Evolution of man

[iaoua iaoua]

It's time for the evolutionists to put their money where their mouth
is. Dawkins tries to wriggle his atheist arse out of this one by
claiming that we will likely be extinct first. So, just how long and
under what kind of evolutionary pressures do you think it will take
for humans to change into a noticably different species from what they
are today?

We have lots of geographically separated populations (one of the
factors oft stated in evolutionary text books). We have beige
populations. Dark brown populations. Light brown population. Yellowy
populations. Orangish populations. All of which interbreed with each
other very little. Just how long will it take for us to become
different species that can no longer interbreed.

There's an experiment we can really do to test this hypothesis once
and for all. Dawkins puts his money on us being extinct first. I put
my money on God's kingdom coming first. So come one. Place your bets.
Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
evolutionary gambit? Because that's what you are really wagering
ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
with wonder?

JC

[Ilas]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in news:iaoua-5380ae98-3c8c-4933-
9b1e-2c5...@i8g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:

> nonsense <

Well, I think he's finally lost it. "It" wasn't very much to start with,
admittedly.

[jillery]

I hope you realize that whoever wins your bet, the money will be
useless to them.

[iaoua iaoua]

Who said anything about money? It's your very soul you are putting at
stake. Want to follow the god of this world into the fires of the
valley of hinnom? Or would you rather come with us through the narrow
gate and see the new Jerusalem descend from heaven on a new earth from
a new sky and be witness to God himself residing among us in the form
of his Son Jesus Christ?

JC

[Connie]

I'll go with Dawkins. If the Abrahamic god exists, I don't want
anything to do with him/her.

[alextangent]

On Dec 12, 2:14 pm, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
> iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote in news:iaoua-5380ae98-3c8c-4933-
> 9b1e-2c58a4c3f...@i8g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:

>
> > nonsense <
>
> Well, I think he's finally lost it. "It" wasn't very much to start with,
> admittedly.

Losing it implies having it in the first place. Are you sure?

[John Harshman]

iaoua iaoua wrote:
> It's time for the evolutionists to put their money where their mouth
> is. Dawkins tries to wriggle his atheist arse out of this one by
> claiming that we will likely be extinct first. So, just how long and
> under what kind of evolutionary pressures do you think it will take
> for humans to change into a noticably different species from what they
> are today?
>
> We have lots of geographically separated populations (one of the
> factors oft stated in evolutionary text books). We have beige
> populations. Dark brown populations. Light brown population. Yellowy
> populations. Orangish populations. All of which interbreed with each
> other very little. Just how long will it take for us to become
> different species that can no longer interbreed.

Sure, I'll give a serious answer. First, notice that you have presented
two different questions here. The first paragraph asks about some amount
of evolutionary change that will make the future human species different
from the current one. The second asks about the evolution of genetic
isolation between two current human populations. These two have little
to do with each other.

The answer to the first is that we have no idea. It depends on what sort
of environmental pressures we encounter in the future. Evolution can be
fast or it can be slow, depending on environment.

The answer to the second is that your assumption is wrong. There is
plenty of interbreeding among populations, especially these days. It's
very unlikely that any sort of genetic isolation will evolve unless this
situation changes considerably.

> There's an experiment we can really do to test this hypothesis once
> and for all. Dawkins puts his money on us being extinct first. I put
> my money on God's kingdom coming first. So come one. Place your bets.
> Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
> evolutionary gambit?

Considering that we will all be dead long before this "experiment" would
show any results, there seems no point to it.

> Because that's what you are really wagering
> ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
> the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
> matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
> and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
> harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
> with wonder?

Doesn't matter what I would rather have be true, only what is actually
true. How to determine that? I'm going with evidence. Got any?

[Harry K]

On Dec 12, 6:14 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
> iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote in news:iaoua-5380ae98-3c8c-4933-
> 9b1e-2c58a4c3f...@i8g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:
>

> > nonsense <
>
> Well, I think he's finally lost it. "It" wasn't very much to start with,
> admittedly.

But then he doesn't have much of a brain to work with, cut him some
slack!

Harry K

[jillery]

You did, when you wrote:

"I put my money on God's kingdom coming first."

Right up there, in what you posted this same day.

Is your ADD out of control again? Or is this just another evasion.

[William Hughes]

On Dec 12, 10:09 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because that's what you are really wagering
> ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
> the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life.

The problem is that the Great Spaghetti Monster has
proclaimed

He [1] who does not believe in a non divine origin
of life will spend eternity in flames.

Those who do not study Pascal's wager are
condemned to repeat it.

- William Hughes

[1] Unlike many perfect non-existent beings, the GSM is not
sexist. There is a different rule for women

She who believes in a non divine origin of life will
spend eternity if flames.

[iaoua iaoua]

Why not? Could it be that he has been misrepresented to you. The
abrahamic god in loving god abundant in loving kindness and willing to
forgive.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

OK children! Play time's over. Only those of your level of
intelligence are impressed by these playground tactics.

JC


> Harry K

[iaoua iaoua]

On Dec 12, 3:39 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> iaoua iaoua wrote:
> > It's time for the evolutionists to put their money where their mouth
> > is. Dawkins tries to wriggle his atheist arse out of this one by
> > claiming that we will likely be extinct first. So, just how long and
> > under what kind of evolutionary pressures do you think it will take
> > for humans to change into a noticably different species from what they
> > are today?
>
> > We have lots of geographically separated populations (one of the
> > factors oft stated in evolutionary text books). We have beige
> > populations. Dark brown populations. Light brown population. Yellowy
> > populations. Orangish populations. All of which interbreed with each
> > other very little. Just how long will it take for us to become
> > different species that can no longer interbreed.
>
> Sure, I'll give a serious answer. First, notice that you have presented
> two different questions here. The first paragraph asks about some amount
> of evolutionary change that will make the future human species different
> from the current one. The second asks about the evolution of genetic
> isolation between two current human populations. These two have little
> to do with each other.
>

On the contrary. If the populations are separated geographically you
would expect there to be some considerable overlap if the premises of
evolutionary theory are true that is.

> The answer to the first is that we have no idea. It depends on what sort
> of environmental pressures we encounter in the future. Evolution can be
> fast or it can be slow, depending on environment.
>

Continuing from above if you are going to claim that the two questions
are quite different because world wide the evolutionary pressures are
roughly the same then you have blown the whole argument of evolution
right out of the water in one fell swoop.

> The answer to the second is that your assumption is wrong. There is
> plenty of interbreeding among populations, especially these days. It's

Not much really. Very minimal. Almost negligible.

> very unlikely that any sort of genetic isolation will evolve unless this
> situation changes considerably.
>
> > There's an experiment we can really do to test this hypothesis once
> > and for all. Dawkins puts his money on us being extinct first. I put
> > my money on God's kingdom coming first. So come one. Place your bets.
> > Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
> > evolutionary gambit?
>
> Considering that we will all be dead long before this "experiment" would
> show any results, there seems no point to it.
>

You don't care if future generations believe in creation versus
evolution? Atheism versus theism? Death versus Christianity? Let's get
the record going so that future generations can consider the validity
of the theory.

> > Because that's what you are really wagering
> > ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
> > the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
> > matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
> > and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
> > harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
> > with wonder?
>
> Doesn't matter what I would rather have be true, only what is actually
> true. How to determine that? I'm going with evidence. Got any?

Yep! Plenty! The Son of God became flesh and walked amongst us. He
taught us directly and gave us a guarantee that his promises were true
by coming back from the dead after his execution. To this fact many
witnesses went out and told us the good news that God's Son showed us
the way.

JC

[David Hare-Scott]

iaoua iaoua wrote:

..snip....

> Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
> evolutionary gambit? Because that's what you are really wagering
> ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
> the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
> matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
> and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
> harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
> with wonder?
>
> JC

There are several theists of my acquaintance who live exemplary lives. I
quite admire them and I accept the role of their God in who they are. It
would not be a bad thing to be like them.

On the other hand if accepting your God would mean becoming more like you I
will happily pass with a shudder thinking how fortunate I am that He hasn't
tapped me on the shoulder. If He really wants to gain adherents He should
get a shill who doesn't leave everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.
Your arrogant self-serving clap trap is quite revolting.

Now why don't you take your off topic crap somewhere else.

David

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:09:31 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua
<iaoua...@gmail.com>:

>On Dec 12, 2:35 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 06:09:17 -0800 (PST), iaoua iaoua
>> <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >It's time for the evolutionists to put their money where their mouth
>> >is.

>> I hope you realize that whoever wins your bet, the money will be
>> useless to them.

>Who said anything about money?

I dunno; who did say anything about money?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:26:44 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua
<iaoua...@gmail.com>:

>> I'll go with Dawkins. If the Abrahamic god exists, I don't want
>> anything to do with him/her.
>
>Why not? Could it be that he has been misrepresented to you. The
>abrahamic god in loving god abundant in loving kindness and willing to
>forgive.

So your claim is that the Old Testament, which makes clear
in many places the nature and actions of the God of Abraham,
is a misrepresentation of Him?

[Dana Tweedy]

On 12/12/11 1:32 PM, iaoua iaoua wrote:
> On Dec 12, 3:39 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> iaoua iaoua wrote:
>>> It's time for the evolutionists to put their money where their mouth
>>> is. Dawkins tries to wriggle his atheist arse out of this one by
>>> claiming that we will likely be extinct first. So, just how long and
>>> under what kind of evolutionary pressures do you think it will take
>>> for humans to change into a noticably different species from what they
>>> are today?
>>
>>> We have lots of geographically separated populations (one of the
>>> factors oft stated in evolutionary text books). We have beige
>>> populations. Dark brown populations. Light brown population. Yellowy
>>> populations. Orangish populations. All of which interbreed with each
>>> other very little. Just how long will it take for us to become
>>> different species that can no longer interbreed.
>>
>> Sure, I'll give a serious answer. First, notice that you have presented
>> two different questions here. The first paragraph asks about some amount
>> of evolutionary change that will make the future human species different
>> from the current one. The second asks about the evolution of genetic
>> isolation between two current human populations. These two have little
>> to do with each other.
>>
>
> On the contrary. If the populations are separated geographically you
> would expect there to be some considerable overlap if the premises of
> evolutionary theory are true that is.

Overlap of what, exactly?

>
>> The answer to the first is that we have no idea. It depends on what sort
>> of environmental pressures we encounter in the future. Evolution can be
>> fast or it can be slow, depending on environment.
>>
>
> Continuing from above if you are going to claim that the two questions
> are quite different because world wide the evolutionary pressures are
> roughly the same then you have blown the whole argument of evolution
> right out of the water in one fell swoop.

This doesn't seem to follow. Environmental conditions and evolutionary
pressures are not always the same thing. Sexual selection, for example
is an active process in evolutionary change. John did not claim that
evolutionary pressures were the same world wide. What he's pointing out
is that there's no way to know what "pressures" humans will face in the
future.

Space exploration would be one possible factor that might actually
separate a human population completely enough for reproductive isolation
to have an effect.

>
>> The answer to the second is that your assumption is wrong. There is
>> plenty of interbreeding among populations, especially these days. It's
>
> Not much really. Very minimal. Almost negligible.

And your support for this assertion is.....?

>
>> very unlikely that any sort of genetic isolation will evolve unless this
>> situation changes considerably.
>>
>>> There's an experiment we can really do to test this hypothesis once
>>> and for all. Dawkins puts his money on us being extinct first. I put
>>> my money on God's kingdom coming first. So come one. Place your bets.
>>> Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
>>> evolutionary gambit?
>>
>> Considering that we will all be dead long before this "experiment" would
>> show any results, there seems no point to it.
>>
>
> You don't care if future generations believe in creation versus
> evolution? Atheism versus theism? Death versus Christianity?

Acceptance of evolution doesn't require one to become an atheist. You
are pushing a false dichotomy.

> Let's get
> the record going so that future generations can consider the validity
> of the theory.

Future generations may decide to favor another, entirely different
religion, or may decide that no religion is preferable. No matter what
they decide as far as religion goes, evolution will remain a fact that
must be acknowledged.

>
>>> Because that's what you are really wagering
>>> ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
>>> the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
>>> matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
>>> and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
>>> harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
>>> with wonder?
>>
>> Doesn't matter what I would rather have be true, only what is actually
>> true. How to determine that? I'm going with evidence. Got any?
>
> Yep! Plenty! The Son of God became flesh and walked amongst us.

That's a religious belief, not evidence. I happen to believe that
Christ existed, and "walked among us", but that's not evidence that he
did.

> He
> taught us directly and gave us a guarantee that his promises were true
> by coming back from the dead after his execution.

Again, that's a religious belief, not evidence.

> To this fact many
> witnesses went out and told us the good news that God's Son showed us
> the way.

All we have is accounts that were written down many years after the
claimed events. There isn't any evidence worthy of the name that
supports the "witnesses".



DJT

[iaoua iaoua]

On Dec 12, 10:19 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> iaoua iaoua wrote:
>
> ..snip....
>
> > Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
> > evolutionary gambit? Because that's what you are really wagering
> > ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
> > the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
> > matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
> > and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
> > harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
> > with wonder?
>
> > JC
>
> There are several theists of my acquaintance who live exemplary lives.  I
> quite admire them and I accept the role of their God in who they are.  It
> would not be a bad thing to be like them.
>

That's great. Who exactly is their God? Because ultimately the only
way to God is through the way the truth and the life his Son Jesus the
one he anointed with his holy spirit. Righteousness doesn't buy you
life. Jesus came to heal the sick. The well have no need of a doctor.
At least not in their own minds and hearts.

> On the other hand if accepting your God would mean becoming more like you I

You'll be glad to know if entails becoming quite different from me and
looking towards the Son of God as your example and Saviour.

JC

[Eric Root]

On Dec 12, 9:09 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's time for the evolutionists to put their money where their mouth
> is. Dawkins tries to wriggle his atheist arse out of this one by
> claiming that we will likely be extinct first. So, just how long and
> under what kind of evolutionary pressures do you think it will take
> for humans to change into a noticably different species from what they
> are today?
>
> We have lots of geographically separated populations (one of the
> factors oft stated in evolutionary text books). We have beige
> populations. Dark brown populations. Light brown population. Yellowy
> populations. Orangish populations. All of which interbreed with each
> other very little. Just how long will it take for us to become
> different species that can no longer interbreed.
>
> There's an experiment we can really do to test this hypothesis once
> and for all. Dawkins puts his money on us being extinct first. I put
> my money on God's kingdom coming first. So come one. Place your bets.
> Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
> evolutionary gambit? Because that's what you are really wagering
> ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
> the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life.

Nope, has nothing to do with the origin of life, you asked about
evolution, which is the origin of _species_.
Also, I don't think anyone here is particularly wedded to a non-divine
origin of life, as long as that origin is _natural_.

> Does it really
> matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
> and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
> harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
> with wonder?

Sure. That has no more to do with the reality of evolution than the
reality of gravity or light.

>
> JC

Eric Root

[deadrat]

and smite.

[iaoua iaoua]

The two points identified and separated by the person I was responding
to. Please read the context.

>
>
> >> The answer to the first is that we have no idea. It depends on what sort
> >> of environmental pressures we encounter in the future. Evolution can be
> >> fast or it can be slow, depending on environment.
>
> > Continuing from above if you are going to claim that the two questions
> > are quite different because world wide the evolutionary pressures are
> > roughly the same then you have blown the whole argument of evolution
> > right out of the water in one fell swoop.
>
> This doesn't seem to follow.  Environmental conditions and evolutionary
> pressures are not always the same thing.  Sexual selection, for example
> is an active process in evolutionary change.   John did not claim that
> evolutionary pressures were the same world wide.  What he's pointing out
> is that there's no way to know what "pressures" humans will face in the
> future.
>



> Space exploration would be one possible factor that might actually
> separate a human population completely enough for reproductive isolation
> to have an effect.
>

LOL.

>
>
> >> The answer to the second is that your assumption is wrong. There is
> >> plenty of interbreeding among populations, especially these days. It's
>
> > Not much really. Very minimal. Almost negligible.
>
> And your support for this assertion is.....?
>

Abundantly evident all over the place. Please spend some time in a
number of countries then get back to me. You might wanna start by
spending some time in black Africa, China, Japan, Russia, Ukraine and
so on. The only times we get real interbreeding is generally as the
result of a war. Look what happened as a result of that. The English
and then the Americans. The two races that really seem to have
convinced themselves that they are superior to the rest of the planet.
Apparently it takes generations of being the bastardized product of
rapes from soldiers of many different invading nations to attain the
intelligence required to deny God's existence.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> very unlikely that any sort of genetic isolation will evolve unless this
> >> situation changes considerably.
>
> >>> There's an experiment we can really do to test this hypothesis once
> >>> and for all. Dawkins puts his money on us being extinct first. I put
> >>> my money on God's kingdom coming first. So come one. Place your bets.
> >>> Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
> >>> evolutionary gambit?
>
> >> Considering that we will all be dead long before this "experiment" would
> >> show any results, there seems no point to it.
>
> > You don't care if future generations believe in creation versus
> > evolution? Atheism versus theism? Death versus Christianity?
>
> Acceptance of evolution doesn't require one to become an atheist.  You
> are pushing a false dichotomy.
>

Really? Show me a Christian that doesn't believe that Adam and Eve
were the real literal parents of all mankind that passed down their
sin to us and I will show you a person that is not a Christian. At
least not according to the Pauline, Johanine, Jamesian or Pertan
versions of Christianity by any rate.

> > Let's get
> > the record going so that future generations can consider the validity
> > of the theory.
>
> Future generations may decide to favor another, entirely different
> religion, or may decide that no religion is preferable.  No matter what
> they decide as far as religion goes, evolution will remain a fact that
> must be acknowledged.
>

No doubt there will be many religions. But Christianity will survive
to till kingdom come.

>
>
> >>> Because that's what you are really wagering
> >>> ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
> >>> the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
> >>> matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
> >>> and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
> >>> harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
> >>> with wonder?
>
> >> Doesn't matter what I would rather have be true, only what is actually
> >> true. How to determine that? I'm going with evidence. Got any?
>
> > Yep! Plenty! The Son of God became flesh and walked amongst us.
>
> That's a religious belief, not evidence.  I happen to believe that
> Christ existed, and "walked among us", but that's not evidence that he
> did.
>

There is no evidence of anything if you are going to insist on
definitions of what does and does not constitute evidence. In any
case, there is plenty of reason to believe Christ over say for example
you. Many eyewitnesses saw his deeds and passed them down to us. They
witnesses his resurrection from the dead and his ascension into
heaven. Christ is the undoubtedly the Son of God. The word that made
the world. He certainly knows better than you do.

> > He
> > taught us directly and gave us a guarantee that his promises were true
> > by coming back from the dead after his execution.
>
> Again, that's a religious belief, not evidence.
>

Everything you think you know is a belief religious or otherwise. You
don't know anything. You strongly believe you exist because you think,
you feel, you experience. You assume that you can understand the
outside world which you assume exists because you see it, hear it,
feel it because you lay a number of further assumptions about its
coherence. All of these are beliefs. Some perhaps even correspond to
reality. Others perhaps less so. But nontheless they are all beliefs.

> > To this fact many
> > witnesses went out and told us the good news that God's Son showed us
> > the way.
>
> All we have is accounts that were written down many years after the

That is most certainly not all we all. We have the holy spirit which
testifies to us if what we are reading is true or not. That's
something you can feel. That's something you can interact with. Why
trust it less than your eyes and ears which we have 'known' for a long
time can lie to you?

> claimed events.   There isn't any evidence worthy of the name that
> supports the "witnesses".
>

There are three witnesses. The water, the blood and the spirit. If you
don't believe the spirit. Then God help you.

JC

> DJT

[deadrat]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 12, 3:39 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> iaoua iaoua wrote:
>> > It's time for the evolutionists to put their money where their mouth
>> > is. Dawkins tries to wriggle his atheist arse out of this one by
>> > claiming that we will likely be extinct first. So, just how long and
>> > under what kind of evolutionary pressures do you think it will take
>> > for humans to change into a noticably different species from what they
>> > are today?
>>
>> > We have lots of geographically separated populations (one of the
>> > factors oft stated in evolutionary text books). We have beige
>> > populations. Dark brown populations. Light brown population. Yellowy
>> > populations. Orangish populations. All of which interbreed with each
>> > other very little. Just how long will it take for us to become
>> > different species that can no longer interbreed.
>>
>> Sure, I'll give a serious answer. First, notice that you have presented
>> two different questions here. The first paragraph asks about some amount
>> of evolutionary change that will make the future human species different
>> from the current one. The second asks about the evolution of genetic
>> isolation between two current human populations. These two have little
>> to do with each other.
>>
>
> On the contrary.

The first question asks when there will be a homo posteratatis, a species as
distinct from homo sapiens as say, homo sapiens is from homo erectus. At no
point in the march from homo s. to homo p., will there be any barrier to
breeding within the human population.

The second question asks when there will be a separate species that evolves
from a geographically isolated subpopulation of homo sapiens. When and if
that happens, the two species can't interbreed.

> If the populations are separated geographically you
> would expect there to be some considerable overlap if the premises of
> evolutionary theory are true that is.

There is "considerable" genetic overlap of populations in different
locations.

>> The answer to the first is that we have no idea. It depends on what sort
>> of environmental pressures we encounter in the future. Evolution can be
>> fast or it can be slow, depending on environment.
>>
>
> Continuing from above if you are going to claim that the two questions
> are quite different because world wide the evolutionary pressures are
> roughly the same then you have blown the whole argument of evolution
> right out of the water in one fell swoop.
>
>> The answer to the second is that your assumption is wrong. There is
>> plenty of interbreeding among populations, especially these days. It's
>
> Not much really. Very minimal. Almost negligible.
>
>> very unlikely that any sort of genetic isolation will evolve unless this
>> situation changes considerably.
>>
>> > There's an experiment we can really do to test this hypothesis once
>> > and for all. Dawkins puts his money on us being extinct first. I put
>> > my money on God's kingdom coming first. So come one. Place your bets.
>> > Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
>> > evolutionary gambit?
>>
>> Considering that we will all be dead long before this "experiment" would
>> show any results, there seems no point to it.

> You don't care if future generations believe in creation versus
> evolution? Atheism versus theism? Death versus Christianity? Let's get
> the record going so that future generations can consider the validity
> of the theory.

What difference does it make what future generations believe?

>> > Because that's what you are really wagering
>> > ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
>> > the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
>> > matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
>> > and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
>> > harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
>> > with wonder?
>>
>> Doesn't matter what I would rather have be true, only what is actually
>> true. How to determine that? I'm going with evidence. Got any?
>
> Yep! Plenty!

For those of you playing at home, remember that in vowel world, "Plenty!"
means "None!"

<snip>
delusional material
</snip>
> JC
>
>

[Eric Root]

On Dec 12, 7:49 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 11:01 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>

(snip)

>
> > Acceptance of evolution doesn't require one to become an atheist.  You
> > are pushing a false dichotomy.
>
> Really? Show me a Christian that doesn't believe that Adam and Eve
> were the real literal parents of all mankind that passed down their
> sin to us and I will show you a person that is not a Christian.

Says you, and you are some kind of science-denier. Plus, where does
atheism come in?

> At
> least not according to the Pauline, Johanine, Jamesian or Pertan
> versions of Christianity by any rate.

None of whom knew anything about science and so opinions of science
based on their intrepretation are not as good as the opinions of, say,
Dana Tweedy.

>
> > > Let's get
> > > the record going so that future generations can consider the validity
> > > of the theory.
>
> > Future generations may decide to favor another, entirely different
> > religion, or may decide that no religion is preferable.  No matter what
> > they decide as far as religion goes, evolution will remain a fact that
> > must be acknowledged.
>
> No doubt there will be many religions. But Christianity will survive
> to till kingdom come.
>

Which gives no excuse for denying science.

>
>
>
>
> > >>> Because that's what you are really wagering
> > >>> ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
> > >>> the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
> > >>> matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
> > >>> and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
> > >>> harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
> > >>> with wonder?
>
> > >> Doesn't matter what I would rather have be true, only what is actually
> > >> true. How to determine that? I'm going with evidence. Got any?
>
> > > Yep! Plenty! The Son of God became flesh and walked amongst us.
>
> > That's a religious belief, not evidence.  I happen to believe that
> > Christ existed, and "walked among us", but that's not evidence that he
> > did.
>
> There is no evidence of anything if you are going to insist on
> definitions of what does and does not constitute evidence.

BS

> In any
> case, there is plenty of reason to believe Christ over say for example
> you.

There is plenty of reason to believe Christ or Dana Tweedy over say

for example you.

> Many eyewitnesses saw his deeds and passed them down to us. They
> witnesses his resurrection from the dead and his ascension into
> heaven. Christ is the undoubtedly the Son of God. The word that made
> the world. He certainly knows better than you do.

So? Christ also knows better than you, since He knows the truth of
evolution, putting Him on the same side as Dana Tweedy and in
opposition to you, who have some sort hatred of the study of God's
work in the physical world.

>
> > > He
> > > taught us directly and gave us a guarantee that his promises were true
> > > by coming back from the dead after his execution.
>
> > Again, that's a religious belief, not evidence.
>
> Everything you think you know is a belief religious or otherwise. You
> don't know anything.

You are being nihilistic.

(snip)

>
> > All we have is accounts that were written down many years after the
>
> That is most certainly not all we all. We have the holy spirit which
> testifies to us if what we are reading is true or not.

If it's telling you to deny science, you are listening to the wrong
spirit, but that's kind of obvious.

> That's
> something you can feel. That's something you can interact with. Why
> trust it less than your eyes and ears which we have 'known' for a long
> time can lie to you?
>
> > claimed events.   There isn't any evidence worthy of the name that
> > supports the "witnesses".
>

(snip)

Eric Root

[Richard Harter]

Particularly those who pisseth against the wall.


>
>

[John Harshman]

iaoua iaoua wrote:
> On Dec 12, 3:39 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> iaoua iaoua wrote:
>>> It's time for the evolutionists to put their money where their mouth
>>> is. Dawkins tries to wriggle his atheist arse out of this one by
>>> claiming that we will likely be extinct first. So, just how long and
>>> under what kind of evolutionary pressures do you think it will take
>>> for humans to change into a noticably different species from what they
>>> are today?
>>> We have lots of geographically separated populations (one of the
>>> factors oft stated in evolutionary text books). We have beige
>>> populations. Dark brown populations. Light brown population. Yellowy
>>> populations. Orangish populations. All of which interbreed with each
>>> other very little. Just how long will it take for us to become
>>> different species that can no longer interbreed.
>> Sure, I'll give a serious answer. First, notice that you have presented
>> two different questions here. The first paragraph asks about some amount
>> of evolutionary change that will make the future human species different
>> from the current one. The second asks about the evolution of genetic
>> isolation between two current human populations. These two have little
>> to do with each other.
>
> On the contrary. If the populations are separated geographically you
> would expect there to be some considerable overlap if the premises of
> evolutionary theory are true that is.

It's true that if there is geographic isolation and there is positive
selection on one or both populations we would expect speciation more
quickly than otherwise. But the point is that you can easily have either
without the other.

>> The answer to the first is that we have no idea. It depends on what sort
>> of environmental pressures we encounter in the future. Evolution can be
>> fast or it can be slow, depending on environment.
>
> Continuing from above if you are going to claim that the two questions
> are quite different because world wide the evolutionary pressures are
> roughly the same then you have blown the whole argument of evolution
> right out of the water in one fell swoop.

But that isn't what I'm claiming at all. It's possible for speciation to
happen in the face of a certain amount of gene flow, but if so there
must be seriously different selection, which we don't see. On the other
hand, it takes very little gene flow to maintain a single species. And
there's lots and lots of gene flow.

>> The answer to the second is that your assumption is wrong. There is
>> plenty of interbreeding among populations, especially these days. It's
>
> Not much really. Very minimal. Almost negligible.

You need to get out more. Try visiting any American city, for example.

>> very unlikely that any sort of genetic isolation will evolve unless this
>> situation changes considerably.
>>
>>> There's an experiment we can really do to test this hypothesis once
>>> and for all. Dawkins puts his money on us being extinct first. I put
>>> my money on God's kingdom coming first. So come one. Place your bets.
>>> Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
>>> evolutionary gambit?
>> Considering that we will all be dead long before this "experiment" would
>> show any results, there seems no point to it.
>
> You don't care if future generations believe in creation versus
> evolution? Atheism versus theism? Death versus Christianity? Let's get
> the record going so that future generations can consider the validity
> of the theory.

This has nothing to do with any of the things you mentioned. There is no
need to test evolution on future human populations, since it's been well
tested on all sorts of things already. Further, human generations are
just too long to make this a useful subject of research.

>>> Because that's what you are really wagering
>>> ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
>>> the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
>>> matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
>>> and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
>>> harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
>>> with wonder?
>> Doesn't matter what I would rather have be true, only what is actually
>> true. How to determine that? I'm going with evidence. Got any?
>
> Yep! Plenty! The Son of God became flesh and walked amongst us.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between evidence and assertion.

> He
> taught us directly and gave us a guarantee that his promises were true
> by coming back from the dead after his execution. To this fact many
> witnesses went out and told us the good news that God's Son showed us
> the way.

Hearsay, I'm afraid. The more abundant and easily accessible evidence
against your sort of God overwhelms anything so weak.

[Dana Tweedy]

It's not clear from the context above that's what you were claiming.
In any case, the future of the species, and the future of any particular
population are different things, as John pointed out.

>
>>
>>
>>>> The answer to the first is that we have no idea. It depends on what sort
>>>> of environmental pressures we encounter in the future. Evolution can be
>>>> fast or it can be slow, depending on environment.
>>
>>> Continuing from above if you are going to claim that the two questions
>>> are quite different because world wide the evolutionary pressures are
>>> roughly the same then you have blown the whole argument of evolution
>>> right out of the water in one fell swoop.
>>
>> This doesn't seem to follow. Environmental conditions and evolutionary
>> pressures are not always the same thing. Sexual selection, for example
>> is an active process in evolutionary change. John did not claim that
>> evolutionary pressures were the same world wide. What he's pointing out
>> is that there's no way to know what "pressures" humans will face in the
>> future.
>>
>
>
>
>> Space exploration would be one possible factor that might actually
>> separate a human population completely enough for reproductive isolation
>> to have an effect.
>>
>
> LOL.

What exactly do you find funny about this?

>
>>
>>
>>>> The answer to the second is that your assumption is wrong. There is
>>>> plenty of interbreeding among populations, especially these days. It's
>>
>>> Not much really. Very minimal. Almost negligible.
>>
>> And your support for this assertion is.....?
>>
>
> Abundantly evident all over the place. Please spend some time in a
> number of countries then get back to me. You might wanna start by
> spending some time in black Africa, China, Japan, Russia, Ukraine and
> so on. The only times we get real interbreeding is generally as the
> result of a war. Look what happened as a result of that. The English
> and then the Americans. The two races that really seem to have
> convinced themselves that they are superior to the rest of the planet.
> Apparently it takes generations of being the bastardized product of
> rapes from soldiers of many different invading nations to attain the
> intelligence required to deny God's existence.

In other words, you have nothing beyond anecdotal claims. Why not just
say so?

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> very unlikely that any sort of genetic isolation will evolve unless this
>>>> situation changes considerably.
>>
>>>>> There's an experiment we can really do to test this hypothesis once
>>>>> and for all. Dawkins puts his money on us being extinct first. I put
>>>>> my money on God's kingdom coming first. So come one. Place your bets.
>>>>> Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
>>>>> evolutionary gambit?
>>
>>>> Considering that we will all be dead long before this "experiment" would
>>>> show any results, there seems no point to it.
>>
>>> You don't care if future generations believe in creation versus
>>> evolution? Atheism versus theism? Death versus Christianity?
>>
>> Acceptance of evolution doesn't require one to become an atheist. You
>> are pushing a false dichotomy.
>>
>
> Really? Show me a Christian that doesn't believe that Adam and Eve
> were the real literal parents of all mankind that passed down their
> sin to us and I will show you a person that is not a Christian. At
> least not according to the Pauline, Johanine, Jamesian or Pertan
> versions of Christianity by any rate.

Sorry, but there are millions of Christians who accept evolution, myself
being one of them. Your definition of who is a Christian doesn't cause
them to disappear.

>
>>> Let's get
>>> the record going so that future generations can consider the validity
>>> of the theory.
>>
>> Future generations may decide to favor another, entirely different
>> religion, or may decide that no religion is preferable. No matter what
>> they decide as far as religion goes, evolution will remain a fact that
>> must be acknowledged.
>>
>
> No doubt there will be many religions. But Christianity will survive
> to till kingdom come.

Perhaps, but there's no guarantees. Either way, evolution remains a
fact.

>
>>
>>
>>>>> Because that's what you are really wagering
>>>>> ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
>>>>> the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
>>>>> matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
>>>>> and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
>>>>> harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
>>>>> with wonder?
>>
>>>> Doesn't matter what I would rather have be true, only what is actually
>>>> true. How to determine that? I'm going with evidence. Got any?
>>
>>> Yep! Plenty! The Son of God became flesh and walked amongst us.
>>
>> That's a religious belief, not evidence. I happen to believe that
>> Christ existed, and "walked among us", but that's not evidence that he
>> did.
>>
>
> There is no evidence of anything if you are going to insist on
> definitions of what does and does not constitute evidence. In any
> case, there is plenty of reason to believe Christ over say for example
> you. Many eyewitnesses saw his deeds and passed them down to us. They
> witnesses his resurrection from the dead and his ascension into
> heaven. Christ is the undoubtedly the Son of God. The word that made
> the world. He certainly knows better than you do.

Again, this is your belief, not evidence. The "eyewitness" claim
depends on both your "witnesses" being accurate, and that they are being
quoted correctly. Since you don't have evidence for either, you are
left with religious belief.

Belief is fine in of itself, but it's not evidence.

>
>>> He
>>> taught us directly and gave us a guarantee that his promises were true
>>> by coming back from the dead after his execution.
>>
>> Again, that's a religious belief, not evidence.
>>
>
> Everything you think you know is a belief religious or otherwise. You
> don't know anything. You strongly believe you exist because you think,
> you feel, you experience. You assume that you can understand the
> outside world which you assume exists because you see it, hear it,
> feel it because you lay a number of further assumptions about its
> coherence. All of these are beliefs. Some perhaps even correspond to
> reality. Others perhaps less so. But nontheless they are all beliefs.

This is just pseudo philosophical babble. I can provide evidence for
scientific claims, but not for my religious beliefs.

>
>>> To this fact many
>>> witnesses went out and told us the good news that God's Son showed us
>>> the way.
>>
>> All we have is accounts that were written down many years after the
>
> That is most certainly not all we all. We have the holy spirit which
> testifies to us if what we are reading is true or not.

That's not evidence, it's a subjective feeling. Again, fine as far as
religion goes, but not objective like scientific evidence.

> That's
> something you can feel.

So are schizophrenic hallucinations. I've seen people having DTs who
felt very clearly that little men were running around on their hospital
bed. That doesn't mean they existed outside the mind.

> That's something you can interact with. Why
> trust it less than your eyes and ears which we have 'known' for a long
> time can lie to you?

You seem to be claiming that someone should accept subjective claims as
being 'real' without any evidence, because you feel they should... Have
you ever bought a used car? Would you like to buy one?

>
>> claimed events. There isn't any evidence worthy of the name that
>> supports the "witnesses".
>>
>
> There are three witnesses. The water, the blood and the spirit. If you
> don't believe the spirit. Then God help you.

It's not a matter of what I believe, but what evidence you can offer.
I don't expect anyone to believe me without physical evidence. It may
be frustrating to you, but unless you can provide physical evidence to
back up your claims, no one is going to believe you either.


DJT

[deadrat]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:


<snip/>

There is no evidence of anything if you are going to insist on
definitions of what does and does not constitute evidence.

<snip/>

[deadrat]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 12, 11:01 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/12/11 1:32 PM, iaoua iaoua wrote:

<snip/>

>> > taught us directly and gave us a guarantee that his promises were true
>> > by coming back from the dead after his execution.
>>
>> Again, that's a religious belief, not evidence.
>>
>
> Everything you think you know is a belief religious or otherwise. You
> don't know anything. You strongly believe you exist because you think,
> you feel, you experience. You assume that you can understand the
> outside world which you assume exists because you see it, hear it,
> feel it because you lay a number of further assumptions about its
> coherence. All of these are beliefs. Some perhaps even correspond to
> reality. Others perhaps less so. But nontheless they are all beliefs.

Perhaps. But some beliefs we can check with other persons. Some of those
we call measurements.

>> > To this fact many
>> > witnesses went out and told us the good news that God's Son showed us
>> > the way.
>>
>> All we have is accounts that were written down many years after the
>
> That is most certainly not all we all. We have the holy spirit which
> testifies to us if what we are reading is true or not. That's
> something you can feel. That's something you can interact with. Why
> trust it less than your eyes and ears which we have 'known' for a long
> time can lie to you?

And that's fine if it makes you feel better. But no one can measure what's
going on in your head. Other people report similar experiences, and many of
them have religious delusions different from yours. How do we choose?
Indeed, how do you choose?

<snip/>

>
> JC
>
>> DJT
>
>
>

[SkyEyes]

I feel the same. Connie, if you bring the marshmallows, I'll bring
the hot dots to roast.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[SkyEyes]

On Dec 12, 3:51 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 10:19 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > iaoua iaoua wrote:
>
> > ..snip....
>
> > > Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
> > > evolutionary gambit? Because that's what you are really wagering
> > > ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
> > > the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
> > > matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
> > > and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
> > > harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
> > > with wonder?
>
> > > JC
>
> > There are several theists of my acquaintance who live exemplary lives.  I
> > quite admire them and I accept the role of their God in who they are.  It
> > would not be a bad thing to be like them.
>
> That's great. Who exactly is their God? Because ultimately the only
> way to God is through the way the truth and the life his Son Jesus the
> one he anointed with his holy spirit. Righteousness doesn't buy you
> life. Jesus came to heal the sick.

And on that note, it's a perfect time to tell you that your prayers
for the healing of my Significant Other have failed. His legs show no
regrowth, and his spine continues to collapse from spending 44 years
in a wheelchair.

Care to give it another go, or are you going to concede defeat now?

[Ilas]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:iaoua-9b988d2e-7379-4...@c13g2000vbh.googlegroups.
com:

> Everything you think you know is a belief religious or otherwise. You
> don't know anything. You strongly believe you exist because you think,
> you feel, you experience. You assume that you can understand the
> outside world which you assume exists because you see it, hear it,
> feel it because you lay a number of further assumptions about its
> coherence. All of these are beliefs. Some perhaps even correspond to
> reality. Others perhaps less so. But nontheless they are all beliefs.

Mmm, fascinating stuff. You know, you started out on this group with some
late night, too much cheap wine and dope, undergraduate ramblings about the
physics of the Universe. Now you seem to be regressing - you're on to 6th
form angst about the nature of reality and how we can't, like, *know*
anything for sure, man. I'm fully expecting to come back in the New Year
and find you talking about your new BMX and how your dad is the strongest
dad in the town and his car can go from 0-60MPH in 3 seconds.

[iaoua iaoua]

First of all your charge of science denial is unwarranted. Second of
all if ever that science contradicted what Paul, Peter, James and John
said about Jesus that would have major implications. Those witnesses,
if the science is right, then become liars at worst misguided at best.
There is no use pretending that Jesus believed the human race evolved
from a common ancestor of monkeys. There is no use pretending that
Paul believed it. No! They all very much believed in Adam and Eve in
accord with the history as recorded in the Torah of Moses. In fact,
the mistakes of Adam and Eve are the reason given for our fall and the
need for salvation with Christ's blood. You cannot attempt to destroy
the foundation of Christianity and then pretend to be a Christian. You
are free to make up a new religion based on the sayings of some Dana
Tweedy if you like. Just don't pretend its Christianity. Or at least
don't expect Christians to agree with you that it is Christianity.
What you are saying is tantamount to proposing making a new version of
Islam which clearly contradicts Mohammed. It just don't work. Those
who can and do read the Quran are going to disagree with you.

Christ himself prophesied the arrival of many false teachings. He
warned us not to run after them. Chasing after teachings which
contradict Christ's doesn't make you a better more evolved superior
version of Christian. It just shows which teachers you prioritise the
teachings of. And it is quite clear that the Christ that Paul, Peter,
James and John preached isn't the source you consider most reliable.
So please, stop with the hypocrisy already. Just come out and be
honest and open and say that you would rather be a Dana Tweedian than
a Pauline, Petran, Johannine or Jamesan Christian.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

I think it's you that needs to get out more. The small amount of
inbreeding that goes on in your american cities does not change the
fact that in most of the world populations are largely geographically
separated with little to no inbreeding. Heck, before the invention of
cars, trains, buses, plains and cars inbreeding was even less. If we
are to believe the view of history that you guys push then this had
been the case not just for thousands of years but 100s of thousands of
years and yet what do we see. Some populations with some minor colour
differences but no significant genetic difference. You would have us
believe that we evolved so much to become humans but then just, well,
stopped evolving despite the perfect conditions for evolution. In
short, you guys are so full of s**t that I can smell it from across
the atlantic.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

Hi Dana,

you claim below to be a Christian. That would make you my sister. Are
you my sister Dana? Do you love me Dana? Our lord Jesus Christ taught
us that people would know we are Christians because of our love for
each other. So, do you love me Dana? Do you consider me to be your
brother? Would you die for me? Christ said that there is no love
greater than this that we would lay down our lives for our friends. Do
you love me enough to be confident you would lay down your life for me
Dana? This is the kind of love that Jesus wants there to be in the
body of Christ. This is the kind of love that identifies the body of
Christ. Jesus promised that when two or three gather in his name he
would be among them. Do you feel Jesus presence when two or more of us
Christian brothers and sisters meet Dana? He also promised that he
would send us a helper, the holy spirit to give us a tongue to answer
our accusers. Do you have that holy spirit Dana? Do you listen to the
holy spirit? Are you guided by the holy spirit? Have you received
gifts from the holy spirit? Do you yearn for the fruit of the spirit
to be evident in your life? 2 Peter says that at no time did prophets
speak of their own volition but were borne along by that holy spirit.
Do you believe that to be true Dana? When you read the Torah do you
feel the holy spirit active in your heart opening up your heart and
mind to see the truth of the words in it? Do you believe Paul had that
holy spirit? Do you believe Paul was borne along by the holy spirit
when he taught us about how sin and death entered into the world by
the acts of the one man Adam? Do you believe that Paul was borne along
by the holy spirit when taught us that sin and death were destroyed by
the acts of one man Jesus? The Jesus you claim to be a follower of?

You claim that everything we believe should be based on evidence.
Which evidence do you see as stronger Dana? That given by God himself
through his holy spirit? That given by God himself through his Son? Or
the likely errored interpretations of some old men in white coats that
squint at the universe through fading eyes and who present their
skewed interpretations of things they really do not know? For neither
were they witness to the universe's creation and neither do they speak
by holy spirit. So, it's time to decide Dana. In whom do you put your
trust? Potentially errored information? Or the holy spirit that cannot
lie?

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

It will go with your other half as you both truly desire and you both
truly believe it.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

On Dec 13, 8:36 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
> iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote innews:iaoua-9b988d2e-7379-4...@c13g2000vbh.googlegroups.

You're funny. You've got a cool sense of humour. People like you are
what we want the kingdom of God to be full of. Some come on bro. What
are you waiting for? Do you want to receive holy spirit and be part of
our kingdom?

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

On Dec 13, 6:12 am, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

That's fine if it makes you feel better. LOL. Are we Christians
supposed to thank you for your patronising permission to be led by
God's mightiness? Are we supposed to be grateful that in one and the
same word you would reduce our being led by God's holy spirit to a
delusional feeling? LOL Get down off of your high horse you with the
aptest of names (dead rat). If you want to measure the immeasureable
(God's holy spirit) then stop looking into other people's hearts and
minds and start looking into your own. If you want to see its infinite
length and breadth and height and depth then pray that you may be
blessed with it and receive in your heart and be humbled before the
almighty power of our god and father.

JC

> <snip/>
>
>
>
>
>
> > JC
>
> >> DJT

[Ilas]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:iaoua-c9f5a655-c529-4...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.
com:

> Hi Dana,
>
> you claim below to be a Christian. That would make you my sister.

Brother, I'd guess. It's Irish, usually.

[Ilas]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:iaoua-d2320b1b-6b13-4...@y18g2000yqy.googlegroups.
com:

> You're funny. You've got a cool sense of humour. People like you are
> what we want the kingdom of God to be full of. Some come on bro. What
> are you waiting for? Do you want to receive holy spirit and be part of
> our kingdom?

Sorry, got the bible shoved down my throat as a kid, then read it for
interest as an adult, because I thought "hey, it surely can't have been as
nuts as I remember". And it wasn't. It was much, much, more crazy, utterly
doolally, completely hatstand. It's the rantings of bronze age men, and
very disturbing bronze age men at that. I bet there were plenty of more
rational bronze agers back then saying "hey, enough with the smiting crap
and the pillars of salt and the floods and all that bull - we want this to
last a long time, we don't want people to think we're crazy bronze age men,
do we?". Well, shows how wrong rational people can be, when there are
people thousands of years later saying "wow, that old time crazy stuff all
makes sense. I'll live my life to every nutso letter of that book".

If the bible's a fair description of your god - and let's face it, as
lunatic as it is, it's all you have - then I'm very happy I'm an atheist.
I'd rather oblivion and being worm food than spend a day with that psycho.

[jillery]

And there it is. That it didn't work proves to you that their belief
is insufficient, not that prayer doesn't work. So much for your
ability to make logical conclusions.

The word for today, boys and girls, is Tinkerbelle.

[Dana Tweedy]

My family is Danish/Swedish, but I am a man. My mom claimed she didn't
know it was also a female name.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 12/13/11 4:08 AM, iaoua iaoua wrote:
> Hi Dana,
>
> you claim below to be a Christian. That would make you my sister.

No, it wouldn't. I'm male.

> Are
> you my sister Dana?

No, because I'm a man.

> Do you love me Dana?

In the sense that I love all mankind, even those I'm not too fond of
personally.

> Our lord Jesus Christ taught
> us that people would know we are Christians because of our love for
> each other. So, do you love me Dana? Do you consider me to be your
> brother?

again, in the universal sense. All humans are my brother or sister.

> Would you die for me?

In the universal sense, if I were required to put my life on the line
for another, I would. I work as a paramedic, so there have been times
I've put my life in danger for others.

snip pointless preaching...

>
> You claim that everything we believe should be based on evidence.

No, I didn't claim that. My point is that if you wish to convince
others of your position, you should present evidence, not simply expect
others to believe you on your own word.

> Which evidence do you see as stronger Dana? That given by God himself
> through his holy spirit? That given by God himself through his Son? Or
> the likely errored interpretations of some old men in white coats that
> squint at the universe through fading eyes and who present their
> skewed interpretations of things they really do not know? For neither
> were they witness to the universe's creation and neither do they speak
> by holy spirit. So, it's time to decide Dana. In whom do you put your
> trust? Potentially errored information? Or the holy spirit that cannot
> lie?

Personally, I don't see that I have to exclude what I believe to accept
what is in evidence. Science isn't just "old men in white coats".
Science is a method of finding out objective information about the world
we live in. It's a human endeavor, and like all human endeavors, it
may be flawed, and at times inaccurate. However, it has provided us
with a great deal of knowledge about things we otherwise would not have
known.

Science has answered many questions, and given us many great
advances, including eradication of smallpox, ability to feed billions of
people, and given us insight into the origins of our own species. These
are not to be scoffed at.

On the other hand, science doesn't answer questions of how to treat
one's neighbors, what happens after we die, or why does evil exist.
These questions are the realm of religion. Your position seems to be
that one must choose one over the other. I don't see that to be the
case. I can accept the knowledge that science provides, and also accept
the comfort that religion provides to us.

You ask "which evidence do you see as stronger". Where there is
evidence, science is the better method, as it has a great record of
success in finding out things objectively. Where there is no evidence,
then I turn to my faith in God. Again, I don't see that there is a
need to choose between the two.


snip what was ignored.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Actually, it's quite warranted, as you demonstrate below.

> Second of
> all if ever that science contradicted what Paul, Peter, James and John
> said about Jesus that would have major implications. Those witnesses,
> if the science is right, then become liars at worst misguided at best.

Or, simply you are misunderstanding what they reportedly said.

> There is no use pretending that Jesus believed the human race evolved
> from a common ancestor of monkeys.

It's impossible to know what Jesus believed, regarding human evolution,
as Jesus never spoke about it. Presuming that Jesus had the knowledge
about evolution, in that being part of the Godhead, he would have known
everything, Jesus was speaking to people who had no idea about
evolution. He would have used language and idioms that his audience
would have been aware of, not modern concepts.

> There is no use pretending that
> Paul believed it. No!

I don't know of anyone who claimed that Paul was a biologist working in
modern times, or that he would have been aware of any modern biology.
Paul most likely didn't believe in modern medicine, modern cosmology, or
modern physics or chemistry either. Why should he be expected to be
aware of modern ideas of evolution?

> They all very much believed in Adam and Eve in
> accord with the history as recorded in the Torah of Moses.

Again, it's impossible to know what they believed. Most likely, they
understood history in the idiom of their time. One shouldn't expect
persons in the 1st century to be aware of ideas that were developed
thousands of years later. Today we know that the "Torah of Moses" was
written over hundreds of years, by multiple authors. It contains along
with history, oral traditions, legends and mythology borrowed from
neighboring tribes.

> In fact,
> the mistakes of Adam and Eve are the reason given for our fall and the
> need for salvation with Christ's blood. You cannot attempt to destroy
> the foundation of Christianity and then pretend to be a Christian.

There are many who believe that "original sin" is not the foundation of
Christianity. To myself, and many others, foundation of Christianity is
Christ's teachings, not ancient oral tradition about how the world was
established. See:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/discuss_03.html

> You
> are free to make up a new religion based on the sayings of some Dana
> Tweedy if you like.

I would prefer that one does not.

> Just don't pretend its Christianity. Or at least
> don't expect Christians to agree with you that it is Christianity.

Likewise, don't expect that all Christians agree with you, that original
sin is the basis, and foundation for Christ's teachings.

> What you are saying is tantamount to proposing making a new version of
> Islam which clearly contradicts Mohammed. It just don't work. Those
> who can and do read the Quran are going to disagree with you.

Nothing about evolution contradicts Christ's message to love one
another, and to treat others like you would wish to be treated. I
don't see anywhere in the Bible where Christ says "one must believe that
Adam and Eve actually existed, and were not a metaphor for the human
condition".

>
> Christ himself prophesied the arrival of many false teachings.

and Creationism is certainly one of them.

> He
> warned us not to run after them. Chasing after teachings which
> contradict Christ's doesn't make you a better more evolved superior
> version of Christian.

Again, evolution doesn't contradict Christ's message, nor does "more
evolved" mean superior.

> It just shows which teachers you prioritise the
> teachings of. And it is quite clear that the Christ that Paul, Peter,
> James and John preached isn't the source you consider most reliable.

That depends on the topic. If I want to know what the weather will be
tomorrow, I'll consult a meteorologist, rather than Peter, James, or
Paul. If I want to know how to ward off a virus, I'll consult a
virologist, rather than ask Paul, or John.

If I want to know how to treat my neighbor, or how to get along with
others, or have a happy life, I'll listen to Christ's teachings.

> So please, stop with the hypocrisy already. Just come out and be
> honest and open and say that you would rather be a Dana Tweedian than
> a Pauline, Petran, Johannine or Jamesan Christian.

I choose to be a Christian, not a Pauline, Petran, or any other human
follower.


DJT

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:49:04 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua
<iaoua...@gmail.com>:

<snip>

>Show me a Christian that doesn't believe that Adam and Eve
>were the real literal parents of all mankind that passed down their
>sin to us and I will show you a person that is not a Christian. At
>least not according to the Pauline, Johanine, Jamesian or Pertan
>versions of Christianity by any rate.

And yet...

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

From the page cited:

"Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite
teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body
developed from previous biological forms, under God’s
guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his
soul."

Most Christians are not Biblical literalists.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:27:56 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:26:44 -0800 (PST), the following

>appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua
><iaoua...@gmail.com>:
>

>>On Dec 12, 3:21 pm, Connie <conrad.gel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> On Dec 12, 9:09 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > It's time for the evolutionists to put their money where their mouth
>>> > is. Dawkins tries to wriggle his atheist arse out of this one by
>>> > claiming that we will likely be extinct first. So, just how long and
>>> > under what kind of evolutionary pressures do you think it will take
>>> > for humans to change into a noticably different species from what they
>>> > are today?
>>>
>>> > We have lots of geographically separated populations (one of the
>>> > factors oft stated in evolutionary text books). We have beige
>>> > populations. Dark brown populations. Light brown population. Yellowy
>>> > populations. Orangish populations. All of which interbreed with each
>>> > other very little. Just how long will it take for us to become
>>> > different species that can no longer interbreed.
>>>

>>> > There's an experiment we can really do to test this hypothesis once
>>> > and for all. Dawkins puts his money on us being extinct first. I put
>>> > my money on God's kingdom coming first. So come one. Place your bets.

>>> > Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
>>> > evolutionary gambit? Because that's what you are really wagering

>>> > ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
>>> > the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
>>> > matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
>>> > and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
>>> > harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
>>> > with wonder?
>

>>> I'll go with Dawkins. If the Abrahamic god exists, I don't want
>>> anything to do with him/her.
>>

>>Why not? Could it be that he has been misrepresented to you. The
>>abrahamic god in loving god abundant in loving kindness and willing to
>>forgive.
>

>So your claim is that the Old Testament, which makes clear
>in many places the nature and actions of the God of Abraham,
>is a misrepresentation of Him?

Well?

[John Harshman]

iaoua iaoua wrote:
> I think it's you that needs to get out more. The small amount of
> inbreeding that goes on in your american cities does not change the
> fact that in most of the world populations are largely geographically
> separated with little to no inbreeding.

You need to learn what "inbreeding" means; it isn't the word you're
looking for. At any rate, interbreeding is much more common than you
imagine. There are no sharp divisions between "races", just clines in
the frequencies of alleles, and the clines for different genes don't
generally match up.

> Heck, before the invention of
> cars, trains, buses, plains and cars inbreeding was even less. If we
> are to believe the view of history that you guys push then this had
> been the case not just for thousands of years but 100s of thousands of
> years and yet what do we see. Some populations with some minor colour
> differences but no significant genetic difference. You would have us
> believe that we evolved so much to become humans but then just, well,
> stopped evolving despite the perfect conditions for evolution. In
> short, you guys are so full of s**t that I can smell it from across
> the atlantic.

What do you mean by "perfect conditions for evolution"?

[deadrat]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it's you that needs to get out more. The small amount of
> inbreeding that goes on in your american cities does not change the
> fact that in most of the world populations are largely geographically
> separated with little to no inbreeding. Heck, before the invention of
> cars, trains, buses, plains and cars inbreeding was even less. If we
> are to believe the view of history that you guys push then this had
> been the case not just for thousands of years but 100s of thousands of
> years and yet what do we see. Some populations with some minor colour
> differences but no significant genetic difference. You would have us
> believe that we evolved so much to become humans but then just, well,
> stopped evolving despite the perfect conditions for evolution. In
> short, you guys are so full of s**t that I can smell it from across
> the atlantic.
>
> JC
>

Large migrations of human populations have occurred repeatedly throughout
history. Even without cars and trains and buses and "plains" and more
cars.

Subpopulations don't evolve simply because they're isolated; they evolve
in response to the environment.

[deadrat]

You don't need my permission to be comforted by your personal epiphany. You've
accused posters of trying to destroy your faith. That's not true. People here
who don't believe the nonsense you do generally think it's fine for you to
believe nonsense. They just don't want you to confuse it with scientific or
historical fact.

> Are we supposed to be grateful that in one and the
> same word you would reduce our being led by God's holy spirit to a
> delusional feeling?

You're welcome to your delusions. You've claimed that some here want to
disabuse you of them. I'm just saying no one here cares about your personal
revelations. You don't have to be grateful for their lack of interest; it just
is. People here will take you to task for confusing your personal revelations
with scientific and historical fact.

> LOL Get down off of your high horse

You would do better not to read my mind.

> you with the aptest of names (dead rat).

If you're gonna make fun of my nym, you could at least spell it right. There's
no space.

> If you want to measure the immeasureable
> (God's holy spirit) then stop looking into other people's hearts and
> minds and start looking into your own.

I don't need advice from an ignoramus about my own counsel.

> If you want to see its infinite
> length and breadth and height and depth then pray that you may be
> blessed with it and receive in your heart and be humbled before the
> almighty power of our god and father.

Thanks, but I gave at the office.
> JC

[Kermit]

On Dec 12, 7:09 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2:35 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 06:09:17 -0800 (PST), iaoua iaoua

>
> > <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >It's time for the evolutionists to put their money where their mouth
> > >is. Dawkins tries to wriggle his atheist arse out of this one by
> > >claiming that we will likely be extinct first. So, just how long and
> > >under what kind of evolutionary pressures do you think it will take
> > >for humans to change into a noticably different species from what they
> > >are today?
>
> > >We have lots of geographically separated populations (one of the
> > >factors oft stated in evolutionary text books). We have beige
> > >populations. Dark brown populations. Light brown population. Yellowy
> > >populations. Orangish populations. All of which interbreed with each
> > >other very little. Just how long will it take for us to become
> > >different species that can no longer interbreed.
>
> > >There's an experiment we can really do to test this hypothesis once
> > >and for all. Dawkins puts his money on us being extinct first. I put
> > >my money on God's kingdom coming first. So come one. Place your bets.
> > >Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
> > >evolutionary gambit? Because that's what you are really wagering
> > >ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
> > >the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
> > >matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
> > >and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
> > >harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
> > >with wonder?
>

> > I hope you realize that whoever wins your bet, the money will be
> > useless to them.
>
> Who said anything about money? It's your very soul you are putting at
> stake. Want to follow the god of this world into the fires of the
> valley of hinnom? Or would you rather come with us through the narrow
> gate and see the new Jerusalem descend from heaven on a new earth from
> a new sky and be witness to God himself residing among us in the form
> of his Son Jesus Christ?

And... and... he looks like you!

>
> JC

Kermit

[Kermit]

On Dec 12, 12:26 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 3:21 pm, Connie <conrad.gel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Dec 12, 9:09 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It's time for the evolutionists to put their money where their mouth
> > > is. Dawkins tries to wriggle his atheist arse out of this one by
> > > claiming that we will likely be extinct first. So, just how long and
> > > under what kind of evolutionary pressures do you think it will take
> > > for humans to change into a noticably different species from what they
> > > are today?
>
> > > We have lots of geographically separated populations (one of the
> > > factors oft stated in evolutionary text books). We have beige
> > > populations. Dark brown populations. Light brown population. Yellowy
> > > populations. Orangish populations. All of which interbreed with each
> > > other very little. Just how long will it take for us to become
> > > different species that can no longer interbreed.
>
> > > There's an experiment we can really do to test this hypothesis once
> > > and for all. Dawkins puts his money on us being extinct first. I put
> > > my money on God's kingdom coming first. So come one. Place your bets.
> > > Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
> > > evolutionary gambit? Because that's what you are really wagering
> > > ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
> > > the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
> > > matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
> > > and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
> > > harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
> > > with wonder?
>

> > > JC

>
> > I'll go with Dawkins. If the Abrahamic god exists, I don't want
> > anything to do with him/her.
>
> Why not? Could it be that he has been misrepresented to you. The
> abrahamic god in loving god abundant in loving kindness and willing to
> forgive.
>

> JC

Well, the god of the bible:
1. Has no problem with slavery.
2. Killed 42 children for mocking an old man's bald head.
3. Is "punishing" the entire human race for a sin of disobedience from
two people who did not yet knwo the difference between right and
wrong.
4. Ordered the genocide of several tribes of people, once allowing
virgin girls to live and be taken as sex slaves, and once ordering
even them to be killed. I don't know which is worse.
5. Killed a woman for glancing over her shoulder, overcome with
curiosity.
6. Saved Lot and his immediate family, because he was the only adult
male righteous enough in two cities to save, even though he offered
his two daughters up for a gang rape.
7. Is threatening to torture forever anybody who makes the wrong
decision based on conflicting and incomplete evidence. And I use
evidence in this context to mean "wild and completely unsupported
claims".
8. Frequently killed families to punish (or test) adult males, who
seemed to be the only ones that count.

*That loving and kind god? The one who requires you to tell him for
all eternity how awesomely wonderful he is?

Fortunately, the evidence indicates he's imaginary. Unless you have
some?

Kermit

[deadrat]

OK, but except for those eight, what do you have against Him?
<snip/>

> Kermit
>
>

[Mark Isaak]

No, that is too kind. I have met people who were taught what iaoua is
teaching and, as a result, condemned themselves when the bad things in
their lives did not change, and so simply added misery upon misery. The
proper term for iaoua iaoua's philosophy is "heartless cruelty."

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[iaoua iaoua]

On Dec 13, 11:28 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
> iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote innews:iaoua-d2320b1b-6b13-4...@y18g2000yqy.googlegroups.

So what is it you don't like about the love and mercy that was
revealed in Jesus Christ? What do you find loony about his revelation
of God?

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

After all that your basic answer came across as where the holy spirit
and current popular interpretations of science contradict each other
you don't consider the holy spirit to be the more reliable witness.
Was that the way you intended to come across my brother? Is that the
message you would like to share with all Christians worldwide?

I was in attendance at a few Church of England Sundays at the
Cathedral in Sheffield on my last visit to England. I was wondering
when the liturgy was going to change. It still seems to be very much a
translation of that worked on by figures like Chrysostom, Gregory and
Basil. The gospels are still read as reliable sources during that
liturgy.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

On Dec 13, 11:28 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
> iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote innews:iaoua-d2320b1b-6b13-4...@y18g2000yqy.googlegroups.

> com:
>
> > You're funny. You've got a cool sense of humour. People like you are
> > what we want the kingdom of God to be full of. Some come on bro. What
> > are you waiting for? Do you want to receive holy spirit and be part of
> > our kingdom?
>
> Sorry, got the bible shoved down my throat as a kid, then read it for
> interest as an adult, because I thought "hey, it surely can't have been as
> nuts as I remember". And it wasn't. It was much, much, more crazy, utterly
> doolally, completely hatstand. It's the rantings of bronze age men, and
> very disturbing bronze age men at that. I bet there were plenty of more
> rational bronze agers back then saying "hey, enough with the smiting crap
> and the pillars of salt and the floods and all that bull - we want this to
> last a long time, we don't want people to think we're crazy bronze age men,
> do we?". Well, shows how wrong rational people can be, when there are
> people thousands of years later saying "wow, that old time crazy stuff all
> makes sense. I'll live my life to every nutso letter of that book".
>

So, please do name another 2000 - 3500 year old collection of books
that has such a wide readership today and has been translated into
anywhere near as many languages.

JC

[Dana Tweedy]

I don't see that the Holy Spirit contradicts any of the modern
interpretations of science. The Holy Spirit deals with religious
questions, and science deals with scientific ones.

> Was that the way you intended to come across my brother? Is that the
> message you would like to share with all Christians worldwide?

That was not what I said, or what I meant, it was your own
misunderstanding of my position. I believe that the fact of evolution
does not contradict the religious beliefs that I hold.

Religion says God created the world. Science tells us how. I'd rather
trust what the evidence tells us about God's creation, than what some
fallible humans in a pre scientific time, might have claimed.

>
> I was in attendance at a few Church of England Sundays at the
> Cathedral in Sheffield on my last visit to England.

Good for you. So what?

> I was wondering
> when the liturgy was going to change. It still seems to be very much a
> translation of that worked on by figures like Chrysostom, Gregory and
> Basil. The gospels are still read as reliable sources during that
> liturgy.

For spiritual matters, perhaps. They aren't seen as scientific sources
by anyone.


DJT

[iaoua iaoua]

Very good Dana. Indeed a Christian is first and foremost a follower of
Christ. Not a follower of Paul or of Peter or of John or of James.
Paul himself wrote against people following him instead of Christ in
these words 'Paul planted, Apollo watered but it was God that made it
grow'. I would be interested in discovering what method you use of
ascertaining what Jesus taught and believed if you do not accept the
sources in the christian canon as an authoritative guide. The Jesus in
that canon believed that the Torah was penned by Moses. He believed
that Adam and Eve were real people. He believed we were sinful and in
need of forgiveness. Paul elucidated further by showing us quite
explicitly how our sinful condition was inherited from the mistakes of
Adam and Eve people he considered to be very people. The author of
Hebrews gives a long list of people of great faith from Abel onwards.
Jesus also quite openly called the pharisees hypocrites whose
ancestors were responsible for the blood of all the prophets from
righteous Abel to a much more modern prophet. Nothing, absolutely
nothing other than your modern society driven view of the world
demands an interpretation that Jesus viewed these people as non
historical metaphors. In fact, the context demands quite the contrary.
Jesus is quite explicit about his existence in the time of and first
hand witness of Abraham and beyond in the good news according to
John.

And so Dana if you do not consider original sin to be the explanation
of why we are in need of forgiveness to reach perfection then please
do offer an alternative explanation and please be sure to explain just
why I should consider your modern secular view on the matter to be
more authoritative than the testimony of Paul? Do you believe Paul met
Jesus on the road to Damascus? Do you believe he received holy spirit?
Do you believe he spoke in tongues? That he saw great visions? That he
given the gift of prophesy by the spirit? Just what is it that you
think I should find about you that makes you more qualified to speak
in Jesus name than he?

Also, I do hope you realise just how successful the resident atheists
have been in using you as a pawn in this discussion. There's nothing
they find more satisfying than in causing divisions between
Christians.

Finally, you evidently feel you have the authority to claim that a
belief in creation is one of the false teaching that my lord Jesus
prophesied. Are you sure about that? Willing to stake you very soul
upon your judgement? For as Jesus says. Be careful how you judge
because you will be judged with the same lack of mercy. This is the
Jesus that was alive in the beginning and is quoted in the gospels as
saying 'It was not so in the beginning'. I'm sure you are aware that
bereshiyth (in the beginning) is the name in Hebrew of the first book
of the Torah and that Jesus was referring explicitly to the act of
creation of human kind, as the immediate context shows, when answering
the questions about divorce given to him. Jesus did not believe
creation to be a myth. He believed it to be history faithfully
recorded by Moses. He even quoted that history directly as a reliable
source of information about his Father's will on the subject of
divorce.

I'm afraid you are quite mistaken Dana. I invite you to reconsider
your priorities as regards sources of information. The holy spirit
does not and cannot lie. Scientific and scholarly opinions come and go
like fads that are in for a while and then out within decades in most
cases and within a century in particularly stubborn cases. What you
accept as fact now will laughed at and derided in the next century.
However, the wisdom of God will stand the test of time. And the
testimony of the holy spirit will be proven true while every man be
proved a liar. Myself and yourself included.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

On Dec 13, 5:08 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:49:04 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua

> <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com>:

>
> <snip>
>
> >Show me a Christian that doesn't believe that Adam and Eve
> >were the real literal parents of all mankind that passed down their
> >sin to us and I will show you a person that is not a Christian. At
> >least not according to the Pauline, Johanine, Jamesian or Pertan
> >versions of Christianity by any rate.
>
> And yet...
>
> http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution
>
> From the page cited:
>
> "Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite
> teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body
> developed from previous biological forms, under God’s
> guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his
> soul."
>
> Most Christians are not Biblical literalists.

From the page you reference:

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined
that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I
solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things
which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards
their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons
on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

So the Catholic church's official position is that the universe and
human 'souls' were specially created. Whether the body evolved or not
is debatable. This evidently to allow believers to choose to believe
between creation or evolution for the answer to that question. You
then claim that this means that the majority of 'Christians' do not
believe in creation. This then calls into question what you mean by
Christians. Nominal Christians that never go to church? Christians
that are dragged along by relatives once or twice a year? Christians
that claim to be Christians but frequently practice fornication,
adultery, stealing, lying, perform acts of physical violence and don't
see how any of that would contradict Christ's teaching? People who
claim to be Christian but do not claim to have the holy spirit and
have never even experienced it or understand what you are talking
about when you ask them if they have God's holy spirit? I could go but
I hope you're starting to see just how undefined and unsubstantiated
your claim is. I happen to have spent a considerable amount of time
speaking to Catholics about Christianity in Italy. Please do let me
know if you think there is a more suitable country to get a
representative sample of Catholic beliefs from. I can't say I've ever
really needed to convince many people that God created Adam and Eve or
that Adam and Eve were real people. At least not when speaking to your
average church going believing category of Catholic Christian at any
rate. I've only really come across that kind of discussion in the UK.
Perhaps God just keeps leading me to those most likely to hear his
words or perhaps my experience is more representative than your
claims. Only God knows.

In any case. The Torah is quite clear on the matter. Adam was formed
from the dust and then God breathed the breath of life into Adam and
Adam *became* a living soul. Note that he became a living soul. Not
given one. Matter plus spirit equals soul. This is the formula. Not
body plus soul equals physical animated person. I am afraid you need
to study the sources more and listen to misguided opinions less.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

On Dec 13, 5:15 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:27:56 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:26:44 -0800 (PST), the following
> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua

> ><iaoua.ia...@gmail.com>:

No!

[iaoua iaoua]

On Dec 13, 6:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> iaoua iaoua wrote:
> > I think it's you that needs to get out more. The small amount of
> > inbreeding that goes on in your american cities does not change the
> > fact that in most of the world populations are largely geographically
> > separated with little to no inbreeding.
>
> You need to learn what "inbreeding" means; it isn't the word you're
> looking for. At any rate, interbreeding is much more common than you
> imagine. There are no sharp divisions between "races", just clines in
> the frequencies of alleles, and the clines for different genes don't
> generally match up.
>

Look you can waffle terminology until the cows come home for all I
care. Black Africa full of black africans shagging black africans with
very little other type of breeding. Yellow China is full of yellow
chinese shagging yellow chinese with very little other type of
breeding. Ditto for white Russia/Ukraine. Ditto for Japan. Ditto for
many other countries. This has been the situation for thousands of
years according to evolutionists even hundreds of thousands of years.
The very little mixed colour shagging that has been going on during
this last century or so has been a considerable improvement on the
situation of the claimed hundreds of thousands of years before hand.
And yet.. What do we see...? We see that despite this geographic
separation and plenty of time to evolve into different species black
man is still man able to get your cute little white daughter pregnant.
Yellow man from china can get that black man's daughter pregnant.
White man from Russia can get that yellow man's daughter pregnant. And
what's more the children come out simple gorgeous.

Case closed. Experiment already done. Results. Man did not evolve. He
just got varying degrees of sun tan.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

We've been through this. You're wrong. He spoke against it and
provided provisions for those who wouldn't listen to ensure they were
protected by the law.

> 2. Killed 42 children for mocking an old man's bald head.

You mean the prophet Elisha?

> 3. Is "punishing" the entire human race for a sin of disobedience from
> two people who did not yet knwo the difference between right and
> wrong.

Is letting us learn from our mistakes by granting us our request to be
able to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong and live
independently from him.

> 4. Ordered the genocide of several tribes of people, once allowing
> virgin girls to live and be taken as sex slaves, and once ordering
> even them to be killed. I don't know which is worse.

What are you talking about? The taking of the promised land?

> 5. Killed a woman for glancing over her shoulder, overcome with
> curiosity.

You mean the one that was warned beforehand. After people warn you
that looking at the sun through binoculars will blind you do you then
try it out?

> 6. Saved Lot and his immediate family, because he was the only adult
> male righteous enough in two cities to save, even though he offered
> his two daughters up for a gang rape.

Offered his daughters in exchange for the safety of two angels who
then showed they didn't Lot to protect them you mean?

> 7. Is threatening to torture forever anybody who makes the wrong
> decision based on conflicting and incomplete evidence. And I use
> evidence in this context to mean "wild and completely unsupported
> claims".

This threat exists nowhere in the documents we are discussing. Please
try to stay focussed.

> 8. Frequently killed families to punish (or test) adult males, who
> seemed to be the only ones that count.
>

What are you talking about?

> *That loving and kind god? The one who requires you to tell him for
> all eternity how awesomely wonderful he is?
>
> Fortunately, the evidence indicates he's imaginary. Unless you have
> some?
>

The holy spirit and his Son. The two most very reliable witnesses
every.

JC

> Kermit

[Dana Tweedy]

On 12/13/11 12:59 PM, iaoua iaoua wrote:


Note top posting is usually frowned upon in this newsgroup.

> Very good Dana. Indeed a Christian is first and foremost a follower of
> Christ. Not a follower of Paul or of Peter or of John or of James.
> Paul himself wrote against people following him instead of Christ in
> these words 'Paul planted, Apollo watered but it was God that made it
> grow'. I would be interested in discovering what method you use of
> ascertaining what Jesus taught and believed if you do not accept the
> sources in the christian canon as an authoritative guide.

I accept the Christian canon as a guide for spiritual and religious
matters, not scientific ones.

> The Jesus in
> that canon believed that the Torah was penned by Moses.

Again, no one can ascertain if that was what Jesus actually believed, or
what the author of that verse thought. Who wrote the Torah is not
really relevant to the message it presents.

> He believed
> that Adam and Eve were real people.

Again, it's not possible to know if that's what Jesus actually believed,
or just what someone said about him. It really doesn't make a
difference as to the validity of his teachings.

> He believed we were sinful and in
> need of forgiveness.

That humans are sinful, and in need of forgiveness is true whether or
not Adam and Eve were real individuals, or a metaphor for the human
condition.

> Paul elucidated further by showing us quite
> explicitly how our sinful condition was inherited from the mistakes of
> Adam and Eve people he considered to be very people.

Once more, it really doesn't matter if Paul considered Adam and Eve real
people. Humans are sinful enough on their own, no matter who our
ancestors may have been.

> The author of
> Hebrews gives a long list of people of great faith from Abel onwards.

Who don't have to have actually existed for them to be an example...

> Jesus also quite openly called the pharisees hypocrites whose
> ancestors were responsible for the blood of all the prophets from
> righteous Abel to a much more modern prophet. Nothing, absolutely
> nothing other than your modern society driven view of the world
> demands an interpretation that Jesus viewed these people as non
> historical metaphors.

Nothing demands any kind of interpretation, as far as that goes. If you
wish to ignore science, you can use whatever interpretation you wish.
There's nothing that demands that you acknowledge the existence of
science, or it's benefits to humans.

On the other hand, if you wish to acknowledge the existence of science,
and it's utility, one must be willing to acknowledge that religious
beliefs don't trump the evidence.

Again, I have to point out, it's impossible to know beyond a doubt what
Jesus believed. We only have third and fourth hand accounts written
down long after the supposed events.

> In fact, the context demands quite the contrary.

Why does the context "demand" anything? No one can say what went on in
Jesus' mind. One doesn't know if he was speaking from personal belief,
or from a context that contemporary listeners would have understood.

> Jesus is quite explicit about his existence in the time of and first
> hand witness of Abraham and beyond in the good news according to
> John.

Chapter and verse, please, where Jesus claims first hand witness of
Abraham "and beyond".

>
> And so Dana if you do not consider original sin to be the explanation
> of why we are in need of forgiveness to reach perfection then please
> do offer an alternative explanation and please be sure to explain just
> why I should consider your modern secular view on the matter to be
> more authoritative than the testimony of Paul?

Do you really imagine that individuals aren't sinful enough on their
own? I believe that people are responsible for their own actions, not
those of distant ancestors.

If you choose to accept Paul's view, that's your own business, but Paul
wasn't familiar with the modern evidence regarding biology, and
anthropology. Who's to say that if Paul knew what modern people knew,
he'd not accept that humans are the product of evolution?

> Do you believe Paul met
> Jesus on the road to Damascus?

I believe that Paul felt he did.

> Do you believe he received holy spirit?

Again, I believe that Paul thought he did. As for myself, I reserve
judgement.

> Do you believe he spoke in tongues?

I don't think the Bible claims that Paul spoke in tongues. That was the
disciples at Pentacost.

> That he saw great visions?

I've known people who have seen great visions.
That doesn't mean those visions were from God. Whether or not I
believe what Paul did, or said is not the issue. The issue is the
evidence, and what science indicates.

> That he
> given the gift of prophesy by the spirit? Just what is it that you
> think I should find about you that makes you more qualified to speak
> in Jesus name than he?

I don't attempt to speak in Jesus' name. Where do you get the idea that
I ever made such a claim?

Paul said what he said, or so the writers of the Bible indicate. His
beliefs and opinions are instructive, but I also have to go by my own
conscience, and my own feelings.

>
> Also, I do hope you realise just how successful the resident atheists
> have been in using you as a pawn in this discussion. There's nothing
> they find more satisfying than in causing divisions between
> Christians.

What the "resident atheists" do, or don't do is none of my concern. No
one uses me to do anything. I speak for myself, and myself alone.

Also, please note that I'm not the one causing divisions between
Christians. I'm just saying that Christians are able to accept
scientific facts, and findings. YOU are the one who is saying that
people who accept science are not "real" Christians.

>
> Finally, you evidently feel you have the authority to claim that a
> belief in creation is one of the false teaching that my lord Jesus
> prophesied.

Treating creationism as if it were a science is a false teaching. I
have as much "authority" to make that claim as you do in claiming that
those who accept evolution can't be Christians.

> Are you sure about that?

Yes, I'm very sure about that.

> Willing to stake you very soul
> upon your judgement?

Absolutely. That's because I believe that even if I'm wrong, God will
understand that my opposition to teaching creationism as science is
based on my understanding of God's nature. I don't see that I will be
punished for holding such beliefs.

> For as Jesus says. Be careful how you judge
> because you will be judged with the same lack of mercy. This is the
> Jesus that was alive in the beginning and is quoted in the gospels as
> saying 'It was not so in the beginning'. I'm sure you are aware that
> bereshiyth (in the beginning) is the name in Hebrew of the first book
> of the Torah and that Jesus was referring explicitly to the act of
> creation of human kind, as the immediate context shows, when answering
> the questions about divorce given to him.

Which is irrelevant to the fact of evolution, and the false teaching of
creationism as science.

> Jesus did not believe
> creation to be a myth.

One can't know what Jesus believed to be myth, and remember that myth
doesn't always mean "falsehood". Myths are stories that relate a
bigger truth, even if they aren't to be taken as accurate accounts.

> He believed it to be history faithfully
> recorded by Moses.

Again, I don't believe that anyone knows what Jesus believed in that
matter.

> He even quoted that history directly as a reliable
> source of information about his Father's will on the subject of
> divorce.

Which is irrelevant to the scientific fact of evolution, and the falsity
of teaching creationism as science.

>
> I'm afraid you are quite mistaken Dana.

"judge not, lest ye be judged", as you yourself pointed out.

> I invite you to reconsider
> your priorities as regards sources of information. The holy spirit
> does not and cannot lie.

But people can, and do lie about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is
not a science text, and I don't expect it to be.

> Scientific and scholarly opinions come and go
> like fads that are in for a while and then out within decades in most
> cases and within a century in particularly stubborn cases.

Yet science has provided us with a great deal of information about our
world, and has proven very effective in leading to new information. I
don't see that is being opposed to what God wants us to know. We
weren't given this intellect so that we reject such a useful method of
learning.

The Holy Spirit tells me to trust science in regards to questions
about the natural world, and tells me that those who would deny the
truth about the world are not working for God.

> What you
> accept as fact now will laughed at and derided in the next century.

Maybe, but rather doubt that evolution will be contradicted by further
evidence.

> However, the wisdom of God will stand the test of time. And the
> testimony of the holy spirit will be proven true while every man be
> proved a liar. Myself and yourself included.

So, I'd rather trust in the evidence that God left behind in the rocks,
and in the very bodies of the living things around us. I choose not to
be led astray by those who fear science, and don't trust in God to be
true to his word.

snipping points below.


DJT

[John Harshman]

iaoua iaoua wrote:
> On Dec 13, 6:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> iaoua iaoua wrote:
>>> I think it's you that needs to get out more. The small amount of
>>> inbreeding that goes on in your american cities does not change the
>>> fact that in most of the world populations are largely geographically
>>> separated with little to no inbreeding.
>> You need to learn what "inbreeding" means; it isn't the word you're
>> looking for. At any rate, interbreeding is much more common than you
>> imagine. There are no sharp divisions between "races", just clines in
>> the frequencies of alleles, and the clines for different genes don't
>> generally match up.
>>
>
> Look you can waffle terminology until the cows come home for all I
> care.

It isn't waffling to explain that you used the wrong word. But
everything I said is true and invalidates your claims.

> Black Africa full of black africans shagging black africans with
> very little other type of breeding.

You mistake selection on a few alleles with some measure of genetic
isolation. I would also point out that "black" here covers nearly the
complete range of pigmentation found in the human species.

> Yellow China is full of yellow
> chinese shagging yellow chinese with very little other type of
> breeding.

Yellow? Really? All this is irrelevant. Chinese in the center of China
seldom marry anyone other than Chinese (which is of course a nationality
and language group rather than a genetic one -- northern and southern
Chinese are rather different genetically), but those on the edges marry
across groups at frequencies great enough to prevent divergence. There's
a fine cline across central Asia from Mongolia through the "stans" and
into Europe. No sharp divisions between your hallucinatory "yellow" and
"white". Same with your other divisions.

> Ditto for white Russia/Ukraine. Ditto for Japan. Ditto for
> many other countries. This has been the situation for thousands of
> years according to evolutionists even hundreds of thousands of years.

No it hasn't, nor do you have a clue what "evolutionists" say.

> The very little mixed colour shagging that has been going on during
> this last century or so has been a considerable improvement on the
> situation of the claimed hundreds of thousands of years before hand.
> And yet.. What do we see...? We see that despite this geographic
> separation and plenty of time to evolve into different species black
> man is still man able to get your cute little white daughter pregnant.
> Yellow man from china can get that black man's daughter pregnant.
> White man from Russia can get that yellow man's daughter pregnant. And
> what's more the children come out simple gorgeous.
>
> Case closed. Experiment already done. Results. Man did not evolve. He
> just got varying degrees of sun tan.

What the pattern shows is that there are a few characteristics under
selection regionally, with the great majority diffusing across "racial"
boundaries. You have no idea what you're talking about. There has never
been a human population isolated from contact with the rest for more
than a few hundred years, with the possible exception of Tasmania. This
is just not enough time for speciation to occur except under the very
strongest of selection regimes, which has not been encountered.

>>> Heck, before the invention of
>>> cars, trains, buses, plains and cars inbreeding was even less. If we
>>> are to believe the view of history that you guys push then this had
>>> been the case not just for thousands of years but 100s of thousands of
>>> years and yet what do we see. Some populations with some minor colour
>>> differences but no significant genetic difference. You would have us
>>> believe that we evolved so much to become humans but then just, well,
>>> stopped evolving despite the perfect conditions for evolution. In
>>> short, you guys are so full of s**t that I can smell it from across
>>> the atlantic.
>> What do you mean by "perfect conditions for evolution"?

?

[iaoua iaoua]

Oh my dear brother Dana. The torah clearly states that Adam was made
from the earth and God breathed the breath of life into him. It
clearly states that Eve was made from him. 2 Peter clearly states that
scripture penned by the prophets was not from their own volition but
they were borne along by holy spirit. The interpretation of data that
you seem to agree with is that this did not happen but that the human
race evolved from a common ancestor we hold with monkeys that in turn
evolved from a common single celled ancestor common to all animals on
this planet. This is in stark contrast to the testimony in Genesis
that 2 Peter maintained was god breathed and that Jesus quoted from as
if it was. So who is lying Dana? Moses? Peter? The holy spirit? Jesus?
Why should I assume that the fallible interpretation of data that I
find many problems with is more faithful than any of Jesus, Moses,
Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude or the holy spirit itself?

My dear brother, do you have the holy spirit? Have you been borne by
holy spirit? How do you know you have the holy spirit? Please do be
specific about your experience and baptism in holy spirit.

JC

[jillery]

As have I. As have we all.

>and, as a result, condemned themselves when the bad things in
>their lives did not change, and so simply added misery upon misery. The
>proper term for iaoua iaoua's philosophy is "heartless cruelty."

Works for me. This is the kind of thinking that condemned Europe to
the Black Plague. This is what allows people like Pat Robertson to
blame natural disasters on the sins of the nation. This is what
allows parents to withhold vital medical treatment from their
children.

I hope you tell this is a hot button of mine.

[iaoua iaoua]

Hi Dana,

first of all I would like to make it clear that I have no intention of
entering into a debate with you about style of posting.

Then onto the things that I do have an interest in discussing with
you. I'm not going to go over each statement you made about what Jesus
believed or what Moses wrote. The facts are simple. Your position is
in opposition to the testimony of the Torah and the various canonised
versions of the good news and to Paul's view of original sin. You
doubt Paul received the spirit. You seem to be so unfamiliar with his
writings that you do not even know he made quite explicit claims of
speaking more tongues than anybody in the Corinthian congregation. You
also completely misrepresent me as ignoring science. On the contrary.
I used to be an atheist. It was considering the data and using
objective scientific methods that I concluded that not only was the
origin of life as a chemical accident exceedingly unlikely but
outright impossible. That was what opened my heart up to reading the
bible. That was what led me to praying to God to show himself to me.
And that was what led me to be baptised by holy spirit. On the
contrary of the picture you would paint of me I would encourage every
Christian to study nature carefully as it reveals God in its every
detail. The more I study nature the more I am awed by his
magnificence. The more I study it the more I am convinced of God's
hand in its creation. I would encourage every Christian not only to
read about the theory of evolution in biology textbooks but to
scrutinize every statement so that they can see for themselves just
how flimsy the theory really is. I would encourage them to learn about
thermodynamics to consider the science of reaction feasibility and
whether a chance reaction could really lead to entropy reducing
massively endothermic creation of life under the normal physical
mechanics of the universe. I would invite them to study the fossil
record carefully to ascertain whether it shows many species that
varied little before dissappearing from the record or whether it shows
gradual changes from one species to the next. I would ask them to
further examine the fossil record to observer whether it shows
concetrated testimony of a handful of species or sparse distributions
of many isolated specimens with no real clustering of any kind and to
draw their own reasoned conclusions as to what that really indicates.
I would further invite them to study logic and reasoning and to be
able to identify circular reasoning and understand why it is such a
weak philosophical tool. I would then invite them to heavily
scrutinise dating techniques like radio carbon dating and its
calibration using denrochronology and other techniques and invite them
to identify the underlying untestable assumptions and the blaringly
obvious circular reasoning that is oft quoted as a good reason to
believe we've got it right.

In summary, Dana. You both misrepresent me and claim to be in a
superior position to understand Christ than the witnesses of the
canon. And you still don't understand why I have reservations about
your position in the body of Christ? The holy spirit testifies to you
that we evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys? It testifies to me
that Adam and Eve were created directly by God's hand through Jesus
Christ and we are all their offspring born into a fallen state. One of
us is lying. Either you, me or the holy spirit. Now I doubt it's the
holy spirit. And the testimony the holy spirit is giving me is in
agreement with the good news published of Jesus Christ by those I have
better reason to believe were guided by holy spirit than you. Not to
mention Moses and his Torah. So, please don't be offended Dana. But I
suspect that the one that is lying is you. If you really think that if
you believe the holy spirit testifies these things to you then either
you don't have the holy spirit or you're just lying to yourself and
yet think you are telling us the truth.

Here's a suggestion. Why don't we both pray to God to guide us by his
holy spirit these next few days to really understand whether God wants
us to believe he created Adam and Eve or whether he wants us to
believe we evolved from a common ancestor we hold with monkeys and
Adam and Eve's fall from perfection has nothing to do with our sinful
state. Then after praying honest hearted about the matter let's both
consider the sources. Let's read the account in Genesis. Let's read
through the entire new testament once more. Let's keep our eyes open
for signs God gives us in nature and in any other way he sees fit.
Then let's come back together after a few days and discuss together
how we believe the holy spirit has guided us to our new conclusions.

Does that sound like something we could both benefit from my dear
brother?

Before I go remember this. I do love you as a member of the body of
Christ no matter how misguided I presently think you are. If I didn't
love you I wouldn't bother writing to you. I would just let you go on
in your misguided view without a care for how the body of Christ
becomes defiled with blasphemous teaching that the holy spirit did not
as Peter believed inspire Moses to write the truth of the creation of
Adam and Eve and their fall from grace.

So I do sincerely hope you will accept my invitation. I am sure that
we are both wrong about many things and the experience of studying
both nature and the Christian canon once more will help us to discover
many beautiful things about our God and father in heaven.

JC

JC

[chris thompson]

On Dec 13, 5:45 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dana,
>
> first of all I would like to make it clear that I have no intention of
> entering into a debate with you about style of posting.
>

So even after being told of the conventions of politeness in the
newsgroup, you deliberately engage in a behavior you know to be
considered rude. Why am I not surprised?

In any case, Dana was not trying to trigger a debate about posting
style. He politely informed you of a long-standing convention in this
newsgroup, which you then pointedly ignored.

Dana is a really, really nice guy. I'm not. You're a pathetic wannabe
troll.

That said, I'll not respond to much of what you say unless you once
again act like a total dick- more so than usual, I mean. This was one
of those cases.

Chris

[Dana Tweedy]

On 12/13/11 3:45 PM, iaoua iaoua wrote:
> Hi Dana,
>
> first of all I would like to make it clear that I have no intention of
> entering into a debate with you about style of posting.

Nevertheless, top posting is rude. I gave you the benefit of the doubt,
and a warning. If you persist in top posting, I'll consider your
rudeness reason to discontinue the discussion.

>
> Then onto the things that I do have an interest in discussing with
> you. I'm not going to go over each statement you made about what Jesus
> believed or what Moses wrote.

Because you must realize you are wrong, and you can't argue
persuasively. That's why top posting is considered rude.

> The facts are simple. Your position is
> in opposition to the testimony of the Torah and the various canonised
> versions of the good news and to Paul's view of original sin.

That's not "facts", that's your personal opinion. My position is in
opposition to your personal opinion, that's all.

> You
> doubt Paul received the spirit. You seem to be so unfamiliar with his
> writings that you do not even know he made quite explicit claims of
> speaking more tongues than anybody in the Corinthian congregation. You
> also completely misrepresent me as ignoring science.

I didn't say you ignore science. I do say you deny science.

> On the contrary.
> I used to be an atheist.

Irrelevant to the fact that you deny science.

> It was considering the data and using
> objective scientific methods that I concluded that not only was the
> origin of life as a chemical accident exceedingly unlikely but
> outright impossible.

So, you misunderstand science as well is deny it.

> That was what opened my heart up to reading the
> bible. That was what led me to praying to God to show himself to me.
> And that was what led me to be baptised by holy spirit. On the
> contrary of the picture you would paint of me I would encourage every
> Christian to study nature carefully as it reveals God in its every
> detail.

Be that as it may, study of nature does not contradict the legends of
ancient Hebrew writings.

> The more I study nature the more I am awed by his
> magnificence. The more I study it the more I am convinced of God's
> hand in its creation.

Again, this is irrelevant to the fact that you deny science.

> I would encourage every Christian not only to
> read about the theory of evolution in biology textbooks but to
> scrutinize every statement so that they can see for themselves just
> how flimsy the theory really is.

Which means you haven't read anything about evolution, and don't
understand the depth of the evidence for the theory.

> I would encourage them to learn about
> thermodynamics to consider the science of reaction feasibility and
> whether a chance reaction could really lead to entropy reducing
> massively endothermic creation of life under the normal physical
> mechanics of the universe.

Again, you show you misunderstand science, and the latest ideas about
abiogenesis (which is not evolution). No one says that abiogenesis was
due to a chance reaction.

> I would invite them to study the fossil
> record carefully to ascertain whether it shows many species that
> varied little before dissappearing from the record or whether it shows
> gradual changes from one species to the next.

What the fossil record shows is a history of change over time. Looking
at it from a standpoint of individual species represented in the fossil
record gives as poor an understanding of the process as would looking at
just a handful of individual frames of a movie would give an
understanding of the plot.

> I would ask them to
> further examine the fossil record to observer whether it shows
> concetrated testimony of a handful of species or sparse distributions
> of many isolated specimens with no real clustering of any kind and to
> draw their own reasoned conclusions as to what that really indicates.

This appears to be gobbletygook. Would you please translate into English?

> I would further invite them to study logic and reasoning and to be
> able to identify circular reasoning and understand why it is such a
> weak philosophical tool.

You do realize, don't you, that your attempts to "prove" the Bible by
citing characters in the Bible is circular reasoning?

> I would then invite them to heavily
> scrutinise dating techniques like radio carbon dating and its
> calibration using denrochronology and other techniques and invite them
> to identify the underlying untestable assumptions and the blaringly
> obvious circular reasoning that is oft quoted as a good reason to
> believe we've got it right.

Radiometric dating does not make use of circular reasoning, as has been
pointed out to you before. Your inability to understand the means of
dating techniques does not invalidate the techniques.

By the way, weren't you supposed to be showing why you don't deny
science? Instead you seem to be establishing my point beyond a doubt.

>
> In summary, Dana. You both misrepresent me and claim to be in a
> superior position to understand Christ than the witnesses of the
> canon.

Obviously I have not misrepresented you in the slightest. You show you
do indeed deny science. Also, I have never claimed to be in a
"superior" position to understand Christ. My position is just as good
or bad as your own. You are the one who is claiming a superior
position. I'm pointing out that you do not have one. When it comes
to claims about God, my opinion is just as good as yours.

> And you still don't understand why I have reservations about
> your position in the body of Christ?

I know why you have "reservations". Your ego is slighted by my not
automatically accepting your pronouncements as infallible. You don't
get to tell me that my belief in God is anything but genuine. It's not
your call.

> The holy spirit testifies to you
> that we evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys?

The Holy Spirit tells me to trust scientists in questions about science.
It's the evidence that indicates we evolved from a common ancestor
with monkeys. Personally I don't see any shame in being related to
monkeys. Why would you?

Would you like to discuss the evidence for human evolution? I'm sure I
can show you plenty of evidence that indicates humans are indeed
descended from other primates.

> It testifies to me
> that Adam and Eve were created directly by God's hand through Jesus
> Christ and we are all their offspring born into a fallen state.

If that's what you believe, then bully for you. Just don't proclaim
such a position is supported by any evidence. Also, don't presume that
you can convince anyone of that without evidence.

> One of
> us is lying.

More likely, you are just mistaken. I'm not lying, and you are using
false dichotomy again.

>Either you, me or the holy spirit.

Or, you just got it wrong. You are not listening to the Holy Spirit,
you are listening to your own ego.

> Now I doubt it's the
> holy spirit. And the testimony the holy spirit is giving me is in
> agreement with the good news published of Jesus Christ by those I have
> better reason to believe were guided by holy spirit than you.

You have no "better reason" other than your own ego. I have the
evidence of evolution to support my position.

> Not to
> mention Moses and his Torah. So, please don't be offended Dana.

I'm not offended that you got it wrong. I'm disappointed you are so
poor at arguing you feel the need to resort to personal attack on me.

> But I
> suspect that the one that is lying is you.

Then you'd be wrong.

> If you really think that if
> you believe the holy spirit testifies these things to you then either
> you don't have the holy spirit or you're just lying to yourself and
> yet think you are telling us the truth.

Again, I am not lying, and I think you are just mistaken. I have
evidence to support my acceptance of science. Your own claims are
ultimately based on your own arrogance, and ego.

>
> Here's a suggestion. Why don't we both pray to God to guide us by his
> holy spirit these next few days to really understand whether God wants
> us to believe he created Adam and Eve or whether he wants us to
> believe we evolved from a common ancestor we hold with monkeys and
> Adam and Eve's fall from perfection has nothing to do with our sinful
> state.

Here's a counter suggestion. Why don't you examine the evidence for
evolution with an open mind, and try to understand why acceptance of
scientific evidence does not invalidate one's faith.

I don't see why God would want someone to believe anything but the
truth. Since evolution is manifestly the way God created us, denying
that evolution is irrational.

> Then after praying honest hearted about the matter let's both
> consider the sources. Let's read the account in Genesis. Let's read
> through the entire new testament once more. Let's keep our eyes open
> for signs God gives us in nature and in any other way he sees fit.
> Then let's come back together after a few days and discuss together
> how we believe the holy spirit has guided us to our new conclusions.
>
> Does that sound like something we could both benefit from my dear
> brother?

It sounds like it's something that would appeal to your own ego.
Examining the physical evidence of evolution would produce better
results.

>
> Before I go remember this. I do love you as a member of the body of
> Christ no matter how misguided I presently think you are. If I didn't
> love you I wouldn't bother writing to you. I would just let you go on
> in your misguided view without a care for how the body of Christ
> becomes defiled with blasphemous teaching that the holy spirit did not
> as Peter believed inspire Moses to write the truth of the creation of
> Adam and Eve and their fall from grace.
>
> So I do sincerely hope you will accept my invitation. I am sure that
> we are both wrong about many things and the experience of studying
> both nature and the Christian canon once more will help us to discover
> many beautiful things about our God and father in heaven.

Your attitude, and your delivery is what leads many people astray. It
would be irrational of me to deny the evidence that God has set before
us, and it would be a waste of my intellect to presume to place the
words of mere humans, even those "inspired", over the works of God
himself.


I'm sorry you consider me to be misguided, when it's your own ego and
pride that won't allow you to admit your own errors. God exists, and
evolution is a fact. The two aren't in conflict.


snipping.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 12/13/11 3:17 PM, iaoua iaoua wrote:
>
> Oh my dear brother Dana.

Once again, top posting is rude. Please consider halting this practice.

> The torah clearly states that Adam was made
> from the earth and God breathed the breath of life into him.

That is the oral tradition is relates, as one of the two creation
stories contained therein.

> It
> clearly states that Eve was made from him.

It also states that man and woman were made together, not individually.
Both accounts are legends, not meant to be take as scientific facts.

> 2 Peter clearly states that
> scripture penned by the prophets was not from their own volition but
> they were borne along by holy spirit.

Or so the writer believed....

> The interpretation of data that
> you seem to agree with is that this did not happen but that the human
> race evolved from a common ancestor we hold with monkeys that in turn
> evolved from a common single celled ancestor common to all animals on
> this planet.

That's what the evidence indicates. If you have a better scientific
explanation for the evidence, you are welcome to present it.

There's nothing in science that says that it must match religious
traditions. There's nothing in the Bible that says God couldn't have
used metaphors and legends in the Bible.

> This is in stark contrast to the testimony in Genesis
> that 2 Peter maintained was god breathed and that Jesus quoted from as
> if it was.

Except that the "testimony of Genesis" was a written account of legends
and oral traditions from many sources. There's nothing in the Bible
that states God cannot communicate in legends and oral tradition.

> So who is lying Dana? Moses? Peter? The holy spirit? Jesus?

Why should anyone be assumed to be lying? Moses was almost certainly
not the single author of Genesis. Peter was writing what he believed.
The Holy Spirit has not said anything about biology, and Jesus was
spreading his message, not teaching biology.

> Why should I assume that the fallible interpretation of data that I
> find many problems with is more faithful than any of Jesus, Moses,
> Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude or the holy spirit itself?

Because your personal ego is preventing you from seeing the value in
science. That's why you deny it. Looking to religion to provide
answers to scientific questions is foolish.

>
> My dear brother, do you have the holy spirit? Have you been borne by
> holy spirit? How do you know you have the holy spirit? Please do be
> specific about your experience and baptism in holy spirit.

The Holy Spirit tells me to trust scientists in matters of science, and
reject those who would try to lead people astray.

snipping the rest.




DJT

[iaoua iaoua]

What the pattern shows is that after so called hundreds of thousands
of years of evolution man's greatest evolutionary achievement was that
some lucky buggers got a better looking suntan than everybody else.
Case closed. Let's bust another myth. Evolution of man wasn't even a
challenge.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

Dear brother Dana,

you are welcome to your opinions about style of writing. I
respectfully disagree and do not intend to discuss the issue further.

Your conclusion that the Torah is compiled from oral traditions is by
no means a conclusive one. Even if it were that would not necessarily
make it follow that those accounts are legendary not God's inspired
word of truth. Moses (or the compiler if you must insist that it was
not Moses in your view of the world) certainly seemed to believe the
account was true. There is no internal indication of a point in
Genesis where the author(s) believed legend to turn into history. Luke
evidently believed the lineage from Adam to be historical. He provided
a genealogy right the way to Adam that largely agrees with Kings,
Samuel, Joshua, and the Torah. In fact, it is trivial to demonstrate
that many of the authors believed the patriarchs right back to Adam to
be historical figures. Note that Luke names Adam as son of God not son
of common ancestory with monkey. Unless we are to posit that God is
that common ancestor in which case we may be able to agree on
something.

You present in short nothing but conjecture. You conjecture that the
Torah was authored by multiple authors. The authors of the NT disagree
with you. You conjecture that God talked in the Torah through legends
and metaphors. The authors of the NT disagree with you. You conjecture
that the prophets were not borne along with holy spirit. The authors
of the NT disagree with you. You conjecture that we were not created
but evolved. The authors of the NT disagree with you.

I'm noticing a pattern here. Pretty much everything you think you know
the authors of the NT already penned down 2000 years closer to Christ
that they disagreed with you. It is hardly a difficult task to decide
who I should believe. Dana on newsnet or the authors of the NT many of
whom where Jesus mates? Gee, let me think. I guess I'll go with the
holy spirit guided prophets and disciples of Christ if you don't mind.
I just consider them a far better source of information on what Jesus
believed than you. Nothing personal I hope you understand.

Now what really consolidates the choice is this. Watching you
misrepresent me blatantly as a person who ignores science just seals
the deal. It utterly convinces me that your motivations are less than
honest. If you want to discuss science we can do that. But if you are
going to consider yourself more enlightened than the authors of
scripture then it will come as no surprise to me that you will
consider yourself more enlightened that what the data actually shows
about our origins.

So what does the data show? Does it really show the gradual change of
forms from a common ancestor to something looking like modern man as
we often see in these fanciful artistic impressions of our so called
evolution? In a word NO! It most certainly doesn't. It shows some
distinct species as well testified and virtually nothing in between.
Exactly what you would expect to see if, well, if we didn't evolve
from a common ancestor of monkeys.

Why should I believe a theory that isn't even supported by the data?

As I've mentioned in another thread if we are to believe the claims of
those who believe in our evolution than despite geographic separation
of our races the biggest difference between the populations of Nigeria
and the Aztec society after hundreds of thousands of years of
'evolution' was the degree of their sun tan.

So please. Stop playing the friend of science. Evolution is far from a
proven fact. It is science fiction. From where I am stood it looks a
lot more like a strong candidate for legend than anything to be found
in the Moses authored pages of the Torah.

JC

[Eric Root]

On Dec 13, 11:50 am, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/11 3:49 AM, iaoua iaoua wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 2:19 am, Eric Root<eric1r...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On Dec 12, 7:49 pm, iaoua iaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 12, 11:01 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> (snip)
>
> >>>> Acceptance of evolution doesn't require one to become an atheist.  You
> >>>> are pushing a false dichotomy.
>

> >>> Really? Show me a Christian that doesn't believe that Adam and Eve

> >>> were the real literal parents of all mankind that passed down their
> >>> sin to us and I will show you a person that is not a Christian.
>

> >> Says you, and you are some kind of science-denier.  Plus, where does
> >> atheism come in?
>

> >>> At
> >>> least not according to the Pauline, Johanine, Jamesian or Pertan
> >>> versions of Christianity by any rate.
>

> >> None of whom knew anything about science and so opinions of science
> >> based on their intrepretation are not as good as the opinions of, say,
> >> Dana Tweedy.
>
> >>>>> Let's get
> >>>>> the record going so that future generations can consider the validity
> >>>>> of the theory.
>
> >>>> Future generations may decide to favor another, entirely different
> >>>> religion, or may decide that no religion is preferable.  No matter what
> >>>> they decide as far as religion goes, evolution will remain a fact that
> >>>> must be acknowledged.
>
> >>> No doubt there will be many religions. But Christianity will survive
> >>> to till kingdom come.
>
> >> Which gives no excuse for denying science.
>

> >>>>>>> Because that's what you are really wagering
> >>>>>>> ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
> >>>>>>> the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
> >>>>>>> matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
> >>>>>>> and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
> >>>>>>> harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
> >>>>>>> with wonder?
>

Plus, when He was on earth, Jesus was a real man, with many
limitations without which He would have been not truly human and his
sacrifice no real sacrifice. The question is, _now_ does He know
about evolution? For the Christian, yes, of course, he must.

> > There is no use pretending that
> > Paul believed it. No!
>
> I don't know of anyone who claimed that Paul was a biologist working in
> modern times, or that he would have been aware of any modern biology.
> Paul most likely didn't believe in modern medicine, modern cosmology, or
> modern physics or chemistry either.   Why should he be expected to be
> aware of modern ideas of evolution?
>

Paul was a mere man whose opinions can be taken in good faith with a
grain of salt.

> > They all very much believed in Adam and Eve in
> > accord with the history as recorded in the Torah of Moses.
>
> Again, it's impossible to know what they believed.   Most likely, they
> understood history in the idiom of their time.  One shouldn't expect
> persons in the 1st century to be aware of ideas that were developed
> thousands of years later.    Today we know that the "Torah of Moses" was
> written over hundreds of years, by multiple authors.  It contains along
> with history, oral traditions, legends and mythology borrowed from
> neighboring tribes.
>
> > In fact,
> > the mistakes of Adam and Eve are the reason given for our fall and the
> > need for salvation with Christ's blood. You cannot attempt to destroy
> > the foundation of Christianity and then pretend to be a Christian.
>

Why are you changing the subject to some unevidenced, purported
attempt to destroy the foundation of Christianity?

> There are many who believe that "original sin" is not the foundation of
> Christianity.  To myself, and many others, foundation of Christianity is
> Christ's teachings, not ancient oral tradition about how the world was
> established.   See:
>
>  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/discuss_03.html
>
> > You
> > are free to make up a new religion based on the sayings of some Dana
> > Tweedy if you like.
>
> I would prefer that one does not.
>
> > Just don't pretend its Christianity. Or at least
> > don't expect Christians to agree with you that it is Christianity.
>

I agree with him it's Christianity. How else is one to recognize the
truth of evolution while being Christian?

[John Harshman]

If your point is that there hasn't been a major morphological change in
the last 100,000 years or so, you are correct. But so what? How is that
evidence against evolution? How does it invalidate all the evidence for
events that happened before that? Are you supposing that evolution must
always proceed at some constant rate? And talking about evolution as an
achievement is about as sensible as talking about paint drying as an
achievement. It's something that happens to species, not something
species try hard to do.

[Eric Root]

You lie; you've already had it explained to you multiple times why
that is wrong, so you now you shamelessly wallow in corruption and
dishonesty.

> It is science fiction.

Science fiction is a form of literature with character, setting and
plot, so again you lie.

> From where I am stood it looks a
> lot more like a strong candidate for legend than anything to be found
> in the Moses authored pages of the Torah.

Maybe so, in the world of legend, but the actual Torah in the real
world was written by multiple authors, so you lose.

(snip)

Eric Root

[Mark Isaak]

You need to learn the difference between "are not Biblical literalists"
and "do not believe in creation." Don't bother replying until you do,
because no communication will be possible until then.

> [...]

> In any case. The Torah is quite clear on the matter. Adam was formed
> from the dust and then God breathed the breath of life into Adam and
> Adam *became* a living soul. Note that he became a living soul. Not
> given one. Matter plus spirit equals soul. This is the formula. Not
> body plus soul equals physical animated person. I am afraid you need
> to study the sources more and listen to misguided opinions less.

The Torah is quite clear that the Torah is not to be taken literally.
It is written in a genre that expresses values, norms, and general
ideas, not historical and scientific facts. As long as you insist on
reading it literally, you will not be able to understand a word it says.

Here's a parallel. There is a well-known story from Greek tradition
about a hare and a tortoise that discuss which is faster and decide to
have a race to find out, a race which the tortoise wins. Do you think
the meaning of the story is,

a) tortoises can generally outrun hares
b) hares and tortoises can talk with each other
c) both of the above
d) none of the above

Support your answer.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 12/13/11 6:15 PM, iaoua iaoua wrote:
> Dear brother Dana,

Since you continue to be rude by top posting, and not addressing the
points I've made, I feel I have no choice than to conclude the
conversation.

DJT

snip the rest.

[iaoua iaoua]

Did you really just ask that? How does observing our population for a
long time and observing no significant change other than our
spectacular range of sun tans demonstrate that we are not evolving?

> events that happened before that? Are you supposing that evolution must
> always proceed at some constant rate? And talking about evolution as an
> achievement is about as sensible as talking about paint drying as an
> achievement. It's something that happens to species, not something
> species try hard to do.

There is a fundamental difference between watching man evolve and
watching paint dry. If you watch the paint long enough it will dry.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

You lose? How old are you? Please tell me I'm not speaking with a 4
year old. Then please start acting like it. The fact of the matter is
that in the gospels Jesus is quoted as referring to some book as the
law of Moses. He believed it was written by Moses. Now we can argue
over what he meant by that. What book was it? What was in it? Did it
include Leviticus for example. He seems to quote a lot of laws from
various parts. He quotes the parts of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, the incident of the burning bush. The evidence seems
to be mounting that a considerable part of the Torah we have received
the Jesus of the gospels believed was penned by Moses.

JC

> (snip)
>
> Eric Root

[John Harshman]

Not the question. How does it demonstrate we didn't evolve?

>> events that happened before that? Are you supposing that evolution must
>> always proceed at some constant rate? And talking about evolution as an
>> achievement is about as sensible as talking about paint drying as an
>> achievement. It's something that happens to species, not something
>> species try hard to do.
>
> There is a fundamental difference between watching man evolve and
> watching paint dry. If you watch the paint long enough it will dry.

Not if the humidity is high enough (or the concentration of whatever
solvent is relevant). And of course the time may vary.

[iaoua iaoua]

On Dec 14, 4:00 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

In some ways you are right in others you are wrong. Jesus explained to
us the spirit behind the law. The really important laws are those of
love. If we love God with our whole hearts and other people like
ourselves then with these laws of love we have understood the spirit
of God's requirements and we have no need to memorise a whole bunch of
absolutes.

JC

[deadrat]

It's tortoises all the way down.

[deadrat]

How long do you think we've been observing our population? On what time scale
do you think evolution might operate?

>> events that happened before that? Are you supposing that evolution must
>> always proceed at some constant rate? And talking about evolution as an
>> achievement is about as sensible as talking about paint drying as an
>> achievement. It's something that happens to species, not something
>> species try hard to do.
>
> There is a fundamental difference between watching man evolve and
> watching paint dry. If you watch the paint long enough it will dry.

That's because paint is designed to dry within your life span. Evolution, not
so much

There is a fundamental difference between posting something and posting
something meaningful. Check it out.


> JC
>
>

[Ilas]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:iaoua-2481fe58-2795-4...@r6g2000yqr.googlegroups.c
om:


> So what is it you don't like about the love and mercy that was
> revealed in Jesus Christ? What do you find loony about his revelation
> of God?

You, for a start

[Ilas]

iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:iaoua-7a3eb5b2-2048-4...@cb3g2000vbb.googlegroups.
com:

> What the pattern shows is that after so called hundreds of thousands
> of years of evolution man's greatest evolutionary achievement was that
> some lucky buggers got a better looking suntan than everybody else.
> Case closed. Let's bust another myth. Evolution of man wasn't even a
> challenge.

Whe does the PhD start? Can I watch? It'll only take 5 minutes.

[deadrat]

I suppose I should take my own warning seriously. Homo sapiens does evolve and
we can watch it. For instance, those populations in the malarial belt have
evolved the sickle cell trait. Vowel boy evidently believes that if evolution
happens then he should in his lifetime see homo sapiens evolve into another
species (or perhaps it's just a subpopulation of homo sapiens that will do
this). Timescale is wrong for that.

[iaoua iaoua]

On Dec 14, 7:38 am, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

Fact of the matter is this deadrat. As weird as I find you, as much as
I would like to believe your apparent inability to reason is
indicative that we are members of different species we can both go and
find and nice aborigine girl and get her pregnant. Case closed.
Geographical separation over conjectural hundreds of thousands of
years did not lead to a new species. Aborigines as just as human as
lifeforms as lacking in intelligence and ability to reason on data as
yourself. I'm apologise in advance if aborigines feel offended by
being associated with this plonker who thinks he's cousins with
monkeys.

JC

[iaoua iaoua]

Perhaps we should start again Dana. It seems I still haven't
understood you. I spent some time worrying about you yesterday and
some things are still quite unclear to me.

You seem to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. From comments you
have made about Godhead it further seems that you believe in the non
scriptural doctrine of the trinity. I am left wondering what you
therefore believe and how you arrived at your beliefs given that your
stated position is that we must be able to provide evidence for all
things.

Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Why? Who told you he was
the Son of God? Why should you believe them? Do you believe that Jesus
died for our sins? Why? What evidence do you have that he even
existed? What evidence do you have that he was executed? What evidence
do you have that he was raised from the dead? What evidence do you
have that he ascended to heaven? Surely you don't base your beliefs on
the unreliable testimonies of possibly fraudulent gospel accounts
written by people after the fact that were misguided about their
belief in the holy spirit? Surely you have some better evidence than
these flimsy sources that paint Jesus as some misguided individual
that believed myths and legends and what's more thought Moses was
their author? Surely you have better more reliable sources than this
to base your faith on?

JC

[Mitchell Coffey]

Pale-skinned Jews, for instance, from north east Europe share specific
genetic markers with black-skinned Jews in South Africa; and more
generally, the patterns and processes John Harshman noted can be
traced throughout the world through various genetic markers.
Furthermore, your claims about "hundreds of thousands" of years of
isolation between various human groups are grossly inaccurate. Yet
further, your racist fixation on highly conserved ephemera like skin
color causes you to base your assertions on points of limited
relevance. Claims of the sort you make were shown to be wrong as far
back as Darwin, through purely ethnological evidence, when he argued
that the concept of distinct human "races" was untenable. His points
are now further demonstrated by DNA and paleontological evidence.

Yet more: you hold to the grade-school misconception that evolution
involves some kind of teleology and inevitability. You don't even get
the degree of "mixed-race" genetic background in the United States
right.

Your assertions are once again based entirely on your ignorance of the
evidence.

Mitchell Coffey

[Dana Tweedy]

On 12/14/11 6:02 AM, iaoua iaoua wrote:
> Perhaps we should start again Dana. It seems I still haven't
> understood you. I spent some time worrying about you yesterday and
> some things are still quite unclear to me.

Against my better judgement, I'll try one more time. If you continue to
top post, and ignore my points, the conversation is over.

>
> You seem to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. From comments you
> have made about Godhead it further seems that you believe in the non
> scriptural doctrine of the trinity. I am left wondering what you
> therefore believe and how you arrived at your beliefs given that your
> stated position is that we must be able to provide evidence for all
> things.

As I stated before, and you ignored, my position is NOT that one must be
able to provide evidence for all things. That is a misrepresentation
of my position. Since I already pointed out that it was not my
position, you should not be making the same accusation.

I am willing to accept spiritual matters on faith, and I have no problem
with believing in things that don't have evidence. My point is, and
always has been that *scientific* matters require evidence.

If you wish to believe that Adam and Eve were real individuals, rather
than a metaphor for the human condition, you are welcome to do so. If
you wish to believe that Noah and his menagerie sailed the seas, you are
welcome to do so. All I ask is that you not presume that such claims
have the same scientific validity as a scientific theory.

One does not have to give up acceptance of science to believe in God,
and practice the teachings of Christ. Your "God or Evolution" is a
false dichotomy. Your denial of science and insistence that religious
beliefs trump evidence leads people away from a relationship with God,
rather than bringing them closer.

>
> Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Why? Who told you he was
> the Son of God? Why should you believe them? Do you believe that Jesus
> died for our sins? Why? What evidence do you have that he even
> existed? What evidence do you have that he was executed? What evidence
> do you have that he was raised from the dead? What evidence do you
> have that he ascended to heaven? Surely you don't base your beliefs on
> the unreliable testimonies of possibly fraudulent gospel accounts
> written by people after the fact that were misguided about their
> belief in the holy spirit? Surely you have some better evidence than
> these flimsy sources that paint Jesus as some misguided individual
> that believed myths and legends and what's more thought Moses was
> their author? Surely you have better more reliable sources than this
> to base your faith on?

What I base my faith on is my own business, and not yours. I don't
require evidence for spiritual claims, but I also accept that when
practicing science, evidence is what's required.

DJT

[jillery]

IIUC there were lots of changes in that time. I am not surprised skin
color is the only pattern you think important.

>> If your point is that there hasn't been a major morphological change in
>> the last 100,000 years or so, you are correct. But so what? How is that
>> evidence against evolution? How does it invalidate all the evidence for
>
>Did you really just ask that? How does observing our population for a
>long time and observing no significant change other than our
>spectacular range of sun tans demonstrate that we are not evolving?

Did you really just ask that? It beggars belief that you accept
humans have been around for "so-called hundreds of thousands of
years", but fail to understand that such a span of time is but an
eyeblink for the amount of evolutionary change you expect.

>> events that happened before that? Are you supposing that evolution must
>> always proceed at some constant rate? And talking about evolution as an
>> achievement is about as sensible as talking about paint drying as an
>> achievement. It's something that happens to species, not something
>> species try hard to do.
>
>There is a fundamental difference between watching man evolve and
>watching paint dry. If you watch the paint long enough it will dry.

And if you watch species long enough, they will evolve. Consider the
mayfly resting on an oak.

[Will in New Haven]

On Dec 13, 2:33 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 11:28 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote innews:iaoua-d2320b1b-6b13-4...@y18g2000yqy.googlegroups.
> > com:
>
> > > You're funny. You've got a cool sense of humour. People like you are
> > > what we want the kingdom of God to be full of. Some come on bro. What
> > > are you waiting for? Do you want to receive holy spirit and be part of
> > > our kingdom?
>
> > Sorry, got the bible shoved down my throat as a kid, then read it for
> > interest as an adult, because I thought "hey, it surely can't have been as
> > nuts as I remember". And it wasn't. It was much, much, more crazy, utterly
> > doolally, completely hatstand. It's the rantings of bronze age men, and
> > very disturbing bronze age men at that. I bet there were plenty of more
> > rational bronze agers back then saying "hey, enough with the smiting crap
> > and the pillars of salt and the floods and all that bull - we want this to
> > last a long time, we don't want people to think we're crazy bronze age men,
> > do we?". Well, shows how wrong rational people can be, when there are
> > people thousands of years later saying "wow, that old time crazy stuff all
> > makes sense. I'll live my life to every nutso letter of that book".
>
> So, please do name another 2000 - 3500 year old collection of books
> that has such a wide readership today and has been translated into
> anywhere near as many languages.

What does that have to do with its truth? It is just what you said, a
collection of books. There's no reason to think that it carries any
meaning or imporance.

--
Will in New Haven

[Will in New Haven]

On Dec 13, 3:21 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 6:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > iaoua iaoua wrote:
> > > I think it's you that needs to get out more. The small amount of
> > > inbreeding that goes on in your american cities does not change the
> > > fact that in most of the world populations are largely geographically
> > > separated with little to no inbreeding.
>
> > You need to learn what "inbreeding" means; it isn't the word you're
> > looking for. At any rate, interbreeding is much more common than you
> > imagine. There are no sharp divisions between "races", just clines in
> > the frequencies of alleles, and the clines for different genes don't
> > generally match up.
>
> Look you can waffle terminology until the cows come home for all I

> care. Black Africa full of black africans shagging black africans with

> very little other type of breeding.

Except that it isn't. There is more genetic variation _within_ Africa
than in the rest of the world put together. Those genetic variations
meet and mix with one another and with people from _outside_ of Africa
fairly frequently. The whole concept of races is rather fascinating
but genetic isolation is extremely rare.

If there _is_ a population of humans that might become a separate
species anytime soon, and I don't think there is, it would probably be
the people on some of the islands in the Bay of Bengal. At least some
of those people still attack visitors on sight.

I would suggest that you read _Human Evolutionary Genetics_ by
Jobling, among others, except that you are an illiterate piece of
dirt.

--
Will in New Haven

Yellow China is full of yellow
> chinese shagging yellow chinese with very little other type of

> breeding. Ditto for white Russia/Ukraine. Ditto for Japan. Ditto for

> many other countries. This has been the situation for thousands of
> years according to evolutionists even hundreds of thousands of years.

> The very little mixed colour shagging that has been going on during
> this last century or so has been a considerable improvement on the
> situation of the claimed hundreds of thousands of years before hand.
> And yet.. What do we see...? We see that despite this geographic
> separation and plenty of time to evolve into different species black
> man is still man able to get your cute little white daughter pregnant.
> Yellow man from china can get that black man's daughter pregnant.
> White man from Russia can get that yellow man's daughter pregnant. And
> what's more the children come out simple gorgeous.
>
> Case closed. Experiment already done. Results. Man did not evolve. He
> just got varying degrees of sun tan.
>

> JC

>
>
>
> > > Heck, before the invention of
> > > cars, trains, buses, plains and cars inbreeding was even less. If we
> > > are to believe the view of history that you guys push then this had
> > > been the case not just for thousands of years but 100s of thousands of
> > > years and yet what do we see. Some populations with some minor colour
> > > differences but no significant genetic difference. You would have us
> > > believe that we evolved so much to become humans but then just, well,
> > > stopped evolving despite the perfect conditions for evolution. In
> > > short, you guys are so full of s**t that I can smell it from across
> > > the atlantic.
>

> > What do you mean by "perfect conditions for evolution"?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[deadrat]

Well, we're all apes in the great classification scheme, and we're all cousins
of monkeys, i.e., homo sapiens and the various species of monkeys had a
population that was our common ancestors.

I may be a particularly weird ape, and my reasoning processes may be lacking,
but at least I understand what scientists mean by evolution.

1. Under the definition of a changing distribution of alleles over time, the
human species has evolved. I pointed out the sickle cell anemia change.

2. Although changing alleles certainly can lead to speciation, evolution does
not demand that geographically isolated subpopulations necessarily become a
separate species in some fixed amount of time.

Your case isn't closed; it's your mind. Your misunderstanding of evolution has
misled you to believe that the theory demands that there should be
subpopulations of human beings who can't produce offspring together. This is
called, appropriately, a misconception.

You're like a man at a poker game who throws down a losing hand and triumphantly
cries, "Bingo!"

>
> JC
>
>

[deadrat]

One god, two gods,
Three gods, more?
Vowel Boy
has become a bore.
Burma Shave.

[Richard Harter]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:19:33 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:
[much foolishness]
[snip]

>You're like a man at a poker game who throws down a losing hand and triumphantly
>cries, "Bingo!"

That pretty much sums it up.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:14:45 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua

<iaoua...@gmail.com>:

>On Dec 13, 5:08 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:49:04 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua
>> <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Show me a Christian that doesn't believe that Adam and Eve
>> >were the real literal parents of all mankind that passed down their
>> >sin to us and I will show you a person that is not a Christian. At
>> >least not according to the Pauline, Johanine, Jamesian or Pertan
>> >versions of Christianity by any rate.
>>
>> And yet...
>>
>> http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution
>>
>> From the page cited:
>>
>> "Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite
>> teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body
>> developed from previous biological forms, under God’s
>> guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his
>> soul."
>>
>> Most Christians are not Biblical literalists.
>
>From the page you reference:
>
>Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined
>that the universe was specially created out of nothing.

And this has...what?...to do with the subject, which is
"evolution of man"? Or with the fact that the Church
specifically does *not* support Biblical literalism?

Oh, and the universe *was* created out of nothing; only the
method is in question.

> Vatican I
>solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things
>which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards
>their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons
>on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

Superseded, as shown above. Even the Church changes its
dogma over time.

>So the Catholic church's official position is that the universe and
>human 'souls' were specially created. Whether the body evolved or not
>is debatable. This evidently to allow believers to choose to believe
>between creation or evolution for the answer to that question. You
>then claim that this means that the majority of 'Christians' do not
>believe in creation.

No, I do not; don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I
stated that most Christians are not Biblical literalists. If
you're unable to see the difference you need to do a bit
more reading.

> This then calls into question what you mean by
>Christians. Nominal Christians that never go to church? Christians
>that are dragged along by relatives once or twice a year? Christians
>that claim to be Christians but frequently practice fornication,
>adultery, stealing, lying, perform acts of physical violence and don't
>see how any of that would contradict Christ's teaching? People who
>claim to be Christian but do not claim to have the holy spirit and
>have never even experienced it or understand what you are talking
>about when you ask them if they have God's holy spirit? I could go but
>I hope you're starting to see just how undefined and unsubstantiated
>your claim is. I happen to have spent a considerable amount of time
>speaking to Catholics about Christianity in Italy. Please do let me
>know if you think there is a more suitable country to get a
>representative sample of Catholic beliefs from. I can't say I've ever
>really needed to convince many people that God created Adam and Eve or
>that Adam and Eve were real people. At least not when speaking to your
>average church going believing category of Catholic Christian at any
>rate. I've only really come across that kind of discussion in the UK.
>Perhaps God just keeps leading me to those most likely to hear his
>words or perhaps my experience is more representative than your
>claims. Only God knows.

>
>In any case. The Torah is quite clear on the matter. Adam was formed
>from the dust and then God breathed the breath of life into Adam and
>Adam *became* a living soul. Note that he became a living soul. Not
>given one. Matter plus spirit equals soul. This is the formula. Not
>body plus soul equals physical animated person. I am afraid you need
>to study the sources more and listen to misguided opinions less.

So why are you a Christian. since the Catholic Church does
*not* agree (as shown above) that the Biblical account is
the literal truth, but is instead allegorical truth? ISTM
that you should convert to Judaism, since you hold the
account in the Torah superior to the Christian OT and its
interpretation by Church scholars and authorities.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:15:14 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua
<iaoua...@gmail.com>:

>On Dec 13, 5:15 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:27:56 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:26:44 -0800 (PST), the following

>> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua
>> ><iaoua.ia...@gmail.com>:
>>

>> >>On Dec 12, 3:21 pm, Connie <conrad.gel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Dec 12, 9:09 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > It's time for the evolutionists to put their money where their mouth
>> >>> > is. Dawkins tries to wriggle his atheist arse out of this one by
>> >>> > claiming that we will likely be extinct first. So, just how long and
>> >>> > under what kind of evolutionary pressures do you think it will take
>> >>> > for humans to change into a noticably different species from what they
>> >>> > are today?
>>
>> >>> > We have lots of geographically separated populations (one of the
>> >>> > factors oft stated in evolutionary text books). We have beige
>> >>> > populations. Dark brown populations. Light brown population. Yellowy
>> >>> > populations. Orangish populations. All of which interbreed with each
>> >>> > other very little. Just how long will it take for us to become
>> >>> > different species that can no longer interbreed.
>>
>> >>> > There's an experiment we can really do to test this hypothesis once
>> >>> > and for all. Dawkins puts his money on us being extinct first. I put
>> >>> > my money on God's kingdom coming first. So come one. Place your bets.
>> >>> > Who's is willing to stake his soul on a Dawkins or otherwise
>> >>> > evolutionary gambit? Because that's what you are really wagering

>> >>> > ladies and gentlemen. You are laying your very lives on the line for
>> >>> > the sake of your belief in a non divine origin of life. Does it really
>> >>> > matter that much to you? Would you not rather accept that God is real
>> >>> > and taste him and see that he is good and live forever in perfect
>> >>> > harmony with the object of your study - the universe that is so filled
>> >>> > with wonder?
>>

>> >>> I'll go with Dawkins. If the Abrahamic god exists, I don't want
>> >>> anything to do with him/her.
>>
>> >>Why not? Could it be that he has been misrepresented to you. The
>> >>abrahamic god in loving god abundant in loving kindness and willing to
>> >>forgive.
>>
>> >So your claim is that the Old Testament, which makes clear
>> >in many places the nature and actions of the God of Abraham,
>> >is a misrepresentation of Him?
>>
>> Well?
>
>No!

Then how do you reconcile your statement with the actual
content of the Bible, which shows the God of Abraham to be
anything but a "loving god abundant in loving kindness and
willing to forgive"? The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah,
especially the young who had committed no sins, would
probably disagree with your statement, as would the children
torn apart by bears for taunting an old man, and just about
everyone (including again the children too young to be
sinners) at the time of Noah.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:57:31 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by deadrat <a...@b.com>:

And, especially in t.o, wild hares all the way up... ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:31:12 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dana Tweedy
<reddf...@gmail.com>:

>What I base my faith on is my own business, and not yours.

Careful; Ray will accuse you of being an atheist.

Oh, wait...

[jillery]

It is a too-common practice in T.O.