Re: Science-What Is It?
Mad Scientist
IKnowHimDoYou wrote:
> Science-What Is It?
>
> Science is the development of information and concepts discovered through
> continous interplay of hypothesis and observation. Concepts are
> considered scientific if, and only if, they can be tested and refuted or
> supported(never proven) by repeatable observation.
>
> Science is not, as many claim, varified by majority vote, rhetorical
> eloquence or media endorsement. It is also not evolution. Evolution is
> merely humanism dressed in a shabby lab coat, an incomplete paradigm or
> world view, an alternate religion.
It is one of the tools of the fallen intelligence to take mankind away
from its true source of Life, the Creator.
>
> Evolution is not science. Its central purpose is philosophic and cannot
> enter the halls of true science for it:
>
> Cannot be observed.
> Cannot be measured.
> Cannont be repeated.
Evolution is a well established 'science' but only a 'propaganda science'.
>
> All the loud mouth screaming in the world cannot change those facts.
> Evolution is a feeble attempt by humanists to establish a poorly thought
> out system to counter Christianity.
>
> The battle is not between the Bible and science; it is between the Bible
> and evolution. Science is not the enemy of the Christian faith. Science
> is the Christian's ally in its battle with evolution and because of that
> fact Christianity will always be victorious.
Exactly. Many 'scientists' have tried to disprove the Sacred texts to
no avail. Even today scientists are busily investigating the Aether as
'vacuum energy' and the Bible clearly speaks of this 'vacuum' in the
first few verses of Genesis where it speaks of the 'formlessness and
void'. A very good explanation of these scriptures can be found here by
Lambert Dolphin and his colleagues. Lambert Dolphin is a well known
geophysicist and Creationist who also in his spare time has many
discussions on Biblical issues.
http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/vacuum.html
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:L34Vc.397$NRf...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Sorry "Mad", Lambert Dolphin is a well known creationist but the man is an
unknown in the world of science, just like most all creation "scientists".
Say "Mad", when are you going to comment on the post that described the 2LOT
for you?
Mad Scientist
Tom wrote:
>>http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/vacuum.html
>
>
> Sorry "Mad", Lambert Dolphin is a well known creationist but the man is an
> unknown in the world of science, just like most all creation "scientists".
Hardly, but it is no surprise that you, the imbecile that you remain
insult him.
>
> Say "Mad", when are you going to comment on the post that described the 2LOT
> for you?
What a pea brain, can't see how it was already answered. Blasphemeres
like him demonstrate very poor reading comprehension.
John Baker
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKno...@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-190...@pm1-33.kalama.com...
> Science-What Is It?
I'm glad you're finally asking, IDon'tKnowShit. I'll be glad to explain if
you'll pay attention and learn.
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
>
>
> Tom wrote:
>
>
> >>http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/vacuum.html
> >
> >
> > Sorry "Mad", Lambert Dolphin is a well known creationist but the man is
an
> > unknown in the world of science, just like most all creation
"scientists".
>
> Hardly, but it is no surprise that you, the imbecile that you remain
> insult him.
Mmm...I sense that "Mad" left out a comma or that his sentence isn't
comprehensible. On the other hand, it could be both :-))).
> >
> > Say "Mad", when are you going to comment on the post that described the
2LOT
> > for you?
> What a pea brain, can't see how it was already answered. Blasphemeres
> like him demonstrate very poor reading comprehension.
Then point out your post where you answered Michael Gray!! You can do that,
can't you "Mad"? If you answered him you should be able to do so.
_AnonCoward
"Tom" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10i9l3j...@corp.supernews.com...
:
: > IKnowHimDoYou wrote:
: >
: > > Science-What Is It?
: > >
: > > Science is the development of information and concepts discovered
: > > through continous interplay of hypothesis and observation.
: > > Concepts are considered scientific if, and only if, they can be
: > > tested and refuted or supported(never proven) by repeatable
: > > observation.
: > >
: > > Science is not, as many claim, varified by majority vote,
: > > rhetorical eloquence or media endorsement. It is also not
: > > evolution. Evolution is merely humanism dressed in a shabby lab
: > > coat, an incomplete paradigm or world view, an alternate religion.
<snip>
: > >
: > > Evolution is not science. Its central purpose is philosophic and
: > > cannot enter the halls of true science for it:
: > >
: > > Cannot be observed.
: > > Cannot be measured.
: > > Cannont be repeated.
: >
: > >
: > > All the loud mouth screaming in the world cannot change those
: > > facts. Evolution is a feeble attempt by humanists to establish
: > > a poorly thought out system to counter Christianity.
: > >
: > > The battle is not between the Bible and science; it is between the
: > > Bible and evolution. Science is not the enemy of the Christian
: > > faith. Science is the Christian's ally in its battle with
: > > evolution and because of that fact Christianity will always be
: > > victorious.
Ralf <piggybacking>:
I don't usually respond to IK'Y's posting mostly because they are so
patently absurd they aren't worth the effort (which IK'Y reinforces by
generally refusing to defend his statements when challenged). Hovever,
I'm in the mood today, so I'll take a shot.
I'm piggy backing here cuz I've blocked IK'Y's posts (along with a
number of others) in an effort to pare down the number of posts dropped
into A.T.C on any given day. Since IK'Y rarely has any thing worth
responding to, his posts are a good candidate for this. However, I'm
dependent on others for the completeness of my own comments. I'm assuing
the material quoted above is complete or at the very least correctly
communicates IK'Y's intent (I've also snipped material that does not
appear to be part of the original posting since I'm not interested in
responding to those comments here).
Now that I've gotten that out of the way...
: > > Science is the development of information and concepts discovered
: > > through continous interplay of hypothesis and observation.
: > > Concepts are considered scientific if, and only if, they can be
: > > tested and refuted or supported(never proven) by repeatable
: > > observation.
Ralf:
This seems fairly reasonable as expressed above but it is incomplete.
Science is a methodology that attempts to explain our observations of
the natural universe. It has two core axiomatic assumptions that it
proceeds from: [1] the universe is "real" (that is, it exists
independent of our observations about it) and [2] it is finite and
predictable (it will always behave in a consistent fashion for any given
set of initial conditions).
These are the only truely immutable axioms of science because without
them, scientific progress is impossible. If we allow for appeals to
supernatural processes, we effectively negate the second axiom:
supernatural proceses are by definition unbounded and unpredictable -
supernatural agents can do whatever they want whenever they want.
Therefore any ability to make meaningful predictions is wiped out: we
must always allow for the possibility that unseen, undetectable,
undefinable supernatural factors skewed the results of the experiment or
observation in question. If the orbit of Mercury doesn't match Isaac
Newton's predictions, we can just discard that inconsistency by
asserting God (or whatever supernatural agent one wishes to refer to) is
responsible. Science cannot advance unless it limits itself to natural
causes.
Furthermore, we cannot observe supernatural processes directly (or even
indirectly for that matter) because our senses are limited to observing
the natural universe. Any presumptive supernatual process is
indistinguishable from an unknown or misunderstood natural process. Thus
not only do supernatural processes violate the core axioms of scientific
methodology, we have no criteria for recognizing when they are active
or not. The bottom line to all of this is that science is stricly and
unavoidably limited to appealing to naturalistic explainations when
developing its theoretical frameworks.
Since creationism necessarily must appeal to supernatural process, we
can eliminate it as being scientific. The only question that remains
then is whether or not the charge that evolution doesn't qualify as
science is valid. So far, it is at least compatible with science - it
doesn't not appeal to supernatural processes and it does not plead for a
special case of life on Earth that doesn't apply anywhere else in the
universe (not that life necessarily exists or evolves elsewhere, only
that the processes by which life formed on earth and subsequently
evolved are not unique in the universe).
: > > Science is not, as many claim, varified by majority vote,
: > > rhetorical eloquence or media endorsement. It is also not
: > > evolution. Evolution is merely humanism dressed in a shabby lab
: > > coat, an incomplete paradigm or world view, an alternate religion.
Ralf:
This is the kind of nonsense that prompted me to start ignoring IK'Y's
posts in the first place. The idea that evolution represents "an
alternate religion" is absurd on its face. If anyone else wants to
address this they can have at it; I'm not going to waste the band width.
: > > Evolution is not science. Its central purpose is philosophic and
: > > cannot enter the halls of true science for it:
: > >
: > > Cannot be observed.
: > > Cannot be measured.
: > > Cannont be repeated.
Ralf:
Now we have something to work with. Evolution does not have a "purpose"
(at least, not as the word is being used here) - it is simply a way of
explaining what we observe in nature. Right, wrong or midlin', it is
nothing more than that. Furthermore, the specific claims above are
specious:
: > > "Cannot be observed".
Of course it can. Direct observation is not necessary - we can observe
phenomena indirectly. For example, if we find a dead body on the floor
with a bullet hole in the back, we can say the person was shot and died
from the wound. We didn't have to observe the event to say it happened.
Another example is IK'Y's own posting - I didn't seem her submit it, but
I have a reasonable belief she did.
So too with evolution. We can observe, catalog and examine fossils. We
can compare different living forms with others, extant and extinct. We
can artificially apply selective breeding pressures on different
populations of creatures and observe the results. We can compare genetic
material between different creatures. Etc., etc.
All of this has been done, of course. And from this, the scieintific
community can assert that evolution has occurred throughout the history
of life and that it continues to occur today. Paleontologists can draw
up a phylogenetic tree of living forms, showing a clear history of
living forms having a sucession of species and descent with modification
(also know as "macro" evolution).
: > > Cannot be measured.
Ralf:
Yes it can and it has been. We can measure the rate of large scale
evolution as recorded in the fossil record. Such measurements have
allowed new theories (such as Punctuated Equilibrium, or "PE") to be
advanced.
We can measure the genetic differences between different forms. Such
measurements for example show that humans share a 98% genetic heritage
with chimpanzees.
We can measure how quickly species adapt to changing environments.
Etc.
: > > Cannont be repeated.
This is a strawman argument as present here. One doesn't have to be able
to reproduce an event in order to be able to assert it happened (anymore
than one needs to repeat his own birth in order to say he was born).
What we do need to be able to reproduce are the observations that gave
rise to the theory in question in the first place. So while we cannot
reproduce whale speciation, we can point to the evidence that it ocurred
and anyone who wishes to confirm the evidence is able can do so.
: > > All the loud mouth screaming in the world cannot change those
: > > facts. Evolution is a feeble attempt by humanists to establish
: > > a poorly thought out system to counter Christianity.
Ralf:
The author is correct in one respect - all the "loud mouth screaming in
the world" doesn't negate the fact that we can make observations about
evolution, measure those observations and repeat them.
However, the author is wrong in his assessment that evolution is an
attempt (feeble or otherwise0 to "counter" Christianity. The two can
(and do) peacefully coexist. The problem is that folks like IK'Y cannot
reconcile their own theological inventions with science and confuse
their beliefs with truth.
: > > The battle is not between the Bible and science; it is between the
: > > Bible and evolution. Science is not the enemy of the Christian
: > > faith. Science is the Christian's ally in its battle with
: > > evolution and because of that fact Christianity will always be
: > > victorious.
Ralf:
There is no battle - the question has long been resolved. Only the
theologically impaired have a problem coming to terms with that reality.
Ralf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {~ ~} {~ ~} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-------------------------------------------------------------
Those who assert that scripture is inerrant or is to be
understood literally invariably find themselves confronted
with the need to ignore or distort the plain meaning of the
text. In the process, they change the scriptures to bring
them into conformance with their doctrine rather than
modifying their doctrine to bring it into conformance with
scripture.
Dave Oldridge
19080408...@pm1-33.kalama.com:
> Science-What Is It?
Science:
1. Observe some facet of nature.
2. Devise a theory or hypothesis to explain it.
3. Test that theory by doing experiments or making more observations.
4. If the theory fails the test then either modify it and go to step 3
or reject it and go to step 2.
5. If the theory passes the test, then it is no longer MERELY a theory,
but a tested one. Keep devising more tests and go to step 3.
Some theories:
Evolution: The observed diversity of life and the fossil record are
explained by common descent.
This theory has been tested for 150 years and no REAL flaws have been
discovered.
Special creation: The observed diversity of life and the fossil record
are explained by reading Genesis literally.
This was tested as far back as the late 18th century and found wanting.
But diehards continue to hold onto it, as their heretical religions teach
them that they must lie about science or lose their salvation in Jesus
Christ.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Mad Scientist
entirely as a fundamental of science.
Dave Oldridge wrote:
> IKno...@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote in news:IKnowHim-
> 19080408...@pm1-33.kalama.com:
>
>
>>Science-What Is It?
>
>
> Science:
>
> 1. Observe some facet of nature.
> 2. Devise a theory or hypothesis to explain it.
> 3. Test that theory by doing experiments or making more observations.
> 4. If the theory fails the test then either modify it and go to step 3
> or reject it and go to step 2.
> 5. If the theory passes the test, then it is no longer MERELY a theory,
> but a tested one. Keep devising more tests and go to step 3.
6. Cataloguing The process by which known facts is continually
collected and stored in a database is the true definition of 'science' -
don't believe me, look up the etymology of the word itself. Latin -
scientia - meaning "having knowledge".
Thus anyone claiming knowledge or having knowledge is a scientist in the
real sense of the word. It is only in today's world that some would
have people believe the word belongs to them as an exclusive right.
>
> Some theories:
>
> Evolution: The observed diversity of life and the fossil record are
> explained by common descent.
>
> This theory has been tested for 150 years and no REAL flaws have been
> discovered.
What a lie. No one to this day can explain how life came to be in the
evolutionist camp. Not one single paper can account for the origin of
DNA or even single celled microbes. Theories are suggested and no
theory is a fact, period.
>
> Special creation: The observed diversity of life and the fossil record
> are explained by reading Genesis literally.
>
> This was tested as far back as the late 18th century and found wanting.
> But diehards continue to hold onto it, as their heretical religions teach
> them that they must lie about science or lose their salvation in Jesus
> Christ.
This guy continues to believe and promote the lie of Darwin and Karl
Marx as though God himself agrees with him.
Steven J.
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> You forgot the mean objective of science and in that sense omitted it
> entirely as a fundamental of science.
>
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>
> > IKno...@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote in news:IKnowHim-
> > 19080408...@pm1-33.kalama.com:
> >
> >
> >>Science-What Is It?
> >
> >
> > Science:
> >
> > 1. Observe some facet of nature.
> > 2. Devise a theory or hypothesis to explain it.
> > 3. Test that theory by doing experiments or making more observations.
> > 4. If the theory fails the test then either modify it and go to step 3
> > or reject it and go to step 2.
> > 5. If the theory passes the test, then it is no longer MERELY a theory,
> > but a tested one. Keep devising more tests and go to step 3.
>
> 6. Cataloguing The process by which known facts is continually
> collected and stored in a database is the true definition of 'science' -
> don't believe me, look up the etymology of the word itself. Latin -
> scientia - meaning "having knowledge".
>
not automatically retain their meanings of a hundred years before, or the
meanings of their roots in long-dead dialects. They do not even necessarily
mean, in technical contexts, what they mean in general use. "Science" is a
particular methodology of investigating reality. It does not mean "any
possible method of aquiring claims about reality." It does not mean
"anything found in a science text," much less "anything written down and
called science."
>
> Thus anyone claiming knowledge or having knowledge is a scientist in the
> real sense of the word. It is only in today's world that some would
> have people believe the word belongs to them as an exclusive right.
>
almost everyone has *some* knowledge, "scientist" as you define seems to
mean "a human being between infancy and senility." It does not distinguish
between people who base their claims of knowledge on one method rather than
another, or between true or false claims of knowledge, or reasonable or
unreasonable claims of knowledge. It does not seem, in short, to be a
vastly useful term. It also does not seem to be the way anyone except
yourself uses the term.
>
> >
> > Some theories:
> >
> > Evolution: The observed diversity of life and the fossil record are
> > explained by common descent.
> >
> > This theory has been tested for 150 years and no REAL flaws have been
> > discovered.
>
> What a lie. No one to this day can explain how life came to be in the
> evolutionist camp. Not one single paper can account for the origin of
> DNA or even single celled microbes. Theories are suggested and no
> theory is a fact, period.
>
happens to life once it exists; whether humans and other primates share a
common ancestor does not depend even on where that common ancestor came
from, much less where its prokaryote ancestor three and a half billion years
earlier came from. Abiogenesis and evolution are distinct subjects; they
are related, indeed, but either could be studied without needing to know
much about the other.
Theories are testable explanations for phenomena. Facts are statements that
are sufficiently well supported by evidence that it would be perverse not to
grant them provisional assent ("provisional" meaning that, if somehow
evidence contradicting the fact does surface, one will deny it assent). An
explanation, or portion of an explanation, which is so well supported by
evidence, is both a theory and a fact.
>
> > Special creation: The observed diversity of life and the fossil record
> > are explained by reading Genesis literally.
> >
> > This was tested as far back as the late 18th century and found wanting.
> > But diehards continue to hold onto it, as their heretical religions
teach
> > them that they must lie about science or lose their salvation in Jesus
> > Christ.
>
>
> This guy continues to believe and promote the lie of Darwin and Karl
> Marx as though God himself agrees with him.
>
Karl Marx, to the best of my knowledge, contributed nothing to current
theories (or even past ones) in geology, biology, astronomy, cosmology, or
any other field of physical science. I have heard (but do not know the
truth of the account) that Marx wished to dedicate _Das Kapital_ to Darwin,
but Darwin refused. Certainly Darwin showed no great enthusiasm for state
control of the economy or world revolution.
>
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
>
> Science is the development of information and concepts discovered through
> continous interplay of hypothesis and observation. Concepts are
> considered scientific if, and only if, they can be tested and refuted or
> supported(never proven) by repeatable observation.
>
> Science is not, as many claim, varified by majority vote, rhetorical
> eloquence or media endorsement. It is also not evolution. Evolution is
> merely humanism dressed in a shabby lab coat, an incomplete paradigm or
> world view, an alternate religion.
>
> enter the halls of true science for it:
>
> Cannot be observed.
>
tested; it is not necessary to directly observe them. If things that can't
be directly observed are philosophy, not science, then atoms (much less
subatomic particles) are not scientific concepts, nor are gravity,
electromagnetism, and many other subjects of scientific papers. All these
things are inferences from evidence rather than directly observed. This
does not make theories about them untestable, or create undue difficulty in
supporting or refuting these theories.
Furthermore, the methods of science are routinely used to investigate past
events that were not directly observed -- or even to derive conclusions
about those events that contradict eyewitness testimony (after all, one
observed aspect of reality is that eyewitnesses can be mistaken, dishonest,
or misinterpreted). The National Transportation Safety Board might be
dismayed to learn that if their investigators didn't *see* the aircraft
crash, their reconstructions of why it did so are philosophic rather than
scientific. Your local medical examiner would be bemused to hear that his
attempts to reconstruct the cause of an unobserved death are an alternate
religion.
Of course, there are more direct observations of some aspects of evolution,
whether of mutations in populations detected by direct comparisons of genes,
or of changes in the frequency of various traits in the population in
response to environmental changes. One can observe (as even most
creationsts concede) micro-evolution. One can even observe speciation, on
occasion. No one, of course, has observed, say, chickens and crocodiles
evolving from a common ancestor, but neither has anyone observed mechanisms
that would prevent observed processes from producing that level of change
over enough time.
>
> Cannot be measured.
>
Actually, one can measure evolution; one standard measure is called
(predictably) the "Darwin," which is a change (of ca. 2.73 times over a
million years) in some dimension of some structure in a lineage. More to
the point, one can measure *data* from which evolutionary theories are
derived and by which they are tested. One can measure the degree of
sequence similarity of shared pseudogenes in different species, and see if
they fit with the nested hierarchy derived from comparisons of other traits.
>
> Cannont be repeated.
>
Science demands that *observations* be repeatable. Again, one is not
prevented from applying the methods of science to forensic investigation
merely because one can't murder the victim over and over again.
Observations that can confirm or disconfirm evolutionary theories are quite
repeatable. Two labs, or two hundred, can compare proteins or DNA in
different species. Two or more paleontologists can compare the same
specimen of _Archaeopteryx_. Two or more geologists can run dating
procedures on the same rock sample.
>
> All the loud mouth screaming in the world cannot change those facts.
> Evolution is a feeble attempt by humanists to establish a poorly thought
> out system to counter Christianity.
>
I think you probably do not understand the theory of evolution well enough
to say whether it it well or poorly thought out, or to describe its basic
conclusions and principles. But I think that Christians like Theodosius
Dobzhansky (one of the framers of the modern evolutionary synthesis) would
have been astonished to learn that they were trying to "counter
Christianity." They thought they were trying to explain the data of
biology.
>
> The battle is not between the Bible and science; it is between the Bible
> and evolution. Science is not the enemy of the Christian faith. Science
> is the Christian's ally in its battle with evolution and because of that
> fact Christianity will always be victorious.
>
Science cannot be done on the assumption that *any* text or any
interpretation of that text is inerrant.
-- Steven J.
Elmer Bataitis
> From: IKnowN...@leavingsoon.com (IKnowNothingDoYou)
> Science-What Is It?
> Science is the development of information and concepts discovered through
> continous interplay of hypothesis and observation. Concepts are
> considered scientific if, and only if, they can be tested and refuted or
> supported(never proven) by repeatable observation.
> Science is not, as many claim, varified by majority vote, rhetorical
> eloquence or media endorsement. It is also not evolution.
Ahhh, so genetic change isn't observed?
> Evolution is
> merely humanism dressed in a shabby lab coat, an incomplete paradigm or
> world view, an alternate religion.
Geee, I must have missed that church. Where can I find one?
> Evolution is not science. Its central purpose is philosophic and cannot
> enter the halls of true science for it:
> Cannot be observed.
What do you think fossils are? What do they show?
> Cannot be measured.
Look up the "Darwin" amd also look at DNA patterns.
> Cannont be repeated.
What? They don't find new fossils? They never see genetic change? How much
reality denial can a knownothing accomplish?
> All the loud mouth screaming in the world cannot change those facts.
Denying reality seems a strange hobby.
> Evolution is a feeble attempt by humanists to establish a poorly thought
> out system to counter Christianity.
Evolution is about biology.
> The battle is not between the Bible and science; it is between the Bible
> and evolution. Science is not the enemy of the Christian faith.
It is to yours, though it was really astronomy you should have opposed
first. By 1859, it was already too late for your beliefs.
> Science
> is the Christian's ally in its battle with evolution and because of that
> fact Christianity will always be victorious.
As Islam is Christianity's ally in its battle with atheism...??
;-)
Dave Oldridge
Since evolution does not purport to explain how life came to be, that's
irrelevant.
> DNA or even single celled microbes. Theories are suggested and no
> theory is a fact, period.
That's nice, but evolution is the theory that chimps and humans have a
common genetic ancestor. It is not necessary to explain how DNA came
into being to ask and answer this question, merely to note that it
exists.
>> Special creation: The observed diversity of life and the fossil
>> record are explained by reading Genesis literally.
>>
>> This was tested as far back as the late 18th century and found
>> wanting. But diehards continue to hold onto it, as their heretical
>> religions teach them that they must lie about science or lose their
>> salvation in Jesus Christ.
> This guy continues to believe and promote the lie of Darwin and Karl
> Marx as though God himself agrees with him.
God does agree with me. He doesn't agree with your continually lying in
His Holy Name (and WILL eventually do something about that, but His mercy
is great--much greater than yours).
Mad Scientist
Dave Oldridge wrote:
You are free to think whatever you wish. I already know you haven't a
clue about what God is talking about, since you say I lie in God's Holy
Name, be careful...what you wish may befall you.
H.D.S
news:25aVc.1821968$Ar.5...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
Evolution deals with life after it has started.
--
Read the Bible, because we need more atheists.
Dave Oldridge
> You are free to think whatever you wish. I already know you haven't a
> clue about what God is talking about, since you say I lie in God's
> Holy Name, be careful...what you wish may befall you.
You know nothing. You WANT to know nothing. Your prayer is answered, your
ignorance secure.
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
> Evolution is not science. Its central purpose is philosophic and cannot
> enter the halls of true science for it:
> Cannot be observed.
Lie #1.
> Cannot be measured.
Lie #2.
> Cannont be repeated.
Lie #3.
> All the loud mouth screaming in the world cannot change those facts.
And this is why I-know-SHIT has NOTHING in support of his idiotic claims.
If we would be smart enough to at least compute 12 - 9 right, he'd know...
alas, we know his IQ is a single-digit one...
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
John Ings
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> You are free to think whatever you wish. I already know you haven't a
>> clue about what God is talking about, since you say I lie in God's
>> Holy Name, be careful...what you wish may befall you.
>
>You know nothing. You WANT to know nothing. Your prayer is answered, your
>ignorance secure.
Look out Dave! He'll be calling you a sociopath next!
Anybody who doesn't agree with Maddie is a sociopath!
## He's not paranoid. The whole world IS against him!
Pastor Dave
Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:58:40 GMT, "_AnonCoward"
<a...@xyz.com> screamed out:
>: > > Cannont be repeated.
>
>
>This is a strawman argument as present here. One doesn't have to be able
>to reproduce an event in order to be able to assert it happened (anymore
>than one needs to repeat his own birth in order to say he was born).
>What we do need to be able to reproduce are the observations that gave
>rise to the theory in question in the first place.
Which was finches with different beaks. Sorry, that
doesn't cut it.
>So while we cannot
>reproduce whale speciation, we can point to the evidence that it ocurred
>and anyone who wishes to confirm the evidence is able can do so.
You cannot provide any evidence that whales walked on
land.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"The real mark of someone who wants to know the Truth
is not that they expect others to prove it to them,
but that they seek after it themselves." - Chayil
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Raymond E. Griffith
"John Ings" <noda...@spam.org> wrote in message
news:ckrbi0tjsdqf9lr60...@4ax.com...
But of course! To a fundamentalist of whatever stripe, rejection is a sure
sign that you have been called by God and have access to a secret truth
unavailable to everyone else. All the prophets were loners. They heard
voices no one else heard. They had a message unique to everyone else, and
they promised judgment to those who rejected their message. According to the
Bible, such judgment came (although it took a while in some cases -- and in
some cases it hasn't happened yet). Christ told His disciples that the world
would reject them like it rejected Him.
So rejection is not seen as an opportunity for self-reflection and
correction of one's own errors. It is seen as a vindication. It isn't, of
course, because they are not being rejected for truth's sake, but because
they are parading falsehoods, idiocies, and ignorance as truth. But you will
never get them to see that. They believe in the essential verity of whatever
pops into their mind regardless of source.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Steven J.
"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vjubi01vq801v4fe6...@4ax.com...
> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
> Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:58:40 GMT, "_AnonCoward"
> <a...@xyz.com> screamed out:
>
>
> >: > > Cannont be repeated.
> >
> >
> >This is a strawman argument as present here. One doesn't have to be able
> >to reproduce an event in order to be able to assert it happened (anymore
> >than one needs to repeat his own birth in order to say he was born).
> >What we do need to be able to reproduce are the observations that gave
> >rise to the theory in question in the first place.
>
> Which was finches with different beaks. Sorry, that
> doesn't cut it.
>
occupied ecological niches that, in other parts of the world, were occupied
by non-finches, but that all of them were, after all (this was not always
obvious at first glance) finches, related to the finches on the South
American mainland (even though the Galapagoes were, ecologically, not very
like the mainland and much more like the African Cape Verdes Islands). Both
of these facts suggested that species could change into other species (if
you will, that "kinds" are larger than species). But biogeographical
evidence like this, along with the overall nested hierarchy of life (e.g.
why are the native mammals of Australia all marsupials, and why is there a
group "marsupials," united by a suite of shared traits not shared with other
mammals, anyway?) suggests that all life belongs to the same "kind," and
related by common descent.
>
> >So while we cannot
> >reproduce whale speciation, we can point to the evidence that it ocurred
> >and anyone who wishes to confirm the evidence is able can do so.
>
> You cannot provide any evidence that whales walked on
> land.
>
[a] there cannot be, even in principle, such evidence, or
[b] such evidence might exist, but happens not to, or merely
[c] we can't post actual skulls, embryos, etc. on Usenet?
I recall that, when the subject was human evolution, you have seemed
marvelously unimpressed by mere descriptions and drawings of fossils. So
the existence of skeletons, if we can't actually put them in your hands,
combining the unique ear structures of whales, teeth like those of early
whales, but with hind legs and the distinctive ankles of artiodactyls
(even-toed hoofed animals like hippos, cows, pigs, etc.) probably won't
impress you. I doubt it would interest you to point out that whale embryos
grow hind limbs, and then resorb and lose them (or that baleen whales --
which filter small marine life through sheets of baleen) grow teeth as
embryos and then resorb and lose them, but such an embryological course
would make more sense if baleen whales were descended from mammals with
teeth and hind legs. And then there is the biochemical evidence, shared
genetic and proteins sequences (including endogenous retroviruses -- bits of
viral DNA stuck in the genome) which places whales, as a group, closer to
hippopotamuses and other artiodactyls than to any other animals (e.g. whales
are, genetically, closer to cows than to, say, seals or manatees).
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
Mad Scientist
John Ings wrote:
No need to call others what you prove yourself to be blasphemer.
Dave Oldridge
Of course it is. He prayed for that, too!
Dave Oldridge
> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
> Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:58:40 GMT, "_AnonCoward"
> <a...@xyz.com> screamed out:
>
>
>>: > > Cannont be repeated.
>>
>>
>>This is a strawman argument as present here. One doesn't have to be
able
>>to reproduce an event in order to be able to assert it happened
(anymore
>>than one needs to repeat his own birth in order to say he was born).
>>What we do need to be able to reproduce are the observations that gave
>>rise to the theory in question in the first place.
>
> Which was finches with different beaks. Sorry, that
> doesn't cut it.
>
>
>>So while we cannot
>>reproduce whale speciation, we can point to the evidence that it
ocurred
>>and anyone who wishes to confirm the evidence is able can do so.
>
> You cannot provide any evidence that whales walked on
> land.
Nobody suggests that whales did. But there is plenty of evidence that
their ancestors did.
Dave Oldridge
news:IKnowHim-200...@pm1-44.kalama.com:
> In article <L34Vc.397$NRf...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> Thank you for that ref. I have not read anything of his yet but it
> sounds facinating.
Yes, he's perfect for your purposes. A young-earth nut who blathers a
lot of high-sounding physics words to fool people who know nothing into
thinking that he knows a lot more than he does.
Beats the hell out of writing grant proposals! And, of course, for the
purposes of young-earth advocates there is no need for anything to
actually BE scientific. It need only SOUND scientific to do the job,
since the target audience is ignorant and, for the most part, intent on
staying that way.
Of course, CHRISTIANS won't touch that kind of apologetic with a ten foot
pole. We don't go in for lying to teach our religion.
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:gLoVc.1826267$Ar.14...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Hey "Mad", are you ever going to learn how to use a comma?
> > ## He's not paranoid. The whole world IS against him!
How true and yet he wants me to capitulate foe calling him names. This after
he calls me a plagiarizer, without proof, and a liar, without proof. "Mad"
just wants us to agree with him. He tosses around the word 'blasphemer', as
if it meant something to someone other than him. I guess that is the best he
can do :-).
Mad Scientist
hatred to spread on this planet like most other sociopaths who quite
accomplished at it.
Mad Scientist
Tom wrote:
Hardly. One can easily discern your plagiarizing attempts when you
muddle through an explanation of basic physics.
Mad Scientist
explanations from real physicists.
Tom wrote:
Wel you forgot the rest of that part, in that you probably do possess
the higher faculities which separate man from beast, so I highly doubt
you are capable of those qualities to begin with. Isn't that right
blasphemer?
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> You haven't got clue. You're just another usenet sociopath with lots of
> hatred to spread on this planet like most other sociopaths who quite
> accomplished at it.
Right little top posting liar, in your dreams. Dave has forgotten more than
you will ever know. Say, at what point do you accuse him of lying and
plagiarizing?
<snip>
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> Awww poor blasphemer still trying to make false claims I see.
Got any proof of that?
> Tom wrote:
>
> > "Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> > news:gLoVc.1826267$Ar.14...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >
> >>
> >>John Ings wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:02:19 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> >>><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>You are free to think whatever you wish. I already know you haven't
a
> >>>>>clue about what God is talking about, since you say I lie in God's
> >>>>>Holy Name, be careful...what you wish may befall you.
> >>>>
> >>>>You know nothing. You WANT to know nothing. Your prayer is answered,
> >
> > your
> >
> >>>>ignorance secure.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Look out Dave! He'll be calling you a sociopath next!
> >>>
> >>>Anybody who doesn't agree with Maddie is a sociopath!
> >>
> >>No need to call others what you prove yourself to be blasphemer.
> >
> >
> > Hey "Mad", are you ever going to learn how to use a comma?
> >
> >
> >>>## He's not paranoid. The whole world IS against him!
> >
> >
> > How true and yet he wants me to capitulate for calling him names. This
after
> > he calls me a plagiarizer, without proof, and a liar, without proof.
"Mad"
> > just wants us to agree with him. He tosses around the word 'blasphemer',
as
> > if it meant something to someone other than him. I guess that is the
best he
> > can do :-).
> Hardly. One can easily discern your plagiarizing attempts when you
> muddle through an explanation of basic physics.
Gee, "Mad", I don't recall giving an explanation of basic physics. Perhaps
this happened in one of your many dreams. As I told you earlier, an attempt
at plagiarizing would not result in a 'muddled' explanation of anything.
Why don't you just admit that you are a liar and get over it. We see liars
here all the time and it doesn't take long to smoke them out. Found any
evidence against me yet, little prick?
Mad Scientist
human and animal.
Mad Scientist
tell the difference between what makes a human different from animals.
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> Aww poor blasphemer still upset that he was caught ripping off
> explanations from real physicists.
Still waitng on your evdiecne, little prick. Found any yet? It really
shouldn't take an Einstein to do this, "Mad". I copied my responses to you
in one post. You just go to that post and find the part that was plaigerized
and post it. Is that beyond your mental capabilities?
> Tom wrote:
>
> > "Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> > news:gLoVc.1826267$Ar.14...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >
> >>
> >>John Ings wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:02:19 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> >>><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>You are free to think whatever you wish. I already know you haven't
a
> >>>>>clue about what God is talking about, since you say I lie in God's
> >>>>>Holy Name, be careful...what you wish may befall you.
> >>>>
> >>>>You know nothing. You WANT to know nothing. Your prayer is answered,
> >
> > your
> >
> >>>>ignorance secure.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Look out Dave! He'll be calling you a sociopath next!
> >>>
> >>>Anybody who doesn't agree with Maddie is a sociopath!
> >>
> >>No need to call others what you prove yourself to be blasphemer.
> >
> >
> > Hey "Mad", are you ever going to learn how to use a comma?
> >
> >
> >>>## He's not paranoid. The whole world IS against him!
> >
> >
> > How true and yet he wants me to capitulate for calling him names. This
after
> > he calls me a plagiarizer, without proof, and a liar, without proof.
"Mad"
> > just wants us to agree with him. He tosses around the word 'blasphemer',
as
> > if it meant something to someone other than him. I guess that is the
best he
> > can do :-).
> Wel you forgot the rest of that part, in that you probably do possess
> the higher faculities which separate man from beast, so I highly doubt
> you are capable of those qualities to begin with. Isn't that right
> blasphemer?
Say what???????????????? Is there someone who can read my post and then read
his reply and then tell me what the hell this idiot is attempting to say?
Mad Scientist
faculties which separate humans from animals.
Rob
wrote:
What makes you any different from the people you describe?
Rob
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> Aww poor little blasphemer, still doesn't know the difference between
> human and animal.
Damn "Mad", I always thought that humans were animals. Do you know some
biology that I don't?
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> Aww poor little sociopath, wishes to prove a point when he still can't
> tell the difference between what makes a human different from animals.
We are animals "Mad", where did you learn your biology, Bob Jones
University?
<snip>
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> Awww poor little blasphemer expects to dialog when he still lacks the
> faculties which separate humans from animals.
Humans are separate from animals?? Wow, I missed that biology lesson? Where
was it taught, Bob Jones University?
Elmer Bataitis
"IKnowNothingDoYou" <IKnowN...@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-(snip)
> Thank you for that ref. I have not read anything of his yet but it sounds
> facinating.
Hmmm, IKDY, I think you're blessing a scientiologist. MS's not a Christian,
from what I've seen, in any way shape or form. Scientologists believe that
Xenu gathered up all the overpopulation in this sector of the galaxy,
brought them to Earth and then exterminated them using hydrogen bombs. The
souls of these murdered people are supposed to infest the bodies of
everyone.
Mad Scientist
difference between who or what scientology is from real science obviously.
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> Don't worry about his uneducated response. He doesn't know the
> difference between who or what scientology is from real science obviously.
The little top posting scientologist strikes again. Say Roadrunner, don't
you get tired of playing games?
Mad Scientist
from animals, not to mention science from the cult Scientology.
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> Poor little blasphemer, still hasn't got a clue what separates humans
> from animals, not to mention science from the cult Scientology.
We are animals, "Mad". I assume you are working on scientific answers to my
other post, isn't that right?
Mad Scientist
the humans?
Raymond E. Griffith
"Rob" <R...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:2uaci0l8d7viphqjc...@4ax.com...
Ahh! A good question. And in thinking about my statement in the light of
your question it is probably overstated. I am happy to amend my statement to
include only the more radical of the fundamentalists -- i.e., the ones who
are pretty much defining the direction of the movement as it is progressing
today. The average member in fundamentalist churches may carry the
fundamentalist label, but may or may not be fundamentalist on a personal
level and might not be happy with the movement if they had any real
knowledge of what it stood for.
How am I different (from the more radical sort)? I am willing to be told I
am wrong, and if evidence is presented, to seriously consider the
possibility. I certainly do not think that I am qualified to judge a topic
when I have a demonstrable lack of knowledge concerning it.
If the weight of evidence is against my position or indicates that my
position is in difficulty, I am willing to do more study and careful
research to ascertain the facts. I can and have changed my mind on some very
significant issues because of evidence.
I don't see myself as having a "secret truth". Christianity is supposed to
be a religion open to scrutiny. "Provide things honest in the sight of all
men," we are instructed. I am a Christian. I left fundamentalism some time
ago because of its problems.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> What, did this animal make some grunts attempting to communicate with
> the humans?
Did this little top posting prick ignore my post? Just in case he did I
included it below, you know, just in case he happens to be a lying piece of
shit :-).
<snip>
voj
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKno...@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-190...@pm1-33.kalama.com...
> Science-What Is It?
>
Science is studying.
That's it.
Pastor Dave
<sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> screamed out:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:vjubi01vq801v4fe6...@4ax.com...
>> While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
>> Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:58:40 GMT, "_AnonCoward"
>> <a...@xyz.com> screamed out:
>>
>>
>> >: > > Cannont be repeated.
>> >
>> >
>> >This is a strawman argument as present here. One doesn't have to be able
>> >to reproduce an event in order to be able to assert it happened (anymore
>> >than one needs to repeat his own birth in order to say he was born).
>> >What we do need to be able to reproduce are the observations that gave
>> >rise to the theory in question in the first place.
>>
>> Which was finches with different beaks. Sorry, that
>> doesn't cut it.
>>
>First of all, Darwin's interest in the finches lay in the facts that they
>occupied ecological niches that, in other parts of the world, were occupied
>by non-finches, but that all of them were, after all (this was not always
>obvious at first glance) finches, related to the finches on the South
>American mainland (even though the Galapagoes were, ecologically, not very
>like the mainland and much more like the African Cape Verdes Islands).
Bottom line, he saw finches with different sized beaks
and concluded that peoples and bananas are related.
THAT is THE basis of evolutionary thought.
>> >So while we cannot
>> >reproduce whale speciation, we can point to the evidence that it ocurred
>> >and anyone who wishes to confirm the evidence is able can do so.
>>
>> You cannot provide any evidence that whales walked on
>> land.
>>
>By, "you cannot provide any evidence," do you mean:
>[a] there cannot be, even in principle, such evidence, or
>[b] such evidence might exist, but happens not to, or merely
>[c] we can't post actual skulls, embryos, etc. on Usenet?
I mean, you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever,
that whales walked on land, period.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Craig Franck
> "Steven J." screamed out:
> >First of all, Darwin's interest in the finches lay in the facts that they
> >occupied ecological niches that, in other parts of the world, were occupied
> >by non-finches, but that all of them were, after all (this was not always
> >obvious at first glance) finches, related to the finches on the South
> >American mainland (even though the Galapagoes were, ecologically, not very
> >like the mainland and much more like the African Cape Verdes Islands).
>
> Bottom line, he saw finches with different sized beaks
> and concluded that peoples and bananas are related.
> THAT is THE basis of evolutionary thought.
Common descent is the logical conclusion of evolutionary theory. It's
directly inferable from the facts. The modern science of genetics has
confirmed banana's and people are related in that we share a common
set of genes. That would imply we had a common ancestor.
But if the universe is magical, or is populated by magical beings, anything
might be the case. This is why that way of thinking must be left out of all
scientifically-valid inferences.
I do agree it is an interesting question as to whether common descent is
as valid an inference as all finches being descended from a common finch,
at the time it was first made.
> >> You cannot provide any evidence that whales walked on
> >> land.
> >>
> >By, "you cannot provide any evidence," do you mean:
> >[a] there cannot be, even in principle, such evidence, or
> >[b] such evidence might exist, but happens not to, or merely
> >[c] we can't post actual skulls, embryos, etc. on Usenet?
>
> I mean, you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever,
> that whales walked on land, period.
I think you missed the point of his question. Adding the word "period"
doesn't clarify the issue. I take it to mean that there is no evidence because
whales never walked on land.
As is typical, your wording leaves a great deal to be desired in that a mammal
walking on land would not be a whale, but rather an ancestor to whales.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
Dave Oldridge
> Aww poor little blasphemer, still doesn't know the difference between
> human and animal.
Well, I actually knew a chimp once. He was a better man than you will ever
be! And HE had an excuse for bad behaviour. Someone had locked him in a
small cage next to a bunch of loud monkeys and two morose gorillas (who
were also in a cage way too small for gorillas).
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Mad Scientist
bob young
Mad Scientist wrote:
> IKnowHimDoYou wrote:
>
> > Science-What Is It?
> >
> > Science is the development of information and concepts discovered through
> > continous interplay of hypothesis and observation. Concepts are
> > considered scientific if, and only if, they can be tested and refuted or
> > supported(never proven) by repeatable observation.
> >
> > Science is not, as many claim, varified by majority vote, rhetorical
> > eloquence or media endorsement. It is also not evolution. Evolution is
> > merely humanism dressed in a shabby lab coat, an incomplete paradigm or
> > world view, an alternate religion.
>
> It is one of the tools of the fallen intelligence to take mankind away
> from its true source of Life, the Creator.
Science - the closest thing to sanity that exists on this planet
>
>
> >
> > Evolution is not science. Its central purpose is philosophic and cannot
> > enter the halls of true science for it:
> >
> > Cannot be observed.
> > Cannot be measured.
> > Cannont be repeated.
>
> Evolution is a well established 'science' but only a 'propaganda science'.
>
> >
> > All the loud mouth screaming in the world cannot change those facts.
> > Evolution is a feeble attempt by humanists to establish a poorly thought
> > out system to counter Christianity.
>
> >
> > The battle is not between the Bible and science; it is between the Bible
> > and evolution. Science is not the enemy of the Christian faith. Science
> > is the Christian's ally in its battle with evolution and because of that
> > fact Christianity will always be victorious.
>
> Exactly. Many 'scientists' have tried to disprove the Sacred texts to
> no avail. Even today scientists are busily investigating the Aether as
> 'vacuum energy' and the Bible clearly speaks of this 'vacuum' in the
> first few verses of Genesis where it speaks of the 'formlessness and
> void'. A very good explanation of these scriptures can be found here by
> Lambert Dolphin and his colleagues. Lambert Dolphin is a well known
> geophysicist and Creationist who also in his spare time has many
> discussions on Biblical issues.
>
> http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/vacuum.html
Steven J.
thereby distorting part of the one I made. Darwin had the entire nested
hierarchy of life demonstrated by Karl von Linne (which demanded an
explanation -- why, if living things were not related, did they share traits
in a pattern that would only be expected from shared ancestry?), the
examples of homologous and vestigial structures provided by anatomists like
Owen, the biogeographical data that he (and others like Wallace) gathered,
and so forth.
Aside from that, Darwin did not, in fact, conclude that people and bananas
are related. He was uncertain whether common descent applied beyond the
phylum or kingdom level, and while he felt that analogy suggested common
ancestry for humans and bananas, he certainly did not believe that the
evidence available to him strongly supported that conclusion. The common
ancestry of plants and animals is supported by evidence (homologies at the
cellular and molecular level) that Darwin did not have.
>
> >> >So while we cannot
> >> >reproduce whale speciation, we can point to the evidence that it
ocurred
> >> >and anyone who wishes to confirm the evidence is able can do so.
> >>
> >> You cannot provide any evidence that whales walked on
> >> land.
> >>
> >By, "you cannot provide any evidence," do you mean:
> >[a] there cannot be, even in principle, such evidence, or
> >[b] such evidence might exist, but happens not to, or merely
> >[c] we can't post actual skulls, embryos, etc. on Usenet?
>
> I mean, you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever,
> that whales walked on land, period.
>
Again, you snip, without marking the fact, part of my text where I summarize
the evidence that whales (or their ancestors, at least) did walk on land.
It is one thing to argue (or even assert without providing any grounds) that
the evidence is inadequate, or even mistaken. It seems rather dishonest to
ignore the matter entirely, though.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave Raymond
>
-- [snip]
>
> www.drdino.com
>
*Dr. Dino?!* *Kent (I got my doctorate from a Cracker Jack box) Hovind!?*
Pastor, there *are* young-earth creationists who [a] have actual degrees
from actual universities, [b] can actually write competent English prose,
and [c] are not currently under Federal investigation for tax evasion and
fraud. If you must turn to mendacious pseudoscientists for spiritual and
scientific guidance, could you not at least seek a better class of
pseudoscientist?
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
Mad Scientist
bob young wrote:
>
> Mad Scientist wrote:
>
>
>>IKnowHimDoYou wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Science-What Is It?
>>>
>>>Science is the development of information and concepts discovered through
>>>continous interplay of hypothesis and observation. Concepts are
>>>considered scientific if, and only if, they can be tested and refuted or
>>>supported(never proven) by repeatable observation.
>>>
>>>Science is not, as many claim, varified by majority vote, rhetorical
>>>eloquence or media endorsement. It is also not evolution. Evolution is
>>>merely humanism dressed in a shabby lab coat, an incomplete paradigm or
>>>world view, an alternate religion.
>>
>>It is one of the tools of the fallen intelligence to take mankind away
>>from its true source of Life, the Creator.
>
>
> Science - the closest thing to sanity that exists on this planet
What kind of science? The one's who engage in researching biological
weapons, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons? Or the science who has
historical detonated thousands of nuclear bombs on the earth, atmosphere
and outspace? Or would the science that is responsible for poisoning
the atmosphere, water, and food supplies be in that list of yours as
'sane' science?
H.D.S
>
>
> bob young wrote:
>
>>
>> Mad Scientist wrote:
>>
>>
>>>IKnowHimDoYou wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Science-What Is It?
>>>>
>>>>Science is the development of information and concepts discovered
>>>>through continous interplay of hypothesis and observation. Concepts
>>>>are considered scientific if, and only if, they can be tested and
>>>>refuted or supported(never proven) by repeatable observation.
>>>>
>>>>Science is not, as many claim, varified by majority vote, rhetorical
>>>>eloquence or media endorsement. It is also not evolution.
>>>>Evolution is merely humanism dressed in a shabby lab coat, an
>>>>incomplete paradigm or world view, an alternate religion.
>>>
>>>It is one of the tools of the fallen intelligence to take mankind
>>>away from its true source of Life, the Creator.
>>
>>
>> Science - the closest thing to sanity that exists on this planet
>
>
> What kind of science? The one's who engage in researching biological
> weapons, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons? Or the science who has
> historical detonated thousands of nuclear bombs on the earth,
> atmosphere and outspace? Or would the science that is responsible for
> poisoning the atmosphere, water, and food supplies be in that list of
> yours as 'sane' science?
>
How about the science that saves million of lives through new
vaccinations and medical procedures.
How about the science that explains the origins of our solar system,
galaxy, and even ourselves.
How about the science that provides us with the computers and
infrastructure that allows morons like you to post your innane drivel?
If you think science is so evil move to some third world country.
--
Read the Bible, because we need more atheists.
Mad Scientist
H.D.S wrote:
There are more deaths in hospitals resulting from bad science than what
you claim as 'saving millions of lives'. Ever heard of the woman who
had to sue the surgeons to get her skull put back on? Probably not, no
doubt. And vaccines saving lives? You obviously don't do much research
on so called 'medical breakthroughs' which really amount to nothing
more than lining the pockets of weathly pharmaceuticals. Modern '
'medical research' makes the NAZI experiments of WWII look sane. That
old argument of 'if killing one person saves thousands, is it
justified?' as if the 'end justified the means' is being played out in
the halls of medical 'science' and only the complete fools remain blind
to it.
>
> How about the science that explains the origins of our solar system,
> galaxy, and even ourselves.
No science has a complete picture of the origins of the solar system,
galaxy and mankind, without the Creator. All they have is silly
propaganda which is easily shown for what it is, when errors are pointed
out, as in the case of the CMBR data being applied to the Big Bang
theory which is now totally defunct as a science. But again only those
who remain hypnotized by the 'scientific' spell still believe in it.
>
> How about the science that provides us with the computers and
> infrastructure that allows morons like you to post your innane drivel?
Whats that sociopath? You actually believe that computers and binary
programming language represents some pinnacle of human achievement? Man
have you got a lot to learn. For one thing the same computer languages
which enable the internet, and which you tout as 'amazing science' are
also being used for missile guidance systems, smart bombs, worldwide
survelliance of the free world, outright disruption of free exhange of
ideas (like the usenet sociopaths seem proud to accomplish), and also I
could argue the vast separation between the rich and poor. Technology
and science today is more an ego building exorcise for the few,
certainly not for the benefit of 'all mankind'. The great ancestors
would be ashamed if they could see the behaviour of our world today, in
how new technologies could revolutionize the politics of commerce, and
government, as well as provide free education to all. But instead the
same tools which you tout as 'amazing' are also tools of oppression in
the hands of the mighty and the few, who do not care that healing
advances have been discovered which could eradicate all diseases, and
technologies which could provide free electricity to power your
'amazing' machines without polluting. The powers that be in today's
world whose names are known, will eventually become bywards for curses
in future generations.
>
> If you think science is so evil move to some third world country.
Why move somewhere else to see evil, when it is right in your back yard,
where sociopaths like you illustrate how evil it is and has become so
much a tool of evil with your attitude above.
H.D.S
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> Nother usenet sociopath attempts a worthless response
<PLONK>
Fucking retard.
Mad Scientist
_AnonCoward
"Steven J." <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:10ide45...@corp.supernews.com...
:
: "Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
You may as well make your peace with that tactic now because that's how
PD operates. He's been asked politely to attribute his snips many, many
times over the years but it has been to no avail. If you feel the
material he omits substantially modifies your arguments, you may wish to
reinsert the missing material in your response (that's usually what I
do, at any rate). You can save yourself a lot of frustation by not
bothering to try and get PD to flag when he is removing context from
your postings before adding his own comments.
<speaking of which.... snip!>
Ralf
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {~ ~} {~ ~} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-----------------------------------------------------------
We must at all times stand in opposition to the entaglement
of religious authority with political power. The outcome is
invariably an abomination.
Rob
wrote:
You're drawing a distinction between yourself and Fundamentalists by claiming
the thing that makes you different from Fundamentalists is that you're a
Christian. How did you arrive at the idea that Fundamentalists are
not Christians? And how do yo know that you are a Christian?
Rob
Pastor Dave
<a...@xyz.com> screamed out:
Arguments that continue to make claims don't matter.
Don't evolutionists keep saying "show me God"? Do my
arguments matter to them? No. Yet they seem to get
upset when I won't just take their word for it that
evolution as they believe it, happens. How
interesting.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
Exchange between Marge and Geoffrey the butler
on "Fresh Prince" (both African American):
Marge: My brother, you have been oppressed,
repressed and suppressed. Don't you know
you can be free?
Geoffrey: I have known freedom. I don't like
the health plan.
Raymond Griffith
Not quite. Please reread the above description.
> How did you arrive at the idea that Fundamentalists are
> not Christians? And how do yo know that you are a Christian?
>
> Rob
I have never said that fundamentalists are not Christians. Many of them
clearly are. I am also sure that many are not.
But let's suppose that every fundamentalist who professes Christianity
is a "true Christian" (TM). Not every Christian is an obedient one. And
not every Christian is a nice one. Lots of Christians are nasty,
twisted, manipulative, untruthful and hypocritical. Which makes sense,
since the Bible wouldn't have to give such consistent instructions on
*not* doing those things if Christians never did them.
Unfortunately, Fundamentalism as a movement is a lot more concerned with
others' sins rather than their own. You might not like this
characterization, but I find that it is accurate. Fundamentalism is
unabashedly intolerant of others who do not share its perspective.
As for me -- I know I am a Christian because I confessed my sins and
sinfulness to God, accepted Jesus Christ and His Work as my substitute.
The evidence of that is a changed life and a desire to do right. I do
not want to tolerate wrong in me. I may not be able to change what
others do, but I am responsible for my own behavior.
My Grandfather said that those who claim to be Christians should act
like it.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
John Ings
Well, not to argue for or against either viewpoint here, but just to
tease out an interesting direction the thread has taken, here's a
brief history of fundamentalism:
Fundamentalism.
A movement reaffirming orthodox Protestant Christianity in order to
defend it militantly against the challenges of liberal theology,
German higher criticism, Darwinism, and other views regarded as
harmful to American Christianity. It arose in the early l900s and
reached its height during and after World War I. Since then, the focus
of the movement, the meaning of the term, and the ranks of those who
willingly use the term to identify themselves have changed several
times. Fundamentalism has gone through four phases of expression while
maintaining an essential continuity of spirit, belief, and method.
The 1920s. The earliest phase involved articulating what was
fundamental to Christianity and initiating an urgent battle to expel
enemies of orthodox Protestantism from mainline churches. A series of
12 volumes called The Fundamentals (1910-15) identified a wide listing
of enemies Romanism, socialism, modern philosophy, atheism, Eddyism,
Mormonism, spiritualism, and the like. Above all, liberal theology,
which rested on a naturalistic interpretation of faith, and German
higher criticism and Darwinism, which appeared to undermine the
Bible's authority, were identified as threats. The writers represented
a broad, interdenominational Christianity in both North America and
the United Kingdom. The doctrines they defined and defended covered
historical Christian teachings. They presented criticisms fairly, with
careful argument and in appreciation of much their opponents said.
Almost immediately, however, the list of enemies became narrower and
the fundamentals less comprehensive.
The term "fundamentalist" was perhaps first used in 1920 by Curtis Lee
Laws in the Baptist Watchman-Examiner, but it seemed to pop up
everywhere in the early 1920s as an identification for someone who
believed and actively defended the fundamentals of the faith.
Late 1920s to the EarZy 1940s.
By 1926 or so, militant fundamentalists had failed to expel the
modernists from any denomination. Moreover, they lost
the battle against evolution. Orthodox Protestants, who still
numerically dominated the denominations, began to struggle among
themselves. During the 1930s the term "fundamentalist" came to apply
to one party among those who believed the traditional fundamentals of
the faith. New "pure" denominations emerged. The distinctive
theological point that the fundamentalists made was that they rep
resented true Christianity, based on a literal interpretation of the
Bible, and that this truth ought to be expressed organizationally in
separation from liberals and modernists; separatism was aligned with
the maintenance of fundamental Christianity. Fundamentalists
identified with purity in personal morality and American
culture. Thus, the term "fundamentalist" came to refer largely to
orthodox Protestants who left mainline northern denominations and
established new denominations, joined conservative Southern churches,
or started independent churches.
Early 1940s to the 1970s.
From the early 1940s fundamentalists, thus redefined, divided
gradually into two camps: Many voluntarily continued to
use the term to refer to themselves. They equated fundamentalism with
true Bible believing Christianity. Others regarded the term as
undesirable, connoting divisiveness, intolerance,
anti-intellectualism, unconcern with social problems, even
foolishness. This second group wished to regain
fellowship with orthodox Protestants who still constituted the vast
majority of clergy and people in the large Northern
denominationsPresbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and Episcopalian. They
began during the 1940s to call themselves "evangelicals" and to equate
that term with true Christianity. Beginning in 1948 a few preferred to
take the name "neoevangelical." Organizationally many separatist
fundamentalists formed the American Council of Christian Churches
(ACCC) in 1941. Those desiring a more inclusive fellowship formed the
National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1942, which sought to
embrace orthodox Protestants as individuals in all denominations.
The term "fundamentalist" now expressed a contrast from evangelicals
or neoevangelicals, rather than merely with liberalism, modernism, or
neoorthodoxy. Fundamentalists and evangelicals in the 1950s and 1960s
shared much but remained apart because of a different ethos.
Late 1970s and the 1980s.
By the late 1970s, and in particular by the 1980 campaign of Ronald
Reagan for the U.S. presidency, fundamentalists entered a new phase.
They became nationally prominent as offering an answer for
what many regarded as a supreme social, economic, moral, and religious
crisis in America. They identified a new and more pervasive enemy,
secular humanism, which they believed was responsible for eroding
churches, schools, universities, the government, andabove allfamilies.
They fought those they considered to be offspring of secular humanism
evolutionism, political and theological liberalism, loose personal
morality, sexual perversion, socialism communism, and any turn from
the absolute, inerrant authority of the Bible. They called Americans
to return to the fundamentals of the faith and the fundamental moral
values.
## HECK: Where people go if they don't believe in Gosh!
IKnowHimDoYou
<R...@nospam.com> wrote:
_________________________________________________________
He didn't and he is not...
Rob
wrote:
But not you - right?
> Which makes sense,
>since the Bible wouldn't have to give such consistent instructions on
>*not* doing those things if Christians never did them.
>
>Unfortunately, Fundamentalism as a movement is a lot more concerned with
>others' sins rather than their own.
Which simply means they're like most other groups - like Republicans and
Democrats for example.
> You might not like this
>characterization, but I find that it is accurate. Fundamentalism is
>unabashedly intolerant of others who do not share its perspective.
>
>As for me -- I know I am a Christian because I confessed my sins and
>sinfulness to God,
That is not evidence. A lot of self-professing Christians claim this - and yet
many self-professing Christians are not really Christians at all - but they are
counterfeit-Christians. How do you know you are not a counterfeit-Christian?
> accepted Jesus Christ and His Work as my substitute.
This sounds skewed to me. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus Christ
is anyone's substitute?
>The evidence of that is a changed life and a desire to do right. I do
>not want to tolerate wrong in me. I may not be able to change what
>others do, but I am responsible for my own behavior.
Those who have been converted to Islam feel the same way - so it seems
to me that fact renders your above statement as non-evidence as far as using it
as proof that you are a Christian.
Rob
Dave Oldridge
> Obviously being sociopathic is not limited to just being a nihilist.
Well, considering the intellectual depth of your responses here, that
chimp could probably have outwitted you.
>
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>
>> Mad Scientist <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in
>> news:UOpVc.1826609$Ar.10...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
>>
>>
>>>Aww poor little blasphemer, still doesn't know the difference between
>>>human and animal.
>>
>>
>> Well, I actually knew a chimp once. He was a better man than you
>> will ever be! And HE had an excuse for bad behaviour. Someone had
>> locked him in a small cage next to a bunch of loud monkeys and two
>> morose gorillas (who were also in a cage way too small for gorillas).
>>
>
>
--
Dave Oldridge
> Poor blasphemer attempts to make another point which proves again
> worthless.
Actually, he just said that your posts aren't worth reading. And I'm very
close to agreeing with him. You rarely say anything of substance and when
you do, what you say is invariably wrong.
Rafeek
wrote:
>Hardly, but it is no surprise that you, the imbecile that you remain
>insult him.
>What a pea brain, can't see how it was already answered. Blasphemeres
>like him demonstrate very poor reading comprehension.
Wow... again, straight for the insults. Way to support your position!
Rafeek
wrote:
>> Some theories:
>>
>> Evolution: The observed diversity of life and the fossil record are
>> explained by common descent.
>>
>> This theory has been tested for 150 years and no REAL flaws have been
>> discovered.
>
>What a lie. No one to this day can explain how life came to be in the
>evolutionist camp. Not one single paper can account for the origin of
>DNA or even single celled microbes. Theories are suggested and no
>theory is a fact, period.
It must be the case, then, that an invisible sky pixie magically
created the earth in seven days, right? That makes so much more
sense, and there's TONS of OVERWHELMING proof, right? Oh wait...
there isn't a single shred of evidence, other than an ancient
compilation of mythology that somehow lost its place next to Aesop's
fables.
Steven J.
"Rafeek" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4ugfi0lstjmqmskla...@4ax.com...
screen name accurately applies to him), but I think the usual point of
arguments like this is that *all* accounts of origins are purely matters of
faith. One cannot make a case for any of them without making arbitrary
assumptions -- and it is implied or even explicitly stated that "nature is
uniform and humanly comprehensible" and "the Bible as my teachers interpret
it is inerrant" are equally arbitrary and equally reasonable starting
assumptions for such an investigation. Since one can't argue the merits of
one faith over another outside the assumptions of that faith, all beliefs
regarding origins are equally meritorious (and must be equally excluded or
equally included in school curricula, if that subject comes up).
Now, often enough one finds an argument for creationism based on a false
dichotomy: there are only two basic options regarding origins (they are
either naturalistic or involve intervention by a creator), which is
simplified to "either evolutionism is true, or creationism (the arguer's own
particular version, of course)," followed by an argument or assertion that
"evolutionism" is false (so that the arguer's particular brand of
creationism must be true). Mad may, indeed, intend to imply that sort of
argument, but the one I sketched above is common. Please note that I don't
accept either of these arguments, but I think it's worthwhile to distinguish
them from each other; one implies that science can show that "evolutionism"
is false and creationism true, and the other implies that neither is
scientifically decidable.
-- Steven J.
bob young
Mad Scientist wrote:
> bob young wrote:
>
> >
> > Mad Scientist wrote:
> >
> >
> >>IKnowHimDoYou wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Science-What Is It?
> >>>
> >>>Science is the development of information and concepts discovered through
> >>>continous interplay of hypothesis and observation. Concepts are
> >>>considered scientific if, and only if, they can be tested and refuted or
> >>>supported(never proven) by repeatable observation.
> >>>
> >>>Science is not, as many claim, varified by majority vote, rhetorical
> >>>eloquence or media endorsement. It is also not evolution. Evolution is
> >>>merely humanism dressed in a shabby lab coat, an incomplete paradigm or
> >>>world view, an alternate religion.
> >>
> >>It is one of the tools of the fallen intelligence to take mankind away
> >>from its true source of Life, the Creator.
> >
> >
> > Science - the closest thing to sanity that exists on this planet
>
> What kind of science? The one's who engage in researching biological
> weapons, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons? Or the science who has
> historical detonated thousands of nuclear bombs on the earth, atmosphere
> and outspace? Or would the science that is responsible for poisoning
> the atmosphere, water, and food supplies be in that list of yours as
> 'sane' science?
Everything other than the above. The scientists who made the first A bomb were
in extreme doubt after they succeesdeed - it is part of hmanity and we may well
wipe ourselves out with scientific inventions, but it does not prove there is a
god anywhere. Scientific progress [or the opposite] shows that
bob young
"H.D.S" wrote:
True and if man wipes himself out usingscientific weapons it will be due to
the relious fanatics who use them, not ahteists
Raymond Griffith
Well, I suppose that God will judge that. I don't have the time to worry
in circles.
>
>
>>accepted Jesus Christ and His Work as my substitute.
>
>
> This sounds skewed to me. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus Christ
> is anyone's substitute?
>
Well, how about this?
2 Corinthians 5:21 "God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for
us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God."
1 Peter 3:18 "Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for
the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh but
by being made alive in the spirit.
Romans 5:6-8 "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ
died for the ungodly. (For rarely will anyone die for a righteous
person, though perhaps someone might possibly dare to die.) But God
demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners,
Christ died for us.
>
>>The evidence of that is a changed life and a desire to do right. I do
>>not want to tolerate wrong in me. I may not be able to change what
>>others do, but I am responsible for my own behavior.
>
>
> Those who have been converted to Islam feel the same way - so it seems
> to me that fact renders your above statement as non-evidence as far as using it
> as proof that you are a Christian.
That is for you to judge as you please. Me? I believe that I am a
Christian. I claim to follow Christ -- at least as well as I can, God
helping me. But you may judge it as you wish. If you judge that I am not
behaving as a Christain ought to, please let me know how and in what
area, and I will examine my life accordingly.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
>
> Rob
H.D.S
news:4128015D...@netvigator.com:
I'm sure atheists will still be blamed,... if anyone survives.
Rob
wrote:
I find it interesting that you failed to answer this question. But it's
perfectly understandable as to why.
>>
>>
>>>Which makes sense,
>>>since the Bible wouldn't have to give such consistent instructions on
>>>*not* doing those things if Christians never did them.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, Fundamentalism as a movement is a lot more concerned with
>>>others' sins rather than their own.
>>
>>
>> Which simply means they're like most other groups - like Republicans and
>> Democrats for example.
>>
>>
>>>You might not like this
>>>characterization, but I find that it is accurate. Fundamentalism is
>>>unabashedly intolerant of others who do not share its perspective.
>>>
>>>As for me -- I know I am a Christian because I confessed my sins and
>>>sinfulness to God,
>>
>>
>> That is not evidence. A lot of self-professing Christians claim this - and yet
>> many self-professing Christians are not really Christians at all - but they are
>> counterfeit-Christians. How do you know you are not a counterfeit-Christian?
>
>Well, I suppose that God will judge that.
The question only requires a simple answer. Interesting that you fail to
recognize what the answer is.
> I don't have the time to worry
>in circles.
I'm sure most Fundamentalists feel the same way - so you only prove that
you identify with them.
>>>accepted Jesus Christ and His Work as my substitute.
>>
>>
>> This sounds skewed to me. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus Christ
>> is anyone's substitute?
>>
>
>Well, how about this?
>
>2 Corinthians 5:21 "God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for
>us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God."
>
>1 Peter 3:18 "Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for
>the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh but
>by being made alive in the spirit.
>
>Romans 5:6-8 "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ
>died for the ungodly. (For rarely will anyone die for a righteous
>person, though perhaps someone might possibly dare to die.) But God
>demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners,
>Christ died for us.
None of the scriptures you quoted have the word "substitute" in them. If God
would have wanted Christ's sacrifice to be known as a "substitute" then
that word would most assuredly appear in scripture. But the fact that the word
"substitute" does not appear in scripture is obviously for a very important
reason - and to ignore that fact is to do so at your own peril. Because those
who interpret (which includes virtually all Fundamentalists) Christ's sacrifice
as a "substitute" - is the equivalent of adding words to scripture that are not
there.
>>>The evidence of that is a changed life and a desire to do right. I do
>>>not want to tolerate wrong in me. I may not be able to change what
>>>others do, but I am responsible for my own behavior.
>>
>>
>> Those who have been converted to Islam feel the same way - so it seems
>> to me that fact renders your above statement as non-evidence as far as using it
>> as proof that you are a Christian.
>
>That is for you to judge as you please. Me? I believe that I am a
>Christian. I claim to follow Christ -- at least as well as I can, God
>helping me. But you may judge it as you wish. If you judge that I am not
>behaving as a Christain ought to, please let me know how and in what
>area, and I will examine my life accordingly.
I'll take your above statement as your concession that you can provide no
evidence that proves you are a Christian. This too - I find interesting.
Rob
Mad Scientist
Mad Scientist
another useless response.
Mad Scientist
agree with.
Mad Scientist
to be a hypocrite.
Dave Oldridge
> Another 'christian' demonstrates how to 'gang up' on those they don't
> agree with.
And, of course you prove my point by posting, yet again, nothing of
substance. You know it's pretty obvious that the "Mad" part of your
pseudonym is correct. It's also pretty obvious that the "scientist" part
is pure bullshit.
In other words, your crazier than the March Hare with ZERO ideas about
science other than the fact that someone showed you how to spell
"scientist."
Dave Oldridge
@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> Another usenet sociopath, claiming to be a 'christian' demonstrates how
> to be a hypocrite.
Naw, I'm just a good observer of human and animal behaviour and you're
definitely off in left field somewhere. You're so crazy a chimp can outwit
you simply by having a better grip on reality. You should really consider
getting help for your condition.
Mad Scientist
mentally ill who remain in denial.
Mad Scientist
David Jensen
<JM_Vc.5172$9441...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>:
>Another 'christian' demonstrates how to 'gang up' on those they don't
>agree with.
Your comments are silly, but they do demonstrate that the fruits of
Christianity do not flow from you.
Mad Scientist
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:iK_Vc.5169$9441...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Another usenet hypocrite demonstrates the how to be in denial.
The same top posting moronic fool trolls on. I see the ignorant troll can't
capitalize "Usenet". How say that he is so stupid.
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:LN_Vc.5173$9441...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Another usenet sociopath, claiming to be a 'christian' demonstrates how
> to be a hypocrite.
Top posting fool trolls on.
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:k1%Vc.5180$9441...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Another usenet sociopath demonstrates the logical fallacies of the
> mentally ill who remain in denial.
Same old top posting fool trolls on. Still can't capitalize "Usenet".
Mad Scientist
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> I top post with barking dogs like you, because you deserve it.
Awww "Mad", don't be so mean.
Raymond Griffith
What can I say that would satisfy you? I hope to be none of those
things. I strongly object when I see such things characterizing those
who claim Christ's name.
Yet no matter what I might say, you would simply tell me that I am
trying to justify myself.
>
>>>
>>>>Which makes sense,
>>>>since the Bible wouldn't have to give such consistent instructions on
>>>>*not* doing those things if Christians never did them.
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately, Fundamentalism as a movement is a lot more concerned with
>>>>others' sins rather than their own.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which simply means they're like most other groups - like Republicans and
>>>Democrats for example.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You might not like this
>>>>characterization, but I find that it is accurate. Fundamentalism is
>>>>unabashedly intolerant of others who do not share its perspective.
>>>>
>>>>As for me -- I know I am a Christian because I confessed my sins and
>>>>sinfulness to God,
>>>
>>>
>>>That is not evidence. A lot of self-professing Christians claim this - and yet
>>>many self-professing Christians are not really Christians at all - but they are
>>>counterfeit-Christians. How do you know you are not a counterfeit-Christian?
>>
>>Well, I suppose that God will judge that.
>
>
> The question only requires a simple answer. Interesting that you fail to
> recognize what the answer is.
Christ said that those who come to Him He would never cast out. I came
to Him.
1 John 5:13 gives us this "I have written these things to you who
believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may *know* that you
have eternal life." 1 John defines the characteristics and attitudes of
those who have life. I am confident that I belong to Him.
And yet, as you said, many self-professing Christians are not Christians
at all. But they believe themselves to be believers. I should think very
few are deliberately counterfeit. I have confidence in Him and try to
obey Him.
But your "simple answer" would be appreciated.
>
>
>>I don't have the time to worry
>>in circles.
>
>
> I'm sure most Fundamentalists feel the same way - so you only prove that
> you identify with them.
>
If you want to think that.
>
>>>>accepted Jesus Christ and His Work as my substitute.
>>>
>>>
>>>This sounds skewed to me. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus Christ
>>>is anyone's substitute?
>>>
>>
>>Well, how about this?
>>
>>2 Corinthians 5:21 "God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for
>>us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God."
>>
>>1 Peter 3:18 "Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for
>>the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh but
>>by being made alive in the spirit.
>>
>>Romans 5:6-8 "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ
>>died for the ungodly. (For rarely will anyone die for a righteous
>>person, though perhaps someone might possibly dare to die.) But God
>>demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners,
>>Christ died for us.
>
>
> None of the scriptures you quoted have the word "substitute" in them.
Is that what you wanted? Grief! *If* you are a Christian then you hold
doctrines the names of which are not directly found in Scripture.
You have just presented a specious argument.
> If God
> would have wanted Christ's sacrifice to be known as a "substitute" then
> that word would most assuredly appear in scripture.
That is rank nonsense.
> But the fact that the word
> "substitute" does not appear in scripture is obviously for a very important
> reason - and to ignore that fact is to do so at your own peril. Because those
> who interpret (which includes virtually all Fundamentalists)
And includes nearly every Christian denomination of which I am aware.
> Christ's sacrifice
> as a "substitute" - is the equivalent of adding words to scripture that are not
> there.
So what do you do? What do you think of Christ's sacrifice? How do you
interpret it? Let us hear some of your own theology.
>
>
>>>>The evidence of that is a changed life and a desire to do right. I do
>>>>not want to tolerate wrong in me. I may not be able to change what
>>>>others do, but I am responsible for my own behavior.
>>>
>>>
>>>Those who have been converted to Islam feel the same way - so it seems
>>>to me that fact renders your above statement as non-evidence as far as using it
>>>as proof that you are a Christian.
>>
>>That is for you to judge as you please. Me? I believe that I am a
>>Christian. I claim to follow Christ -- at least as well as I can, God
>>helping me. But you may judge it as you wish. If you judge that I am not
>>behaving as a Christain ought to, please let me know how and in what
>>area, and I will examine my life accordingly.
>
>
> I'll take your above statement as your concession that you can provide no
> evidence that proves you are a Christian. This too - I find interesting.
OK, let me ask this -- why are you interested in trying to demonstrate
that I am not a Christian? Let us all know what you think the hallmarks
of Christianity are and the proofs of it.
In other words, "What's your beef?"
Mad Scientist
that you have the higher human qualities which enable humanity to reason
amongst one another and you retorted with more insults. You have no one
to blame for the dualistic enslavement in your posts but yourself.
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> Nother usenet sociopath attempts a worthless response
Not nearly as worthless as yours, dickhead. Say little prick, did you know
that "Usenet" is capitalized? You know for a scientist, you're pretty
stupid.
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> Poor blasphemer attempts to make another point which proves again
worthless.
>
>
> > Mad Scientist <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in
> > @twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> >
> >
> >>Nother usenet sociopath attempts a worthless response
> >
> >
> >
> > Fucking retard.
Damn "Mad", you don't understand **PLONK**? I would imagine you have read
that many times, as obtuse as you are.
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> Obviously being sociopathic is not limited to just being a nihilist.
Obviously "Mad" either doesn't understand the meaning of the word
'nihilist'.
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>
> > Mad Scientist <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in
Tom
"Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> I could say the same thing to you. I gave you an opportunity to prove
> that you have the higher human qualities which enable humanity to reason
> amongst one another and you retorted with more insults. You have no one
> to blame for the dualistic enslavement in your posts but yourself.
Boy, don't you know the meaning of the word 'sarcasm'? An example of
sarcasm might be, "Awww "Mad", don't be so mean.". Now do you understand?
Rafeek
wrote:
>Another usenet hypocrite demonstrates the how to be in denial.
Pure genius. You should be a professional debater.
Tom
"Tom" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10ii4ll...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Mad Scientist" <al...@in.wonderland> wrote in message
> news:Eb8Wc.623$iqi1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > I could say the same thing to you. I gave you an opportunity to prove
> > that you have the higher human qualities which enable humanity to reason
> > amongst one another and you retorted with more insults. You have no one
> > to blame for the dualistic enslavement in your posts but yourself.
>
> Boy, don't you know the meaning of the word 'sarcasm'? An example of
> sarcasm might be, "Awww "Mad", don't be so mean.". Now do you understand?
Say "Mad", aren't you going to comment on this :-))))))???