Objective Morality vs. Christianity
Barry OGrady
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nonstampcollector&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXO26pObTZA
Atheism is often criticized for not having or providing a basis for an
objective morality. Whenever an atheist points out some horrible act
or sentiment in the bible and calls it immoral, the comeback is often
not much more thoughtful or sophisticated than pointing out that
atheists don’t have any good basis for an objective moral standard by
which to judge whether or not something is moral, and therefore have
no good grounds upon which to make such an evaluation. The idea of an
objective morality is also used as one of the pillars, along with
cosmology and design, of proving that there simply and logically must
be a god. But just like those other ‘proofs’, objective morality is
unhelpful in any argument for the truth of Christianity or any
particular religion. In fact, Christian views of objective morality
are so problematic and are such a tangled mess of double think and
special pleading that it amazes me that Christians want to even talk
about it.
With the publication of his book on the topic, atheist Sam Harris
recently went up against Christian William Lane Craig in a debate on
objective morality. Harris advocates an objective morality, from an
atheistic and scientific standpoint. In listening to the debate
several times, I’ve found myself more interested in Craig’s arguments
supporting a theistic basis for objective morality, because I’m
enthralled by what he DIDN”T bring up, and especially what he avoided
bringing up or answering. There’s a good stretch of the debate in
which he goes out of his way to divert attention away from Harris’
bringing up the moral problems of the Christian god, stating
emphatically that the Christian god and its actions are NOT the topic
of the night’s debate, and therefore that he’s under no obligation to
respond to anything to do with that. Strictly speaking he was right, I
guess. The topic under debate was related to theism and atheism, so by
only bringing up arguments to do with theism, rather than
Judeo-Christianity specifically, Craig was addressing the topic of the
debate. But the problem is that in other situations, Craig and
countless others use the very same arguments to advocate for a
specifically Christian, not simply “theistic”, view of objective
morality, so it’s time to scrutinize those arguments, to see just how
far they support a Christian view.
For the sake of argument I’m going to accept and go along with pretty
much all of Craig’s arguments from the Harris debate, for a while here
to see where they lead us.
First I’ll concede to Craig by taking the position, as some atheists
do and some don’t, that there IS indeed an absolute objective moral
standard by which to judge human behaviour. For the sake of brevity
I’ll jump straight to conceding one of Craig’s key points; that theism
provides the best basis for an objective morality, far better than
atheism. There has to be a moral law giver. Stay with me atheists, I’m
going even further:
all of that is being asserted out of thin air without much to back it
up, but never mind…I'm going to grant all of that as well as if it had
been absolutely proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. Ok, that is
indeed a god after all, and all morality, which is objective, is
reflective of the nature and essential character of the objective
moral law giver.
So, lets say that on my hypothetical scoreboard, Craig won the debate,
and that he convinced me on all of those statements there. That just
about makes me a Christian now, doesn’t it? No, not at all, and to
demonstrate why, let’s follow Craig even further here, because if I
do, it won’t be long before I’m told among other things, that the
moral law giver that he’s proven to me must exist, has given humanity
his written word, passed down throughout history, showing us his
character. (For want of a direct quote to that effect from Craig I’m
going to take the risk of strawmanning him to that extent. I think
it’s not stretching the friendship to do that.) So surely, to know
about morality, all we need do is look at this writing that the
objective moral law giver has left with us, and we’ll be able to find
out about its character and learn what is and isn’t moral. Surely, if
it is what it claims to be, it will contain the answers to the deepest
and most complex moral questions that we have.
So, we flick through a few pages and it turns out that this objective
moral law giver, consistent with its holy and loving nature, desires
that certain women and girls be burned to death as punishment for
sexual immorality. And that others women in similar circumstances
should be stoned to death! And even before I can give another example
every Christian on youtube groans, because NonStampCollector has gone
there again, twisting the meaning of scripture, putting an atheistic
spin on it, taking the verses out of context to suit his atheistic
agenda.
Well, I’m not being facetious. This is, honestly, a serious question
to raise if we’re going to take Dr. Craig seriously and if I’m going
to follow his arguments anywhere beyond a waffly faceless theism.
These particular examples of obscene barbaric injustice are far from
being isolated cases, and Craig said that “God’s commandments must be
consistent with his holy and loving nature”. Well, there is simply no
sense in saying that, unless we are happy to look at the commandments
that He has issued and are happy to consider them the objective moral
standards of a being that is holy and loving.
And a problem develops for me when I try to do that, coz I don’t think
that burning people to death or sending wild animals to maul them to
death is either holy or loving. I don’t think it ever was or ever
could be, but then I’m an atheist, aren’t I. OK, drop my judgment on
the use of the word ‘holy’. I don’t think it’s loving. In fact, I
think it’s the polar opposite.
And we’ve barely even scratched the surface. We read further and see
that the moral law giver implored people to keep slaves.
Is that representative of what objective morality is? No. But he did
implore people to do that, yes, and his commandments must be
consistent with his loving nature. Yes. But slavery is not consistent
with his loving nature. No
In case you can’t see a problem with that, let’s go further.
He ordered people to kill members of other faiths.
Is that therefore objectively moral? Is it a moral duty? No,
but the loving moral law giver commanded it, yes,
and his commands constitute our moral duties.
Same thing in regard to murdering non-virgin brides.
Objectively moral? No. Objectively immoral – yeah probably, yet
mandated by the moral law giver.
The moral law giver implored people to not steal.
Is that representative of what objective morality is? Yes. Oh, good!
How do you know?! Because the moral law giver of the universe said so
in the bible.
So some of this god’s moral commandments are indicative of objective
morality, and others aren’t. The particular god you’ve suggested I
accept as the objective moral law giver turns out to not be worthy of
the name due to the amazing volume of exceptions and excuses that are
necessary to justify that view, and in fact if we go and look at his
“nice” moral demands as you no doubt insist we do, like this QUOTE,
then this god condemns himself as immoral by his own standard, due to
his ordering that people treat each other with the utmost cruelty. No,
It’s easy to see that this is madness. Having had a look at this
candidate, in my search for the objective moral law giver that I’ve
had proven to me must exist, and having noticed what I have already
about this one, the most sensible and obvious course of action to now
take would be to write it off and look elsewhere. Why on earth would
that be a problem?
Christians, have you, for even a moment, ever considered that the
logically necessary objective moral law giver might NOT be the god of
the bible? That there could be a godly moral law giver, who is also
the fine-tuner of the universe and the designer of life, that isn’t
the god mentioned in the bible?
You owe it to yourself to consider the question, especially given that
the god of the bible is demonstrably a psychopathic, insane violent
self-obsessed god of war written of by demonstrably ignorant
bloodthirsty people in the superstitious bronze age,
We atheists keep hearing that we have no sound basis for morality.
Yet the basis of your morality, to whom you ascribe the source of your
moral contention that murder is bad, is a being that murders. You
ascribe the source of your moral contention that all human life is
worthwhile, to a being that again and again treats human life with
utter contempt. You ascribe the source of your moral contention that
kindness is good, to a god that inflicts deadly disease and slow
suffering deaths on a whim when its wishes aren’t carried out. You
ascribe the source of your moral contention that justice should be
fair, to a being that dishes out the most outrageous injustices, and
boasts about it.
When someone like me looks openly and objectively at the demands made
by this god, and ascertains that they are so polluted with obscenely
cruel and sick demands that they indeed could NOT be representative of
the highest moral standard of the universe, you make excuses for them
and the kind of misery that’s their inevitable and intended result,
and then complain that I’m taking them out of context, that I’m
spinning them to suit a pre-existing agenda, or that I’m incapable of
understanding them.
You’re talking about things like the order to burn living people to
death being in line with objective morality, and coming from a moral
law giver who is inherently kind.
You’re talking about throwing rocks at living people until they are
dead as a result, being in line with the requirements of an objective
moral law giver who is inherently merciful.
Oh, that sort of punishment was objectively right in another context,
yet objectively wrong in a contemporary context, meaning that if
anyone did that now, it would be immoral. Objectively.
Objective? or Contextual? Don’t you see that the instant you invoke
context, your claim that there is an objective moral standard is
destroyed, because if killing people by throwing rocks at them is
morally permissible in some contexts, then what on earth isn’t?! If
deliberately sending wild animals to maul people to death is morally
permissible in some contexts, then what on earth isn’t?! The most
hideously cruel and sick acts, you are clearly telling us, can be
morally good, depending on the context. So there is no… objective
standard of objective morality. It’s subjectively objective. There’s
nothing so evil, cruel, barbaric or disgusting that this god of yours
couldn’t be OK with in certain circumstances, because your
understanding of morality implies that if that god did it, it would
simply be moral. Nothing is absolutely, objectively immoral because
morality under this model is subject to the opinion of god at that
time. It’s all circumstantial. How can the objectivity of an objective
moral be subject to context?
Why do we allow this bullshit to have a seat at the discussion?
Surely, the ongoing human debate about morality and ethics and human
behaviour would be greatly enhanced if this bronze-age bullshit was
taken out of the equation. This book and the insane mental contortions
and backflips that it forces Christians to perform surely does more to
pollute discussion of the issue of morality than it contributes.
Jesus?: Jesus changed nothing, despite saying lots of nice things, coz
in case you’d forgotten, not only did Jesus specifically instruct his
followers to continue to follow every letter of the old testament law,
Jesus and the father are one. It’s the same being, according to you,
and according to scripture, and according to Jesus. The kind father
who sent his only begotten son, is the insane sadistic monster who
sent his only begotten bears and lions to rip living people to shreds
for petty misdemeanors, too. And what did Jesus save us from? From the
insane god-the-father’s dishing out of infinite punishment for finite,
mostly victimless, crimes – That’s right – a being that murdered
babies is going to condemn most of us to hell on the grounds that we
have even a single moral flaw- and such serious moral flaws as looking
upon a woman with lust in one’s heart. That’s an insane moral
requirement anyway, let alone when the being that is going to condemn
you to eternal torture for it is guilty of mass child-murder.
I value the moral precepts that humankind has risen to through
centuries of reasoned debate, discussion and agreement since the time
these insane scriptures were written. Among other reasons, I value
them because I know and love many perfectly good human beings that
your Yahweh would once have ordered be stoned to death for things
they’ve done that simply don’t matter in ANY practical sense. If you
won’t accept that to have killed such people in such a way is anything
less than absolutely fucking barbaric and definitively evil, then
shame on you. Perhaps it’s YOU who ought to be asking serious
questions about basis of their morality, not me as an atheist.
Your argument, when it gets to Yahweh, becomes an insane jumble of
excuses, special pleading, circular reasoning and simply and
conveniently redefining what is moral depending on what section of the
bible it’s from, … All because you’re caught up in the delusion that
the insane character in the bible is the only viable candidate for the
god that you are convinced must exist. Believe in a god by all means,
it’s just that when you put this psychopath Yahweh in the mix it
becomes an absolute mess. I’m suggesting that you take Yahweh out of
the mix, and start making sense again.
The fact is this: there is simply no link between the
however-well-logically-arrived at need for there to be a god, as a
creator or a designer or an objective moral law giver, and the god of
Christianity. William Lane Craig and others like him make arguments
that are designed to get us to accept the necessity of the existence
of a creative and moral force, and then hope that we’ll miss the
non-sequitor of linking deism directly to judeo-christianity as if one
logically follows from the other.
Anyone who argues this way is either being deliberately misleading, or
is simply unaware of how badly-thought-out this line of reasoning is.
So, is there an objective standard of morality? I don’t know. There
are good arguments on both sides of that question. There is NOTHING
WRONG with ‘I don’t know’.
There very well could be an objective moral law giving god, or gods. I
don’t know that either, and that’s not an admission, it’s an
assertion.
But even if I did come to the conclusion that there is one, even if I
accepted completely that a personal god exists: there is NOTHING that
points towards Yahweh.
The violent and disgusting contents of the bible only confirm that the
only relevance Yahweh has in this debate, is as a measure of how far
human morality has come, and to show how bad things could get, were we
to only look to ancient scriptures for the answers to our most
important questions.
Steve Hayes
> First I’ll concede to Craig by taking the position, as some atheists do
> and some don’t, that there IS indeed an absolute objective moral
> standard by which to judge human behaviour. For the sake of brevity
I’ll
> jump straight to conceding one of Craig’s key points; that theism
> provides the best basis for an objective morality, far better than
> atheism. There has to be a moral law giver. Stay with me atheists, I’m
> going even further:
An interesting article, except that not knowing anything about this Craig/
Harris debate, I found it rather difficult to follow.
Perhaps you could simplify it by saying what, for atheists, is the basis
of an objective morality.
--
Steve Hayes http://khanya.wordpress.com
Steve wilson
Christian God. This is wrong and he ought to know better. Dr. Craig is
always giving evidence for a personal creator God and this is what
Christianity believes. If God is an 'it' then all nonstampcollector's
objections fall to the ground as a 'it' cannot be held morally
accountable and impersonal principles have no moral force for us.
And nonstampcollector claims he doesn't know if there is an objective
standard of morality, yet he assumes the truth of it throughout his
rant; it is what gives power to his indigence. He may think it's okay
to plead ignorance, but given the strong nature of his attack, he owes
the Christian theist a coherent explanation for what he assumes to be
truth at a very deep level. So deep that he uses it as the ultimate
judge of what is morally okay for everyone, including God. In it's
absence, his attack is just an irrational rant.
And nonstampcollector doesn't give any biblical references thus denying
the reader the opportunity to quickly look up his biblical examples in
context. This is unacceptable.
nonstampcollector says; "William Lane Craig . . . make arguments that
creative and moral force, and then hope that we’ll miss the non-sequitor
of linking deism directly to judeo-christianity as if one logically
follows from the other."
necessity of a *personal Creator God*, but he does not stop there, he
goes on to present evidence about Jesus' claims for himself and the
evidence for his physical resurrection. Dr.Craig's aim is to present
several avenues of evidence which all build towards making the claims of
Christianity more and more likely to be true than not. It may be that
Dr. Craig has to limit the full range of the arguments during debates,
but it is not due at all to nonstampcollector's somewhat silly accusation.
Then we come to nonstampcollector's main accusation that God is hateful
in requiring horrible things to be done to people. However he fails to
differentiate between judgements/punishments and the immorality which
elicited the punishment. For example, it is our apprehension of
objective morality which informs us that raping babies is always wrong,
however the punishment for raping a baby is open to variance. It is the
action which is the subject of objective morality, the punishments are
not objective as nonstampcollector thinks. He then compounds his error
by accusing Christians of being inconsistent in holding to contextually
held objective morals because we no longer stone people to death. He
needs to sort out his understanding here.
Also nonstampcollector does not seem to appreciate that God, though
personal, is not a human being. If God exists as the Bible says, then
He is a necessary and perfect creator being and has prerequisites, which
we do not have as His creatures. He is the creator of life and it is
His to take life and is under no obligation to prolong anyone's life.
And God may be loving, but He is also a God of justice and it is His
prerequisite to judge the actions of morally aware human beings.
Nonstampcollector is right to say that a direct command from God makes
an action our moral duty, even an action which might be otherwise be
immoral in the absence of a direct command, but he fails to notice that
many of the violent acts, are to do with the Jews entering the promised
land. There seems to be no appreciation by nonstampcollector that these
acts of judgement were limited in purpose and duration. There is no
justifying context for God to command similar actions today.
Steve Wilson
--
When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the
right to Christian morality. Nietzsche.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Andrew W
news:j6of55$4lu$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> An interesting article, except that not knowing anything about this Craig/
> Harris debate, I found it rather difficult to follow.
>
> Perhaps you could simplify it by saying what, for atheists, is the basis
> of an objective morality.
>
The basis for human objective morality is that we observe what works and
doesn't work in our society and then act accordingly to make a better
society.
We appoint leaders who form laws and then guide and govern us as necessary
to what they have come to know works best in society.
For example killing people and stealing ends up being detrimental for
society, so we out law it.
Giving to charity etc. is beneficial so we encourage it.
Barry
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:21:49 +1100, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> and some don?t, that there IS indeed an absolute objective moral
>> jump straight to conceding one of Craig?s key points; that theism
>
>An interesting article, except that not knowing anything about this Craig/
>Harris debate, I found it rather difficult to follow.
>Perhaps you could simplify it by saying what, for atheists, is the basis
>of an objective morality.
Steve wilson
nothing of the sort, because it depends on opinions about what works
best for our society. In fact it has little to do with moral values as
we normally understand it, but is merely societal consensus enabling
people to co-exist as best they can. Andrew W has redefined morality to
mean a maximisation of human well-being. This false claim to objective
morality can be exposed by comparing it to another real-world
society/culture, Islam. It is part of that religion, and thus part of
such societies, that male apostates are to be killed if they refuse to
re-convert back to Islam. So what do we normally do? If Andrew W is
correct we would not ever think to criticise Muslim culture, for its own
consensus of what best helps their society is their own business. On
this view, moral right and wrong really does not come into it. However
I do not need to spell it out that we never do this. we judge such
practices as barbaric and immoral even though Muslims think it is the
right thing for the cohesion and flourishing of their culture. And it
works doesn't it? Numerically their populations are on the rise. We
cannot really argue that the execution of a few individuals here and
there hinders their society from flourishing, indeed removing such
people actually helps cohesion. And in our moral outrage, we will even
attempt to exert political pressure to stop the execution if we can. So
we are really judging that humans have intrinsic moral worth regardless
of what any society might consider conducive to their flourishing and
over-rule them with the objective moral value that it is immoral to kill
a person simply for changing religion. So Andrew W needs to offer an
explanation that addresses our apprehension that some actions are right
or wrong regardless of what people might think about it, for this is
what objective morality means. He needs to provide an absolute and
unchanging anchor point to make sense of apprehension that we are all
subject to a higher moral law.
Steve wilson
is. Have you not listened to the debate yourself? The fact that you
constantly criticise Christianity for its alleged moral failings
strongly suggests you clearly apprehend objective morality regardless of
your statement of agnosticism. May I suggest that the reality is that
you are in an wholly inconsistent position rather than in a position of
not knowing. In your heart you know there is such a thing, as you apply
objective moral judgements all the time; one just has to read the posts
on this newsgroup for that. However there is just nothing within
atheist belief itself to account for how this could be, thus your
indecisive comment.
Barry OGrady
<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/10/2011 06:07, Barry wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 03:13:42 +0000 (UTC), Steve Hayes
>> <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:21:49 +1100, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>
>>>> First I?ll concede to Craig by taking the position, as some atheists do
>>>> and some don?t, that there IS indeed an absolute objective moral
>>>> standard by which to judge human behaviour. For the sake of brevity
>>> I?ll
>>>> jump straight to conceding one of Craig?s key points; that theism
>>>> provides the best basis for an objective morality, far better than
>>>> atheism. There has to be a moral law giver. Stay with me atheists, I?m
>>>> going even further:
>>>
>>> An interesting article, except that not knowing anything about this Craig/
>>> Harris debate, I found it rather difficult to follow.
>>
>> Google.
>>
>>> Perhaps you could simplify it by saying what, for atheists, is the basis
>>> of an objective morality.
>>
>> I don't know if there is such a thing.
>>
>Sam Harris, one of the four horsemen of the new atheism, believes there
>is.
>Have you not listened to the debate yourself? The fact that you
>constantly criticise Christianity for its alleged moral failings
>strongly suggests you clearly apprehend objective morality regardless of
>your statement of agnosticism. May I suggest that the reality is that
>you are in an wholly inconsistent position rather than in a position of
>not knowing. In your heart you know there is such a thing, as you apply
>objective moral judgements all the time; one just has to read the posts
>on this newsgroup for that. However there is just nothing within
>atheist belief itself to account for how this could be, thus your
>indecisive comment.
how simple and moronic you are being.
I have shown you how very wrong you are and I know you agree
with me but dare not admit it. You can't even convince Christians.
>Steve Wilson
Steve wilson
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:33:57 +0100, Steve wilson
> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2011 06:07, Barry wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 03:13:42 +0000 (UTC), Steve Hayes
>>> <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:21:49 +1100, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> First I?ll concede to Craig by taking the position, as some atheists do
>>>>> and some don?t, that there IS indeed an absolute objective moral
>>>>> standard by which to judge human behaviour. For the sake of brevity
>>>> I?ll
>>>>> jump straight to conceding one of Craig?s key points; that theism
>>>>> provides the best basis for an objective morality, far better than
>>>>> atheism. There has to be a moral law giver. Stay with me atheists, I?m
>>>>> going even further:
>>>>
>>>> An interesting article, except that not knowing anything about this Craig/
>>>> Harris debate, I found it rather difficult to follow.
>>>
>>> Google.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps you could simplify it by saying what, for atheists, is the basis
>>>> of an objective morality.
>>>
>>> I don't know if there is such a thing.
>>>
>> Sam Harris, one of the four horsemen of the new atheism, believes there
>> is.
>
> Better ask him then.
>
appears to be more than what you've done. Dr.Craig was all over him
with clear and concise logical arguments. Sam Harris did not offer any
meaningful answers to the deficiencies raised by Craig of atheism and
Harris' redefinition of objective and ended up resorting to the standard
and quite tiresome atheist rhetoric about a hateful and vengeful God.
Dr. Craig is aptly known as the Christian philosopher who puts the fear
of God into atheists (pun intended). Richard Dawkins is running scared
of Dr. Craig, so is A.C.Grayling and Poly Toynbee too. (all famous
atheists in the UK)
>> Have you not listened to the debate yourself? The fact that you
>> constantly criticise Christianity for its alleged moral failings
>> strongly suggests you clearly apprehend objective morality regardless of
>> your statement of agnosticism. May I suggest that the reality is that
>> you are in an wholly inconsistent position rather than in a position of
>> not knowing. In your heart you know there is such a thing, as you apply
>> objective moral judgements all the time; one just has to read the posts
>> on this newsgroup for that. However there is just nothing within
>> atheist belief itself to account for how this could be, thus your
>> indecisive comment.
>
> I know its important for you to believe that and that you can't see
> how simple and moronic you are being.
>
> I have shown you how very wrong you are and I know you agree
> with me but dare not admit it. You can't even convince Christians.
>
fail to realise is that the so-called 'problem of evil' is dead in the
water; there is no logical contradiction.
duke
>This is from nonstampcollector on youtube.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nonstampcollector&aq=f
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXO26pObTZA
>
>Atheism is often criticized for not having or providing a basis for an
>objective morality.
Man has no morality other than that caused by God.
The dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Barry OGrady
>On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:21:49 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>This is from nonstampcollector on youtube.
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nonstampcollector&aq=f
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXO26pObTZA
>>
>>Atheism is often criticized for not having or providing a basis for an
>>objective morality.
>
>Man has no morality other than that caused by God.
You didn't think about that one!
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
Gladys Swager
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 duke wrote:
>
> >>This is from nonstampcollector on youtube.
> >>http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nonstampcollector&aq=f
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXO26pObTZA
>
> >>Atheism is often criticized for not having or providing a basis for an
> >>objective morality.
>
> >Man has no morality other than that caused by God.
>
> You didn't think about that one!
>
commit adultery....(nor)steal....(nor bear false witness (ie tell
lies).
You shall honour your father and mother....and love your neighbour as
yourself.
>
Those, written in specific ways, are in the legal system, and as such
are often not understood to have come originally from the Bible.
Exodus 20
Secularisers have included them in the Public school system and media
statements but without any mention of their Biblical source.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
Duke is saying that God made us sinners, and that God is responsible
for every evil act committed by man.
>Gladys Swager
duke
Barry OGrady
>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:04:06 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:00:26 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:21:49 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>This is from nonstampcollector on youtube.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nonstampcollector&aq=f
>>>>
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXO26pObTZA
>>>>
>>>>Atheism is often criticized for not having or providing a basis for an
>>>>objective morality.
>>>
>>>Man has no morality other than that caused by God.
>>
>>You didn't think about that one!
>
>Of course I did. Without God, there is no morality.
You are saying God causes us to sin and for some men to
be serial child rapists.
You really didn't think about that one.
You just wrote what you though sounded good.
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip]
Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
who never heard of your god.
Gladys Swager
Gladys Swager
> [snip]
>
> > Without God, there is no morality.
>
> Codswallop.
> Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
> who never heard of your god.
code of behaviour in communtites that do not recognise the God of the
Christian faith with punishments for those who transgress those
rulings.
That does not mean that all persons at all times follow those
rulings. .
Following the Biblical teachings cultures that today do not follow the
God of the Bible have adopted other teachings at various times in
their history of development as they have been persuaded to do so.
Evolution was imposed on those now sixty years and younger as it was
included as part of the teaching of Science to all High School
students from 1963 and without any public statment to that
information.
In the post-WW2 years, as I know the situation from my experience,
morality of doing good to others decreased to that which was followed
by many in the pre-WW2 years.
The problem facing the Christian faith today is that it has become
diversified as incorrect teachings have been adopted at times
especially from the early Fourth Century.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> On Oct 12, 10:06 am, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 5:37 am, duke wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > > Without God, there is no morality.
>
> > Codswallop.
> > Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
> > who never heard of your god.
>
> 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' can be given as a
> code of behaviour in communtites that do not recognise the God of the
> Christian faith with punishments for those who transgress those
> rulings.
non-christian and pre-christian cultures, which undermines Duke
position that morality is the sole preserv of his god.
> Following the Biblical teachings cultures that today do not follow the
> God of the Bible have adopted other teachings at various times in
> their history of development as they have been persuaded to do so.
or dukes god. To argue that morality is the preserve of your god/cult/
religion is niave, wrong, and quite ignorant of fact, history, and
humanity.
Gladys Swager
> > On Oct 12, 10:06 am, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
> > > On Oct 12, 5:37 am, duke wrote:
> > > [snip]
>
> > > > Without God, there is no morality.
>
> > > Codswallop.
> > > Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures who never heard of your god.
>
> > 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' can be given as a code of behaviour in communtites that do not recognise the God of the Christian faith with punishments for those who transgress those
> > rulings.
>
> Such a 'code of behaviour' (aka morality) exists and existed in many
> non-christian and pre-christian cultures, which undermines Duke
> > Following the Biblical teachings cultures that today do not follow the
> > God of the Bible have adopted other teachings at various times in
> > their history of development as they have been persuaded to do so.
>
> Morality exists and existed in cultures who never heard of your god,
> or dukes god. To argue that morality is the preserve of your god/cult/
> religion is niave, wrong, and quite ignorant of fact, history, and
> humanity.
ancestors?.Tha tis a question that needs to be investigated/
http://creation.com/cmi-misrepresents-ancient-chinese-language
http://creation.com/the-original-unknown-god-of-china
Gladys Swager
Steve wilson
that if God does not exist (the infinite and personal Creator revealed
in and through the Bible), then *objective* morals and duties do not
exist. One of course can create various subjective systems, which are
really no more than accepted societal conventions to limit individual
behaviour to the greater interests of society. It actually has little
to do with behaviour being objectively right or wrong, which is what is
normally meant by 'morality'.
Barry OGrady
>Steve Wilson
Steve wilson
insulting the person. I'm sure you are aware this is is called argument
ad-hominem. Your response indicates that you hold your atheist beliefs
irrationality as an expression of rebellion against your creator. You
are not interested in truth.
duke
>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:37:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:04:06 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:00:26 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:21:49 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>This is from nonstampcollector on youtube.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nonstampcollector&aq=f
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXO26pObTZA
>>>>>
>>>>>Atheism is often criticized for not having or providing a basis for an
>>>>>objective morality.
>>>>
>>>>Man has no morality other than that caused by God.
>>>
>>>You didn't think about that one!
>>
>>Of course I did. Without God, there is no morality.
>
>You are saying God causes us to sin and for some men to
>be serial child rapists.
>You really didn't think about that one.
>You just wrote what you though sounded good.
The dukester, American-American
*****
Romans 1:16-17
It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes:
for Jew first, then Greek. For in it is revealed the righteousness
of God from faith to faith; as it is written, "The one who is
righteous by faith will live."
*****
duke
<misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 12, 5:37 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>[snip]
>> Without God, there is no morality.
>Codswallop.
>Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
>who never heard of your god.
Long after that he gave man a moral code to live by.
duke
<misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 12, 12:45 pm, Gladys Swager <gswa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 10:06 am, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 12, 5:37 am, duke wrote:
>> > [snip]
>>
>> > > Without God, there is no morality.
>>
>> > Codswallop.
>> > Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
>> > who never heard of your god.
>>
>> 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' can be given as a
>> code of behaviour in communtites that do not recognise the God of the
>> Christian faith with punishments for those who transgress those
>> rulings.
>
>Such a 'code of behaviour' (aka morality) exists and existed in many
>non-christian and pre-christian cultures, which undermines Duke
>position that morality is the sole preserv of his god.
definitely no gods.
>> Following the Biblical teachings cultures that today do not follow the
>> God of the Bible have adopted other teachings at various times in
>> their history of development as they have been persuaded to do so.
>Morality exists and existed in cultures who never heard of your god,
hunter to care for a sick child when he never heard of God.
>or dukes god. To argue that morality is the preserve of your god/cult/
>religion is niave, wrong, and quite ignorant of fact, history, and
>humanity.
duke
the source of all morality.
> One of course can create various subjective systems, which are
>really no more than accepted societal conventions to limit individual
>behaviour to the greater interests of society. It actually has little
>to do with behaviour being objectively right or wrong, which is what is
>normally meant by 'morality'.
>
>Steve Wilson
duke
> I'm sure you are aware this is is called argument
>ad-hominem. Your response indicates that you hold your atheist beliefs
>irrationality as an expression of rebellion against your creator. You
>are not interested in truth.
>
>Steve Wilson
Barry OGrady
>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
><misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 12, 5:37 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> Without God, there is no morality.
>
>>Codswallop.
>
>What is a codswallop?
>
>>Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
>>who never heard of your god.
>
>Almighty God willed the universe into existence some 13.7 billion years ago.
>Long after that he gave man a moral code to live by.
Would it have not made more sense for God to create humans with
a good moral code built in rather than create humans as just another
mammal?
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
Barry OGrady
>On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:13:26 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:37:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:04:06 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:00:26 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:21:49 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>This is from nonstampcollector on youtube.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nonstampcollector&aq=f
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXO26pObTZA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Atheism is often criticized for not having or providing a basis for an
>>>>>>objective morality.
>>>>>
>>>>>Man has no morality other than that caused by God.
>>>>
>>>>You didn't think about that one!
>>>
>>>Of course I did. Without God, there is no morality.
>>
>>You are saying God causes us to sin and for some men to
>>be serial child rapists.
>
>Actually, you buddy satan did that.
Satan can only do what God wills. (Colossians 1:16-17)
>>You really didn't think about that one.
>>You just wrote what you though sounded good.
>
>Sinners and rapists live by lack of morals.
Even gang members have their own moral standards.
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
Gladys Swager
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, duke wrote:
> >On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
> >>Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures who never heard of your god.
>
Christian Creationists correct?
> >Almighty God willed the universe into existence some 13.7 billion years ago. Long after that he gave man a moral code to live by.
>
> How is that working out?
> Would it have not made more sense for God to create humans with
> a good moral code built in rather than create humans as just another
> mammal?
>
The first humans were 'created in God's own image, in the image of
God, ..... male and female (they were created)
Genesis 1 : 27
Humans have never been another mammal - for instance, a type of
creature somewhat higher than an ape. Such creatures have never been
found in the fossil record of if thought to have been found may have
been a degenerative human, suffered from some wasting disease. .
>
God created the first humans with the ability to choose whether to
obey Him or disobey Him. The outcome is known to us, all.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
Of course they did. And their evolution from a common ancestor and
disersal/migration to different parts of the world predate the
invention of your god and your religion.
That morality exists outside your religion means your religion is not
the root of morality, and your religion does not have a monopoly on
morality.
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
I get what you are pointing at, but disagree on terms: If Dukes god
does not not exist, then dukes adopted morality loses any claim to
objectivity and becomes what it is: subjective morality. Just like
all other moralities.
> One of course can create various subjective systems, which are
> really no more than accepted societal conventions to limit individual
> behaviour to the greater interests of society. It actually has little
> to do with behaviour being objectively right or wrong, which is what is
> normally meant by 'morality'.
And indeed that is what morality is. The externalistaion/codification
of these moral norms into ancient texts does not make them any more
objective than the proper/subjective morality. Its just externailsied
and codified (and this externalisation and codification is said by
some to be more valid)
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:48:39 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>
>
>
>
>
> <misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 12, 12:45 pm, Gladys Swager <gswa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 12, 10:06 am, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 12, 5:37 am, duke wrote:
> >> > [snip]
>
> >> > > Without God, there is no morality.
>
> >> > Codswallop.
> >> > Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
> >> > who never heard of your god.
>
> >> 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' can be given as a
> >> code of behaviour in communtites that do not recognise the God of the
> >> Christian faith with punishments for those who transgress those
> >> rulings.
>
> >Such a 'code of behaviour' (aka morality) exists and existed in many
> >non-christian and pre-christian cultures, which undermines Duke
> >position that morality is the sole preserv of his god.
>
> It absolutely is. There is no other place for morals to come form, and
> definitely no gods.
Can I quote you on that, denying your own god like that? "There is no
other place for morals to come form, and definitely no gods." :)
Your inanbilty/refusal to engage with the fact that morality exists
outside/before knowledge/beleif in your god undermines your position
that your god is the source of morality.
Morality in man existed before your god was created by man. By very
dint of logic and reason, your (ficticious) god cannot be the source
of morality.
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip]
> Are the Atheists or the Christian Creationists correct?
Given that Christian Creationists are demonstrably wrong .....
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>
> >On Oct 12, 5:37 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> Without God, there is no morality.
> >Codswallop.
>
> What is a codswallop?
Crikey, Duke. Firts I have to teach about si much of your own
religion (recall our discussions about Marian repatriations) that yo
dont know, and now I'm teaching you English? Where should I send the
invoice?
Codswallop, noun British Slang. nonsense; rubbish.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/codswallop
> >Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
> >who never heard of your god.
>
> Almighty God willed the universe into existence some 13.7 billion years ago.
> Long after that he gave man a moral code to live by.
Repeating a mantra like the above (or the rosary) might make you feel
good, but that does not make it true.
Man developed a moral code long before your religion/god was invented.
By definition, a moral code cant come from your god/religion
Gladys Swager
> On Oct 12, 8:12 pm, Gladys Swager wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 2:48 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
> > > Such a 'code of behaviour' (aka morality) exists and existed in many non-christian and pre-christian cultures, which undermines Duke
position that morality is the sole preserve of his god.
> > > Morality exists and existed in cultures who never heard of your god, or dukes god. To argue that morality is the preserve of your god/cult/ religion is niave, wrong, and quite ignorant of fact, history, and
humanity.
>
And in non-literate societies how can you date events past the
knowledge of present-day lifetimes of those peoples?
And whatever information of the past that is available is not
dateable.
> > However. did all the world's cultures come from one group of
> > ancestors?.That is a question that needs to be investigated/
>
> Of course they did. And their evolution from a common ancestor and
> dispersal/migration to different parts of the world predate the
> invention of your god and your religion.
>
And who gave those datings to societies that were not literate? .
> That morality exists outside your religion means your religion is not
> the root of morality, and your religion does not have a monopoly on
> morality.
>
And you cannot state authoratively that morality in ancient societies
that are not Christian were not in their beginnings influenced by the
Biblical teachings with other teachings as tribal leaders thought fit
to include. .
Gladys Swager
felix_unger
Christianity is not about truth. It's about (in no particular order)
power, social justice, activism, morality, guilt, fear, social
networking, money, self righteousness, personal development, lifestyle,
motivation, mind control, altruism, discipline, punishment; all sorts of
stuff.
>
> Steve Wilson
> --
> When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the
> right to Christian morality. Nietzsche.
>
Nietzsche went insane.
--
rgds,
Pete
------
http://ausnet.info/blog
�It's hard to take the award seriously (Swan voted World's Best Treasurer), because Mr. Swan has never handed down a surplus, and his four budgets have racked up a deficit of $154 billion. The real recipient of this award should be Peter Costello, who laid the ground work for Wayne Swan� - Joe Hockey, Shadow Treasurer
"Dumping the Gillard/Brown Government is the 'greatest moral imperative of our time'"
�Twelve months ago, Julia Gillard told us, ad nauseum, that she was 'moving forward.' Today she tells us 'she's not going anywhere'. Aint that the truth!�
"If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." - Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"Currently, China and India combined emit 20 times as much as Australia each day, and that factor is increasing rapidly. Australia's annual savings by 2020 could be emitted by China and India within five days" - Dr. David Evans former Govt Climate Adviser.
�What I see is a country bravely beating along to the agenda of some ideological people, in this case the socialist left of the ALP and the Greens, to take away what is a natural advantage. Most of the abatement is premised on the fact that we will buy permits from someone else. What happens at the end of the day, is that we are paying someone else to use our coal� - Peter Costello, former Federal Treasurer - http://tinyurl.com/costello-carbon-tax
The Science is now settled on Global Warming .. http://tinyurl.com/3ufy3lq
"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
�Cut the baby bonus after two children. The ferals are over-breeding and causing havoc in our society� - a school teacher
The Working with Children check is a joke! .. http://tinyurl.com/insane-vcat
felix_unger
Morality exists with animals as well
felix_unger
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> <misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 12, 5:37 am, duke<duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Without God, there is no morality.
>> Codswallop.
> What is a codswallop?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/codswallop
http://www.english-for-students.com/Codswallop.html
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/codswallop.html
However, I have heard that it relates to the illegal fishing of cod in
the early part of the 19 century. A police task force was set up to
police the fishing of cod (not sure where) comprised of exclusivly older
members, as the priority was low, and risk of danger minimal. So a
'codwalloper' was an old codger with nothing much of any importance to
do. I don't know if there is any truth to this story.
>
>> Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
>> who never heard of your god.
> Almighty God willed the universe into existence some 13.7 billion years ago.
> Long after that he gave man a moral code to live by.
Does God have a gender? :)
>
> The dukester, American-American
> *****
> Romans 1:16-17
> It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes:
> for Jew first, then Greek. For in it is revealed the righteousness
> of God from faith to faith; as it is written, "The one who is
> righteous by faith will live."
> *****
Barry OGrady
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 8:21�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, duke wrote:
>> >On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>> >>Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures who never heard of your god.
>>
>That is the issue that is in contention. Are the Atheists or the
>Christian Creationists correct?
>
>> >Almighty God willed the universe into existence some 13.7 billion years ago. Long after that he gave man a moral code to live by.
>>
>> How is that working out?
>> Would it have not made more sense for God to create humans with
>> a good moral code built in rather than create humans as just another
>> mammal?
>>
>The first humans were 'created in God's own image, in the image of
>God, ..... male and female (they were created)
>Genesis 1 : 27
>Humans have never been another mammal - for instance, a type of
>creature somewhat higher than an ape. Such creatures have never been
>found in the fossil record of if thought to have been found may have
>been a degenerative human, suffered from some wasting disease. .
Definition of MAMMAL
any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as
placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with
milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less
covered with hair, and include humans
Examples of MAMMAL
Human beings, dogs, and cats are all mammals.
>God created the first humans with the ability to choose whether to
>obey Him or disobey Him. The outcome is known to us, all.
I'm just glad God acted to ensure Adam's choices all had good
outcomes.
>Gladys Swager
duke
>On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:59:01 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:13:26 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:37:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:04:06 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:00:26 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:21:49 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is from nonstampcollector on youtube.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nonstampcollector&aq=f
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXO26pObTZA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Atheism is often criticized for not having or providing a basis for an
>>>>>>>objective morality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Man has no morality other than that caused by God.
>>>>>
>>>>>You didn't think about that one!
>>>>
>>>>Of course I did. Without God, there is no morality.
>>>
>>>You are saying God causes us to sin and for some men to
>>>be serial child rapists.
>>
>>Actually, you buddy satan did that.
>
>Satan can only do what God wills. (Colossians 1:16-17)
Yes, but he doesn't want to, just like you don't want to.
>>>You really didn't think about that one.
>>>You just wrote what you though sounded good.
>>
>>Sinners and rapists live by lack of morals.
>
>Even gang members have their own moral standards.
Mostly lack thereof.
duke
<misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 7:02�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:48:39 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>> <misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 12, 12:45�pm, Gladys Swager <gswa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Oct 12, 10:06�am, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Oct 12, 5:37�am, duke wrote:
>> >> > [snip]
>>
>> >> > >�Without God, there is no morality.
>>
>> >> > Codswallop.
>> >> > Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
>> >> > who never heard of your god.
>>
>> >> 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' can be given as a
>> >> code of behaviour in communtites that do not recognise the God of the
>> >> Christian faith with punishments for those who transgress those
>> >> rulings.
>>
>> >Such a 'code of behaviour' (aka morality) exists and existed in many
>> >non-christian and pre-christian cultures, which undermines Duke
>> >position that morality is the sole preserv of his god.
>>
>> It absolutely is. �There is no other place for morals to come form, and
>> definitely no gods.
>Can I quote you on that, denying your own god like that? "There is no
>other place for morals to come form, and definitely no gods." :)
Just as long as you observe that I said that all morals come from almighty
(G)od, but none from other fake {g}ods.
>Your inanbilty/refusal to engage with the fact that morality exists
>outside/before knowledge/beleif in your god undermines your position
>that your god is the source of morality.
>Morality in man existed before your god was created by man. By very
>dint of logic and reason, your (ficticious) god cannot be the source
>of morality.
Nothng existed before God. And almighty God is all love. Satan is all "no
love". And, of course, with love comes morality.
Heeheehee.
duke
Name a morality of animals. Haahaahaa.
duke
>On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:00:41 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>><misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 12, 5:37�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>>�Without God, there is no morality.
>>
>>>Codswallop.
>>
>>What is a codswallop?
>>
>>>Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
>>>who never heard of your god.
>>
>>Almighty God willed the universe into existence some 13.7 billion years ago.
>>Long after that he gave man a moral code to live by.
>
>How is that working out?
Fantastic for those of us that believe in God.
>Would it have not made more sense for God to create humans with
>a good moral code built in rather than create humans as just another
>mammal?
That would have precluded your existence.
duke
<misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 7:00�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>>
>> <misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 12, 5:37�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >[snip]
>> >>�Without God, there is no morality.
>> >Codswallop.
>>
>> What is a codswallop?
>Crikey, Duke. Firts I have to teach about si much of your own
>religion (recall our discussions about Marian repatriations) that yo
>dont know, and now I'm teaching you English? Where should I send the
>invoice?
Codswallop (British) and crikey (dirty word) are not American English words. I
have no idea what "firts" and "si" reference, and "repatriations" is an unusual
word for use with Momma Mary. It's also common to add a "'" to don't.
>Codswallop, noun British Slang. nonsense; rubbish.
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/codswallop
>> >Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
>> >who never heard of your god.
>>
>> Almighty God willed the universe into existence some 13.7 billion years ago.
>> Long after that he gave man a moral code to live by.
>Repeating a mantra like the above (or the rosary) might make you feel
>good, but that does not make it true.
The rosary reveals the life of Jesus.
>Man developed a moral code long before your religion/god was invented.
>By definition, a moral code cant come from your god/religion
The dukester, American-American
duke
>On 13-October-2011 5:00 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>> <misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 12, 5:37 am, duke<duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Without God, there is no morality.
>>> Codswallop.
>> What is a codswallop?
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/codswallop
>
>http://www.english-for-students.com/Codswallop.html
>
>http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/codswallop.html
>However, I have heard that it relates to the illegal fishing of cod in
>the early part of the 19 century.
Which country?
>A police task force was set up to
>police the fishing of cod (not sure where) comprised of exclusivly older
>members, as the priority was low, and risk of danger minimal. So a
>'codwalloper' was an old codger with nothing much of any importance to
>do. I don't know if there is any truth to this story.
>
>>
>>> Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
>>> who never heard of your god.
>> Almighty God willed the universe into existence some 13.7 billion years ago.
>> Long after that he gave man a moral code to live by.
>
>Does God have a gender? :)
Nope.
Gladys Swager
And the Atheists believe that 'nobody created somethings out of
nothing
and somehow they acqured life and began to diversify up the tree of
life.'
But how did those 'somethings' have the genetic information to
diversify up the tree of living organisms? How could amoebas, bacteria
and fungai gradually change into complex multicellular organisms such
as humans ??
Atheists 'do not want the foot of God in the doorway of science'.
That is why they imposed evolution on Secondary students from 1963 and
on all children, even pre-schoolers from sometime later last century,
for which I do not have the dating.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
Goes gives sinners and child rapists their morality.
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
Barry OGrady
>On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:21:47 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:00:41 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>>><misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Oct 12, 5:37�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>[snip]
>>>>>�Without God, there is no morality.
>>>
>>>>Codswallop.
>>>
>>>What is a codswallop?
>>>
>>>>Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
>>>>who never heard of your god.
>>>
>>>Almighty God willed the universe into existence some 13.7 billion years ago.
>>>Long after that he gave man a moral code to live by.
>>
>>How is that working out?
>
>Fantastic for those of us that believe in God.
So fantastic that believers can't agree on God's morality and are
prepared to go to war over their beliefs.
Seems your God can't get anything right.
>>Would it have not made more sense for God to create humans with
>>a good moral code built in rather than create humans as just another
>>mammal?
>
>That would have precluded your existence.
It would have been good for everybody.
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
Barry OGrady
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 12:14�pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon
><misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 1:06�pm, Gladys Swager <gswa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Are the Atheists or the Christian Creationists correct?
>>
>> Given that Christian Creationists are demonstrably wrong .....
>
>And the Atheists believe that 'nobody created somethings out of nothing
Isn't that what you believe?
God came from nothing and created everything out of nothing.
>and somehow they acqured life and began to diversify up the tree of life.'
We don't know how life began but we do know some sort of evolution
happened.
>But how did those 'somethings' have the genetic information to
>diversify up the tree of living organisms? How could amoebas, bacteria
>and fungai gradually change into complex multicellular organisms such
>as humans ??
Where did God get the information from to create and why is God's
imagination so limited that he made his finest creation as just
another mammal?
>Atheists 'do not want the foot of God in the doorway of science'.
>That is why they imposed evolution on Secondary students from 1963 and
>on all children, even pre-schoolers from sometime later last century,
>for which I do not have the dating.
Evolution was imposed on all of us by the fact it happened.
Wishful thinking won't change that.
>Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip]
> in non-literate societies how can you date events past the
> knowledge of present-day lifetimes of those peoples?
> And whatever information of the past that is available is not
> dateable.
Congratutaions on insulting about half a million of your own
countrymen.
> And you cannot state authoratively that morality in ancient societies
> that are not Christian were not in their beginnings influenced by the
> Biblical teachings with other teachings as tribal leaders thought fit
> to include. .
Given that their morality predates your bible?!?!?!?
Have you still not learnt about 'A before B', Gladys?
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>
> Nope.
So why do you assign gender to your god? Is that part of the make-
beleive?
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
Your speculation that your mythical god (which you seem to think
capitalising gives extra ceredence) is somehow different from the 2000-
odd other mythical gods created by man is quaint.
> Nothng existed before God. And almighty God is all love. Satan is all "no
> love". And, of course, with love comes morality.
I'll remember that the next time you talk about your god slauthering
millions of people, sending plagues, .....
Gladys Swager
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
> >On Oct 13, 12:14 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
> >> On Oct 13, 1:06 pm, Gladys Swager wrote:
> >> [snip]
>
> >> > Are the Atheists or the Christian Creationists correct?
>
> >> Given that Christian Creationists are demonstrably wrong .....
>
> >And the Atheists believe that 'nobody created somethings out of nothing
>
> Isn't that what you believe?
> God came from nothing and created everything out of nothing.
>
for us to comprehend.
> >and somehow they acqured life and began to diversify up the tree of life.'
>
> We don't know how life began but we do know some sort of evolution
> happened.
Yes, evolution = change (micro-evolution) occurs in every procreation
from parent
to offspring. but macro-evolution (change from one type of creature to
another type)
is only guesswork on the part of those who want it to happen.
But how did the first living things occur out of non-living?
. .
> >But how did those 'somethings' have the genetic information to
> >diversify up the tree of living organisms? How could amoebas, bacteria
> >and fungai gradually change into complex multicellular organisms such
> >as humans ??
>
> Where did God get the information from to create and why is God's
> imagination so limited that he made his finest creation as just
> another mammal?
>
Humans were created for their role in life. There are some things we
cannot do.
But in my just over eighty years I have been able to do a lot of
things that I did not worry about those I was unable to do. It must be
said, God had/has His reasons.
> >Atheists 'do not want the foot of God in the doorway of science'.
> >That is why they imposed evolution on Secondary students from 1963 and
> >on all children, even pre-schoolers from sometime later last century,
> >for which I do not have the dating.
>
> Evolution was imposed on all of us by the fact it happened.
> Wishful thinking won't change that.
>
You have not proved to me that Macro-evolution did happen from
millions of years ago.
Nor has anyone else, for that matter.
How did nobody cause nothing to become something (all of its own
volition) which then began to diversity 'up the tree of life'. That
is what has to be explained by Evolutionists. .
I haven't found their explanation, as yet.
Gladys Swager
Gladys Swager
Gladys Swager
> On Oct 13, 2:30 pm, Gladys Swager wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > in non-literate societies how can you date events past the
> > knowledge of present-day lifetimes of those peoples?
> > And whatever information of the past that is available is not
> > dateable.
>
> Congratutaions on insulting about half a million of your own
> countrymen.
>
have accurate records of past events. the Biblical records come from
oral transmission and then from written accounts for its 6000 year
history.
> > And you cannot state authoratively that morality in ancient societies
> > that are not Christian were not in their beginnings influenced by the
> > Biblical teachings with other teachings as tribal leaders thought fit
> > to include. .
>
> Given that their morality predates your bible?!?!?!?
>
And who has done that dating?
> Have you still not learnt about 'A before B', Gladys?
I am very well about A before B and those before ........ X,Y,Z..
However, atheists had come into the calculations
Evolution demands very long periods of time. And those long periods
are 'thrown out with a flick of the wrist' . 'You want proof?'
But where is your proof?. I am still waiting for it.
But even more so for proof that nothing was made into somethings by
nobody and those somethings began to diversity up the tree of life.
That's the biggest 'fairy-tale I have heard
- and the most implausible.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
Wrong as usual, Galdys. Atheists dont beleive. Full stop.
Barry OGrady
God was created by men in a very male oriented society, so they
thought it a mark of respect to call God he. But according to their
mythology God created the idea of male and female thus God
should rightfully and respectfully be called an it.
Barry OGrady
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>But where is your proof?. I am still waiting for it.
Where is the proof for your claims?
>But even more so for proof that nothing was made into somethings by
>nobody and those somethings began to diversity up the tree of life.
>That's the biggest 'fairy-tale I have heard
>- and the most implausible.
As you know the origin of everything including life is quite separate
from evolution. We do see proof that evolution happened. We are
part of that proof, being we are mammals with all the same basic
needs and wants as other mammals. We have proof of evolution
but there is no evidence for your God. In fact we know how and
why God was invented.
>Gladys Swager
Gladys Swager
Never believe a lie...'i before 'e' except after 'c' Just can'r
recall any exceptions just now. .
Should I have typed:- 'Atheists are 'of the opinion......'
Atheists who accept that macro-evolution happened sometime in the past
have not given any proof, even in the school Science texts that I have
used.
Evolution is stated to have happened. Yes. within a species there is
change, but it is micro-evolution, if the term 'evolution' is desired
to be used. it is change WITHIN a species .
I can demonstrate that in my own family - parents and the two older
children, daughter and son, both very like the same-sex parent but
there were differences, but still huimans. .
To say Macro-evolution (change from one species to another) happened
over millions of years is bad guesswork.
Gladys Swager
Steve wilson
> On Oct 12, 11:32 pm, Steve wilson<stevewilson...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2011 04:48, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 12, 12:45 pm, Gladys Swager<gswa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 12, 10:06 am, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 12, 5:37 am, duke wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>
>>>>>> Without God, there is no morality.
>>
>>>>> Codswallop.
>>>>> Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
>>>>> who never heard of your god.
>>
>>>> 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' can be given as a
>>>> code of behaviour in communtites that do not recognise the God of the
>>>> Christian faith with punishments for those who transgress those
>>>> rulings.
>>
>>> Such a 'code of behaviour' (aka morality) exists and existed in many
>>> non-christian and pre-christian cultures, which undermines Duke
>>> position that morality is the sole preserv of his god.
>>
>>>> God of the Bible have adopted other teachings at various times in
>>>> their history of development as they have been persuaded to do so.
>>
>>> Morality exists and existed in cultures who never heard of your god,
>>> or dukes god. To argue that morality is the preserve of your god/cult/
>>> religion is niave, wrong, and quite ignorant of fact, history, and
>>> humanity.
>>
>> Actually you are right as far as it goes. What duke should have said is
>> that if God does not exist (the infinite and personal Creator revealed
>> in and through the Bible), then *objective* morals and duties do not
>> exist.
>
> does not not exist, then dukes adopted morality loses any claim to
> objectivity and becomes what it is: subjective morality. Just like
> all other moralities.
>
You are wrong, I am in fact defending Dukes belief in God, although he
appears not to appreciate it. If God does not exist, raping babies can
be either right or wrong depending on personal opinion or culture. Are
you willing to acknowledge, even in principle, that raping babies is
open to being considered morally okay? Are you so sure of your position
that you are willing to make a clear and unambiguous statement to this
effect? If not, your stated position and your actual position are two
different things. You do in fact do apprehend morality as objective
rather than subjective. Now you have a problem as the apprehension of
objective moral value can only be explained by the existence of God as
the transcendent moral law-giver.
Steve Wilson
--
When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the
right to Christian morality. Nietzsche.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Barry OGrady
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 14, 10:03�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
>> >On Oct 13, 12:14�pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>> >> On Oct 13, 1:06�pm, Gladys Swager wrote:
>> >> [snip]
>>
>> >> > Are the Atheists or the Christian Creationists correct?
>>
>> >> Given that Christian Creationists are demonstrably wrong .....
>>
>> >And the Atheists believe that 'nobody created somethings out of nothing
>>
>> Isn't that what you believe?
>> God came from nothing and created everything out of nothing.
>>
>God is eternal. God has always existed. That is an idea tha tis hard
>for us to comprehend.
Superman came from the planet Krypton but now Kryptonite makes
him weak. That is hard to understand.
>> >and somehow they acqured life and began to diversify up the tree of life.'
>>
>> We don't know how life began but we do know some sort of evolution
>> happened.
>
>Yes, evolution = change (micro-evolution) occurs in every procreation
>from parent to offspring. but macro-evolution (change from one type of
>creature to another type) is only guesswork on the part of those who
>want it to happen.
Its not a case of wanting it to happen. Evolution happened and no
amount of wishful thinking can change that.
>But how did the first living things occur out of non-living?
As you know evolution does not address that.
>> >But how did those 'somethings' have the genetic information to
>> >diversify up the tree of living organisms? How could amoebas, bacteria
>> >and fungai gradually change into �complex multicellular organisms such
>> >as humans ??
>>
>> Where did God get the information from to create and why is God's
>> imagination so limited that he made his finest creation as just
>> another mammal?
>>
>Humans were created for their role in life. There are some things we
>cannot do.
>But in my just over eighty years I have been able to do a lot of
>things that I did not worry about those I was unable to do. It must be
>said, God had/has His reasons.
Reasons like, God is full of hate, or God is insane?
The only excuse God has is his lack of existence..
>> >Atheists 'do not want the foot of God in the doorway of science'.
>> >That is why they imposed evolution on Secondary students from 1963 and
>> >on all children, even pre-schoolers from sometime later �last century,
>> >for which I do not have the dating.
>>
>> Evolution was imposed on all of us by the fact it happened.
>> Wishful thinking won't change that.
>>
>You have not proved to me that Macro-evolution did happen from
>millions of years ago.
>Nor has anyone else, for that matter.
Nor will I try to do so, but you have yet to explain why humans
appear to be a product of evolution with all the problems caused
by having a powerful brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
Definition of MAMMAL
any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as
placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with
milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less
covered with hair, and include humans
Examples of MAMMAL
Human beings, dogs, and cats are all mammals.
>How did nobody cause nothing to become something (all of its own
>volition) which then began to diversity 'up the tree of life'. That
>is what has to be explained by Evolutionists. .
How did God do that without leaving and evidence.
>I haven't found their explanation, as yet.
You know that is not part of evolution.
>Gladys Swager
felix_unger
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:01:15 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 13-October-2011 5:00 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>>> <misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 12, 5:37 am, duke<duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Without God, there is no morality.
>>>> Codswallop.
>>> What is a codswallop?
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/codswallop
>>
>> http://www.english-for-students.com/Codswallop.html
>>
>> http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/codswallop.html
>> However, I have heard that it relates to the illegal fishing of cod in
>> the early part of the 19 century.
> Which country?
UK or Australia.
"North American variants hogswallop, hog swallop, hog's wallop" ..
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:codswallop
>> A police task force was set up to
>> police the fishing of cod (not sure where) comprised of exclusivly older
>> members, as the priority was low, and risk of danger minimal. So a
>> 'codwalloper' was an old codger with nothing much of any importance to
>> do. I don't know if there is any truth to this story.
>>
>>>> Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
>>>> who never heard of your god.
>>> Almighty God willed the universe into existence some 13.7 billion years ago.
>>> Long after that he gave man a moral code to live by.
>> Does God have a gender? :)
> Nope.
Already address by others. "God" should properly be addressed as "It".
But I'm guessing you would be uncomfortable with that. Why would that be
I wonder.
> The dukester, American-American
> *****
> Romans 1:16-17
> It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes:
> for Jew first, then Greek. For in it is revealed the righteousness
> of God from faith to faith; as it is written, "The one who is
> righteous by faith will live."
> *****
felix_unger
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:13:15 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> <misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 13, 7:00 am, duke<duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>>>
>>> <misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 12, 5:37 am, duke<duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Without God, there is no morality.
>>>> Codswallop.
>>> What is a codswallop?
>> Crikey, Duke. Firts I have to teach about si much of your own
>> religion (recall our discussions about Marian repatriations) that yo
>> dont know, and now I'm teaching you English? Where should I send the
>> invoice?
> Codswallop (British) and crikey (dirty word)
Crikey: An Australian exclamation of surprise or bewilderment.
Interchangeable with words such as "Blimey" or "Struth". Made famous by
our champion crocodile hugger, Steve Erwin.
"Crikey! What was that!"
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Crikey
> are not American English words. I
> have no idea what "firts" and "si" reference,
Use your "God given" brains to interpret typos.. Firt: First, si:so.
Wasn't that hard really, was it.
> and "repatriations" is an unusual
> word for use with Momma Mary. It's also common to add a "'" to don't.
>
>> Codswallop, noun British Slang. nonsense; rubbish.
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/codswallop
>>>> Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
>>>> who never heard of your god.
>>> Almighty God willed the universe into existence some 13.7 billion years ago.
>>> Long after that he gave man a moral code to live by.
>> Repeating a mantra like the above (or the rosary) might make you feel
>> good, but that does not make it true.
> The rosary reveals the life of Jesus.
>
>> Man developed a moral code long before your religion/god was invented.
>> By definition, a moral code cant come from your god/religion
> The dukester, American-American
> *****
> Romans 1:16-17
> It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes:
> for Jew first, then Greek. For in it is revealed the righteousness
> of God from faith to faith; as it is written, "The one who is
> righteous by faith will live."
> *****
felix_unger
Firstly, let's define morality:
moral
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right
conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral
attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a
speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on
legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a
moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or
character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral
certainty.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral
Evident here is the emphasis on "right conduct". I don't wish to get too
involved with this, but many animals form 'social groups' (packs, herds,
etc.,) and behave according to 'rules' they 'construct' for their
preservation and welfare. Even insects do it, ants for example. With the
higher primates the rules of behaviour seem more numerous and obvious.
These rules of course are enforced, often viciously. All this indicates
a sense of 'right and wrong' within the species group.
>
> The dukester, American-American
> *****
> Romans 1:16-17
> It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes:
> for Jew first, then Greek. For in it is revealed the righteousness
> of God from faith to faith; as it is written, "The one who is
> righteous by faith will live."
> *****
Gladys Swager
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
> >On Oct 14, 10:03 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
> >> >And the Atheists believe that 'nobody created somethings out of nothing
>
> >> Isn't that what you believe?
> >> God came from nothing and created everything out of nothing.
>
> >God is eternal. God has always existed. That is an idea that is hard
> >for us to comprehend.
>
> >> We don't know how life began but we do know some sort of evolution
> >> happened.
>
> >Yes, evolution = change (micro-evolution) occurs in every procreation
> >from parent to offspring. but macro-evolution (change from one type of
> >creature to another type) is only guesswork on the part of those who
> >want it to happen.
>
> Its not a case of wanting it to happen. Evolution happened and no
> amount of wishful thinking can change that.
>
Macro-evolution was the warped brain activity of those who wanted to
'do-away' with God.
> >But how did the first living things occur out of non-living?
>
> As you know evolution does not address that.
>
Very conveniently
> >> >But how did those 'somethings' have the genetic information to
> >> >diversify up the tree of living organisms? How could amoebas, bacteria
> >> >and fungai gradually change into complex multicellular organisms such
> >> >as humans ??
>
> >> Where did God get the information to create and why is God's
> >> imagination so limited that he made his finest creation as just
> >> another mammal?
>
> >Humans were created for their role in life. There are some things we
> >cannot do.
> >But in my just over eighty years I have been able to do a lot of
> >things that I did not worry about those I was unable to do. It must be
> >said, God had/has His reasons.
>
> Reasons like, God is full of hate, or God is insane?
> The only excuse God has is his lack of existence..
>
If you think that God does not exist then you have a massive
undertaking to expain
all that there is in the Universe.
> >> >Atheists 'do not want the foot of God in the doorway of science'.
> >> >That is why they imposed evolution on Secondary students from 1963 and
> >> >on all children, even pre-schoolers from sometime later last century,
> >> >for which I do not have the dating.
>
> >> Evolution was imposed on all of us by the fact it happened.
> >> Wishful thinking won't change that.
I taught at the Infants level - it was what I chose to do when I was
in my last years at
Primary school. It was not a matter of lack of ability to do higher
levels of study as I should have been dux of my school - but that is
another story.
As it happened I did not hear of Evolution in Science Education until
the 1970's.
However, I can understand those including evolution in the Science
Classes could have wanted a quiet implementation of the programme to
avoid the controversy that had occurred in the USA.
http://creation.com/scopes-trial-questions-and-answers
> >You have not proved to me that Macro-evolution did happen from
> >millions of years ago. Nor has anyone else, for that matter.
>
> Nor will I try to do so, but you have yet to explain why humans
> appear to be a product of evolution with all the problems caused
> by having a powerful brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>
Most humans have brain activity much higher than animals in many areas
of living,
There are humans who are suffering from various forms of brain damage
who respond at much lower levels of mental activity. Medical science
is trying to solve those problems.
> >How did nobody cause nothing to become something (all of its own
> >volition) which then began to diversity 'up the tree of life'. That
> >is what has to be explained by Evolutionists. .
>
> How did God do that without leaving any evidence.
God left His evidence in the Bible and in the rocks, land formations
etc all of nature.
Scientists who are Creationists - ie believe that the Bible gives a
true account of the beginnings of the world and life on it have
investigated many of the issues involved.
Evolutionists do not want fair time for them to give the results of
their investigations.
They - the Evolutionists - worked a pilot scheme from 1950 in (a)
Sydney school(s) but as far as I was aware at that time none of that
information was 'leaked' to the public. I did have two country
appointments totalling close to six years and may have missed that
information if it had been given to the public. .
Gladys Swager-
Barry
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 14, 11:28嚙窮m, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
>> >On Oct 14, 10:03嚙窮m, Barry OGrady 嚙緩rote:
>> >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
>
>> >> >And the Atheists believe that 'nobody created somethings out of nothing
>>
>> >> Isn't that what you believe?
>> >> God came from nothing and created everything out of nothing.
>>
>> >God is eternal. God has always existed. That is an idea that is hard
>> >for us to comprehend.
>>
>> >> We don't know how life began but we do know some sort of evolution
>> >> happened.
>>
>> >Yes, evolution = change (micro-evolution) occurs in every procreation
>> >from parent to offspring. but macro-evolution (change from one type of
>> >creature to another type) 嚙箠s only guesswork on the part of those who
>> >want it to happen.
>>
>> Its not a case of wanting it to happen. Evolution happened and no
>> amount of wishful thinking can change that.
>>
>Macro-evolution was the warped brain activity of those who wanted to
>'do-away' with God.
That's your warped idea.
>> >But how did the first living things occur out of non-living?
>>
>> As you know evolution does not address that.
>>
>Very conveniently
Not convenient for you.
>> >> >But how did those 'somethings' have the genetic information to
>> >> >diversify up the tree of living organisms? How could amoebas, bacteria
>> >> >and fungai gradually change into 嚙箱omplex multicellular organisms such
>> >> >as humans ??
>>
>> >> Where did God get the information to create and why is God's
>> >> imagination so limited that he made his finest creation as just
>> >> another mammal?
>>
>> >Humans were created for their role in life. There are some things we
>> >cannot do.
>> >But in my just over eighty years I have been able to do a lot of
>> >things that I did not worry about those I was unable to do. It must be
>> >said, God had/has His reasons.
>>
>> Reasons like, God is full of hate, or God is insane?
>> The only excuse God has is his lack of existence..
>>
>If you think that God does not exist then you have a massive
>undertaking to expain all that there is in the Universe.
I don't need to do that but you should prepared to explain why
there is no evidence for God.
I am being kind by saying God's bad behaviour is excused by
his lack of existence.
>> >> >Atheists 'do not want the foot of God in the doorway of science'.
>> >> >That is why they imposed evolution on Secondary students from 1963 and
>> >> >on all children, even pre-schoolers from sometime later 嚙締ast century,
>> >> >for which I do not have the dating.
>>
>> >> Evolution was imposed on all of us by the fact it happened.
>> >> Wishful thinking won't change that.
>
>I taught at the Infants level - it was what I chose to do when I was
>in my last years at
>Primary school. It was not a matter of lack of ability to do higher
>levels of study as I should have been dux of my school - but that is
>another story.
>As it happened I did not hear of Evolution in Science Education until
>the 1970's.
>However, I can understand those including evolution in the Science
>Classes could have wanted a quiet implementation of the programme to
>avoid the controversy that had occurred in the USA.
It is appropriate to teach evolution in science classes.
There is not enough time to teach all the mythologies.
>http://creation.com/scopes-trial-questions-and-answers
>
>> >You have not proved to me that Macro-evolution did happen from
>> >millions of years ago. Nor has anyone else, for that matter.
>>
>> Nor will I try to do so, but you have yet to explain why humans
>> appear to be a product of evolution with all the problems caused
>> by having a powerful brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>>
>Most humans have brain activity much higher than animals in many areas
>of living,
>There are humans who are suffering from various forms of brain damage
>who respond at much lower levels of mental activity. Medical science
>is trying to solve those problems.
You have yet to explain why humans appear to be a product of
evolution with all the problems caused by having a powerful
brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>> >How did nobody cause nothing to become something (all of its own
>> >volition) 嚙緩hich then 嚙箭egan to diversity 'up the tree of life'. That
>> >is what has to be explained by Evolutionists. .
>>
>> How did God do that without leaving any evidence.
>
>God left His evidence in the Bible and in the rocks, land formations
>etc all of nature.
>Scientists who are Creationists - ie believe that the Bible gives a
>true account of the beginnings of the world and life on it have
>investigated many of the issues involved.
>Evolutionists do not want fair time for them to give the results of
>their investigations.
>They - the Evolutionists - worked a pilot scheme from 1950 in (a)
>Sydney school(s) but as far as I was aware at that time none of that
>information was 'leaked' to the public. I did have two country
>appointments totalling close to six years and may have missed that
>information if it had been given to the public. .
You have yet to explain why there is no evidence for your God.
>Gladys Swager-
Gladys Swager
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
> >On Oct 14, 11:28 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
>
> >> >God is eternal. God has always existed. That is an idea that is hard
> >> >for us to comprehend.
>
> >> >> We don't know how life began but we do know some sort of evolution
> >> >> happened.
>
> >> >Yes, evolution = change (micro-evolution) occurs in every procreation
> >> >from parent to offspring. but macro-evolution (change from one type of
> >> >want it to happen.
>
> >> Its not a case of wanting it to happen. Evolution happened and no
> >> amount of wishful thinking can change that.
>
> >Macro-evolution was the warped brain activity of those who wanted to
> >'do-away' with God.
>
> That's your warped idea.
>
Evolutionists wanted to impose their ideas on our societies by
indoctrinating the youth.
They did not face the adult population, many of whom had other ideas
about how the world came to be. If the evolutionists were so sure of
their understandings they should ahve been able to meet the adults
'head-on'. . .
> >> >But how did the first living things occur out of non-living?
>
> >> As you know evolution does not address that.
>
> >Very conveniently
And that is where their the falls down. If they can scientifically
claim they can go back 13......million years, why can't they tell what
happened just before when nothing became something.
> >> >> Where did God get the information to create and why is God's
> >> >> imagination so limited that he made his finest creation as just
> >> >> another mammal?
>
> >> >Humans were created for their role in life. There are some things we
> >> >cannot do. But in my just over eighty years I have been able to do a lot of
> >> >things that I did not worry about those I was unable to do. It must be
> >> >said, God had/has His reasons.
>
> >> Reasons like, God is full of hate, or God is insane?
> >> The only excuse God has is his lack of existence..
>
God is a Spirit, Those who have accepted god's existence know His
assistance in everyday life. The existence of Evil can also be known;
but the power of God is much greater than Evil, the power is in the
Name of Jesus.
> >If you think that God does not exist then you have a massive
> >undertaking to expain all that there is in the Universe.
>
> I don't need to do that but you should be prepared to explain why
> there is no evidence for God.
> I am being kind by saying God's bad behaviour is excused by
> his lack of existence.
>
And your 'bad behaviours', whatever they may be, are of no
consequence.
What do you think God's bad behaviours are?
Have you ever considered that man's bad actions cause God to give
punishments
when they are needed. .
God can also allow us to go through difficult sitaution to cause us to
work out ways
of alleviating them. He often chooses certain persons to work out
those ways.
> >> >> >Atheists 'do not want the foot of God in the doorway of science'.
> >> >> >That is why they imposed evolution on Secondary students from 1963 and
> >> >> >on all children, even pre-schoolers from sometime later last century,
> >> >> >for which I do not have the dating.
>
> >> >> Evolution was imposed on all of us by the fact it happened.
> >> >> Wishful thinking won't change that.
>
> >I taught at the Infants level - it was what I chose to do when I was
> >in my last years at Primary school. It was not a matter of lack of ability to do higher
> >levels of study as I should have been dux of my school - but that is
> >another story.
> >As it happened I did not hear of Evolution in Science Education until
> >the 1970's.
> >However, I can understand those including evolution in the Science
> >Classes could have wanted a quiet implementation of the programme to
> >avoid the controversy that had occurred in the USA.
>
> It is appropriate to teach evolution in science classes.
> There is not enough time to teach all the mythologies.
>
And there is not the ime to teach 'all the mythologies'.
But when some of them are compared with the Biblical accounts
they fail miserably
> >http://creation.com/scopes-trial-questions-and-answers
>
> >> >You have not proved to me that Macro-evolution did happen from
> >> >millions of years ago. Nor has anyone else, for that matter.
>
> >> Nor will I try to do so, but you have yet to explain why humans
> >> appear to be a product of evolution with all the problems caused
> >> by having a powerful brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>
> >Most humans have brain activity much higher than animals in many areas
> >of living,
> >There are humans who are suffering from various forms of brain damage
> >who respond at much lower levels of mental activity. Medical science
> >is trying to solve those problems.
>
> You have yet to explain why humans appear to be a product of
> evolution with all the problems caused by having a powerful
> brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>
What you call 'primitive instincts and emotions' can be controlled and
managed
with understanding of them and prayer for strength not to choose to be
swayed by them
>
> >> >How did nobody cause nothing to become something (all of its own
> >> >volition) which then began to diversity 'up the tree of life'. That
> >> >is what has to be explained by Evolutionists. .
>
> >> How did God do that without leaving any evidence.
>
> >God left His evidence in the Bible and in the rocks, land formations
> >etc all of nature.
> >Scientists who are Creationists - ie believe that the Bible gives a
> >true account of the beginnings of the world and life on it -
> > have investigated many of the issues involved.
> >Evolutionists do not want fair time for them to give the results of
> >their investigations.
> >They - the Evolutionists - worked a pilot scheme from 1950 in (a)
> >Sydney school(s) but as far as I was aware at that time none of that
> >information was 'leaked' to the public. I did have two country
> >appointments totalling close to six years and may have missed that
> >information if it had been given to the public. .
>
> You have yet to explain why there is no evidence for your God.
I see evidence for my God as I hear of causes, cures and preventions
being worked out by scientists of various professions. John 14 :
12(b),
As yet I have not seen any healing miracles as they are occurring
John 14 : 12(a)
But the first ones I have noted above are the best ones as more people
can be helped by them
>
When you see a magnificent mountain range, a glorious sunset, the
aurora borealis,
the expanse of the Pacific Ocean, many rainbows arching across the
sky, don't you wonder if there just might be a God Who created them
all and all the other wonders of nature.
Isn't it possible that the problems there are in Nature, earthquakes,
heatwaves (may be with us before the end of the year) have come
because Nature was put out of balance by the sinfulness of man who
continues His rebellion against God.
Gladys Swager
duke
No, they are acting without morals.
duke
No, they don't. They are totally dedicated to breed type actions. The cannot
built a fort or a moat to protect themselves.
> Even insects do it, ants for example.
Nope, ants only do what ants do.
>With the
>higher primates the rules of behaviour seem more numerous and obvious.
>These rules of course are enforced, often viciously. All this indicates
>a sense of 'right and wrong' within the species group.
Not a chance. No animal below man can apply learned principles of preservation
and safety other than brute force for their type.
duke
The message is the key.
>> Nothng existed before God. �And almighty God is all love. �Satan is all "no
>> love". �And, of course, with love comes morality.
>I'll remember that the next time you talk about your god slauthering
>millions of people, sending plagues, .....
You'll never see such an untruth from me.
duke
I don't. God has no gender. The application of God the Father is historical to
early man where women were cooks and brood sows.
duke
>On 14-October-2011 3:07 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:01:15 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13-October-2011 5:00 AM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>>>> <misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 12, 5:37 am, duke<duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> Without God, there is no morality.
>>>>> Codswallop.
>>>> What is a codswallop?
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/codswallop
>>>
>>> http://www.english-for-students.com/Codswallop.html
>>>
>>> http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/codswallop.html
>>> However, I have heard that it relates to the illegal fishing of cod in
>>> the early part of the 19 century.
>> Which country?
>
>UK or Australia.
ok.
>>> Does God have a gender? :)
>> Nope.
>Already address by others. "God" should properly be addressed as "It".
>But I'm guessing you would be uncomfortable with that. Why would that be
>I wonder.
I say "God does this or says that".
duke
Actually it was without proper reference to the contrary.
>> and "repatriations" is an unusual
>> word for use with Momma Mary. It's also common to add a "'" to don't.
duke
>On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:02:24 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:21:47 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:00:41 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>>>><misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Oct 12, 5:37�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>�Without God, there is no morality.
>>>>
>>>>>Codswallop.
>>>>
>>>>What is a codswallop?
>>>>
>>>>>Morality existed before your god was invented, and existed in cultures
>>>>>who never heard of your god.
>>>>
>>>>Almighty God willed the universe into existence some 13.7 billion years ago.
>>>>Long after that he gave man a moral code to live by.
>>>
>>>How is that working out?
>>
>>Fantastic for those of us that believe in God.
>
>So fantastic that believers can't agree on God's morality and are
>prepared to go to war over their beliefs.
>Seems your God can't get anything right.
Actually it's you people with no morals that have a hard time detecting morals
in others.
Barry OGrady
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
felix_unger
>
>> Even insects do it, ants for example.
> Nope, ants only do what ants do.
>
>> With the
>> higher primates the rules of behaviour seem more numerous and obvious.
>> These rules of course are enforced, often viciously. All this indicates
>> a sense of 'right and wrong' within the species group.
> Not a chance. No animal below man can apply learned principles of preservation
> and safety other than brute force for their type.
Neanderthals, homo-sapiens, etc., have morality? They certainly did as
they evolved, ultimately to the form we have today. The primates closest
humans function almost as humans do. Owners of dogs or cats can
communicate with them and teach them how to behave ie. right from
wrong., I don't see why there isn't good reason to say that only we
humans can have morality.
>
> The dukester, American-American
> *****
> Romans 1:16-17
> It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes:
> for Jew first, then Greek. For in it is revealed the righteousness
> of God from faith to faith; as it is written, "The one who is
> righteous by faith will live."
> *****
"Dumping the Gillard/Brown Government is the 'greatest moral imperative of our time'"
"If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." - Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"Currently, China and India combined emit 20 times as much as Australia each day, and that factor is increasing rapidly. Australia's annual savings by 2020 could be emitted by China and India within five days" - Dr. David Evans former Govt Climate Adviser.
The Science is now settled on Global Warming .. http://tinyurl.com/3ufy3lq
"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
felix_unger
duke
duke
they eat their young. Morals are a learned trait of mankind only.
>>> Even insects do it, ants for example.
>> Nope, ants only do what ants do.
>>> With the
>>> higher primates the rules of behaviour seem more numerous and obvious.
>>> These rules of course are enforced, often viciously. All this indicates
>>> a sense of 'right and wrong' within the species group.
>> Not a chance. No animal below man can apply learned principles of preservation
>> and safety other than brute force for their type.
>It's purely a matter of intellect. Did our ancient ancestors,
>Neanderthals, homo-sapiens, etc., have morality?
hungry across the valley.
They certainly did as
>they evolved, ultimately to the form we have today. The primates closest
>humans function almost as humans do. Owners of dogs or cats can
>communicate with them and teach them how to behave ie. right from
>wrong.
crunchie is given for doing certain things, and a square bad tasting sour
crunchie for doing bad things, they'll always to the good tasting thing.
>, I don't see why there isn't good reason to say that only we
>humans can have morality.
v hate. We can demonstrate empathy and sorrow. No other animal can.
felix_unger
feelings and emotions.
Now answer this please. You have claimed that lower life forms do not
have morality, only we humans do. So given that modern man evolved from
cave dwellers thru the higher forms to present day, at what point in our
evolution did we attain our morality? I submit that it's a product of
our human development. But if as you say, morality can only come from
God, then you have to contend that at some point God somehow 'infused'
humans with morality. I suggest that is a far less likely outcome. So
please state/explain how and when this occurred. If you are unable to do
so, then your claim that morality 'can only come from God' is simply a
belief. You cannot contend, as you have been doing, that it's fact.
>
> The dukester, American-American
> *****
> Romans 1:16-17
> It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes:
> for Jew first, then Greek. For in it is revealed the righteousness
> of God from faith to faith; as it is written, "The one who is
> righteous by faith will live."
> *****
rgds,
Pete
------
"Dumping the Gillard/Brown Government is the 'greatest moral imperative of our time'"
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." - Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"Currently, China and India combined emit 20 times as much as Australia each day, and that factor is increasing rapidly. Australia's annual savings by 2020 could be emitted by China and India within five days" - Dr. David Evans former Govt Climate Adviser.
“What I see is a country bravely beating along to the agenda of some ideological people, in this case the socialist left of the ALP and the Greens, to take away what is a natural advantage. Most of the abatement is premised on the fact that we will buy permits from someone else. What happens at the end of the day, is that we are paying someone else to use our coal” - Peter Costello, former Federal Treasurer - http://tinyurl.com/costello-carbon-tax
The Science is now settled on Global Warming .. http://tinyurl.com/3ufy3lq
"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
Barry OGrady
>On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:24:51 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>No, they are acting without morals.
>>
>>It appears humans have advanced by going outside God's morality.
>
>Only on satanville.
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
duke
Gladys Swager
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
> >On Oct 14, 11:28 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
> >> >On Oct 14, 10:03 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> >> >And the Atheists believe that 'nobody created somethings out of nothing
>
> >> >> Isn't that what you believe?
> >> >> God came from nothing and created everything out of nothing.
>
> >> >God is eternal. God has always existed. That is an idea that is hard
> >> >for us to comprehend.
>
> >> >> We don't know how life began but we do know some sort of evolution
> >> >> happened.
>
> >> >Yes, evolution = change (micro-evolution) occurs in every procreation
> >> >from parent to offspring. but macro-evolution (change from one type of
>
> >> Its not a case of wanting it to happen. Evolution happened and no
> >> amount of wishful thinking can change that.
>
please just give the evidence. Where are the ape-like creatures that
became humans. There is a very big leap between those two creatures.
> >Macro-evolution was the warped brain activity of those who wanted to
> >'do-away' with God.
>
> That's your warped idea.
>
investigated the work of the Creation scientists, just as highly
trained academically as the Evolutionary scientists,
but claiming the evidence better suits the fact of God creating by His
power.
> >> >But how did the first living things occur out of non-living?
>
> >> As you know evolution does not address that.
>
then surely they can go back just a short while to show the actual
first living organisms. Radiometric dating and tree-ring dating and
other means of determining long ages hcan be shown not to be
infallible.
http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers
> >> >> >But how did those 'somethings' have the genetic information to
> >> >> >diversify up the tree of living organisms? How could amoebas, bacteria
>
> >> >> Where did God get the information to create and why is God's
> >> >> imagination so limited that he made his finest creation as just
> >> >> another mammal?
>
> >> >Humans were created for their role in life. There are some things we
> >> >cannot do.
> >> >But in my just over eighty years I have been able to do a lot of
> >> >things that I did not worry about those I was unable to do. It must be
> >> >said, God had/has His reasons.
>
> >> Reasons like, God is full of hate, or God is insane?
> >> The only excuse God has is his lack of existence..
>
> >If you think that God does not exist then you have a massive
> >undertaking to expain all that there is in the Universe.
>
> I am being kind by saying God's bad behaviour is excused by
> his lack of existence.
>
Environmentally God exists by all the massive aspects of the
Universe.
Only the Almighty God could have created that.
> >> >> Evolution was imposed on all of us by the fact it happened.
> >> >> Wishful thinking won't change that.
>
change there has been. I can identlify change within a species because
I have witnessed it between parents and the first two siblings in my
family. But I have not heard of any humans actually producing another
type of offspring.
> > I can understand those including evolution in the Science
> >Classes could have wanted a quiet implementation of the programme to
> >avoid the controversy that had occurred in the USA.
>
> It is appropriate to teach evolution in science classes.
> There is not enough time to teach all the mythologies.
>
> >http://creation.com/scopes-trial-questions-and-answers
>
> >> >You have not proved to me that Macro-evolution did happen from
> >> >millions of years ago. Nor has anyone else, for that matter.
>
> >> Nor will I try to do so, but you have yet to explain why humans
> >> appear to be a product of evolution with all the problems caused
> >> by having a powerful brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>
> >Most humans have brain activity much higher than animals in many areas
> >of living,
> >There are humans who are suffering from various forms of brain damage
> >who respond at much lower levels of mental activity. Medical science
> >is trying to solve those problems.
>
> You have yet to explain why humans appear to be a product of
> evolution with all the problems caused by having a powerful
> brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>
Those who do may not have been disciplined in their younger years,
I have had contact with a five year old boy who was uncontrollable and
was placed in an institution. The later outcomes for him I do not
know.
> >> >How did nobody cause nothing to become something (all of its own
>
> >> How did God do that without leaving any evidence.
>
But what eidence do you want? A sign somewhere in the Middle East
stating
' This is the way to the garden of Eden'.?
> >God left His evidence in the Bible and in the rocks, land formations
> >etc all of nature.
> >investigated many of the issues involved.
> >Evolutionists do not want fair time for them to give the results of
> >their investigations.
> >They - the Evolutionists - worked a pilot scheme from 1950 in (a)
> >Sydney school(s) but as far as I was aware at that time none of that
> >information was 'leaked' to the public. I did have two country
> >appointments totalling close to six years and may have missed that
> You have yet to explain why there is no evidence for your God.
>
itself from nothing?
Evolutionists just won't touch that issue. It makes more sense that
there was/is an everlasting God Who in the past created everying by
the power of His Word. We do not have all the information of how that
was done, but there are times when we need to accept by faith because
the environmental, historical, scientific evidence is not there to
give us all the details, but creation scientists are working on that
issue. . .
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 09:23:21 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:20:19 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:24:51 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>God gives sinners and child rapists their morality.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, they are acting without morals.
>>>>
>>>>It appears humans have advanced by going outside God's morality.
>>>
>>>Only on satanville.
>>
>>Are you suggesting God made Satan more powerful than himself?
>
>You're free to go.
Do you think God made Satan more powerful than himself?
>The dukester, American-American
>*****
Barry
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 14, 3:17 pm, Barry wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
>> >On Oct 14, 11:28 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 14, 10:03 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> >> >> >And the Atheists believe that 'nobody created somethings out of nothing
>>
>> >> >> Isn't that what you believe?
>> >> >> God came from nothing and created everything out of nothing.
>>
>> >> >God is eternal. God has always existed. That is an idea that is hard
>> >> >for us to comprehend.
>>
>> >> >> We don't know how life began but we do know some sort of evolution
>> >> >> happened.
>>
>> >> >Yes, evolution = change (micro-evolution) occurs in every procreation
>> >> >from parent to offspring. but macro-evolution (change from one type of
>> >> >creature to another type) is only guesswork on the part of those who
>> >> >want it to happen.
>>
>> >> Its not a case of wanting it to happen. Evolution happened and no
>> >> amount of wishful thinking can change that.
>>
>If you think there was a gradual development up the tree of life
>please just give the evidence. Where are the ape-like creatures that
>became humans. There is a very big leap between those two creatures.
with the same basic needs and wants and the same method of
reproduction.
No serious alternatives have been offered.
>> >Macro-evolution was the warped brain activity of those who wanted to
>> >'do-away' with God.
>>
>> That's your warped idea.
>>
>You may think so, but I will put it to you that you have not
>investigated the work of the Creation scientists, just as highly
>trained academically as the Evolutionary scientists,
>but claiming the evidence better suits the fact of God creating by His
>power.
Why is there no evidence for this magical God?
We do have proof there is no almighty loving God.
>> >> >> Evolution was imposed on all of us by the fact it happened.
>> >> >> Wishful thinking won't change that.
>>
>The word 'Evolution' means 'change'. But you must define what kind of
>change there has been. I can identlify change within a species because
>I have witnessed it between parents and the first two siblings in my
>family. But I have not heard of any humans actually producing another
>type of offspring.
>> > I can understand those including evolution in the Science
>> >Classes could have wanted a quiet implementation of the programme to
>> >avoid the controversy that had occurred in the USA.
>>
>> It is appropriate to teach evolution in science classes.
>> There is not enough time to teach all the mythologies.
>>
>> >http://creation.com/scopes-trial-questions-and-answers
>>
>> >> >You have not proved to me that Macro-evolution did happen from
>> >> >millions of years ago. Nor has anyone else, for that matter.
>>
>> >> Nor will I try to do so, but you have yet to explain why humans
>> >> appear to be a product of evolution with all the problems caused
>> >> by having a powerful brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>>
>> >Most humans have brain activity much higher than animals in many areas
>> >of living,
>> >There are humans who are suffering from various forms of brain damage
>> >who respond at much lower levels of mental activity. Medical science
>> >is trying to solve those problems.
>>
>> You have yet to explain why humans appear to be a product of
>> evolution with all the problems caused by having a powerful
>> brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>>
>But not all humans have primitive instincts and emotions.
>Those who do may not have been disciplined in their younger years,
>I have had contact with a five year old boy who was uncontrollable and
>was placed in an institution. The later outcomes for him I do not
>know.
brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>> >> >volition) which then began to diversity 'up the tree of life'. That
>> >> >is what has to be explained by Evolutionists. .
>>
>> >> How did God do that without leaving any evidence.
>>
>Even six thousand years ago, the evidence would be slight, if at all.
>But what eidence do you want? A sign somewhere in the Middle East
>stating ' This is the way to the garden of Eden'.?
>> >God left His evidence in the Bible and in the rocks, land formations
>> >etc all of nature.
>> >Scientists who are Creationists - ie who believe that the Bible gives a
>> >true account of the beginnings of the world and life on it have
>> >investigated many of the issues involved.
>> >Evolutionists do not want fair time for them to give the results of
>> >their investigations.
>> >They - the Evolutionists - worked a pilot scheme from 1950 in (a)
>> >Sydney school(s) but as far as I was aware at that time none of that
>> >information was 'leaked' to the public. I did have two country
>> >appointments totalling close to six years and may have missed that
>> >information if it had been made public. .
>>
>> You have yet to explain why there is no evidence for your God.
>>
>There is evidence all around us.
>How could the Universe have created itself from nothing?
>Evolutionists just won't touch that issue. It makes more sense that
>there was/is an everlasting God Who in the past created everying by
>the power of His Word. We do not have all the information of how that
>was done, but there are times when we need to accept by faith because
>the environmental, historical, scientific evidence is not there to
>give us all the details, but creation scientists are working on that
>issue. . .
cling on to this creation nonsense. Were you abused by religious
parents? Were you in a cult?
>Gladys Swager
duke
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip]
> If God does not exist, raping babies can
> be either right or wrong depending on personal opinion or culture. Are
> you willing to acknowledge, even in principle, that raping babies is
> open to being considered morally okay? Are you so sure of your position
> that you are willing to make a clear and unambiguous statement to this
> effect? If not, your stated position and your actual position are two
> different things.
Extrapolating the above assertions to the following 'therefore god
exists' is perhaps the worst (flawed) logical extention I've read in
these groups since I last read anything by Gladys or Andrew Chung.
> You do in fact do apprehend morality as objective
> rather than subjective. Now you have a problem as the apprehension of
> objective moral value can only be explained by the existence of God as
> the transcendent moral law-giver.
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> >> love". And, of course, with love comes morality.
> >
> >I'll remember that the next time you talk about your god slauthering
> >millions of people, sending plagues, .....
>
> You'll never see such an untruth from me.
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:13:15 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>
> <misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 13, 7:00 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>
> >> <misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
> >> >Codswallop.
>
> >Crikey, Duke. Firts I have to teach about si much of your own
> >religion (recall our discussions about Marian repatriations) that yo
> >dont know, and now I'm teaching you English? Where should I send the
> >invoice?
>
> have no idea what "firts" and "si" reference, and "repatriations" is an unusual
wont engage with content)
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:36:42 -0700 (PDT), Misanthropic Curmudgeon
>
> >On Oct 14, 5:07 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> >Does God have a gender? :)
>
> >> Nope.
>
> >So why do you assign gender to your god? Is that part of the make-
> >beleive?
>
> I don't.
in this very thread.
Gladys Swager
> >On Oct 14, 3:17 pm, Barry wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
> >> >On Oct 14, 11:28 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> >> >> >Yes, evolution = change (micro-evolution) occurs in every procreation
> >> >> >from parent to offspring. but macro-evolution (change from one type of
> >> >> >creature to another type) is only guesswork on the part of those who
> >> >> >want it to happen.
>
> >> >> Its not a case of wanting it to happen. Evolution happened and no
> >> >> amount of wishful thinking can change that.
>
> >If you think there was a gradual development up the tree of life
> >please just give the evidence. Where are the ape-like creatures that
> >became humans. There is a very big leap between those two creatures.
>
> The evidence points to evolution
> plus the fact that humans are mammals with the same basic needs and wants and the same method of reproduction. No serious alternatives have been offered.
>
However, God knew what He was doing when He created.
> >> >Macro-evolution was the warped brain activity of those who wanted to
> >> >'do-away' with God.
>
> >> That's your warped idea.
>
> >You may think so, but I will put it to you that you have not
> >investigated the work of the Creation scientists, just as highly
> >trained academically as the Evolutionary scientists,
> >but claiming the evidence better suits the fact of God creating by His
> >power.
>
> What is in it for you?
>
for them to do me any favours. Nor would I expect favours if I did
have that type of contact.
> >> >> >But how did the first living things occur out of non-living?
>
> >> >> As you know evolution does not address that.
>
They say they can date the beginning at about 13.7 billion years,
but they can't say how it began, except for a hypotheticial
"Big Bang!' --- from what!! All the bangs I have heard have come from
pre-existing matter!
> >If they, the evolutionists are talking about 13.7 billion years ago
> >first living organisms. Radiometric dating and tree-ring dating and
> >http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers
>
> >> >> >> >But how did those 'somethings' have the genetic information to
> >> >> >> >diversify up the tree of living organisms? How could amoebas, bacteria
> >> >> >> >and fungai gradually change into complex multicellular organisms such
> >> >> >> >as humans ??
>
> >> >> >> Where did God get the information to create and why is God's
> >> >> >> imagination so limited that he made his finest creation as just
> >> >> >> another mammal?
>
> >> >> >Humans were created for their role in life. There are some things we
> >> >> >cannot do.
> >> >> >But in my just over eighty years I have been able to do a lot of
> >> >> >things that I did not worry about those I was unable to do. It must be
> >> >> >said, God had/has His reasons.
>
> >> >> Reasons like, God is full of hate, or God is insane?
> >> >> The only excuse God has is his lack of existence..
>
> >> >If you think that God does not exist then you have a massive
> >> >undertaking to expain all that there is in the Universe.
>
> >> I don't need to do that but you should be prepared to explain why
> >> there is no evidence for God.
> >> I am being kind by saying God's bad behaviour is excused by
> >> his lack of existence.
>
everythiing.
Non-living things just do not come into existence by and of
themselves.
> >And you have to prove that God does not exist.
>
> I don't need to do that but you should be prepared to explain why
> there is no evidence for God.
>
> >Environmentally God exists by all the massive aspects of the
> >Universe. Only the Almighty God could have created that.
>
> What could have created the almighty God?
> Why is there no evidence for this magical God?
> We do have proof there is no almighty loving God.
>
exist.
But where is the proof given by you and them?
> >> >> >> Evolution was imposed on all of us by the fact it happened.
> >> >> >> Wishful thinking won't change that.
>
> >change there has been. I can identlify change within a species because
> >I have witnessed it between parents and the first two siblings in my
> >family. But I have not heard of any humans actually producing another
> >type of offspring.
>
> Why are humans mammals?
>
developed and have reasoning abilities and a soul. God knew that the
day would come when humans would need to eat animals for food and
there was needed some affinity between them.
> >> > I can understand those including evolution in the Science
> >> >Classes could have wanted a quiet implementation of the programme to
> >> >avoid the controversy that had occurred in the USA.
>
> >> It is appropriate to teach evolution in science classes.
> >> There is not enough time to teach all the mythologies.
>
differences of opinion among Christians - but still the Christian
faith is historical.
> >> >http://creation.com/scopes-trial-questions-and-answers
>
> >> >> >You have not proved to me that Macro-evolution did happen from
> >> >> >millions of years ago. Nor has anyone else, for that matter.
>
> >> >> Nor will I try to do so, but you have yet to explain why humans
> >> >> appear to be a product of evolution with all the problems caused
> >> >> by having a powerful brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>
> >> >Most humans have brain activity much higher than animals in many areas
> >> >of living,
> >> >There are humans who are suffering from various forms of brain damage
> >> >who respond at much lower levels of mental activity. Medical science
> >> >is trying to solve those problems.
>
> >Those who do may not have been disciplined in their younger years,
> >I have had contact with a five year old boy who was uncontrollable and
> >was placed in an institution. The later outcomes for him I do not
> >know.
>
> That does not explain why humans appear to be a product of
> evolution with all the problems caused by having a powerful
> brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>
There is a very big gap between Humans and Apes.
> >> >> >How did nobody cause nothing to become something (all of its own
> >> >> >volition) which then began to diversity 'up the tree of life'. That
> >> >> >is what has to be explained by Evolutionists. .
>
> >> >> How did God do that without leaving any evidence.
>
> >Even six thousand years ago, the evidence would be slight, if at all.
>
> Is it possible for God to do something you can't think of?
>
humans every day in the world. So your question is just pure
nonsense.
Just an excuse for you not ot accept the salvation God offers you
through Jesus Christ.
> >> >God left His evidence in the Bible and in the rocks, land formations
> >> >etc all of nature.
> >> >Scientists who are Creationists - ie who believe that the Bible gives a
> >> >true account of the beginnings of the world and life on it have
> >> >investigated many of the issues involved.
> >> >Evolutionists do not want fair time for them to give the results of
> >> >their investigations.
> >> >They - the Evolutionists - worked a pilot scheme from 1950 in (a)
> >> >Sydney school(s) but as far as I was aware at that time none of that
> >> >information was 'leaked' to the public. I did have two country
> >> >appointments totalling close to six years and may have missed that
> >> >information if it had been made public. .
>
> >> You have yet to explain why there is no evidence for your God.
>
> >There is evidence all around us.
>
> Wars, suffering, and disease?
>
dictatorship control,
not having the resources to do more intensive research than what is
happening at the present time... many resources have been mismanaged
by humans. .
> >How could the Universe have created itself from nothing?
> How could God have created itself from nothing?
> >Evolutionists just won't touch that issue. It makes more sense that
> >was done, but there are times when we need to accept by faith because
> >the environmental, historical, scientific evidence is not there to
> >give us all the details, but creation scientists are working on that
> >issue. . .
>
> Something must have happened in your past to cause you to
> cling on to this creation nonsense. Were you abused by religious
> parents? Were you in a cult?
>
but I would suggesst to you that you have not taken the trouble and
time
to read their websites
http://creation.com
You can enter a range of topics on which you would like to have their
research. I would also suggest that their research is much more
comprehnsive than yours has been., and also mine.
Gladys Swager
Barry
felix_unger
hmmmm.. I see that you're happy to lay down the law, but when asked to
back it up you run away
>
>>
>> The dukester, American-American
>> *****
>> Romans 1:16-17
>> It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes:
>> for Jew first, then Greek. For in it is revealed the righteousness
>> of God from faith to faith; as it is written, "The one who is
>> righteous by faith will live."
>> *****
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
------
“It's hard to take the award seriously (Swan voted World's Best Treasurer), because Mr. Swan has never handed down a surplus, and his four budgets have racked up a deficit of $154 billion. The real recipient of this award should be Peter Costello, who laid the ground work for Wayne Swan” - Joe Hockey, Shadow Treasurer
"Dumping the Gillard/Brown Government is the 'greatest moral imperative of our time'"
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." - Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"Currently, China and India combined emit 20 times as much as Australia each day, and that factor is increasing rapidly. Australia's annual savings by 2020 could be emitted by China and India within five days" - Dr. David Evans former Govt Climate Adviser.
“What I see is a country bravely beating along to the agenda of some ideological people, in this case the socialist left of the ALP and the Greens, to take away what is a natural advantage. Most of the abatement is premised on the fact that we will buy permits from someone else. What happens at the end of the day, is that we are paying someone else to use our coal” - Peter Costello, former Federal Treasurer - http://tinyurl.com/costello-carbon-tax
The Science is now settled on Global Warming .. http://tinyurl.com/3ufy3lq
"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
Barry
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 17, 2:32 pm, Barry wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
>> >On Oct 14, 3:17 pm, Barry wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Gladys Swager wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 14, 11:28 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Yes, evolution = change (micro-evolution) occurs in every procreation
>> >> >> >from parent to offspring. but macro-evolution (change from one type of
>> >> >> >creature to another type) is only guesswork on the part of those who
>> >> >> >want it to happen.
>>
>> >> >> Its not a case of wanting it to happen. Evolution happened and no
>> >> >> amount of wishful thinking can change that.
>>
>> >If you think there was a gradual development up the tree of life
>> >please just give the evidence. Where are the ape-like creatures that
>> >became humans. There is a very big leap between those two creatures.
>>
>> The evidence points to evolution
>
>But what is the evidence as from Barry O'Grady
evolution.
>> plus the fact that humans are mammals with the same basic needs
>> and wants and the same method of reproduction. No serious
>> alternatives have been offered.
>>
>And there is no need for other alternatives.
does suggest that evolution is it.
>However, God knew what He was doing when He created.
I could almost forgive God if I thought he was merely incompetent.
>> >> >Macro-evolution was the warped brain activity of those who wanted to
>> >> >'do-away' with God.
>>
>> >> That's your warped idea.
>>
>> >You may think so, but I will put it to you that you have not
>> >investigated the work of the Creation scientists, just as highly
>> >trained academically as the Evolutionary scientists,
>> >but claiming the evidence better suits the fact of God creating by His
>> >power.
>>
>> What is in it for you?
>>
>I do not have a personal contact with any of the Creation Scienists
>for them to do me any favours. Nor would I expect favours if I did
>have that type of contact.
>> >> >> >But how did the first living things occur out of non-living?
>>
>> >> >> As you know evolution does not address that.
>>
>And that is the very big flaw in the Evolutionists argument.
>They say they can date the beginning at about 13.7 billion years,
>but they can't say how it began, except for a hypotheticial
>"Big Bang!' --- from what!! All the bangs I have heard have come from
>pre-existing matter!
>> >If they, the evolutionists are talking about 13.7 billion years ago
>> >then surely they can go back just a short while to show the actual
>> >first living organisms. Radiometric dating and tree-ring dating and
>> >other means of determining long ages can be shown not to be
>> >infallible.
>> >http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers
>>
>> >> >> >> >But how did those 'somethings' have the genetic information to
>> >> >> >> >diversify up the tree of living organisms? How could amoebas, bacteria
>> >> >> >> >and fungai gradually change into complex multicellular organisms such
>> >> >> >> >as humans ??
>>
>> >> >> >> Where did God get the information to create and why is God's
>> >> >> >> imagination so limited that he made his finest creation as just
>> >> >> >> another mammal?
>>
>> >> >> >Humans were created for their role in life. There are some things we
>> >> >> >cannot do.
>> >> >> >But in my just over eighty years I have been able to do a lot of
>> >> >> >things that I did not worry about those I was unable to do. It must be
>> >> >> >said, God had/has His reasons.
>>
>> >> >> Reasons like, God is full of hate, or God is insane?
>> >> >> The only excuse God has is his lack of existence..
>>
>God is love,
>> >> >If you think that God does not exist then you have a massive
>> >> >undertaking to expain all that there is in the Universe.
>>
>> >> I don't need to do that but you should be prepared to explain why
>> >> there is no evidence for God.
>> >> I am being kind by saying God's bad behaviour is excused by
>> >> his lack of existence.
>>
>Then, just tell me, if you think God is not existent, WHO created
>everythiing.
>Non-living things just do not come into existence by and of
>themselves.
>> >And you have to prove that God does not exist.
>>
>> I don't need to do that but you should be prepared to explain why
>> there is no evidence for God.
>>
>I say there is evidence for the existence of God.
>> >Environmentally God exists by all the massive aspects of the
>> >Universe. Only the Almighty God could have created that.
>>
>> What could have created the almighty God?
>> Why is there no evidence for this magical God?
>> We do have proof there is no almighty loving God.
>>
>It is your opinion and the opinion of all Atheists that God does not
>exist.
>But where is the proof given by you and them?
God was invented, plus we have proof all around us that no
almighty and loving God exists.
>> >> >> >> Evolution was imposed on all of us by the fact it happened.
>> >> >> >> Wishful thinking won't change that.
>>
>Macro-evolution did not happen.
>> >The word 'Evolution' means 'change'. But you must define what kind of
>> >change there has been. I can identlify change within a species because
>> >I have witnessed it between parents and the first two siblings in my
>> >family. But I have not heard of any humans actually producing another
>> >type of offspring.
>>
>> Why are humans mammals?
>>
>Humans are akin to animals in some respects, but they are more
>developed and have reasoning abilities and a soul.
any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as
placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with
milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less
covered with hair, and include humans
Examples of MAMMAL
1. Human beings, dogs, and cats are all mammals.
>God knew that the
>day would come when humans would need to eat animals for food and
>there was needed some affinity between them.
unforgivable. You have locked yourself out of heaven.
>> >> > I can understand those including evolution in the Science
>> >> >Classes could have wanted a quiet implementation of the programme to
>> >> >avoid the controversy that had occurred in the USA.
>>
>> >> It is appropriate to teach evolution in science classes.
>> >> There is not enough time to teach all the mythologies.
>>
>The Chrsitian faith is not a mythology. I will admit there have been
>differences of opinion among Christians - but still the Christian
>faith is historical.
it is based on fables of non-existent beings.
>> >> >http://creation.com/scopes-trial-questions-and-answers
>>
>> >> >> >You have not proved to me that Macro-evolution did happen from
>> >> >> >millions of years ago. Nor has anyone else, for that matter.
>>
>> >> >> Nor will I try to do so, but you have yet to explain why humans
>> >> >> appear to be a product of evolution with all the problems caused
>> >> >> by having a powerful brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>>
>> >> >Most humans have brain activity much higher than animals in many areas
>> >> >of living,
>> >> >There are humans who are suffering from various forms of brain damage
>> >> >who respond at much lower levels of mental activity. Medical science
>> >> >is trying to solve those problems.
>>
>> >But not all humans have primitive instincts and emotions.
>> >Those who do may not have been disciplined in their younger years,
>> >I have had contact with a five year old boy who was uncontrollable and
>> >was placed in an institution. The later outcomes for him I do not
>> >know.
>>
>> That does not explain why humans appear to be a product of
>> evolution with all the problems caused by having a powerful
>> brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>>
>Many humans do not have primitive instincts and emotions,
>There is a very big gap between Humans and Apes.
evolution with all the problems caused by having a powerful
brain with primitive instincts and emotions.
>> >> >> >volition) which then began to diversity 'up the tree of life'. That
>> >> >> >is what has to be explained by Evolutionists. .
>>
>> >> >> How did God do that without leaving any evidence.
>>
>God is almighty, and there is evidence left in the Fossil record.
>> >Even six thousand years ago, the evidence would be slight, if at all.
>> >But what evidence do you want? A sign somewhere in the Middle East
>> >stating ' This is the way to the garden of Eden'.?
>>
>> Is it possible for God to do something you can't think of?
>>
>My thinking does not encompass all the thinking that is happening by
>humans every day in the world. So your question is just pure
>nonsense.
>Just an excuse for you not ot accept the salvation God offers you
>through Jesus Christ.
a need for such.
>> >> >God left His evidence in the Bible and in the rocks, land formations
>> >> >etc all of nature.
>> >> >Scientists who are Creationists - ie who believe that the Bible gives a
>> >> >true account of the beginnings of the world and life on it have
>> >> >investigated many of the issues involved.
>> >> >Evolutionists do not want fair time for them to give the results of
>> >> >their investigations.
>> >> >They - the Evolutionists - worked a pilot scheme from 1950 in (a)
>> >> >Sydney school(s) but as far as I was aware at that time none of that
>> >> >information was 'leaked' to the public. I did have two country
>> >> >appointments totalling close to six years and may have missed that
>> >> >information if it had been made public. .
>>
>> >> You have yet to explain why there is no evidence for your God.
>>
>> >There is evidence all around us.
>>
>> Wars, suffering, and disease?
>>
>They are the result of humans, in their aggressiveness, desiring
>dictatorship control,
>not having the resources to do more intensive research than what is
>happening at the present time... many resources have been mismanaged
>by humans. .
>> >How could the Universe have created itself from nothing?
>> How could God have created itself from nothing?
>
>God is infinite, God has always existed.
>> >Evolutionists just won't touch that issue. It makes more sense that
>> >there was/is an everlasting God Who in the past created everything by
>> >the power of His Word. We do not have all the information of how that
>> >was done, but there are times when we need to accept by faith because
>> >the environmental, historical, scientific evidence is not there to
>> >give us all the details, but creation scientists are working on that
>> >issue. . .
>>
>> Something must have happened in your past to cause you to
>> cling on to this creation nonsense. Were you abused by religious
>> parents? Were you in a cult?
>>
>> Neither. You may think that the Creationists are presenting nonsense,
>but I would suggesst to you that you have not taken the trouble and
>time to read their websites
nonsense.
>You can enter a range of topics on which you would like to have their
>research. I would also suggest that their research is much more
>comprehnsive than yours has been., and also mine.
>Gladys Swager
Barry
<god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:56:01 -0700 (PDT), Gladys Swager
><gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Then, just tell me, if you think God is not existent, WHO created
>>everythiing.
>
>I don't think Doctor Who created everything.
>>Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip]
> They say they can date the beginning at about 13.7 billion years,
> but they can't say how it began, except for a hypotheticial
> "Big Bang!' --- from what!! All the bangs I have heard have come from
> pre-existing matter!
is alnost as disturbing as youyr refusal to even try to understand the
subject of matter, energy, and what a singularity is.
> Then, just tell me, if you think God is not existent, WHO created
> everythiing.
"God is infinite, God has always existed" but you cant seem to grasp
your self-contradiction on this point.
> I say there is evidence for the existence of God.
logic, rudimentry science, or even your own bible.
> Humans are akin to animals in some respects, but they are more
> developed and have reasoning abilities and a soul.
evidence of this (exclusive) soul you continue banging on about.
> the day would come when humans would need to eat animals
> for food
your god was invented.
I now await your tired old diversion of into vegan lions.
> The Chrsitian faith is not a mythology.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth
"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or
hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a
natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or
demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."
> Many humans do not have primitive instincts and emotions,
you now reject whole swathes of neuro-science, pychairatry, and
pyschology.
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:56:01 -0700 (PDT), Gladys Swager
>
> That's a terrible thing to say about God!
> I could almost forgive God if I thought he was merely incompetent.
particularly cruel and nasty god to ""kn[o]w what He was doing when He
created"
To quote Daviod Attenborough on the above worm, "When Creationists
talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act,
they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and
beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that
is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in
West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask
them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also
say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually,
are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other
way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to
me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'."
[1] Look it up, Gladys. You might (just might) actually learn
something.
Barry OGrady
>On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:32:13 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:45:40 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 09:23:21 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:20:19 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:24:51 +1100, Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>God gives sinners and child rapists their morality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, they are acting without morals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It appears humans have advanced by going outside God's morality.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only on satanville.
>>>>
>>>>Are you suggesting God made Satan more powerful than himself?
>>>
>>>You're free to go.
>>
>>Thank you.
>>Do you think God made Satan more powerful than himself?
>
>No, but I do think satan is more powerful than you.
>The dukester, American-American
>*****