood posting coming soon!
>
> William
Drop the religious nonsense and stick to your creation model. It
obviously doesn't matter if Jesus is the savior if you are trying to
demonstrate that some flood happened 4,500 years ago or that the world
was created as in the version of the creation story that you are
putting up.
You should also confirm your references to see if they are up to
date. The ICR removed the Paluxy tracks from their museum in the
1990's more than half a decade after the article that you cite was
written. They have admitted that they no longer believe them to be
human footprints. The ICR does not remove incorrect and out of date
information from their archives. Nor do they note that they are
incorrect. You have to find this out for yourself.
QUOTE:
Another research project of some note involved the alleged discovery
of human and dinosaur footprints in the Paluxy River, central Texas.
Having been nominally involved since the late 1960's, I undertook a
major role in 1975 from nearby Oklahoma, culminating in a summary
book, Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs, and the People Who Knew
Them, in 1980. This book was withdrawn in 1985 when further research
called the original interpretation into question. Research continues,
but I am of the opinion that the evidence is, at best, ambiguous and
unusable as an anti-evolutionary argument at the present time.
END QUOTE:
http://www.icr.org/article/798/
It wasn't until the early 1990's that I saw an article about Henry
Morris taking the Paluxy tracks out of the ICR museum. It was big
news in Michigan (I was a post doc at Michigan State) because the CRS
(the parent organization or ICR was a spin off of it) is based in
Michigan.
By 1996 Henry Morris is admitting that the evidence is, at best,
ambiguous and unusable. So you will have to look up more recent junk
to determine if the old scam junk ever made the grade.
Ron Okimoto
Cheezits
> Here's my theory of Creation:
>
> The Theory of Creation
>
> To figure out what my theory is, just read Genesis, and interpret it
> literally.
That is not a theory. That is what's known as a *myth*. Basically you
are saying "this book says so, just believe it". All well and good if
that's what floats your ark but it isn't science, it's not verifiable or
testable, and it flies in the face of all known data. You have presented
no evidence either for creation or against evolution (note that those are
two different things). Same old shit I've been reading here for the last
15 years.
Sue
--
Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, please. - Herb Huston
TomS
<1192980135.2...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Pure Christian
stated..."
Yes.
What does it mean when you say that God created everything that
exists in six literal days?
After all, there are plenty of things that exist today that didn't
exist even a few years ago.
It seems to me that God did *not* create, in those six days of
creation some 6000 years go:
*the island of Surtsey (check it out in Wikipedia - it was formed
by volcanic activity starting in 1963)
*Barbaro (the 2006 winner of the Kentucky Derby - born in
2003)
*Sputnik (the first artificial satellite of the earth - launched in
1957)
Frank J
> "On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:01:27 -0700, in article
> stated..."
> [...snip...]>When I say I'm a creationist, I meant a TRUE creationist. People who
> >call themselves creationists and then say the 6 days used to create
> >the earth were actually periods of million of years are just
> >"compromising evolutionists" and are probably worse than downright
> >evolutionists.
>
> [...snip...]
>
> It is a kind of warning flag for me, when I see someone rate their
> closest allies as "probably worse than" their opponents.
What's even better is when they try to have it both ways. Like when
IDers whine incessantly about Dawkins and other atheists, then, and
only when one exposes the absudity of their fantasy of "us vs.
atheistic Darwinists," they admit that their chief enemies are the
theistic evolutionists. Of course, unlike PC (hmm, is that name a
coincidence?) IDers will accept under their big tent anyone who will
share their opposition to "Darwinism."
Ocean of Nuance
Yes I have a question.
If you weren't inculcated in Christianity by your parents or otherwise
have some temperal lobe issue brewing that draws you to spirituality,
would you be believing any of these stories?
How are your handling the scientific and archaeological disproofs of
varies claims made in the bible? I'm referring to things like evidence
the earth is clearly older than a few thousand years and that Exodus
didn't happen.
If your parents lied or were sincerely mistaken about the truth claims
of Christianity, how can you ever recover from the lies as an adult?
What steps can you take towards intellectual honesty if that is the case?
sharon
SeppoP
> On Oct 21, 8:47 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:01:27 -0700, in article
>> <1192953687.625422.169...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Pure Christian
>> stated..."
>> [...snip...]>When I say I'm a creationist, I meant a TRUE creationist. People who
>>> call themselves creationists and then say the 6 days used to create
>>> the earth were actually periods of million of years are just
>>> "compromising evolutionists" and are probably worse than downright
>>> evolutionists.
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> It is a kind of warning flag for me, when I see someone rate their
>> closest allies as "probably worse than" their opponents.
>
> What's even better is when they try to have it both ways. Like when
> IDers whine incessantly about Dawkins and other atheists, then, and
> only when one exposes the absudity of their fantasy of "us vs.
> atheistic Darwinists," they admit that their chief enemies are the
> theistic evolutionists. Of course, unlike PC (hmm, is that name a
> coincidence?) IDers will accept under their big tent anyone who will
> share their opposition to "Darwinism."
Yeah. Same thing with rejecting science as "materialistic" atheism and simultaneously
claiming that creationism and ID are science. Go figure...
>
>> You are closing yourself off from people like Augustine. Not
>> to mention a whole lot of today's Christians.
>>
>> --
>> ---Tom S.
>> "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
>> attributed to Josh Billings
>
>
Mr Tompkinson
> Here's my theory of Creation:
>
> The Theory of Creation
>
>
> That's the basis of my believe, and of creationism and Christianity.
> Any questions? By the way, more flood posting coming soon!
Can you describe an experiment that could be performed where your
theory and the theory of evolution predict different results?
Ken Shackleton
<snip>
>
> Of course some of this is mere speculation, there is no way to know
> for sure.
OK....you lose.
> One other thing. I would
> like to believe that Noah's Ark is still on Mount Ararat, and have
> even heard several (questionable) testimonies of sightings. I feel
> that if it is there, it's not God's will to reveal it yet.
Wishful thinking is not evidence.
> Now then, let's move onto the Definition of Evolution
>
> All Evolution quotes herein were taken from the "What is Evolution"
> pdf file @ talk origins:http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-definition.pdf
>
> Quote: "But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that
> results in heritable changes in a population spread over many
> generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes
> religion!"
>
> I don't know which religion is being talked about here, but it's
> certainly not Christianity, upon which the whole Creation story rests.
The quote was not specific to Christianity. The point is that the
theory of evolution does not require that religion[s] be false.
>
> Also: I hate the word religion, because it implies a wide field.
It is a wide field.
> I
> prefer the word "Christianity". So please use the word Christianity
> instead of religion when addressing my belief. Thank you. There are
> other "religions" out there, the majority of which I don't believe in.
So....you believe in some of them?
> Just as you guys don't like misrepresented evolution, so I don't like
> misrepresented Religion!
Religion is not Christianity. When the word religion is used, it is
typically being used in the broader sense.
>
> Quote: "On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in
> particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand
> science. Reading a textbook would help."
>
> Do you know how hilarious and sometimes even downright boring it is
> for some of us creationists to read a "scientific evolution" textbook?
I guess that's why none of you know anything about the subject; yet
you feel that you are qualified to critique it.
> Also another question I have to ask, and I expect a proper answer to
> this one, why do evolutionists have to use such complex language. Is
> it to make your points seem more impressive and convincing?
The language is as simple as it can be while still being precise.
Clear and precise communication is required when you wish to convey
your thoughts and ideas; Creationists take the opposite tack because
they seek to confuse.
> That's
> probably why the general public can't understand what they read about
> evolution, thus all the misunderstanding! It's also probably why they
> don't read the textbooks to begin with!
You will find as you get older that if you want to learn something, it
takes work. You have to study and investigate without prejudice, and
eventually, you may understand.
> Can't you all just use simple
> words, simple language--something understandable by all? Forgive us if
> we are not all as "intellectual" as you are. Perhaps my youth is
> showing by saying this, but how many of you really understand the
> evolution material you read? Honestly!
I am a lay person, my only formal education in biology is at the high
school level.....and I have read all the faq's and most of the
material on the talk.origins website. I can understand it reasonably
well.....although re-reading is often required.
>
> Take this for example, the definition of Evolution from the
> "Scientific" Point of view: "One of the most respected evolutionary
> biologists has defined biological evolution as follows: "In the
> broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive;
> galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological
> evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms
> that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an
> individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not
> evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary
> are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one
> generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or
> substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the
> proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those
> determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from
> the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
> - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986"
>
> Now in English please!
>
Evolution involves the changes that are seen in *populations* over the
generations. Individuals do not evolve, they must play the cards that
Nature has dealt them; but the offspring of individuals are not exact
copies of their parents. These variances in the offspring sometimes
play a role in how successful the offspring are at having offspring
themselves; so with each generation, the character of the population
changes. Over many thousands of generations, the character of the
population can change substantially, resulting in new and distinct
species.
Ken Shackleton
> Here's my theory of Creation:
>
> The Theory of Creation
>
> To figure out what my theory is, just read Genesis, and interpret it
> literally. Also read the account of the flood. These are found in the
> first 9 chapters of Genesis.
>
People have done this, and when they test [where possible] the
implications of a literally read Genesis, they find that it's all
wrong. It simply did not happen as Genesis proposes. If you attempt to
treat Genesis as a scientific theory, you quickly discover that it is
false.
>
> William
Mark VandeWettering
>
>
> First off, Evolution and Creation are completely different from each
> other. You can't believe in both at the same time. They clearly
> conflict with each other. As one author said, "it's like trying to
> ride two horses in opposite directions."
>
> call themselves creationists and then say the 6 days used to create
> the earth were actually periods of million of years are just
> "compromising evolutionists" and are probably worse than downright
> evolutionists.
>
> divine power. I believe He merely spoke everything into existence and
> that the Bible is 100% accurate. I believe all of it by the way. Those
> who don't are not true Christians, or creationists or also fall into
> the category of "compromising evolutionists". I fully believe in
> Salvation and everything that Jesus did in the process of obtaining
> it.
>
> Another problem is that of the age of the earth. It's quite annoying
> to have evolutionists quote that creationists claim the earth is 6000
> years old. The Bible is silent, except for genealogies, and even those
> are incomplete. (Considering the Bible isn't a science book, I
> wouldn't expect otherwise.) We believe the earth is "about" 6000 years
> old. We don't say 6000 exactly as evolutionist quotes seem to suggest.
> It could be 6525, it could even be closer to 7000. But I think it is
> safe to assume that it is not more than 10,000 and definitely not
> higher than 15,000. Anything other than this is starting to turn into
> evolution. Even 10,000 is starting to stretch it a bit.
So are you almost a Biblical literalist, or a Biblical almost-literalist?
> Concerning literal days in which the earth was created. We can't be
> exactly sure there were 24 hours in each, but if not, then it can't be
> more than just a few hours extra. That the six days were actually
> periods of time sometimes numbering millions of years is rubbish, and
> not creationism at all. It's a compromise between the two, and as
> stated earlier, probably worse than plain evolution itself.
>
> Creation can't be tested by the way. Only God can make life, and only
> God can make the earth. No human has that power. So don't ask me to
> test it. And no, that doesn't put the creation story to rest. If you
> say it does you're just being a sore looser and want to purposely
> ignore the other evidence, which by the way is coming in due time.
>
> When I referred to that "silly hypothesis", I was actually meaning
> Evolution. In my view, it doesn't even deserve to be called a theory,
> much less a fact. Actually it shouldn't be allowed to be called a
> hypothesis either. It should still be an idea in the forming!
>
> About the flood. Now that's an interesting topic and most vital as
> evidence against evolution and indeed vital to creation. I do believe
> there was a flood, and that it was universal, meaning the entire earth
> was covered with water. It is possible.
No, it isn't. And it didn't happen either.
> A brief explanation: Some say
> it's impossible to cover Mount Everest with water to a height of 6
> meters. Well first of all this is possible, because back then Mount
> Everest wasn't as high as it was now. Yes there is evidence to suggest
> such.
No. There isn't.
> Also, did you know that if all the ice in Antarctica melted, it would
> raise the ocean by 61 meters. Yes, it's possible because Antarctica
> has ice that is more than 2 km thick in most places. Also, the
> Greenland ice shelves are enough to add 7 meters to the ocean level.
> The arctic is believed to contain enough ice to raise it by 2 meters
> although the latter admittedly is a bit questionable.
So... all the mountains in the world used to only be 70 meters high?
> It is also believed that if all the water in the atmosphere were to
> drop, including all the clouds, there could well be enough water to
> cover the earth--specially if Mount Everest were not as high as it is
> now.
Like, maybe 71 meters high?
> And look at the evidence: How do you think the Grand Canyon was
> formed, by a slow trickle over millions and billions of years. Yeah
> right! Trillions of Quadrillions of years would never be enough for a
> trickle to forms such impressive canyons!
Ah, incredulity.
> Not to mention there are places all over the earth where there appear
> to be water marks (i.e. marks made by water-and I mean lots of water,
> not just a stream.) Odd, these places seem to be in some places where
> you don't find much water, like the deserts. The flood is real.
Like which deserts?
> I also realize the Ark and all the living species cause a lot of
> trouble for evolutionists. Some say it's impossible to put all those
> species in one little boat. But many fail to see just how big the ark
> really way. It was about just over 3/4 the size of the Titanic, and
> had about the same displacement.
Many fail to see just how many species they are, and how their genetics
do not display the kind of bottlenecking that the kind of mass
exctinction event that creationism presupposes would create.
> I also think Noah was clever enough
> to bring babies and young animals into the ark; I doubt he had to
> necessarily take the biggest of every kind!
Of course, the Bible doesn't _say_ that. And children are generally
fragile, require greater care, and per pound, require more food than
adults do.
> I also say an extremely
> dumb question on the Talk Origins website: Namely how did the fish
> survive. Hello, fish live in water! Many of them probably perished
> because they couldn't adapt, but quite a few species lived.
Is there any evidence of this mass exctinction event in fish?
> Perhaps
> the salt and fresh water are what bother you?? Well, the ocean is
> becoming more salty (that's been proven and observed by the way). So
> it means back then the water was less salty!
Uh. No.
> "Hand up those who can
> figure this out." Which means if a whole lot of fresh water was added
> to slightly salty water, there wasn't much difference on both sides. I
> once read that any fresh water fish can adapt to salt water if the
> change is gradual enough. Well there you go, fresh water and salt
> water mixing: the change was just slight enough for both sides to
> adapt.
But apparently fast enough to cover the entire earth.
> Of course some of this is mere speculation, there is no way to know
> for sure. It is reasonable and logical, and some of it can be tested.
> (Like adapting fresh water fish to salt water and v.v.). There are
> still some questions that remain a mystery but that's probably because
> human knowledge is so limited. (That's probably also a defense for
> evolution, but I still don't believe it.). One other thing. I would
> like to believe that Noah's Ark is still on Mount Ararat, and have
> even heard several (questionable) testimonies of sightings. I feel
> that if it is there, it's not God's will to reveal it yet. One day He
> might, and my gosh I would love to see the world's reaction to such a
> discovery. Wouldn't it be grand, Noah's ark in a museum?
Not really. Because it is obvious that it would be a fraud.
> Now then, let's move onto the Definition of Evolution
>
> All Evolution quotes herein were taken from the "What is Evolution"
> pdf file @ talk origins:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-definition.pdf
>
> Quote: "But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that
> results in heritable changes in a population spread over many
> generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes
> religion!"
>
> I don't know which religion is being talked about here, but it's
> certainly not Christianity, upon which the whole Creation story rests.
>
> Also: I hate the word religion, because it implies a wide field. I
> prefer the word "Christianity". So please use the word Christianity
> instead of religion when addressing my belief. Thank you. There are
> other "religions" out there, the majority of which I don't believe in.
It appears that you believe in only one more religion than does the atheist.
> Just as you guys don't like misrepresented evolution, so I don't like
> misrepresented Religion!
>
> Quote: "On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in
> particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand
> science. Reading a textbook would help."
>
> Do you know how hilarious and sometimes even downright boring it is
> for some of us creationists to read a "scientific evolution" textbook?
> Also another question I have to ask, and I expect a proper answer to
> this one, why do evolutionists have to use such complex language. Is
> it to make your points seem more impressive and convincing? That's
> probably why the general public can't understand what they read about
> evolution, thus all the misunderstanding! It's also probably why they
> don't read the textbooks to begin with! Can't you all just use simple
> words, simple language--something understandable by all? Forgive us if
> we are not all as "intellectual" as you are. Perhaps my youth is
> showing by saying this, but how many of you really understand the
> evolution material you read? Honestly!
>
> Take this for example, the definition of Evolution from the
> "Scientific" Point of view: "One of the most respected evolutionary
> biologists has defined biological evolution as follows: "In the
> broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive;
> galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological
> evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms
> that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an
> individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not
> evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary
> are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one
> generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or
> substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the
> proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those
> determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from
> the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
> - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986"
>
> Now in English please!
Isn't it about time to give up the charade that you are a 19 year old
from Zimbabwe?
> So what exactly does all that mean?? Let me put my version of it in
> plain language, and then you confirm it if I'm right:
>
> NOT Evolution: The gradual change and development as seen in the
> Mercedes Line of Vehicles--from the old cars to the
> modern ones
> YES Evolution: When a Mercedes begins to change into a jet
>
> Is that about right?? If not, then could you please explain in simple
> language!
>
> And my most favorite and one I laughed at endlessly:
>
> Quote: "When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they
> cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of
> evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to
> demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in
> gravity!"
>
> OK, I'll believe evolution if you demonstrate before me a reptile
> changing into a bird, or an amphibian changing into a reptile. You're
> probably going to say it takes millions of years. The common phrase!
> Evolutionists seem to think that given enough time, anything is
> possible, no? So why then does the file you wrote and support say it
> can be "easily" demonstrated. That line ought to be taken out of the
> file because it's misleading!
>
> My apologies at the apparent lack of evidence in this posting, and
> also the length, but we need to clear these things up before we bother
> presenting evidence.
Mark
> William
TomS
<1192983440.8...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Ken Shackleton
stated..."
>
>On Oct 21, 2:01 am, Pure Christian <wdupl...@HotPOP.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>> Of course some of this is mere speculation, there is no way to know
>> for sure.
>
>
>OK....you lose.
>
>
>
>
>> One other thing. I would
>> like to believe that Noah's Ark is still on Mount Ararat, and have
>> even heard several (questionable) testimonies of sightings. I feel
>> that if it is there, it's not God's will to reveal it yet.
>
>Wishful thinking is not evidence.
I didn't notice this before. The OP seems to think, contrary to what
the Bible says, that Noah's Ark landed on Mount Ararat.
I remember a fellow who was very irritated about those people who
did thought that the apple in the Garden of Eden might not have
been an apple. Of course, the Bible does not mention an apple.
And the Bible does not mention Mount Ararat. That mountain didn't
acquire that name until some time after the Bible was written.
There are lots of things that "literalists" think is in the Bible that
isn't there.
Guido
>> The ice in the arctic ocean, however, floats, so if
>> it were to melt it would not raise the sea level at all.
>> This is a direct consequence of Archimedes' law.
>
> Hence why I said the latter is questionable! Try not to repeat things
> I'm already saying.
>
the sea level. When land ice (such as the ice on Alaska, Canada and
Siberia, as I pointed out) melts the sea level *does* rise. So if all
the ice in the arctic melts the sea level rises. No question about it.
>> Your assertion that if all the water in the atmosphere were to condense
>> (why would it do so, by the way?}
>
> No particular reason. But it the God I know is strong enough to create
> the universe, perhaps He's strong enough to cause such.
"Goddidit" is not a scientific explanation.
> Also 2.5 cm is
> not that small. Every little bit counts!
Compared to tidal effects it is. So it would not have any more effect on
the earth than the ebb and flood based on the tides alone.
>
>> the sea level would rise appreciably is false.
>
> Is you read properly you will see I also mentioned Clouds! Do you know
> how much water they contain. Do a little research then tell me it's
> still impossible.
>
Ehm... "All the water in the atmosphere" includes clouds. Also, I don't
like it if you snip parts of my earlier post without letting me know.
Finally, YOU make the claim that the atmosphere contains much water, so
YOU prove it.
>
>> Note that this is much less than tidal effects, which means you would
>> hardly notice it.
>
> Another thing that could raise water level tremendously is
> temeperature. A 4*C water is most dense. Anything below or above this
> and it begins to expand. Imagine how much rise you would get is all
> the water on the planet were to heat up a little. It would be quite
> big.
Conceptually that's correct. However, it's more interesting to check how
big the effect is. See table at http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_water.htm:
at 4 degrees water has a density of 1 g/cm3. At 80 degrees water has a
density of 0.972 g/cm3, which is a change of about 3%, far from
"tremendous", in my view. So you can, by raising the temperature of the
oceans, raise the ocean level by 3%. The average depth of the oceans is
about 3790 meters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean) which would rise
the sea level by 114 meters. Not enough by far to cover mount everest.
Then again, by which mechanism would the water temperature rise to 80
degrees? "Goddidit" is not a scientific explanation.
>
>> About your assertion that Mount Everest and, presumably, other mountains
>> as well, were lower at the time of the flood (which could not have been
>> more than about 10.000 years ago, if the creation date you cite is
>> correct):
>
> Please use 6000. I always prefer 6000.
Others have commented on this. You stated yourself that a precise date
cannot be obtained from the bible. Why 6000? Besides, I merely used
10000 as an upper limit. If it's 6000 in stead of 10000, the annual rise
of the Himalayas would be even bigger than I calculated in my earlier post.
>
>> what's the evidence for this?
>
> I'll certainly gather some and let you have it in due course.
>
>> Also, you do realise that the difference between 70 meters
>> and 8.8 kilometers is a factor of more than 100, don't you?
>> This is not a trivial matter. What is the mechanism that
>> caused the mountains to rise up to 8 kilometers in less than 10000
>> years, or about 80cm per year?
>
> The pressure of all the water at the base. Already there are fears
> that silt is making the sea beds heavier and causing continets to rise
> and the oean floor to sink. It a little silt can disturb the balance,
> then imagine what a lot of water can do.
>
But the water that would have been there during the flood is still here.
So why does it exert 100 times less pressure now?
>
>> Note that the Himalayas currently rise at
>> a rate of about 5mm per year, another discrepancy of a factor of 100.
>
> That's because of natural causes. Back then it was a catastrophic
> phenomenon.
>
Catastrophic phenomena are still based on natural causes. You seem to
imply god was directly involved in this one. However, "goddidit" is not
a scientific explanation.
>> Evidence? Note that the Colorado river is called that way because its
>> water is coloured by all the silt it carried. Were does the silt come from?
>
> Again, the water from the flood caused all this.
>
Yet the Colorado river *still* transports silt to the ocean. Is the
flood still going today?
>> At best you could conclude from this that local flooding was common in
>> the past, just like it is today. It is not evidence of a global flood,
>> as geologists proved several centuries ago.
>
> No, not at the magnitude that people believe it would take.
>
First of all, what people believe is of no concern to me. Second, early
geologists *did* try to prove the creation story, but failed. In doing
so they discovered that a global flood did not happen.
>
> William
>
Dana Tweedy
>
> First off, Evolution and Creation are completely different from each
> other. You can't believe in both at the same time. They clearly
> conflict with each other. As one author said, "it's like trying to
> ride two horses in opposite directions."
Ok, you are getting off to a bad start. You are "arguing by assertion".
Just because you, or "one author" says something, that does not mean
it's true.
What if, for example, God used evolution as his means of creation?
Why would that be "trying to ride two horses in opposite directions"?
>
> When I say I'm a creationist, I meant a TRUE creationist.
Ok, why are other creationists not "true" creationists?
> People who
> call themselves creationists and then say the 6 days used to create
> the earth were actually periods of million of years are just
> "compromising evolutionists" and are probably worse than downright
> evolutionists.
Why? Please explain why they are "worse"?
>
> I believe there is a God who created EVERYTHING (including you!) by
> divine power.
Ok, why couldn't God use divine power to create the process of evolution?
>I believe He merely spoke everything into existence and
> that the Bible is 100% accurate. I believe all of it by the way. Those
> who don't are not true Christians, or creationists or also fall into
> the category of "compromising evolutionists". I fully believe in
> Salvation and everything that Jesus did in the process of obtaining
> it.
That belief, however runs counter to Jesus' teachings. In the Bible we
are told not to judge others, which is what you are doing by calling
others "not true Christians".
>
> Another problem is that of the age of the earth. It's quite annoying
> to have evolutionists quote that creationists claim the earth is 6000
> years old.
Actually, it's the creationists who most often misquote scientists. In
any case, many creationists do claim the Earth is only around 6000 years
old.
> The Bible is silent, except for genealogies, and even those
> are incomplete. (Considering the Bible isn't a science book, I
> wouldn't expect otherwise.) We believe the earth is "about" 6000 years
> old.
Yet the evidence clearly shows the Earth is much older.
> We don't say 6000 exactly as evolutionist quotes seem to suggest.
> It could be 6525, it could even be closer to 7000. But I think it is
> safe to assume that it is not more than 10,000 and definitely not
> higher than 15,000. Anything other than this is starting to turn into
> evolution. Even 10,000 is starting to stretch it a bit.
What evidence are you basing this claim on?
>
> Concerning literal days in which the earth was created. We can't be
> exactly sure there were 24 hours in each, but if not, then it can't be
> more than just a few hours extra.
Why not? Please expose your reasoning on this claim.
> That the six days were actually
> periods of time sometimes numbering millions of years is rubbish,
Why?
> and
> not creationism at all. It's a compromise between the two, and as
> stated earlier, probably worse than plain evolution itself.
Why?
>
> Creation can't be tested by the way.
Which means it's not science.
> Only God can make life,
Billions of people make life every year. That's why there are so many
people being born.
> and only
> God can make the earth.
Why can't God have used natural processes to make the Earth? And why
not any of the thousands of other creation stories' gods have made the
Earth?
> No human has that power. So don't ask me to
> test it.
Again, then it's not science.
> And no, that doesn't put the creation story to rest.
As far as science is concerned, it does.
> If you
> say it does you're just being a sore looser and want to purposely
> ignore the other evidence, which by the way is coming in due time.
Creationists always make promises they can't keep....
>
> When I referred to that "silly hypothesis", I was actually meaning
> Evolution.
But evolution is a scientific theory, not a "silly hypothesis"
Creationism is much more close to that description.
> In my view, it doesn't even deserve to be called a theory,
> much less a fact.
Evolution is a theory, and a fact.
> Actually it shouldn't be allowed to be called a
> hypothesis either. It should still be an idea in the forming!
Why? I suspect you don't understand what the term "theory" means in
scientific usage. A theory is not a guess, or a conjecture, it's a
concept well supported by evidence, and has been tested to the extent
that it's perverse to withhold acceptance.
>
> About the flood. Now that's an interesting topic and most vital as
> evidence against evolution and indeed vital to creation.
Even if there were a "flood" that does not mean that life did not
evolve. Also, as noted before, there is no evidence of a global flood.
> I do believe
> there was a flood, and that it was universal, meaning the entire earth
> was covered with water. It is possible.
Not without invoking miracles, which are not scientific.
> A brief explanation: Some say
> it's impossible to cover Mount Everest with water to a height of 6
> meters.
That's among the least of the problems with the "flood". Where did the
water come from? Where did it go? Why is there no physical evidence
of a single worldwide flood? How did all the animals get to Noah's
ark, and how did they get back? How did Noah feed and care for all the
millions of species, in their own special habitats? What did the
Carnivores eat, especially after they were released from the "ark"?
What about all the dinosaurs.... etc..etc...
> Well first of all this is possible, because back then Mount
> Everest wasn't as high as it was now. Yes there is evidence to suggest
> such.
What evidence is that?
> Also, did you know that if all the ice in Antarctica melted, it would
> raise the ocean by 61 meters.
Which is considerably less than would be required to cover even a
reduced Mt. Everest.
> Yes, it's possible because Antarctica
> has ice that is more than 2 km thick in most places. Also, the
> Greenland ice shelves are enough to add 7 meters to the ocean level.
> The arctic is believed to contain enough ice to raise it by 2 meters
> although the latter admittedly is a bit questionable.
Again, you are talking about at most 70 meters. Mt Everest is 8850
meters above sea level, and is rising, due to plate tectonics, about
0.635 cm a year. Assuming 4000 years since the "Flood" that only
amounts to about 2.5 meters, shorter than it's present height. You are
still 8847.5 meters of water too short.
>
> It is also believed that if all the water in the atmosphere were to
> drop, including all the clouds, there could well be enough water to
> cover the earth--specially if Mount Everest were not as high as it is
> now.
It is "believed" by whom? Please present some legitimate scientific
evidence that this belief is correct.
> And look at the evidence: How do you think the Grand Canyon was
> formed, by a slow trickle over millions and billions of years.
No, by the Colorado river, over about 70 million years.
> Yeah
> right! Trillions of Quadrillions of years would never be enough for a
> trickle to forms such impressive canyons!
Why not? Please show your calculations.
> Not to mention there are places all over the earth where there appear
> to be water marks (i.e. marks made by water-and I mean lots of water,
> not just a stream.)
Yes, there have been localized flooding throughout the world, at
different times throughout history. That does not mean there was a
global flood. Perhaps you've heard about the ice age? (actually,
several) And glaciers? When those glaciers melted, large lakes were
formed, which caused some large erosional features.
> Odd, these places seem to be in some places where
> you don't find much water, like the deserts. The flood is real.
No, the "flood" is a myth. What is desert now, wasn't always desert.
The Earth has a long and varied history, which explains those features
much better than a global flood would.
>
> I also realize the Ark and all the living species cause a lot of
> trouble for evolutionists.
Actually, it's no trouble for "evolutionists" at all. It's a big
problem for Creationists.
> Some say it's impossible to put all those
> species in one little boat.
Yes, that's true.
> But many fail to see just how big the ark
> really way. It was about just over 3/4 the size of the Titanic, and
> had about the same displacement.
Which, even if true, isn't nearly big enough to take representatives
from each of the Earth's species. Add to that the problem of
constructing such a vessel out of wood (which isn't strong enough to
build a ship of that size without massive reinforcement, which would
increase the weight, and reduce the carrying capacity) See:
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13377.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
> I also think Noah was clever enough
> to bring babies and young animals into the ark; I doubt he had to
> necessarily take the biggest of every kind!
That doesn't solve the problem, as babies require more care, and more
food than adults would. Also, the Bible refutes that, as it states that
Noah was to bring every animal, "and it's mate". Infants and juveniles
don't have mates.
> I also say an extremely
> dumb question on the Talk Origins website: Namely how did the fish
> survive. Hello, fish live in water!
But many require a specific salinity level, water depth, etc to survive.
Creationists claim that the water from the flood was sufficient to
create the sedimentary rock layers, meaning they would have had to have
carried a massive load of sediment, in which the fish would have been
smothered. Also the Bible says that all life, except for that in the
Ark was destroyed. That would include fish as well.
> Many of them probably perished
> because they couldn't adapt, but quite a few species lived. Perhaps
> the salt and fresh water are what bother you?? Well, the ocean is
> becoming more salty (that's been proven and observed by the way).
Where has that been "proved and observed"? The ocean salt level has
been at equilibrium for a long time. There is no evidence that salt
levels were different a few thousand years ago.
> So
> it means back then the water was less salty! "Hand up those who can
> figure this out." Which means if a whole lot of fresh water was added
> to slightly salty water, there wasn't much difference on both sides.
Your assumptions here are faulty. There is no evidence that salt
levels were different a few thousand years ago.
> I
> once read that any fresh water fish can adapt to salt water if the
> change is gradual enough.
A sudden flood is hardly gradual, and what you "read" is wrong. Many
species of fish need a specific salinity level to survive.
> Well there you go, fresh water and salt
> water mixing: the change was just slight enough for both sides to
> adapt.
What evidence do you have that this flood was "slight enough"?
>
> Of course some of this is mere speculation, there is no way to know
> for sure.
That's where science has the advantage.
> It is reasonable and logical, and some of it can be tested.
> (Like adapting fresh water fish to salt water and v.v.).
That has been tested. It doesn't work.
> There are
> still some questions that remain a mystery but that's probably because
> human knowledge is so limited. (That's probably also a defense for
> evolution, but I still don't believe it.).
If you limit science to what is contained in the Bible, you won't ever
find the answers.
> One other thing. I would
> like to believe that Noah's Ark is still on Mount Ararat, and have
> even heard several (questionable) testimonies of sightings.
You can believe whatever you want. Providing evidence is another thing
entirely.
> I feel
> that if it is there, it's not God's will to reveal it yet. One day He
> might, and my gosh I would love to see the world's reaction to such a
> discovery. Wouldn't it be grand, Noah's ark in a museum?
Sure, and it would be nice to see the Easter Bunny, and Santa's Workshop
too. I'm not holding my breath.
>
> Now then, let's move onto the Definition of Evolution
>
>
> All Evolution quotes herein were taken from the "What is Evolution"
> pdf file @ talk origins:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-definition.pdf
>
>
> Quote: "But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that
> results in heritable changes in a population spread over many
> generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes
> religion!"
>
> I don't know which religion is being talked about here, but it's
> certainly not Christianity, upon which the whole Creation story rests.
Christianity rests on a belief in God, and that Jesus was his son. The
creation story in Genesis is not the basis of this belief.
>
> Also: I hate the word religion, because it implies a wide field. I
> prefer the word "Christianity".
You do realize, there are more religions than Christianity, and more
views of what it means to be a Christian than your own, don't you?
> So please use the word Christianity
> instead of religion when addressing my belief.
No, religion is more accurate.
> Thank you. There are
> other "religions" out there, the majority of which I don't believe in.
> Just as you guys don't like misrepresented evolution, so I don't like
> misrepresented Religion!
Then why are you doing it?
>
> Quote: "On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in
> particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand
> science. Reading a textbook would help."
>
> Do you know how hilarious and sometimes even downright boring it is
> for some of us creationists to read a "scientific evolution" textbook?
Is that an excuse for ignorance? You don't like to read information
that challenges your belief? What about knowledge do you fear?
> Also another question I have to ask, and I expect a proper answer to
> this one, why do evolutionists have to use such complex language.
Because these "evolutionists" are scientists, and are speaking to an
educated audience of other scientists.
> Is
> it to make your points seem more impressive and convincing?
No, it's because scientists try to use precise language to avoid
misinterpretation by other scientists.
> That's
> probably why the general public can't understand what they read about
> evolution, thus all the misunderstanding!
Which, as mentioned above, the general public needs to make an effort to
understand. Don't expect things to be "dumbed down" for you.
> It's also probably why they
> don't read the textbooks to begin with! Can't you all just use simple
> words, simple language--something understandable by all?
Again, don't expect scientists to "dumb down" the language so you don't
have to make an effort to learn.
> Forgive us if
> we are not all as "intellectual" as you are. Perhaps my youth is
> showing by saying this, but how many of you really understand the
> evolution material you read? Honestly!
I understand it because I study it. If I don't understand a word, or
concept, I look it up, and try to get an explanation. I don't simply
blame the scientist for speaking over my head.
>
> Take this for example, the definition of Evolution from the
> "Scientific" Point of view: "One of the most respected evolutionary
> biologists has defined biological evolution as follows: "In the
> broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive;
> galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve.
What part of this is giving you trouble? Evolution is change. That
seems simple enough.
> Biological
> evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms
> that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.
Here he's saying that biological (ie living things) evolution is change
in the nature of a group of single beings (ie a population) that goes
beyond the life time of one individual. In other words, it's not the
change of the parts of a single being, but a population of beings, over
many generations.
> The ontogeny of an
> individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not
> evolve.
this means that the growth, and changes of a single being is not
evolution, single beings don't evolve over their lifetime. In other
words, a dog doesn't change into a cat. A reptile doesn't change into a
bird within it's lifetime.
> The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary
> are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one
> generation to the next.
Evolution is change in the group by inheriting genetic changes over
generations.
> Biological evolution may be slight or
> substantial;
Changes can be small, or big.
> it embraces everything from slight changes in the
> proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those
> determining blood types)
It can mean slight changes in the genes, such as for blood types, ..
> to the successive alterations that led from
> the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
to large scale changes that led from the first life to modern life forms.
> - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986"
>
>
> Now in English please!
The above was English. YOu need to take some effort to see what Futuyma
was talking about. Remember, he's talking to educated persons,
specifically College students. He's expecting that these persons have
enough desire and sophistication to learn on their own if they don't
understand a word, or concept.
>
> So what exactly does all that mean?? Let me put my version of it in
> plain language, and then you confirm it if I'm right:
>
> NOT Evolution: The gradual change and development as seen in the
> Mercedes Line of Vehicles--from the old cars to the
> modern ones
No, Futuyma was talking about living things. Cars are not living things.
> YES Evolution: When a Mercedes begins to change into a jet
No, he was talking about populations, not individuals.
>
> Is that about right?? If not, then could you please explain in simple
> language!
I've explained above.
>
> And my most favorite and one I laughed at endlessly:
>
> Quote: "When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they
> cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of
> evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to
> demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in
> gravity!"
Why should you find this funny?
>
> OK, I'll believe evolution if you demonstrate before me a reptile
> changing into a bird,
As pointed out above, evolution does not happen to individuals. It
happens to populations. I can show you a sequence of fossils in which
theropod dinosaurs become birds, but it's impossible to show a single
reptile turn into a bird. Evolution doesn't happen that way.
> or an amphibian changing into a reptile.
Again, I can show you a fossil sequence in which populations of
amphibians become reptiles, but there is no cases where individual
amphibians become a reptile during their lifetime.
> You're
> probably going to say it takes millions of years.
No, what I'm going to say is that it happens in populations, not to
individuals.
> The common phrase!
> Evolutionists seem to think that given enough time, anything is
> possible, no?
No. However, evolution does happen over generations, which do take
time. Not all evolution requires millions of years.
> So why then does the file you wrote and support say it
> can be "easily" demonstrated. That line ought to be taken out of the
> file because it's misleading!
Evolution is easily demonstrated. It has been observed in real time.
>
> My apologies at the apparent lack of evidence in this posting, and
> also the length, but we need to clear these things up before we bother
> presenting evidence.
Who is the "we" here? Not presenting your evidence tends to indicate
you have nothing to present.
DJT
>
> William
>
Pure Christian
Here's one reply to the various postings so far:
>>When I say I'm a creationist, I meant a TRUE creationist. People who
>>call themselves creationists and then say the 6 days used to create
>>the earth were actually periods of million of years are just
>>"compromising evolutionists" and are probably worse than downright
>>evolutionists.
>It is a kind of warning flag for me, when I see someone rate their
>closest allies as "probably worse than" their opponents.
Ever heard of wolves in sheeps' clothing. I would rather fight proper
wolves than a disguise.
>You are closing yourself off from people like Augustine. Not
>to mention a whole lot of today's Christians.
No. The difference is that I still love them and care for them,
including being concerned about them. I'm not going to start hacking
away, am I?
-----
>>Evolutionists are quick to point the finger to Creationists telling us
>>to show our evidence, and yet you guys have nothing. So where is this
>>"massive additional evidence" talked about above?
>You can find some of it at
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov....
Do you realize that I'm giving examples although few and far between.
You guys are just referring me to links on the internet. If you have
something to counter what I'm presenting then post it. I could also
tell you all to vist creation websites, but that's not a debate, is
it?
-----
>As a matter of terminology a case can be made that dinosaurs are still
>living, if one defines dinosaurs cladistically as including birds.
>Otherwise no living dinosaurs are known.
No, I'm meaning SOME species that are generally considered extinct.
I'm not just talking about pl..... whatever that dinosaur was called,
what about the others in Kent Hovinds seminar. How do you refute them,
but saying he's lying. And you call that science? Is there maybe a
chance that he's not lying?? That would hurt your cause, wouldn't it,
so he must be lying! How convenient.
>First, as a matter of terminology, plesiosaurs are not dinosaurs. (We
>have a plesiosaur specialist participating here who if you ask him
>nicely may explain the differences in bony detail.)
Well are they extinct? Did they live with Dinosaurs according to
evolution? So suppose one of the testimonies to seeing one are true??
You can't answer can you? Well I guess I can't really push because
there isn't much evidence, and what there is, let me guess, the
witnesses are probably lying?
>In the case of Kent Hovind, there's good reason to suspect that he is
>lying; most of the other people reporting plesiosaur carcasses are
>mistaken.
Again, I ask, what about the other dinosaurs besides plesiosaur. May I
also ask what the good reason is to suspect he is lying?
>What "thousands of testimonies to encounters" refers to is unclear. I
>assume that your not referring to UFSnauts, but nothing relevant with
>thousands of encounters comes to mind.
All those people who said they've seen a living dinosaur or had some
kind of encounter with something that fits the description? I bet
they're ALL lying.
>That's not true. Less sophisticated wings can still be used for
>gliding, and in fact Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird, had wings
>that are less sophisticated than those of living birds.
So when reptiles started developing lumps in thier sides (I'm assuming
that's how wings started?) They were functional and could be used for
gliding? You have jumped a little ahead. Don't evolutionists say it
themselves, it took millions of years. That means it has to start out
like a bud, and progress until it looked like penguin wings and
finally become proper wings?? But a useless bud would have been
discarded! Don't try and confuse me--I'm not that dumb.
>Some forms of algae are flagellates, and sperm cells fit the
>definition too. The claim that they can't survive in the presence of
>oxygen is false.
You evolutionists try to work on the idea of confusing creationists.
I'm meaning the flagellates that live inside termites can't survive in
free oxygen. Tests were even performed. A termites flagellates were
killed and eventually the termite itself died. (By the way, those who
keep claiming that I'm not actually presenting evidence, what do you
think this is--although this is still barely scratching the surface?)
>Umm... no. The history of the New Testament indicates, fairly clearly,
>that it was first and foremost assembled as a political document, that
>its main purpose is to encapsulate 'orthodox' beliefs so that heretical
>thought could be driven out of the churches of the time.
Could you please show me where exactly the Bible says it is a
political document. Maybe religious, but certainly not political?
>Additionally, the text of the New Testament has changed over time. The
>original manuscripts for the N.T. books have apparently been destroyed,
>leaving us with a plethora of secondary and tertiary manuscripts, most
>of which vary with each other.
Well, the story of Creation and the Flood is not in the New Testment
is it?
Can you also backup that claim with facts and sources? Also, the Old
Testment was copied with precise accuracy, sometimes even the words
were counted to ensure nothing had been added or removed. I don't see
why the New Testament has not also undergone the same treatment. If
you believe in God, do you honestly think He would allow huge errors
into His word. The first Christians were extremely careful in which
letters and documents they choose to put into the New Testament, and I
fully belive God guided them in thier decisions. I don't at all
dispute the accuracy of the entire Bible and many Scholars don't
either.
>When you blindly accept everything that is written in a political
>document (especially one with a track record for errors), you
>essentially surrender your brain to someone else.
When you have Solid, concrete proof that the Bible does not agree with
science, then show me. Evolution doesn't count by the way, because
it's not a proven fact, I don't care how many people except it as
such. And I will get to that later.
>Oh, but this clown is a Pure Christian.
That nickname doesn't represent what I am, it represents what I
believe, Pure, unabridged Christianity, as in the Bible.
>Not much different from the jerk that claimed that all the Christians that >were against the bogus attempts to manipulate the science standards in >Kansas were not true Christians.
I'm only echoing what's in the Bible. If you believe it to be 100%
true, then you'll agree with me. Of course, so many people don't
believe in the Bible.
>This guy would hack out the Jews, and probably believes that other Christian >sects would be better off not existing also.
Those are quite hurtful accusations, although I didn't expect anything
less. And quite the contrary. I love the Jews because they are God's
choosen, and anyone who hurts them is touching the apple of God's eye.
As for other Christian sects, I thought I made myself clear on that in
the beginning. I just wish we could all unite, since we are all
worshipping the same God.
Which brings me to another point. And I hate bringing this up, because
it provokes so much hurt. Did you know that Hitler murdered all those
people because he was an evolutionist and had the pathetic belief that
he was helping the superior race by getting rid of the undesirables?
Yes, you see what hurt evolution has caused?
>You can't make this junk up. Who would believe you? This guy only
>has one thing going for him. He is only 19 and unless he trips over
>his shoelaces and breaks his neck today, he has time to figure out
>what a bogus load of crap he has been fed.
My sentiments exactly right back at you. The point is, I didn't make
it up, christianity has always been there. I've just done a little
research and seen that it's the better of the two. And anyone who
believes the Bible completely would believe me. The two questions you
asked would be better off asked to evolutionists. How can you come up
with such rubbish?
>So far, you've presented no actual evidence. Interesting
Someone's been sleeping! I've made claims that I'm still waiting for
proper refute, something other than, He's lying, that can't be
possible etc...
>But you don't have to replicate something to test it. If the fossil
>record showed that all animals suddenly appeared in their current form
>at the same time, that would be evidence, for example. Does it show
>that?
Just wait until I touch on transitional forms. Then we'll see who's
got evidence and who's been lied to all along.
>That isn't enough to cover the world, now is it?
So just how much is enough? You have all the water in the Antarctic,
Greenland, Canada, Siberia, all the water in the clouds, all the water
that is already in the ocean expanding, all the water in the
atmosphere, all the water in underground reserviors? How much more do
you want?
>>specially if Mount Everest were not as high as it is
>> now.
>Really? You believe it? No calculations or anything, just belief?
Well we aren't quite sure how high Mount everest was back then, and
there isn't really a way to find out, but that doesn't rule out the
possibility, now does it?
>Again, this is just a rather silly personal opinion. And you consider
>the Colorado river to be a "trickle?"
Well I don't know. Evolutionists seem to change thier theories all the
time. I read somewhere that they were carved out by a trickle of
water, not the Colorado. So that's the lattest, it's the Colorado
river??
So tell me, as far back as accurate records go, how much more carving
has the Colorado done? Now do a little math, at that rate how long
would it take to carve out the entire Grand Canyon. I bet you would
need a lot more time than 4 billion years--there you go, evolution
already has a discrepency. And don't tell me I'm not presenting
evidence. This is evidence, isn't it.
>> Not to mention there are places all over the earth where there appear
>> to be water marks...
>Why aren't they everywhere? Wasn't the flood worldwide?
I do believe you have a reading disorder. Let me try again:
Not to mention there are places ALL OVER THE EARTH where there appear
to be water marks...
>No no, that's a problem for creationist, being as it's fictional. And
>stolen from previous religions, by the way.
Another empty claim. Prove it. Prove that the flood is fictional.
Prove it beyond reseanable doubt. Also, stolen from previous
religions. Christanity is the oldest religion in the world. IF any
other religions make use of it, they stole it from Christianity.
You're claims are not backed by references or logic, much less
evidence. How can I tell whether you are lying and just making things
up? And you go ahead and blame me:
>So, you're idea of evidence is just making things up? You don't have
>any scientific facts at all?
A case of the pot calling the kettle black?
>On that logic do you believe in the Lochness monster,
I haven't ruled out the possiblity, although there isn't enough
evidence to make a decision. So consider me open to debate!
>and that Elvis is still alive,
I'm not an Elvis fan, so I really can't be bothered. Personally I
think he's dead, but if other people have evidence to indicate
otherwise, I'm again, open to debate--all they need to do is show him
to me!
>and aliens in Roswell?
Pretty much the same as the Lochness Monster.
That's the problem with you evolutionists. You've ruled out the
possiblity of creationism, and are not "open minded". Me on the other
hand, I considered both, and am still open to debate, but at the
moment, I don't see much in the line of evolution, so I'll stick to
Creation until I'm convinced otherwise.
>First of all, evolution as a whole is not cruel.
I tend to disagree, but because it's not vital to my defense, I won't
waste time arguing.
>I just did a search,
>and the word "accurate" does not occur.
Perhaps you should try a similar meaning word?
Check 2 Timothy 3:16
William
Jim Willemin
Guido <NOguyh...@PLEASExs4all.nl> wrote in
news:471b8f45$0$228$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:
> Pure Christian wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> Another thing that could raise water level tremendously is
>> temeperature. A 4*C water is most dense. Anything below or above this
>> and it begins to expand. Imagine how much rise you would get is all
>> the water on the planet were to heat up a little. It would be quite
>> big.
>
> Conceptually that's correct. However, it's more interesting to check
> how big the effect is. See table at
> http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_water.htm:
>
> at 4 degrees water has a density of 1 g/cm3. At 80 degrees water has a
> density of 0.972 g/cm3, which is a change of about 3%, far from
> "tremendous", in my view. So you can, by raising the temperature of
> the oceans, raise the ocean level by 3%. The average depth of the
> oceans is about 3790 meters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean) which
> would rise the sea level by 114 meters. Not enough by far to cover
> mount everest.
>
> Then again, by which mechanism would the water temperature rise to 80
> degrees? "Goddidit" is not a scientific explanation.
>
Note that this is 80 Celsius, or 176 degrees Fahrenheit. Note that this would
nicely poach almost everything, both in and on the water - a global flood at
80C would eliminate all but extremophile life forms. Thermal expansion won't
work for a global flood that has survivors.
>>
>>> About your assertion that Mount Everest and, presumably, other
>>> mountains as well, were lower at the time of the flood (which could
>>> not have been more than about 10.000 years ago, if the creation date
>>> you cite is correct):
>>
>> Please use 6000. I always prefer 6000.
>
> Others have commented on this. You stated yourself that a precise date
> cannot be obtained from the bible. Why 6000? Besides, I merely used
> 10000 as an upper limit. If it's 6000 in stead of 10000, the annual
> rise of the Himalayas would be even bigger than I calculated in my
> earlier post.
>>
>>> what's the evidence for this?
>>
>> I'll certainly gather some and let you have it in due course.
>>
>>> Also, you do realise that the difference between 70 meters
>>> and 8.8 kilometers is a factor of more than 100, don't you?
>>> This is not a trivial matter. What is the mechanism that
>>> caused the mountains to rise up to 8 kilometers in less than 10000
>>> years, or about 80cm per year?
>>
>> The pressure of all the water at the base. Already there are fears
>> that silt is making the sea beds heavier and causing continets to
>> rise and the oean floor to sink. It a little silt can disturb the
>> balance, then imagine what a lot of water can do.
Please note that water has a density of 1000 kg/m^3 (one metric ton per cubic
meter). Crustal rocks have an average density of around 2700 kg/m^3 (2.7
metric tons per cubic meter). Thus, to push up a mountain 5 km high (the
average height of the Tibetan plateau) you would need a water depth of at
least 15 km. That is way deep - way, way deep - over three times the depth of
the oceans abyssal plain, and twice the depth of a flood that would cover the
present Mt. Everest. While appealing at first glance, that mechanism simply
makes a bad situation worse.
And where did this tidbit about fear of silt causing the ocean floor to sink
come from? Haven't heard that before. Considering that the really thick
sediment piles on the ocean floor don't seem to be having much effect on the
surrounding continents (Mississippi delta, Amazon delta, Bengal fan) this
seems kinda weak.
<snip remainder>
Is this guy a Loki?
Pure Christian
Don't know what the fascination is with me being in Zim. Yes, I am, at
this very moment I speak from the Captial City, Harare! I've been here
my whole life and don't plan to leave anytime soon.
You Americans and UKanians should come out here one day, you could
learn a thing or two about survival!
Anyway. It's Monday tomorrow, I have put my life on Hold for a whole
day. I am going to have to sign off (temporarily of course).
When I come back I will review posts, and re-ask the things you have
not actually answered yet. I will then present most of what I really
have.
Stand by...
William
(Proudly Zimbabwean!)
Martin Kaletsch
In the "I fear you are"-category:
> So when reptiles started developing lumps in thier sides (I'm assuming
> that's how wings started?) They were functional and could be used for
> gliding? You have jumped a little ahead. Don't evolutionists say it
> themselves, it took millions of years. That means it has to start out
> like a bud, and progress until it looked like penguin wings and
> finally become proper wings?? But a useless bud would have been
> discarded! Don't try and confuse me--I'm not that dumb.
--
"It was the laugh of the Elder Gods observing their creature man and noting
their omissions, miscalculations and mistakes." Fritz Leiber
Dana Tweedy
>> Please compare Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:21-38.
>
> It would take a little time to sort that out and figure it out. There
> IS an explanation. Besides, that, we are not talking about small,
> seeming discrepancies in the Bible, nor which religion is correct.
> Rather we are talking about why evolution is not possible.
On the contrary. You are supposed to be giving evidence that
Creationism is true. Asserting that evolution is not possible does not
establish that creation is true.
>
>> Also, as a Christian, you ought to place a higher weight on the works of
>> God (the natural world) than on the words of men (the Bible). You might
>> like to consider the applicability of Exodus 20:3-6.
>
> That's where you're wrong. While the works of God are amazing, they
> can't save us. And the Bible is not what you say. It is the words of
> God not of men.
Then why did God have men write it down, rather than providing it
already written by himself? Are you saying that God can't write?
>
>> Furthermore, by claiming that those who are not Young Earth Creationists
>> are not true Christians, you are espousing a heresy - it is not orthodox
>> Christian docine to exclude such persons from the definition of Christian.
>
>> (Matthew 7:1 is also widely interpreted as meaning that you shouldn't
>> take it upon yourself to say who is and isn't a Christian.)
>
> Oh, I'm not judging. I'm just filtering using the standard in
> Galatians 1:6-9
>
> There is only one way to Salvation; anything short of this is not
> Christianity. And there can be no Salvation if you deny Christ.
Evolution does not deny Christ.
> And
> Christ Himself supported the Literal, 6 Day Creation as told in
> Genesis.
He was speaking to his audience in a milieu that they would understand.
> Christianity as a whole is built upon the foundation in
> Genesis.
No, it's not. Christianity is built on the teachings of Christ.
> If you compromise that foundation, you are destroying
> Christianity as a whole. So those that say Creation and Evolution can
> work side to side are wrong.
In your opinion. You might be wrong.
>
> Concerning denominational differences between various groups of
> Christians. I'm not overly concerned about that. After all, all
> Christians worship the same God, whether they eat certain foods or
> not, and whether other minor beliefs are different or not. So long as
> all our ways to Salvation are the same, I'm not bothered.
>
> The people who I refuse to accept as Christians, are the ones who
> don't "go through the door", but rather try to climb over the fence!
> These are the people that partly believe in Evolution and partly in
> Creation. I can't stress enough who different the two are.
How are these Christians "different"? And why is acceptance of
evolution make one unable to believe in God?
>
> I've been reading so more of your Evolution stuff on the Talk Origins
> website. Quite interesting actually, but totally worthless. My
> comments:
>
> Evolution is a fact and theory, http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-fact.pdf
> Quote: "It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than
> 3.6 billion years old."
Yes, that is a fact. What do you dispute, and what evidence do you cite?
>
> (Yes, because whoever wrote that was there at the time and saw all
> this happening.)
The "were you there" response is an admission you've lost the argument.
(You weren't there when the Bible was written, were you?) One does
not need to be present at an event to be able to interpret the evidence
left behind.
>
> Quote: "It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least
> half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least
> 800 million years old."
>
> (Same comment as above.)
Again, the above is based on the evidence. Your dismissal means you
cannot dispute the fact.
>
> Quote: "It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth
> were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or
> mammals 250 million years ago."
>
> (Same comment as above)
your comment shows you don't know how science works, and don't know how
to interpret evidence.
>
> Quote: "It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer
> living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are
> none now."
>
> (Lies. There are dinosaurs alive today.
Their descendants, the birds are still alive, but all non avian
dinosaurs died out before 65 million years ago.
> Watch Kent Hovind's video on
> the topic and then argue with me.
Kent Hovind is a known liar, and tax cheat. His claims don't hold much
weight here. There are no actual examples of non avian dinosaurs alive
today. Kent Hovind lied to you.
> (They can be downloaded from the Dr.
> Dino website: www.drdino.com
Appealing to Kent Hovind (who is currently in jail in the US for tax
evasion) only shows that you have been fooled. Hovind's claims have
been addressed, and found to be worthless. See
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9639.htm
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/A.html
> What are you saying about the decomposing
> body of a dinosaur that was brought to the surface by the Japanese
> fishing vessel, photographed, and then released again?
It was the body of a basking shark.
http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm
> What about all
> those thousands of testimonies to encounters. Are you saying all those
> people are lying, or mad?
What "testimonies" and how can one check on these people? It's easy to
assert "thousands of testimonies" but without any physical evidence,
they are not worth much. Remember that thousands of people have
claimed to been abducted by UFOs, and have seen Bigfoot, etc...
>
> Let me tell you a quick story: Year ago people didn't believe that
> rocks fell from the sky. Scientists were killing themselves with
> laughter at reports that rocks were falling from the sky. Eventually
> after severely damaging a city in America, scientists finally accepted
> it: Falling rocks are called comets! It's the same moral here.)
Actually, falling rocks are called meteors. The difference is that
there is physical evidence of meteors. There is no physical evidence of
Hovind's claims.
>
>
> Quote: "No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural
> world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the
> earth is round,
> rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."
>
> (I can deny such "facts" quite plainly.
But you have no basis for that denial.
> By the way concerning the
> round, spherical earth--the Bible was the first to tell us this, and
> this while people believed it was flat! Isaiah 40:22)
Well, no, it says "circle". Circles are not necessarily spheres.
>
> These quotes by - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time
> for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus
> Creationism, op cit.
>
>
> Quote: Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has
> accumulated supporting the fact of evolution"
>
> Evolutionists are quick to point the finger to Creationists telling us
> to show our evidence, and yet you guys have nothing. So where is this
> "massive additional evidence" talked about above?
It's contained in labs, museums, and still in the Earth. The discovery
of DNA, genetics, hominid fossils, and many other fields have been
discovered since Darwin's time.
>
> In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various
> theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.
>
> (I'm not overly concerned about the "mechanism". What I have a problem
> with is the fact. You can think up silly mechanisms all you want.
What makes you think the mechanism is "silly"? The fact of evolution
is obvious, just look at the recent controversy about antibiotic
resistant bacteria.
> Evolution is not a fact, it did not happen, plain and simple.
Evolution not only happened, it's still happening. It can be observed
in real time.
> Any
> evidence that fits evolution fits creationism even better. Try
> disproving that.)
How can you disprove a unsupported assertion? Also, how does
creationism explain antibiotic resistance?
>
> ---
>
> God and Evolution: Can you accept both? http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-god.pdf
>
> Quote: "So the answer is no, evolution is no more a religion than any
> other scientific theory."
>
> (First you say it's silly to exclude religion, then you say evolution
> is not religious??)
Evolution is not religious. Why would that be a problem?
>
>
> Quote: "If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal
> interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical
> account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only,
> point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and
> creationists."
>
> (This is the creation I believe in. This is the TRUE Creation account.
> Any "creation" story short of this is not creation at all.)
How do you account for the disparity between the creation stories in
Genesis, and the evidence?
>
>
> Quote: "Q4. If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?
> First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of
> Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever
> been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by
> God, and one that appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations
> of Genesis can be disproven. Second, let us turn the question around.
> What if I asked you "If the story of the prodigal son didn't really
> happen, then is the whole Bible wrong?" Remember that the Bible is a
> collection of both stories and
> historical accounts. Because one part is a figurative story does not
> make the entire Bible so. Even if it did, the underlying message of
> the Bible would remain.
>
> (Notice the way you try to avoid the actual question. A simple yes or
> no answer would be nice!
The answer then is no. The Bible is not "wrong". It's not
scientifically accurate.
> And the answer is yes! There is no need for
> salvation if evolution is true, because according to it, we die and
> that's the end, there's nothing more.
Evolution says nothing at all about what happens to us after death.
> So those of you who believe the
> Bible and Evolution, you are making fools out of yourself. It's one or
> the other, there's no two ways about it.)
I say you are wrong. Prove me wrong.
>
>
> Quote: "There are many people who believe in the existence of God and
> in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God.
> Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this
> interpretation is a valid one within evolution."
>
>
> (Impossible.
Because you say so? Are you saying you know better than God?
> If God used evolution to create earth, and all living
> things, He would be an extremely cruel, mean God, not at all the one
> described in the Bible--because evolution as a whole is Cruel.
Why? And why is using evolution any more cruel than destroying all
living things (innocent or guilty) in a flood? Why would it be less
cruel than condemning all life to pain and suffering because of the
mistake of two naive individuals?
> Anyway,
> besides that, may I ask why so many people are not living according to
> the rest of the Bible.
That's a question you might want to ask of people like Kent Hovind, and
Ken Ham, or Duane Gish, or other creationists.
> Why are so many evolutionists totally
> disregarding it.
What evidence do you have that evolutionists are "totally disregarding"
it? I've seen unbiblical behavior much more common in Creationists.
> Perhaps it's like "Natural Selection" where you
> select which parts you will believe and which parts you don't want to
> believe. So tell me, do you believe in the verse in the Bible that
> says the Bible is completely accurate?"
There is no such verse. If you think there is, please present it.
>
> One other problem between the Bible and Evolution is the creation of
> the Universe.
Evolution says nothing about the creation of the universe. That's an
entirely separate topic.
> But of course evolutionists won't tell you what hurts
> their theory.
Again, evolution says nothing about how the universe was created. What
do you think "hurts" the theories of cosmology that are currently
accepted by science?
> The Bible says God created the Heavens and the Earth.
But really doesn't say how.
> Heavens meaning the universe. Evolution tells that a big band caused
> the universe.
No, evolution says nothing of the sort. No theory of cosmology, as far
as I know, nor even any religious creation myth starts with a "big
band". No one I know of claims that Benny Goodman, or Tommy Dorsey, or
Duke Ellington created the universe.
If you mean the "Big Bang", that's a theory of cosmology, and has
nothing to do with evolution.
> And this is the part that make me laugh uncontrollably:
You must be easily amused.
> I refer to Kent Hovind's seminars, where he takes evolutionists
> explanation from school text books:
> "Nothing exploded to create the Universe"
Kent Hovind is not a reliable source, either for creation, or to give an
accurate idea of what is evolution. In short, Hovind is a liar and a
fraud.
>
> One author wrote that if such folly were in the Bible it would be
> scoffed at endlessly.
>
> So the two completely disagree. God made it, God fashioned it, He
> didn't cause nothing to explode or it would be clearly stated in the
> Bible. I still want an answer as to what caused this huge explosion.
It wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion of space/time.
>
>
> Anyway, enough "spitting in the wind" as it were. Tell me, darling
> evolutionists, if evolution is true, then how do you explain your
> hero's (Darwin) claim in which he says that any organ that is useless
> to the organism is quickly discarded.
Darwin is not my "Hero". He was a brilliant scientist, but not my hero.
Can you provide a citation where Darwin actually said that?
> Seems to me there are several
> violent contradictions in that statement. Take for example a reptile
> that begins evolving into a bird.
Theropod dinosaurs, actually.
> It's been discovered that a bird's
> wings are so remarkable and so complex that anything less than fully
> formed wings would not work.
That's not true. Non flying wings can have many different uses. Ask
a penguin, or an ostrich.
> So if a lizard began to develop wings and
> features, which were at that time still forming and uselss, wouldn't
> it discard them.
They were not useless. That's a false assumption.
> That means it would hamper the evolving stage,
Not if they were useful for something other than flying.
> because whenever a change was about to take place, it would initially
> be useless and then be discarded???
No, that's not how evolution works.
>
> Another contradiction, if our appendix, which by the way was found to
> have a function, it's not a vestigial organ.
That's an incomplete sentence. And there is no reason why a vestigial
organ cannot have some function. Vestigial does not mean useless, it
means changed, or reduced function.
> As I was saying if it
> were vestigial, why wasn't it discarded. And what about the coccyx.
> Oops, evolution is slacking!!
Because vestigial organs do not have to be discarded.
>
> And this is one of my favorites: If evolution is possible, perhaps you
> would like to tell me how termites are still around.
Why wouldn't they be around? (and why did Noah bring them on the Ark?)
> Did you know that
> termites eat wood, but can't actually digest it. So how do they
> survive on a food they can't digest. Flagellates. Tiny organisms
> inside the Termites digestive system digest the wood for the termite
> and provide nutrition to the termite and to the flagellate in the
> process.
Symbiosis is well known in evolutionary literature.
> But here's the catch. A flagellate can't survive in free
> oxygen--something that abounds in the air around us! Naughty naughty,
> evolutionists would have us believe flagellates evolved before
> termites.
Why not? Anaerobic bacteria live quite well today.
> Neither can survive without the other.
Why not? Hovind is assuming that the current situation is what always
was.
> They had to exist
> together at the same time, one within the other to survive.
No, one could have come first. And for that matter, why would God make
something to eat wood, and then not permit it to digest the wood?
> Seems that
> if God put one within the other at the same time, the puzzle would fit
> perfectly!
As pointed out above, that would indicate that God had to perform a
"fix" instead of getting it right the first time. Hovind is ignoring
the possibility that the first termites didn't each wood, and they
evolved the ability over time, with the help of the bacteria, that
evolved with them.
> That also pretty much kills the theory of God using
> evolution, doesn't it.
No, why would it?
I can just see it now. God sitting up there,
> trying to keep the flagellates alive while the termites are still
> forming! Hogwash.
The "flagellates" most likely lived quite well before termites came
along. The first bacteria to evolve were most likely anaerobic.
Anaerobic bacteria live quite well today, which is why you need a
tetanus shot when you get a cut.
>
> One other thing, before I run off and do some more evolution reading:
> No one has ever seen life happen by chance.
Nor should one. The beginning of life was not a "chance" process.
> No one has ever seen a
> living transitional form.
All living things are a "transitional form", unless their species goes
extinct. So that claim is obviously false. If you mean a form in
between some situation, like a between land, and sea, may I introduce
you to penguins, Auks, seals,walruses, manatees, otters, etc, etc.
> Interesting. When God put Adam and Even on
> earth they were fully grown (Fully evolved forms). So how come we have
> children, teenagers, young adults, adults, middle aged, and old people
> on earth today (all transitional forms.)
As mentioned before, individuals don't evolve.
> If evolution were true, why
> did it stop after the first transition has taken place.
It didn't. Transitional forms are all around you.
> Why didn't it
> continue so that we have living transitional forms on earth today--
We do. I mentioned some above.
> animals that are still developing into complete forms.
All living things are "complete forms". Where do you get the idea
there should be "incomplete" forms?
> The only
> evidence you have of transitional forms, which isn't actually
> transitional forms at all, are fossils.
Why aren't these transitional forms in fossils transitional forms?
>(I'm going to touch on that
> soon, and goodness are you going to be in on the shock!)
Laughter will do that.
> Back to my
> point though, no one has ever seen a living transitional form,
All living things are transitional to their next form, unless they
become extinct. Your claim is false.
> so if
> things that have never happened, and never been observed are still not
> happening or being observed, what makes you think they ever happened
> in the first place?
That makes no sense. Evolution has been observed, and continues to be
observed.
> Life always comes from life (Period).
Now, yes. That doesn't mean it always was that.
> That fact
> alone nails the lid shut on the evolutionary coffin. And in fact
> points to a living, divine God who has always existed.
No, it only means that life began. How life began is currently under
investigation. God is not "alive" in the biological sense, so if your
claim is true, then God could not have created life either.
>
> Life has never been produced before through evolution, or by chance.
It was most likely produced by abiogenesis. No one claims it was
evolution or chance.
> Whatever gives people the idea that it could have happened
> 4,500,000,000 years ago, or even 5 Quadrillion years ago?
The evidence, mostly. The evidence shows the Earth formed about 4.5
billion years ago, and that life was present by about 3.8 billion years
ago. Somewhere between those two dates, life began.
> The time
> that evolutionists add to the whole process makes it believable.
The "time" is a result of geologists and physicists examining the
evidence. Neither of those two disciplines have anything to do with
evolutionary theories.
> Take
> away the time frame and see just how ridiculous the entire hypothesis
> is:
Why should anyone take away that time frame? The evidence clearly
shows it is there.
> Nothing exploded to form the universe.
That's not how it's believed to have happened.
> A piece broke off from the sun
> and cooled down-somehow with water on it.
That's not how the Earth formed.
> From that water life some
> how by chance,
Not by chance, but by chemistry.
> sprung into being.
Developed over a long time.
> Then it evolved into fish,
After a very long history, and includes invertebrates, plants, and
single celled life too.
>then into
> amphibians,
Along with other fish. Amphibians were from one particular group of
fish that developed the means to go on land.
> then into reptiles,
Reptiles evolved from one particular branch of amphibians.
> then into birds,
Birds are an offshoot of theropod dinosaurs.
> then mammals,
Mammals evolved from a branch of early reptiles, not from birds.
> then
> apes,
apes are a branch of mammals.
and finally man!
Humans are a branch of the apes, and not the ultimate creature. We are
just one more branch on the family tree.
>
> Wow! Mind boggling isn't it.
Fascinating, but demonstrated fully by the evidence.
>
> I think it was once Sir Isaac Newton who created a model of the Solar
> System. When it was done an atheist walked in and asked who has made
> the wonderful model. His answer was simply: "No one, all these little
> bits and pieces, gears and paint, just all came together by
> themselves."
That story has no basis in fact. In any case, Newton, in this story
didn't provide any mechanism by which those parts could come together.
Modern science provides a mechanism by which life evolves.
DJT
Desertphile
<wdup...@HotPOP.com> wrote:
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I've just joined this forum and I'm ready to stir up a storm.
>
> I'm on the Creationist side and I've got mind boggling evidence, and
> the ability to collect even more! Much of it has already probably been
> presented, but there are also alot of new commers
>
> So let the debate begin, challenge me with you unanswered questions,
Question: why did the gods make humans and the other apes nearly
the same?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Augray
<wdup...@HotPOP.com> wrote in
<1192988695.2...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> :
>Here's one reply to the various postings so far:
[snip]
>>That's not true. Less sophisticated wings can still be used for
>>gliding, and in fact Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird, had wings
>>that are less sophisticated than those of living birds.
>
>So when reptiles started developing lumps in thier sides (I'm assuming
>that's how wings started?)
Wow. That's completely, utterly, and absolutely wrong. That's so
unlike the actual claims of evolutionists that I'm hard-pressed to
think of one that could be more unlike them than that.
>They were functional and could be used for
>gliding?
Yes.
>You have jumped a little ahead. Don't evolutionists say it
>themselves, it took millions of years. That means it has to start out
>like a bud, and progress until it looked like penguin wings and
>finally become proper wings??
No, that's not what is claimed.
>But a useless bud would have been
>discarded!
The bones in the wings of Archaeopteryx are of the same number, and in
the same arrangement, as those in the forelimbs of certain theropod
dinosaurs. The forelimbs could still be used for grasping, and
possibly climbing, while they were adapting for the function of
flight. The forelimbs of the young hoatzin goes through a similar
change in function as they mature, being used for climbing while
young, but transforming into wings as the bird grows.
Take a look at
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/homestudy/images/Q1_babyhoatz.gif
>Don't try and confuse me--I'm not that dumb.
You certainly seem to be uninformed.
>>Some forms of algae are flagellates, and sperm cells fit the
>>definition too. The claim that they can't survive in the presence of
>>oxygen is false.
>
>You evolutionists try to work on the idea of confusing creationists.
>I'm meaning the flagellates that live inside termites can't survive in
>free oxygen.
Then why didn't you say that? You wrote that "A flagellate can't
survive in free oxygen" and that was clearly wrong. Besides, calling
something a flagellate merely means that it has a flagellum, which
isn't incredibly helpful in identifying what group it belongs to. It's
like saying that people raise vertebrates for their milk.
>Tests were even performed.
Where can I read about them?
>A termites flagellates were
>killed and eventually the termite itself died. (By the way, those who
>keep claiming that I'm not actually presenting evidence, what do you
>think this is--although this is still barely scratching the surface?)
How is that an argument against evolution?
[snip]
>Just wait until I touch on transitional forms. Then we'll see who's
>got evidence and who's been lied to all along.
That should be fun. I recommend that you try to discover what
evolutionists actually claim before posting your evidence, otherwise
you're going to have your head handed to you (metaphorically, of
course).
[snip]
>Christanity is the oldest religion in the world.
No, Judaism is older.
[snip]
Dana Tweedy
>> The ice in the arctic ocean, however, floats, so if
>> it were to melt it would not raise the sea level at all.
>> This is a direct consequence of Archimedes' law.
>
> Hence why I said the latter is questionable! Try not to repeat things
> I'm already saying.
Note that his figures refute your claims.
>
>> Your assertion that if all the water in the atmosphere were to condense
>> (why would it do so, by the way?}
>
> No particular reason. But it the God I know is strong enough to create
> the universe, perhaps He's strong enough to cause such. Also 2.5 cm is
> not that small. Every little bit counts!
In relation to 8800 meter, it is very small.
>
>> the sea level would rise appreciably is false.
>
> Is you read properly you will see I also mentioned Clouds! Do you know
> how much water they contain. Do a little research then tell me it's
> still impossible.
It's still impossible. I think you are misremembering the "vapor
canopy" claims made by some creationists. Such a canopy is also
insufficient to produce the "flood", and would have caused to Earth to
be uninhabitable.
>
>
>> Note that this is much less than tidal effects, which means you would
>> hardly notice it.
>
> Another thing that could raise water level tremendously is
> temeperature. A 4*C water is most dense. Anything below or above this
> and it begins to expand.
Not by that much.
> Imagine how much rise you would get is all
> the water on the planet were to heat up a little. It would be quite
> big.
But not nearly enough.
>
>> About your assertion that Mount Everest and, presumably, other mountains
>> as well, were lower at the time of the flood (which could not have been
>> more than about 10.000 years ago, if the creation date you cite is
>> correct):
>
> Please use 6000. I always prefer 6000.
Then why were you complaining earlier about "evolutionists" using 6000
years?
>
>> what's the evidence for this?
>
> I'll certainly gather some and let you have it in due course.
I suspect you will not.
>
>> Also, you do realise that the difference between 70 meters
>> and 8.8 kilometers is a factor of more than 100, don't you?
>> This is not a trivial matter. What is the mechanism that
>> caused the mountains to rise up to 8 kilometers in less than 10000
>> years, or about 80cm per year?
>
> The pressure of all the water at the base.
Do you realize that at the base of Mt. Everest, there is not "all the
water"?
Already there are fears
> that silt is making the sea beds heavier and causing continets to rise
> and the oean floor to sink.
Fears by whom? Have you ever heard of plate tectonics?
> It a little silt can disturb the balance,
> then imagine what a lot of water can do.
Where did that "lot of water" come from? Where did it go?
>
>
>> Note that the Himalayas currently rise at
>> a rate of about 5mm per year, another discrepancy of a factor of 100.
>
> That's because of natural causes. Back then it was a catastrophic
> phenomenon.
What evidence do you have for this claim?
>
>> Evidence? Note that the Colorado river is called that way because its
>> water is coloured by all the silt it carried. Were does the silt come from?
>
> Again, the water from the flood caused all this.
That's your claim. Can you provide any evidence. Where did all that
silt come from, if the Earth was only 2000 years old at the time? How
did that much loose soil form?
>
>> At best you could conclude from this that local flooding was common in
>> the past, just like it is today. It is not evidence of a global flood,
>> as geologists proved several centuries ago.
>
> No, not at the magnitude that people believe it would take.
What "people believe"? You need to start citing some real evidence,
not just vague assertions.
DJT
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <q3jsu4-...@middgard.yggdrasil>):
>
> In the "I fear you are"-category:
>
>> So when reptiles started developing lumps in thier sides (I'm assuming
>> that's how wings started?) They were functional and could be used for
>> gliding? You have jumped a little ahead. Don't evolutionists say it
>> themselves, it took millions of years. That means it has to start out
>> like a bud, and progress until it looked like penguin wings and
>> finally become proper wings?? But a useless bud would have been
>> discarded! Don't try and confuse me--I'm not that dumb.
>
>
>
>
I call Loki. No-one can be this stupid.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
the heekster
<wdup...@HotPOP.com> wrote:
>
>First off, Evolution and Creation are completely different from each
>other. You can't believe in both at the same time. They clearly
>conflict with each other. As one author said, "it's like trying to
>ride two horses in opposite directions."
>
in creation.
There is no evolution dogma, only theory supported by, and which fits
the facts. If the facts do not fit the theory, then the theory must
be changed.
As opposed to your faith, which is unquestioning, and obviously,
unexamined.
>When I say I'm a creationist, I meant a TRUE creationist. People who
>call themselves creationists and then say the 6 days used to create
>the earth were actually periods of million of years are just
>"compromising evolutionists" and are probably worse than downright
>evolutionists.
This seems to be just an ad hominem. Best to avoid such logical
fallacies.
<snip>
>
>My apologies at the apparent lack of evidence in this posting, and
>also the length, but we need to clear these things up before we bother
>presenting evidence.
>
>William
Sorry, but no evidence is the same as no credibility.
If you expect to be credible, you will have to present evidence.
Dana Tweedy
> Here's my theory of Creation:
>
> The Theory of Creation
>
> To figure out what my theory is, just read Genesis, and interpret it
> literally. Also read the account of the flood. These are found in the
Which of the two creation stories do you mean?
>
> God created the heavens and the earth, in short everything that exists
> in six literal days.
What evidence can you cite to support this?
> The creation was perfect.
Evidence for this?
> There was absolutely
> nothing wrong with it-that is, until man sinned, upon which time, he
> became mortal.
If everything were perfect, how did humans sin? And why would God
curse everything for that one mistake?
> His intellectual abilities also greatly suffered after
> that, although not immediately.
Evidence for this? If Adam had a perfect intellect, why was he fooled
so easily by the serpent?
> Eventually man became so wicked that
> in order for the promise of a Messiah to be fulfilled God would have
> to destroy the earth.
Why not just destroy man? Why destroy everything else?
> Only Noah and his immediate family were saved
> from the flood that then commenced.
Where is there any evidence for this flood?
> Before the flood, there were
> numerous more species of animals on earth than there are now.
Evidence for this? And why didn't Noah save them all, as God commanded?
Moreover, why did God kill all those innocent species?
>I
> believe there was one climate throughout the earth.
Evidence for this, and why would there be "one climate" when the Earth
is very different in different places?
> Some also theorize
> that there was a canopy (some say of water vapor, other say of ice)
> surrounding the earth that blocked out harmful UV radiation.
Who are these "some" and where can their work be studied. Why wouldn't
this "vapor canopy" have caused a fatal increase in temperatures and air
pressure? See
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH401.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html
> Because
> this theory seems to solve a lot of problems on the Creation side, I
> generally accept it.
It also makes worse problems. Perhaps you haven't thought it through.
> Of course the Bible doesn't say anything about
> it, it's man's idea, and is therefore open to debate and questionable.
Also, quite unworkable.
> I believe that a universal flood greatly changed the world both during
> and after. It is believed that great volcanoes, earthquakes and other
> violent disturbances greatly changed the earth.
Evidence for this, please.
>
> I also believe that man was created along with dinosaurs and such. In
> fact the Bible mentions Dinosaurs twice as existing with man.
No, the Bible does not. It refers to a "sea monster" and possibly a
hippo.
> There
> are also fossils of footprints made by man inside footprints made by
> dinosaurs ( http://www.icr.org/articles/print/255/ A Google Search
> "man and dinosaur footprints together" will reveal a wealth of
> evidence against evolution).
Actually, all supposed cases of human and dinosaur footprints found
together have been found to be either hoaxes, or misinterpreted. Even
if humans and dinosaurs lived together, that would not disprove the
evidence for evolution. There are also no evidence of dinosaur fossils
and modern mammal fossils being found in association.
> There also seems to be evidence that
> there are a few dinosaurs in existence today.
There is no evidence of non avian dinosaurs being alive today. Even if
there were, that would not be evidence against evolution.
> There are many other
> testimonies recorded by ancient civilizations that dinosaurs exited
> with man,
No, there are not. There are legends and folk stories about monsters,
but no dinosaurs.
> even for a little while after the flood.
There is no evidence of a flood, and no evidence of dinosaurs and modern
humans living at the same time.
> I believe the
> reason so many species died out was because of the drastic changes to
> the climate and environment after the flood.
Then why did God bother to have Noah put them on the Ark?
> With the canopy gone,
> polar regions and deserts began, including seasons and rain-all
> characteristics that were never there before the flood.
There is no evidence of a vapor canopy, and much evidence that such a
canopy would have been fatal to most life.
>
> I believe God's promise of the Messiah, Jesus being that Saviour. I
> also believe in man's need for salvation, and in everything promised
> by the Bible after this life and this earth end.
That has nothing to do with evolution, or creation.
>
> That's the basis of my believe, and of creationism and Christianity.
> Any questions? By the way, more flood posting coming soon!
You don't seem to have anything that's not already been demolished long
ago.
DJT
Tiny Bulcher
> In the "I fear you are"-category:
>
>> So when reptiles started developing lumps in thier sides (I'm
>> assuming that's how wings started?) They were functional and could
>> be used for gliding? You have jumped a little ahead. Don't
>> evolutionists say it themselves, it took millions of years. That
>> means it has to start out like a bud, and progress until it looked
>> like penguin wings and finally become proper wings?? But a useless
>> bud would have been discarded! Don't try and confuse me--I'm not
>> that dumb.
Are we being Loki-ed again? Even Kent Hovind isn't that ignorant.
Ernest Major
<aug...@sympatico.ca> writes
>>A termites flagellates were
>>killed and eventually the termite itself died. (By the way, those who
>>keep claiming that I'm not actually presenting evidence, what do you
>>think this is--although this is still barely scratching the surface?)
>
>How is that an argument against evolution?
Presumably he is unaware the irreducible (interlocking) complexity is a
prediction of the theory of evolution, made nearly 100 years ago.
--
alias Ernest Major
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1192988695.2...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>):
Your examples have been seen, and utterly refuted, over, and over, and over
again over many _decades_. Why should we waste time reinventing the wheel,
especially when it's clear that you're not listening?
>
>
> -----
>
>> As a matter of terminology a case can be made that dinosaurs are still
>> living, if one defines dinosaurs cladistically as including birds.
>> Otherwise no living dinosaurs are known.
>
> No, I'm meaning SOME species that are generally considered extinct.
> I'm not just talking about pl..... whatever that dinosaur was called,
> what about the others in Kent Hovinds seminar. How do you refute them,
If you mean plesiosaurs, they weren't dinosaurs. Dinos are a very specific
group. We're not sure which specific group gave rise to plesiosaurs, but it's
pretty sure that it wasn't the dinos.
> but saying he's lying.
When he says that a dead, rotting basking shark is a plesiosaur, he's lying.
> And you call that science? Is there maybe a
> chance that he's not lying??
No. It's been shown, repeatedly, and conclusively, that the carcass in
question was that of a dead basking shark.
> That would hurt your cause, wouldn't it,
> so he must be lying! How convenient.
>
>> First, as a matter of terminology, plesiosaurs are not dinosaurs. (We
>> have a plesiosaur specialist participating here who if you ask him
>> nicely may explain the differences in bony detail.)
>
> Well are they extinct?
Yes.
> Did they live with Dinosaurs according to
> evolution?
Yes.
> So suppose one of the testimonies to seeing one are true??
Produce an actual plesiosaur and we'll talk.
> You can't answer can you? Well I guess I can't really push because
> there isn't much evidence, and what there is, let me guess, the
> witnesses are probably lying?
Lying and/or mistaken. Probably lying.
>
>> In the case of Kent Hovind, there's good reason to suspect that he is
>> lying; most of the other people reporting plesiosaur carcasses are
>> mistaken.
>
> Again, I ask, what about the other dinosaurs besides plesiosaur.
Asked and answered.
> May I
> also ask what the good reason is to suspect he is lying?
People have inspected dead basking shark carcasses.
>
>> What "thousands of testimonies to encounters" refers to is unclear. I
>> assume that your not referring to UFSnauts, but nothing relevant with
>> thousands of encounters comes to mind.
>
> All those people who said they've seen a living dinosaur or had some
> kind of encounter with something that fits the description? I bet
> they're ALL lying.
That's where the evidence points. Show me a live, non-avian, dino and I'll
reconsider my position.
>
>> That's not true. Less sophisticated wings can still be used for
>> gliding, and in fact Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird, had wings
>> that are less sophisticated than those of living birds.
>
> So when reptiles started developing lumps in thier sides (I'm assuming
> that's how wings started?) They were functional and could be used for
> gliding?
'Lumps in their sides'? No-one can be this stupid. Not even a creationist.
Wings, on a vertebrate, are modified forelimbs. In some cases, including
flying squirrels and some bats and some pterodactyls, folds of skin can
extend between the forelimbs and the hindlimbs, in some cases all the way to
the tail. However, the primary limbs are the forelimbs. There are three
distinct types of vertebrate flight: birds, bats, and pterodactyls. (Four if
you count flying fish.) In no case did wings develop out of 'lumps in their
sides'.
> You have jumped a little ahead. Don't evolutionists say it
> themselves, it took millions of years. That means it has to start out
> like a bud, and progress until it looked like penguin wings and
> finally become proper wings?? But a useless bud would have been
> discarded! Don't try and confuse me--I'm not that dumb.
You just proved that either you're a Loki troll or yes, you are that dumb.
snip rest.