God made us WITH evolution
simplep...@my-dejanews.com
sky etc. etc.
God also crated a multidimensional universe. God is also the creator of time.
Which means God created time-space, black holes etc. All these are part of the
Grand design of things.
I also believe in evolution. I believe that God made us WITH evolution.
and as for "... and on the xth day, God crated ..."
The Bible is written by Man. The word "day" from the Bible is just a metaphor.
Just like my dog exists in a different form of time measurement. Just like an
insect's whole lifetime is our 1 day.
So, God's "one day" = 100,000's of our years.
although these are my own observations, there are probably formal believe
systems related to this. let me know if you heard of any.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Boikat
>
> I believe that God made us, along with the fishes in the sea, and birds in the
> sky etc. etc.
>
> God also crated a multidimensional universe. God is also the creator of time.
> Which means God created time-space, black holes etc. All these are part of the
> Grand design of things.
>
> I also believe in evolution. I believe that God made us WITH evolution.
>
> and as for "... and on the xth day, God crated ..."
>
> The Bible is written by Man. The word "day" from the Bible is just a metaphor.
> Just like my dog exists in a different form of time measurement. Just like an
> insect's whole lifetime is our 1 day.
>
> So, God's "one day" = 100,000's of our years.
>
> although these are my own observations, there are probably formal believe
> systems related to this. let me know if you heard of any.
>
Yup. It's commonly referred to as "Theistic
Evolution, wherein the universe is exactly the way
it looks (billions of years old), and the same for
the earth (a bit over 4.5 billion years old), and
that life evolved (as evident from the fossil
record). Theistic Evolution asserts that all this
happened as the result of a guiding hand, God. (I
say "asserts" because I have seen no tangible
evidence that God exists, other than my personal
opinion.)
Have a good day. :}
Boikat
Bill Thacker
<simplep...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>I also believe in evolution. I believe that God made us WITH evolution.
>The Bible is written by Man. The word "day" from the Bible is just a metaphor.
Congratulations! You've realized that the Bible isn't *literally*
true. You're halfway home.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker Atheist #1363 gun...@ds.net
Bill's Rail Buggy Page: http://www.ds.net/~gunner/buggy/buggy.html
"The things that you're liable to read in the Bible -
it ain't necessarily so." - George and Ira Gershwin
Rune Boersjoe
>sky etc. etc.
>
>God also crated a multidimensional universe. God is also the creator of time.
>Which means God created time-space, black holes etc. All these are part of the
>Grand design of things.
Oh dear... this guy is gonna get torn apart by his own people :-)
>I also believe in evolution. I believe that God made us WITH evolution.
Well that's better than believing in without... you're half way there.
>and as for "... and on the xth day, God crated ..."
>
>The Bible is written by Man. The word "day" from the Bible is just a metaphor.
>Just like my dog exists in a different form of time measurement. Just like an
>insect's whole lifetime is our 1 day.
Yep, it sure was. I don't know of any other account in history where a
billion people have taken a book, which may or may not be fictional
but appears to be highly fictional, and used it at words to live by. A
thousand years from now we could see the rise of the Order of Jean-Luc
Picard, and the followers of the Enterprise.
>So, God's "one day" = 100,000's of our years.
>
>although these are my own observations, there are probably formal believe
>systems related to this. let me know if you heard of any.
--
How do we know we're not a simulation runing on some alien supercomputer?
Reply by mail to jb...@jancomulti.com
Louann Miller
>
> I believe that God made us, along with the fishes in the sea, and birds in the
> sky etc. etc.
This viewpoint, when it's given a name, is usually called "theistic
evolution." This is the majority viewpoint worldwide among people who
are both educated and who practice a religion (Christian or otherwise).
You're utterly mainstream, it's the Young Earth Creationists who are out
in left field.
--
Updated 9/28/98! Media fan fiction at http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers
Jim Sarbeck
simplep...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>I believe that God made us, along with the fishes in the sea, and birds in the
sky etc. etc.
>God also crated a multidimensional universe. God is also the creator of time.
Which means God created time-space, black holes etc. All these are part of the
Grand design of things.
>I also believe in evolution. I believe that God made us WITH evolution.
>and as for "... and on the xth day, God crated ..."
>The Bible is written by Man. The word "day" from the Bible is just a metaphor.
Just like my dog exists in a different form of time measurement. Just like an
insect's whole lifetime is our 1 day.
What about this, simplepoobear: the word "God" is a metaphor. It represents
the seeming design and intentionality of the universe as viewed by humans,
who would like to believe they are the central fact and purpose of the
universe.
>So, God's "one day" = 100,000's of our years.
>although these are my own observations, there are probably formal believe
systems related to this. let me know if you heard of any.
The Roman Catholic Church, recently.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
jas...@omnilinx.net
> I believe that God made us, along with the fishes in the sea, and birds in the
> sky etc. etc.
>
> God also crated a multidimensional universe. God is also the creator of time.
> Which means God created time-space, black holes etc. All these are part of the
> Grand design of things.
>
> I also believe in evolution. I believe that God made us WITH evolution.
>
> and as for "... and on the xth day, God crated ..."
>
> The Bible is written by Man. The word "day" from the Bible is just a metaphor.
> Just like my dog exists in a different form of time measurement. Just like an
> insect's whole lifetime is our 1 day.
>
> So, God's "one day" = 100,000's of our years.
>
> although these are my own observations, there are probably formal believe
> systems related to this. let me know if you heard of any.
I think the technical term for this type of belief system is referred to as
'Delusion'.
Seriously, though, since you posted this to alt.atheism:
How does adding 'God' to the equation help you in any way? How do you *know*
it was 'God' that did these things? It may also help if you provided a
coherent definition of 'God'.
Jason P.
"I shall be asked why I have really narrated all these little things [...].
It is precisely here that one has to begin to learn anew." -Nietzsche
Matt K.
tetrahydrocannabinol
simplep...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<71k5qn$8pi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
|I believe that God made us, along with the fishes in the sea, and birds in
the
|sky etc. etc.
So your a creationist, and not an evolutionist.
|God also crated a multidimensional universe. God is also the creator of
time.
|Which means God created time-space, black holes etc. All these are part of
the
|Grand design of things.
Grand design? So what were we designed to do anyway?
|I also believe in evolution. I believe that God made us WITH evolution.
I really wish you would make up your mind. Are you a creationist or an
evolutionist?
|and as for "... and on the xth day, God crated ..."
|
|The Bible is written by Man. The word "day" from the Bible is just a
metaphor.
|Just like my dog exists in a different form of time measurement. Just like
an
|insect's whole lifetime is our 1 day.
OK, how do you diferenciate between metaphor and fact in the bible? How do
you choose what words to live by and which to shrug off as fiction? If an
un-wed women is raped do you agree with the bible that she should have to
marry her rapist? Let me ask you, are you wearing clothes with mixed fibers
in them? Thats a sin, you know, according to your wholy babble. How come you
can pick and choose what is reality, and what is fantisy in the babble? If I
had a belief in a book, and that the whole book was true, I would either
follow it to the letter, or not follow it at all.
Dog's "exist" in a diffrent form of measurement? Thats rather absurd. If I
was to tell my friend that my dog was 120 years old, he wouldn' believe me,
untill I explained I was talking about dog years.
So if this is such an important story (after all, it's how we got here,
right?) Why didn't the authors of that chaper be extremely specific when
noting the time it took to create the universe? Was it common knowlege back
then what a "SGD" (Standard God Day) was? I think not. Perhaps your book is
a work of fiction, written by some bronze age men, who knew nothing about
the true orgins of the earh (not to mention many other things) I think if
you take an unpartisan view of the bible, that is the conclusion you will
come to.
|So, God's "one day" = 100,000's of our years.
Why? How did you calculate this? Why couldn't gawd's "one day" = 1 of our
seconds? After all, he is a multi dimensional, omnipitent being. Creating
and destroying an infinate amount of universes should take less time that it
takes me to blink my eye.
|although these are my own observations, there are probably formal believe
|systems related to this. let me know if you heard of any.
|
|-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
|http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
mike
simplep...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> *snip*
Oh PLEASE!! We have enough Christians in here now insulting us with the greatness
of their god and how maybe this and that is what was meant in the bible. Stop it
and go home before the circuit breakers in my head explode!
Rudy Gonzalez
statistical impossibility. In fact, statisticians have put the odds of evolution
on par with a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving a fully functional 747
behind.
Furthermore, if evolution had taken place, for every animal there would literally
be millions of "in-between" fossils for each and every species. As an example try
to envision this...an animal that existed "millions of years ago" shaped like a
perfect square. Now today, scientists take it's presumed evolutionary descendent
the "octogon" animal and proclaim that the "octogon" has evolved from the
primitive "square". If this were true, archeologists would inevitably have found
thousands of fossils of this evolutionary progression...i.e., the 5-sided animal,
the six-sided animal, and finally the seven-sided animal. Instead, the fossil
record shows huge gaps between every species of animal.
Lastly, if one to presume that God exists and the He created the universe in all
his power and omniscience, then why doubt that he could create all that we know in
an instant. Next time you look up into the starry night and see the vastness of
creation, it's unfathomable beauty, and perfect designer...think a moment about
the awesomeness of the Designer.
There are many resources out there that show that the theory of evolution is built
on a house of cards. Included are Hank Hannegraf's "The F.A.C.E. of Evolution" as
well as "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown.
simplep...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I believe that God made us, along with the fishes in the sea, and birds in the
> sky etc. etc.
>
> God also crated a multidimensional universe. God is also the creator of time.
> Which means God created time-space, black holes etc. All these are part of the
> Grand design of things.
>
> I also believe in evolution. I believe that God made us WITH evolution.
>
> and as for "... and on the xth day, God crated ..."
>
> The Bible is written by Man. The word "day" from the Bible is just a metaphor.
> Just like my dog exists in a different form of time measurement. Just like an
> insect's whole lifetime is our 1 day.
>
> So, God's "one day" = 100,000's of our years.
>
Kalandros M
> The theory of evolution is just that...a theory. Evolution is virtually a
> statistical impossibility. In fact, statisticians have put the odds of evolution
> on par with a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving a fully functional 747
> behind.
Given that the poster was proposing theistic evolution, how does this refute it?
Oh yeah, the statisticians are wrong. Their numbers depend on assumptions that
clearly don't hold. Like DNA just sprang into being.
>
>
> Furthermore, if evolution had taken place, for every animal there would literally
> be millions of "in-between" fossils for each and every species.
If you assume that EVERY species that lived made it into the fossil record, which
no one believes.
> As an example try
> to envision this...an animal that existed "millions of years ago" shaped like a
> perfect square. Now today, scientists take it's presumed evolutionary descendent
> the "octogon" animal and proclaim that the "octogon" has evolved from the
> primitive "square". If this were true, archeologists would inevitably have found
> thousands of fossils of this evolutionary progression...i.e., the 5-sided animal,
> the six-sided animal, and finally the seven-sided animal. Instead, the fossil
> record shows huge gaps between every species of animal.
>
Wrong. We have transitionals btw fishes and ampibians, amphibians and reptiles,
reptiles and mammals, land mammals and whales, just to name a few. Why
are these not valid?
Mike
Honus
> Bill Thacker wrote:
>
> > Congratulations! You've realized that the Bible isn't *literally* true. You're
> > halfway home.
> Yes it is.Try reading it. It may help you're situation.
Care to back that statement up with some proof? Or how about just some
simple evidence?
--
Death to Spammers.
Remove the HORMEL anti-spam device from my address to reply by e-mail.
Jim Sarbeck
>The theory of evolution is just that...a theory. Evolution is virtually a
>statistical impossibility.
Virtually? What kind of hedge is that?
> In fact, statisticians have put the odds of evolution
>on par with a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving a fully
functional 747
>behind.
That is why no scientist ascribes to the theory that the present state of
the world was bought about by a tornado. This fact is a step up from
ascribing the present state of the world to God's breathe. Although some of
the survivors in Nicaruaga and the Honduras are wondering about this, even
as we speak.
>Furthermore, if evolution had taken place, for every animal there would
literally
>be millions of "in-between" fossils for each and every species.
Every organism that has ever existed is an 'in-between' specimen of
evolution. Almost all of them last exactly one generation. Few of them
leave anything that becomes a fossil, and fewer of them become fossils that
have been found.
> As an example try
>to envision this...an animal that existed "millions of years ago" shaped like a
>perfect square. Now today, scientists take it's presumed evolutionary
descendent
>the "octogon" animal and proclaim that the "octogon" has evolved from the
>primitive "square". If this were true, archeologists would inevitably
have found
>thousands of fossils of this evolutionary progression...i.e., the 5-sided
animal,
>the six-sided animal, and finally the seven-sided animal. Instead, the fossil
>record shows huge gaps between every species of animal.
Is this a hard-tissue animal? Have you read Gould's "Wonderful Life"?
Soft-tissue hexagons are a bitch to find. And of course the progression
might be from squares to squares with pointy things on each side, to where
the space between the points and the corners is filled in (like webbed
feet.) And ontogeny might recapitulate phylogeny in these beings so the
transitional forms are easily confused with developing embryos of same.
Evolution does not go according to human plans.
>Lastly, if one to presume that God exists and the He created the universe
in all
>his power and omniscience, then why doubt that he could create all that we
know in
>an instant.
Because that would not pass the time as interestingly. God has a lot of
time on His hands, you know. If I were God, my sole act would be suicide.
Can God commit suicide?
>Next time you look up into the starry night and see the vastness of
>creation, it's unfathomable beauty, and perfect designer...think a moment about
>the awesomeness of the Designer.
Sorry, my eyesight isn't as good as it used to be. The eye-design team was
not nearly as well chosen as the AIDS virus design team.
>There are many resources out there that show that the theory of evolution
is built
>on a house of cards.
Show? You mean 'assert', don't you?
> Included are Hank Hannegraf's "The F.A.C.E. of Evolution" as well as "In
the Beginning" by Walt Brown.
What are their main arguments?
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Thomas Paine
>I believe that God made us, along with the fishes in the sea, and birds in the
>sky etc. etc.
>
>God also crated a multidimensional universe. God is also the creator of time.
>Which means God created time-space, black holes etc. All these are part of the
>Grand design of things.
>
>I also believe in evolution. I believe that God made us WITH evolution.
>
>and as for "... and on the xth day, God crated ..."
>
>The Bible is written by Man. The word "day" from the Bible is just a metaphor.
>Just like my dog exists in a different form of time measurement. Just like an
>insect's whole lifetime is our 1 day.
>
>So, God's "one day" = 100,000's of our years.
>
>although these are my own observations, there are probably formal believe
>systems related to this. let me know if you heard of any.
Aha!
Someone who understands enough to pepper their posts with "This is what I
believe".
Wish literal creationists had enough brains to at least do that.
In answer to your question; I'm no expert, but that sounds like mainstream
christianity to me.
Rudy Gonzalez
The laws of physics dictate that things run down, not become more organized and
complex. Hence the airplane analogy. But you are absolutely correct, DNA doesn't just
spring into being. That's the point. The statisticians do not base this on the
function of time, but on probability. So even if billions of years passed, the
likelihood of matter going from an unorganized random state to a sophisticated piece of
mechanical or biological machinery is virtually nil.
Regarding the fossil record...it speaks for itself. There is not a single
archeological evidence that shows ANY animal gradually progressing in the fossil record
from one point to the other. The transitional species that you refer to are assumed
points of an evolutionary time-line that are spread far apart. If evolution were fact,
then the fossil record would consist of a "morphing" progression of bones at all points
in this evolution. Assuming these fossils existed, then shouldn't we be able to have
at least one animal exhibit at the Smithsonian that shows at least forty or fifty
"in-between" stages of this animal going from a 4-legged creature with a long tail to a
bi-pedal creature with a short tail?
If you were to take a gigantic poster and place the pictures of a thousand animals of
all types on it, then you might see similarities between on animal to another. And
because there are similarities, you might be tempted to draw lines connecting one
animal to another and so on until you have made a "psuedo" progression. Unfortunately,
this is what many scientists have assumed. However, there are also many scientists
(agnostics and atheists) who have looked at the hard facts and ruled out evolution as a
possibility. They, like myself, started out believing what we've been told all of our
lives. When things didn't seem to hold true or make any logical sense, I had to find
out for myself.
Rudy
Kalandros M wrote:
> Rudy Gonzalez wrote:
>
> > The theory of evolution is just that...a theory. Evolution is virtually a
> > statistical impossibility. In fact, statisticians have put the odds of evolution
> > on par with a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving a fully functional 747
> > behind.
>
> Given that the poster was proposing theistic evolution, how does this refute it?
>
> Oh yeah, the statisticians are wrong. Their numbers depend on assumptions that
> clearly don't hold. Like DNA just sprang into being.
>
> >
> >
> > Furthermore, if evolution had taken place, for every animal there would literally
> > be millions of "in-between" fossils for each and every species.
>
> If you assume that EVERY species that lived made it into the fossil record, which
> no one believes.
>
> > As an example try
> > to envision this...an animal that existed "millions of years ago" shaped like a
> > perfect square. Now today, scientists take it's presumed evolutionary descendent
> > the "octogon" animal and proclaim that the "octogon" has evolved from the
> > primitive "square". If this were true, archeologists would inevitably have found
> > thousands of fossils of this evolutionary progression...i.e., the 5-sided animal,
> > the six-sided animal, and finally the seven-sided animal. Instead, the fossil
> > record shows huge gaps between every species of animal.
> >
>
Robert Howard
Rudy Gonzalez <ru...@gate.net> wrote in article
<363E0FD2...@gate.net>...
> The theory of evolution is just that...a theory. Evolution is virtually
a
> statistical impossibility. In fact, statisticians have put the odds of
evolution
> on par with a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving a fully
functional 747
> behind.
Here we go again. Over the past few months there must have been hundreds of
messages showing the detail and logic of evolution. Now we have another
ignoramus with his simplistic fundamentalist ideas. I suggest we print all
the messages and make them into a book. For a small fee we could post it
onto Rudy Gonzalez and the others who will come after him - that's if they
will read it.
Bob Howard.
Keith Doyle
>The theory of evolution is just that...a theory. Evolution is virtually a
>statistical impossibility. In fact, statisticians have put the odds of evolution
>on par with a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving a fully functional 747
>behind.
No, educated statisticians know that a "tornado going through a junkyard and
leaving a fully functional 747" has nothing at all in common with the processes
of evolution and is therefore a straw man. Read the talk.origins FAQ's and get
a clue.
>Furthermore, if evolution had taken place, for every animal there would literally
>be millions of "in-between" fossils for each and every species.
No there wouldn't, as fossils are not often preserved, as you would know if you
weren't just a fundie troll.
>Lastly, if one to presume that God exists and the He created the universe in all
>his power and omniscience, then why doubt that he could create all that we know in
>an instant.
If He could, He didn't according to the evidence, or He faked the evidence to
make it look exactly like it would if He didn't.
>Next time you look up into the starry night and see the vastness of
>creation, it's unfathomable beauty, and perfect designer...think a moment about
>the awesomeness of the Designer.
--
Keith Doyle
(remove underbars from reply address for e-mail)
--
Observe "nature".
"God" is pathetic in comparisson.
-- Mark Richardson <m.rich...@utas.edu.au>
R. Tang
>Mike,
>
>The laws of physics dictate that things run down, not become more organized and
>complex.
You can show this mathematically, I take it?
[I don't theeeeeeenk so.....]
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/aatr.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
dic...@drizzle.com
"Matt K." <mjkr...@mtu.edu> wrote:
> Yes it is.Try reading it. It may help you're situation.
>
> Bill Thacker wrote:
>
> > Congratulations! You've realized that the Bible isn't *literally* true.
You're
> > halfway home.
>
>
Then by claiming that the bible is literally "true", you must accept that it
is quite factually false.
--
Dick
Mark of the Beast Recipient
Awarded by John McCoy. June 26, 1998
email: dic...@drizzle.com
maff91
>The theory of evolution is just that...a theory. Evolution is virtually a
Do you know the definition of theory?
http://www.scientificmethod.com/i_13.htm
Definition of evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>statistical impossibility. In fact, statisticians have put the odds of evolution
>on par with a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving a fully functional 747
>behind.
Evolution is not simply a result of random chance. It is also a result
of non-random selection. See the Evolution and Chance FAQ and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html
the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#chance
>
>Furthermore, if evolution had taken place, for every animal there would literally
>be millions of "in-between" fossils for each and every species. As an example try
Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation
occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time,
transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record.
Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Hominids FAQ and the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
The fact of evolution is not supported by fossils alone.
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological
evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from
shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic,
fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also
considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms
that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a
theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
More evidence for common descent
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
>to envision this...an animal that existed "millions of years ago" shaped like a
>perfect square. Now today, scientists take it's presumed evolutionary descendent
>the "octogon" animal and proclaim that the "octogon" has evolved from the
>primitive "square". If this were true, archeologists would inevitably have found
>thousands of fossils of this evolutionary progression...i.e., the 5-sided animal,
>the six-sided animal, and finally the seven-sided animal. Instead, the fossil
>record shows huge gaps between every species of animal.
>
>Lastly, if one to presume that God exists and the He created the universe in all
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
>his power and omniscience, then why doubt that he could create all that we know in
>an instant. Next time you look up into the starry night and see the vastness of
Try
http://www.talkorigins.org/scripts/search/query.idq?Cmd=cosmology&Where=FAQs
>creation, it's unfathomable beauty, and perfect designer...think a moment about
>the awesomeness of the Designer.
In fact, humans (and other animals) have many suboptimal
characteristics. See the FAQ on Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
Nature.
>
>There are many resources out there that show that the theory of evolution is built
>on a house of cards. Included are Hank Hannegraf's "The F.A.C.E. of Evolution" as
>well as "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown.
>simplep...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[snip]
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Jehovah's Witnesses and Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-evolution.html
"Why Christianity Must Change or Die : A Bishop Speaks to Believers in
Exile" by John Shelby Spong
"Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism : A Bishop Rethinks the
Meaning of Scripture" by John Shelby Spong
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the
heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and
orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and
this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and
experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an
unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things,
claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should
do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest
the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to
scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
*****************************************************
"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine.html
*****************************************************
Dave Holloway
simplep...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I believe that God made us, along with the fishes in the sea, and birds in the
> sky etc. etc.
Um, that's creationism.
> God also crated a multidimensional universe. God is also the creator of time.
> Which means God created time-space, black holes etc. All these are part of the
> Grand design of things.
>
> I also believe in evolution. I believe that God made us WITH evolution.
>
> and as for "... and on the xth day, God crated ..."
>
> The Bible is written by Man. The word "day" from the Bible is just a metaphor.
> Just like my dog exists in a different form of time measurement. Just like an
> insect's whole lifetime is our 1 day.
>
> So, God's "one day" = 100,000's of our years.
>
> although these are my own observations,
Observations? To parrot a familiar fundamentalist tactic . . . "How do you
know? Were you there?" (nausea)
> there are probably formal believe
> systems related to this. let me know if you heard of any.
Mainstream liberal Christainity.
Here's the thing: To put it simply, why do you -need- a god to explain
anything?
And please read some Stephen Hawking before you give me a response along the
lines of "how can something come from nothing?"
Dave :o)
--
From the warped mind of Dave Holloway, #1184
http://members.xoom.com/silentdave/atheist.html
Matt K.
> Then by claiming that the bible is literally "true", you must accept that it
> is quite factually false.
>
> --
> Dick
> Mark of the Beast Recipient
> Awarded by John McCoy. June 26, 1998
> email: dic...@drizzle.com
>
Matt K.
the entire Bible page for page. How do you know if something is true unless you have
seen or experienced it. The most important word here is "experienced". The Bible story
is about human experience not a quick reference only compilation. There are tons of
things in the Bible that compare to everyday topics. It is the book about life and us in
general. It describes how we should act and treat each other. It also describes moments
of faith, hope and yes love. It is a complete story unto itself with chapters like any
other book. I can tell you that if you read it you will start to believe and then my
friend you eventually will. I don't see why more good people don't read it more often. I
won't bite you in the head if you read it. It's much much easier to read than say
quantum physics, by far. Any good person should have the opportunity to read at least
something in their life that is good. I think the Bible stands for what is ultimately
good in our Earth and universe. There are many laws and teachings found in the Bible
that are followed to this day by good people all over the world. Even if a bad or median
person reads the Bible they can understand it. So back to you're original question that
said if I can prove that what I said was true. My answer to that would be yes but for
the listener to listen takes a great deal of faith in the teacher as well as trust. Are
not those things what society needs to strengthen the most. So you see you will just
have to trust yourself and just pick it up and start reading. If you are of good but not
evil mind and welcome any possibilities then the Bible is the book for you. Be aware
that the Bible can bring out the soul in all of us. The Bible can get complicated at
times due to our lack of knowledge on certain subjects. Many themes were written for
audiences who already new what Gods plan is. Themes in the Bible such as prophecy and
ultimate law are among the few that are often not very accurately understood. Good luck
and may God be with you.
[The logical person]
"We are one person but yet we live as two lives, good and evil yet we have the right to
choose which one ultimately controls our destiny. The evil person goes to hell and the
good person goes to heaven. Which road do you want to choose?"
Fact:
-------
Those that believe in no hell are just as guilty as those who don't believe in a heaven.
A majority of world citizens believe in some form of an afterlife containing both good
and evil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dic...@drizzle.com
And the fact of evolution is just that, a fact.
Instead of spouting off nonsense, why not go to www.talkorigins.org and read
the faq's. Or perhaps a biology book or 2 whould help.
snip many lines of oft repeated creationist pap
Dave Holloway
"Matt K." <mjkr...@mtu.edu> wrote:
> Yes it is.Try reading it. It may help you're situation.
your, not you're.
[snip]
Yes it did! The Bible was one of the leading factors in my deconversion from
Christianity.
Dave :o)
--
From the warped mind of Dave Holloway, #1184
http://members.xoom.com/silentdave/atheist.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Boikat
>
> The theory of evolution is just that...a theory.
It is an observed phenomena, like lightning. Is
lightning just a theory? Do you even know what you
are talking about?
> Evolution is virtually a
> statistical impossibility. In fact, statisticians have put the odds of evolution
> on par with a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving a fully functional 747
> behind.
Ah, no, you do not know what you are talking
about. But you do know how to parrot garbage.
>
> Furthermore, if evolution had taken place, for every animal there would literally
> be millions of "in-between" fossils for each and every species.
No I want you to think carefully and really really
hard. In the wild, what is the usual fate of a
any animal you care to name? Does every animal
live to a ripe old age and die in a nice cozy
little hole in the ground in which it will be
preserved and fossilized? Maybe in creationist
land, but in the real world, most animals end up
as lunch long before they die of old age. And if
one should die of old age, it is usually set upon
by scavengers, and its remains scattered over a
large area. Not much chance of finding that one
intact. The you still have the fact that bones
exposed to the elements will also decay. So, the
upshot is, not everything that ever lives gets
fossilized, and therefore, there are gaps in the
fossil record. Now, let's say something gets
lucky enough to die in an environment conducive to
fossilization. What makes you think it will be
found? Have you sifted through the entire strata
of sedimentary rock? I doubt it. Ad to that,
that if it was fossilized and later the
surrounding rock erodes away, so doe the fossil,
so even then there may not be a fossil in
existence. So, again, you do not know what you
are talking about. Lets see if you improve
any.....
> As an example try
> to envision this...an animal that existed "millions of years ago" shaped like a
> perfect square. Now today, scientists take it's presumed evolutionary descendent
> the "octogon" animal and proclaim that the "octogon" has evolved from the
> primitive "square".
Well, it's easy to disprove straw man versions of
paleontology. How about an example of a series of
animals with several features in common that
display a trend from one proportion to another in
a consistent sequence? Or a series of fossils
that display reduction in certain features, in a
distinctive orderly fashion through time?
Usually, it takes more than two data points to
establish a trend. Still seems that you are at a
loss of understanding. Is there hope yet? Let's
find out.....
> If this were true, archeologists would inevitably have found
> thousands of fossils of this evolutionary progression...i.e., the 5-sided animal,
> the six-sided animal, and finally the seven-sided animal. Instead, the fossil
> record shows huge gaps between every species of animal.
In your made up example. But then again, what was
there to insure that all species of "X" sided
organism would have been preserved? But since you
already have predetermined that they did not exist
in your made up example, then your argument is
worthless.
>
> Lastly, if one to presume that God exists and the He created the universe in all
> his power and omniscience, then why doubt that he could create all that we know in
> an instant.
Because it is not scientifically verifiable. How
do you know it was not created Last Thursday?
Prove me wrong.
> Next time you look up into the starry night and see the vastness of
> creation, it's unfathomable beauty, and perfect designer...think a moment about
> the awesomeness of the Designer.
Yup. IMPO (and it's only a personal opinion) He
was Damn clever when he set things in motion 15
Billion (+/- a couple of billion) years ago. And
such an elegant tool as evolution for allowing
life to diversify..... Er, You were saying?
>
> There are many resources out there that show that the theory of evolution is built
> on a house of cards.
Better a house of cards than a pile of ....well,
you know. :}
> Included are Hank Hannegraf's "The F.A.C.E. of Evolution" as
> well as "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown.
"Ever heard of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle?"
"Yes."
"Morons."
- the Princess Bride
Boikat
#2 Loudmouth for October and "ruffian" at large.
maff91
>Mike,
>
>The laws of physics dictate that things run down, not become more organized and
>complex. Hence the airplane analogy. But you are absolutely correct, DNA doesn't just
I would recommend that you read Stuart Kauffman.
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/
"The Origins of Order : Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution"
by Stuart A. Kauffman Paperback - 709 pages (May 1993) Oxford Univ
Press; ISBN: 0195079515
An interview with Miller:
http://www.gene.com/ae/WN/NM/miller.html (see also links therein)
An American Scientist article on origin of life by C. de Duve:
http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/cdeduve.html
This account was written before the ribozymal polymerases were
described, and a number of other issues resolved so is slightly more
pessimistic than needs be.
A discovery article on Deamers work on protocells
http://www.enews.com/magazines/discover/magtxt/110195-7.html
A recent New Scientist generalist "warts and all" account of the
current state of play.
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/big3/origins/origins.html
An article by Carl Sagan in Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/010697sagan/010697sagan3.html
See also the talk.orign abiogenesis FAQ at
http://www.talkorigins.org/
There is also a special Scientific American issue on the origin of
life, Orgel LE. The origin of life on the earth. Scientific American.
271(4):76-83, 1994 Oct, again, slightly dated due to recent
discoveries, but a good introduction.
See Also:
Vital Dust : Life As a Cosmic Imperative, by Christian De Duve, Basic
Books 1996, ISBN: 0465090451
De Duve gets a little excited, but the basic biochemistry is presented
clearly.
More evidence for common descent
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_173000/173295.stm
BBC News | Sci/Tech | The most amazing experiment with life
Hopeful Monsters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
BIOLOGY:
Developing a New View of Evolution
Elizabeth Pennisi and Wade Roush
Science 1997 July 4; 277: 34-37. (in Special News Report)
DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY:
Possible New Roles for HOX Genes
Steven Dickman
Science 1997 December 12; 278: 1882-1883. (in Research News)
http://www.aic.nrl.navy.mil/galist/
The Genetic Algorithms Archive
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/coast/archive/clife/FAQ/www/
Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Evolutionary Computation
news:comp.ai.genetic
http://www.marlboro.edu/~lmoss/planhome/index.html
Evolutionary Computer Graphics (more natural looking evolutions)
The similarities between genetic algorithms and biology can be
seen here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature
>spring into being. That's the point. The statisticians do not base this on the
>function of time, but on probability. So even if billions of years passed, the
>likelihood of matter going from an unorganized random state to a sophisticated piece of
>mechanical or biological machinery is virtually nil.
Evolution is not simply a result of random chance. It is also a result
of non-random selection. See the Evolution and Chance FAQ and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html
the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#chance
>
>Regarding the fossil record...it speaks for itself. There is not a single
>archeological evidence that shows ANY animal gradually progressing in the fossil record
Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation
>from one point to the other. The transitional species that you refer to are assumed
>points of an evolutionary time-line that are spread far apart. If evolution were fact,
>then the fossil record would consist of a "morphing" progression of bones at all points
>in this evolution. Assuming these fossils existed, then shouldn't we be able to have
>at least one animal exhibit at the Smithsonian that shows at least forty or fifty
>"in-between" stages of this animal going from a 4-legged creature with a long tail to a
>bi-pedal creature with a short tail?
>
>If you were to take a gigantic poster and place the pictures of a thousand animals of
>all types on it, then you might see similarities between on animal to another. And
>because there are similarities, you might be tempted to draw lines connecting one
>animal to another and so on until you have made a "psuedo" progression. Unfortunately,
>this is what many scientists have assumed. However, there are also many scientists
>(agnostics and atheists) who have looked at the hard facts and ruled out evolution as a
>possibility. They, like myself, started out believing what we've been told all of our
>lives. When things didn't seem to hold true or make any logical sense, I had to find
>out for myself.
>
>Rudy
>
Matt K.
"R. Tang" wrote:
In article <363E30B8...@gate.net>, Rudy Gonzalez <ru...@gate.net> wrote:
>Mike,
>
>The laws of physics dictate that things run down, not become more organized and
>complex.
You can show this mathematically, I take it?
Matt K.
Rune Boersjoe
The bible is literally true. And all those times christians explain
away the word of the bible with 'you don't take it literally', they
were just lying? Including the pope?
--
How do we know we're not a simulation runing on some alien supercomputer?
Reply by mail to jb...@jancomulti.com
Rune Boersjoe
>
>
>> Then by claiming that the bible is literally "true", you must accept that it
>> is quite factually false.
LOL! He was just a troll all along.
Rune Boersjoe
>statistical impossibility.
So is getting a fair national election. Or the universe existing at
all, in any form. But we're here, aren't we?
>In fact, statisticians have put the odds of evolution
>on par with a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving a fully functional 747
>behind.
Bullocks. You are abusing stastics. The end result is just as likely
as any other result. Ask any chaos theorist or math major.
Splifford
<boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> simplep...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > I believe that God made us, along with the fishes in the sea, and
birds in the
> > sky etc. etc.
> >
> > God also crated a multidimensional universe. God is also the creator
of time.
> > Which means God created time-space, black holes etc. All these are
part of the
> > Grand design of things.
> >
> > I also believe in evolution. I believe that God made us WITH evolution.
> >
> > and as for "... and on the xth day, God crated ..."
> >
> > The Bible is written by Man. The word "day" from the Bible is just a
metaphor.
> > Just like my dog exists in a different form of time measurement. Just
like an
> > insect's whole lifetime is our 1 day.
> >
> > So, God's "one day" = 100,000's of our years.
> >
> > although these are my own observations, there are probably formal believe
> > systems related to this. let me know if you heard of any.
> >
>
> Yup. It's commonly referred to as "Theistic
> Evolution, wherein the universe is exactly the way
> it looks (billions of years old), and the same for
> the earth (a bit over 4.5 billion years old), and
> that life evolved (as evident from the fossil
> record). Theistic Evolution asserts that all this
> happened as the result of a guiding hand, God. (I
> say "asserts" because I have seen no tangible
> evidence that God exists, other than my personal
> opinion.)
If you have faith, you don't _need_ evidence. Only those who lack faith
must prove that God exists... which is why I feel that creationists lack
faith. If they really Believed as they insist they do, they would not need
to come up with their nonsense about literal six-day creation and such.
Frankly, it is _impossible_ to prove that God exists, using the methods of
science. Can't be done. And anyone who tries is fooling themselves. Either
you have faith, or you don't.
I do object, however, to someone who tries to use the rules of science to
do something that science cannot do... and when science won't work, tries
to bend the facts so that they fit. Evolution has been observed. The
universe is older than 6,000 years. The Bible is not literally correct in
every line.These are facts. Live with them. God provided us with brains so
we could use them... and anyone who says different is ignoring the parable
of the talents.
>
> Have a good day. :}
>
> Boikat
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
ignorance with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.
Rune Boersjoe
>
>The laws of physics dictate that things run down, not become more organized and
>complex.
Not at all. And how do you tell which from which? You can't. Your
basic flaw is to assume that everything is neat and tidy and happened
in an order that is by some book that doesn't exist. The universe is
basically chaos. It is not ordered, except for the laws of physics,
most of which we do not yet understand. You are basing your logic on a
science that does not exist. Such as...
"The laws of physics dictate that things run down, not become more
organized and complex."
We are the result of an uncountable number of variables.
Boikat
>
> Mike,
>
> The laws of physics dictate that things run down, not become more organized and
> complex.
True. But thermodynamics doesn't say how long
this will take. Well, it does, but as far as the
universe goes, it's a hell of a long wait. Now,
to get back to entropy and the earth and life, and
evolution. Things tend toward entropy... and
here's where it gets good.... unless there is an
input of energy! Cool! Hey genius, ya ever heard
of the *SUN*?
> Hence the airplane analogy.
Aircraft are not living things. The parts of an
aircraft are not organic. Therefore, applying
evolution to the probability of assembling a 747
out of spare parts is kind of stupid, if you
bother to think about it.
> But you are absolutely correct, DNA doesn't just
> spring into being. That's the point.
Don't know much chemistry, do you?
> The statisticians do not base this on the
> function of time, but on probability. So even if billions of years passed, the
> likelihood of matter going from an unorganized random state to a sophisticated piece of
> mechanical or biological machinery is virtually nil.
If matter acted like so many inert marbles, this
would be true. Fortunately, atoms and molecules
do not behave like marbles.
>
> Regarding the fossil record...it speaks for itself.
Yes it does. So why do you Cretinists make so
many false claims based upon it?
> There is not a single
> archeological evidence that shows ANY animal gradually progressing in the fossil record
> from one point to the other.
Well, not to put too fine of point on it, but
archaeology doesn't deal with evolution and the
fossil record, rather human development.
> The transitional species that you refer to are assumed
> points of an evolutionary time-line that are spread far apart.
OH, you mean "paleontology"!
> If evolution were fact,
> then the fossil record would consist of a "morphing" progression of bones at all points
> in this evolution.
Deja Vu, all over again. There is a difference
between the fossil record, which is incomplete
(Which is something that you guys like to point
out) so it's kind of stupid for you cretinists to
use the same argument as an attempt to discredit
evolution, which does not depend upon the fossil
record as much as you seem to think it does. At
any rate, to repeat myself from an earlier pot of
yours, not every organism that ever lived gets
fossilized, hence the gaps. Most animals end up
as lunch, thus not much is left to fossilize,
since most of it ends up exiting the nether
regions of a predator or scavenger as a mass
of....well, use your imagination.
> Assuming these fossils existed, then shouldn't we be able to have
> at least one animal exhibit at the Smithsonian that shows at least forty or fifty
> "in-between" stages of this animal going from a 4-legged creature with a long tail to a
> bi-pedal creature with a short tail?
See, in the first sentence, as a matte of fact,
the first word in the sentence says it all. You
"assume" that everything was fossilized. That's
where you screwed up. Now, let me save you
further embarrassment, and....
.....[snip].....
The rest until you've gone out and read a couple
of good books on geology, paleontology, and
biology. There's a good lad, now run along to the
library, (You know, the BIG building with all them
BOOKS.)
Adam P. R. Taylor
>
> This is very true. Physics states that molecules tend to form less
> complicated structures from higher ordered ones.
U-huh.
Lets see, lets take a simple one, OK?
A (whole lots of) molocule(s) of water, H20,
pretty simple and all just jumbled up, huh?
Now lets cool them down.
Well, damn me, looked like a crystaline
structure has formed, and what is it called?
A Snowflake I hear you say?
Whats the more complex form here, some liquid
water, or a crystal?
We can even extend this to the molecular level,
if you wish. (Oversimplified, I know.)
<insert one of many metals here>, plus oxygen,
equals oxidised <metal>
I think you will find it more commonly known
as rust.
> No math is necessary here, only pure logic.
Yes, you have presented no maths, and that is
not a bad thing, but nor have you presented
any logic.
--
----------------------------------------------------
Adam P. R. Taylor
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
University of Canterbury
Private Bag 4800
Christchurch
NEW ZEALAND
Email: apt18@elec._DIE_SPAMMER_DIE_.canterbury.ac.nz
Adam P. R. Taylor
>
> Rudy Gonzalez wrote:
> >
> > The theory of evolution is just that...a theory.
>
> lightning just a theory? Do you even know what you
> are talking about?
Lightning, => Electricity.
The very basis for how Rudy is communicating with us.
Matt K.
>
> Reply by mail to jb...@jancomulti.com
Because when you die you don't get to hit the reset button! The game is over
and then your score will be shown to you. 666 or 777.
666=you are going to hell.
777=you are going to Heaven plus some extra goodies if you have been real
good.
Note: Please don't take this literally. I only used it as an example.
rfbunting
Matt K.
face it the Earth isn't as old as we once thought. There was no time for species to even
think about about evolving. No record of evolution = no evolution. Same as with UFO's.
No UFO's = no UFO's. Very simple idea pal. Don't think too hard huh? Much of life is
simple to understand. We just have to take some things at face value. There is no sense
in searching for something that is not there.
Scott Sullivan
I have left the previous posts intact, so it is a little long, but I think
that you may find it interesting.
Frank Wustner wrote in message ...
>"Scott Sullivan" <inf...@qni.com> wrote:
>
>> Good Morning Stix,
>
>You should just say "hello". It might not be morning in Austrailia.
>
>> I won't try to force feed you my faith. I won't quote you any
scriptures
>> which you are predisposed not to believe. But allow me the opportunity to
>> defend my faith from a "thoughful" perspective.
>
>That would be nice, for a change.
>
>> Beleif in God is not a form of mysticism(though many religious
people,
>> including Christians do fall into this trap). In fact, many people, like
>> myself, believe that God created the universe in a very structured and
>> ordered way, so as to allow it to function properly, to go forth and
>> multiply so to speak.
>
>This still seems like mysticism to me. Physics works quite well without
>the god-hypothesis.
This is simply to say that physics and God are not mutually exclusive. If
for no other reason than the fact that we know very little about either.
>
>> As Albert Einstein said in 1919, after the confirmation of his theory
of
>> gravitation during an eclipse in Australia(which proved that light bends
>> around strong gravitational fields), "God does not play dice with the
>> universe".
>
>And as Stephen Hawkings later said, "God [*does*] plays dice with the
>universe".
Blatant plageurism on the part of Hawking, and yet another brilliant
physicist acknowledging the
existence of God :') But really, my primary purpose in quoting Einstein was
to demonstrate that a belief in God does not necessarily equate to idiocy or
the inability to outthink a ten year old. Only to seek some acknowledgement
that two brilliantly thoughful men, observing the same facts, can come to
different conclusions. Whichever one turns out to be right, you still cannot
justify calling the other an idiot.
>
>> Just like a computer programmer must set strict rules and guidelines
for
>> his program to operate properly, so too must God create the universe upon
>> logical mathematical models so that it can operate properly.
>
>And yet we still have viable fields such as Chaos Theory and Quantum
>Mechanics.
Just as we have randomization(or good approximations thereof) in computer
programming. The point here is that any omnipient being attempting to create
a universe which could last long enough to sustain life would realize that
certain fundamental principals must be applied. Random occurences can
happen, but must be the exception, not the rule. Net result, physics, chaos
theory and quantum mechanics do not disprove God. They can all coexist,
which leaves God as an equally viable theory when considered against no God.
>> It is important in any scientific analysis to verify that the
observable
>> results match the theory which is proposed, AND also to verify that no
other
>> explanation applies. i.e theory, observation, analysis, conclusion.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> As you look at the scientific observations of "today's day and age",
you
>> must ask two questions, Do these observations support the theory of
>> evolution? and Do these observations support the theory of Creation?
Failure
>> to ask both questions would be a fundemental failure of the scientific
>> method.
>
>*sigh* Do please pay attention when we speak. We are *constantly*
>asking both questions. And the constant and inevitable answers are,
>respectively, "yes" and "no".
I had nearly finished 3 hours worth of analysis of evolutionary studies
which maff91 refered me to at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html regarding evidence of
speciation when a random occurrence in my perfectly mathematical dial up
networking connection caused my machine to lock and the entire post to be
lost
. I will post my full analysis later, but to be brie-- a common problem of
the studies involving
plants and fruit flies is that these studies demonstrate the results of
outside intelligent manipulation as opposed to natural forces at work. The
researchers are regularly "cross-breeding", changing DNA, deleting certain
specimens which do not suit their needs, conducting the experiments in
unnatural environments, etc.
Another problem is the overwhelming frequency with which these studies
produce sterile offspring. If the mutation produces sterile or unviable
offspring, then it would disprove the underlying theory of evolution, that
mutations beget new species. Rather than acknowledge this problem, they
construct polyploid mutations of the mutation to get a new one that may(or
may not) be fertile)Many of the studies are, by their own admission,
non-repeatable, and therefore unverifiable and unscientific.It is also
questionable whether a fruit fly attracted to acetaldehyde is a different
species than a fruit fly attracted to ethanol. Because their is no evidence
of superior characteristics, there is no evidence of evolution. Only
evidence that fruit flies choose their mates in part due to chemical
attraction(as do all animals). Please read the studies in Maff's link at :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
and you will see these problems occuring over and over again.
In light of some of the unscientific methods, and failure to consider
alternative hypotheses in these studies, I think it is understandable that I
would doubt their results as a basis for proclaiming "evolution as the
origin of species".
To use a specific example, consider the following hypothesis(based upon the
fruit fly experiment--5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster
at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html ) which concludes
"-- reproductive isolation was produced...Their results, they stated, show
the possibility of sympatric speciation."
perhaps fruit flies that are attracted to ethanol simply are not attracted
to fruit flies that spend all of their time flying around in acetaldehyde
vapors. The observable mating preference may have more to do with the odor
of a particular fruit fly than it does with genetic alteration, or
evolution. If a man failed to bath himself for 60 days, rest assured that
"reproductive isolation" would be the result. This would not prove that he
was a new species.
Please also note, that I am very picky about what may and may not be deemed
evolution. Genetic differences from one generation to the next are a fact of
nature. My genetic make-up is different from that of either my mother or my
father. I would not, however claim to be "evolved" from them.
Similarly, a plant/fruit fly etc. which is genetically altered, either
through cross-breeding, DNA manipulation, etc. which displays different
physical and genetic characteristics, but is STERILE, would also not be an
example of evolution, but rather of DEevolution--the regression of a species
into a lesser form as a result of genetic mutation. Every study which I have
seen into genetic mutation results in an inferior offspring. This is in
direct contradiction to the theory that life "evolve" into higher lifeforms.
In order to prove the theory of evolution as the origins of man, it must be
shown that genetic mutation can result in successively higher forms of life.
Otherwise, we cannot explain the progression of life from lower
forms(proteins, single cells, plants) to higher forms (animal, man).
>> With regards to the creation of the universe, it has been observed
that
>> all known galaxies are moving AWAY from each other. This has led to the
>> theory of the Big Bang, a massive explosion in which the entire Universe
>> came to be from nothingness. A mass of energy expanding outward cooled,
>> coalesced and fused, to produce all of the elements, then the dust, then
the
>> planets/stars/galaxies etc.
>
>Among other observations, yes. There are others which also support
>the big bang.
>
>> No observation has yet answered the question, "How did ALL of the
energy
>> of the universe come to be in that one ininitesimle spot simultaneously?
The
>> theory that is most often proposed is the expanding/contracting universe
>> theory?
>
>And so you commit the fallacy of arguing from ignorence by concluding
>that since we don't know how it happened, it must be God.
I am sorry if I misled you into thinking that I believe in God BECAUSE I
don't know how it happened. I believe in God because I find that God's
creation is the single most comprehensive theory of the origins of man and
the Universe. I believe specifically in the Christian God, because I have
found that all other religions and non-religions are self-contradictory on
far too many levels. (Huge long discussion. Let's save that one for another
message thread)
But on the subject of arguing from ignorance(meaning lack of knowledge--not
intended as an insult), let me point out that we DO NOT know how it
happened. It would be equally fallacious to conclude that it happened
spontaneously, without any guiding force, because, again, we simply do not
know.
>
>> This theory has a major flaw though, in that it contradicts the
original
>> observation which led to the Big Bang theory. If there were a massive
>> gravitational center to the universe, strong enough to pull all matter
back
>> into the original spot for the next Big Bang contraction to begin, slower
>> moving galaxies of higher mass nearer the "Center of Origin", would be
drawn
>> into the center sooner than smaller faster more distant galaxies. Net
>> result, some galaxies would be moving inward while others are moving
>> outward. This is a direct violation of the observable facts, and
therefore
>> should be discounted.
>
>Completely silly. First, this in no way contradicts the big bang theory
>because the conditions you describe could still occur at some time in
>the future. And second, even if what you say is completely true it does
>not lead to the conclusion that your god exists.
Granted, we could be in the first expansion of an expanding contracting
universe. Which again leaves us without the answer to how it happened. And
second, even if what you say is completely true it does not lead to the
conclusion that God DOES NOT exist.
Pardon the plaguerism there, but I do it to make a point. All theories of
origin are faith based. i.e. drawing a conclusion based upon inconclusive
evidence is by definition a leap of faith.
>
>> By contrast, a reading of the Origin account in Genesis will show
that
>> God describes first Let there be light(energy explosion), the coming
>> together of the waters(H2O, the first two elements, hydrogen and oxygen
>> combined into the simplest observable compound), followed by the land,
the
>> animals, the people, etc.
>
>Of course, you conveniently ignore that the "let there be light" bit
>came *after* the land, animals, and whatnot.
Pardon me for breaking my promise here. But because this is a scriptural
point of contention, I must quote scripture to make my point:
Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
Gen 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void
NOTE: in these first two passages heaven and earth are in small letters.
This is important due to the extreme structure of the Hebrew language. I'll
explain in a moment
Gen 1:3 "Let there be light" Day 1
Gen 1:6 "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it
divide the waters from the waters
Gen 1:8 "And God called the firmament Heaven." Day 2
Note: This is the first occurrence of "waters" as well as the first mention
of Heaven(capitalized). God is describing the creation of the Universe to
Moses 5000 years before the discovery of the atom. Just like talking to a
child, it is necessary that it be explained in terms which could be
understood by the listener, and so, some terms are intended to be taken
metaphorically as opposed to literally. At this point in time, on the second
day of creation/immediately following the big bang, the entire universe
would consist solely of energy(light), and the simplest
elements(hydrogen/oxygen/etc.) The simplest compound H2O would possibly be
coming into existence in vaporized form, and,more complex compounds would
still be too hot to exist in anything above liquid form, and so the entire
universe could be described figuratively as "waters". By contrast, Heaven,
here a proper name(and therefore capitalized for the first time), is the
firmament(modern definition-the arch of the sky) which divides our universe
from God's universe, much like the firmament(modern definition) divides our
atmosphere from outer space. Picture the expanding universe as a ballon:
inside it is earth(our realm), outside it is heavens (God's realm) and the
latex is Heaven. For some reason, many people read firmament to mean dry
land and presume that it is there to seperate the oceans, one from another.
However, it is abundantly clear that this cannot be what is meant, simply by
reading the following passage:
Gen1:9"Let the waters..be gathered together..and let the dry land appear.
Gen 1:10"And God called the dry land Earth: and the gathering together of
the waters called he Seas.
Gen 1:11"Let the Earth bring forth grass, the herb.., and the fruit tree..
whose seed is in itself. Day 3
NOTE:It doesn't take a Bible scholar to realize that God did not create the
continents and oceans on the second day and then do it AGAIN on the third
day. So obviously his second day creation was something else. This is the
first point at which dry land appears in the Bible, the first reference to
Earth(capitalized) and Seas(capitalized). Some Biblical scholars may not be
very pleased with me for saying this, but I have found that everything in
the Bible is said in the way in which it is said for specific reasons. It is
my belief that Heaven, Earth, and Seas, are capitalized(Indicating proper
names in Hebrew) SPECIFICALLY to differentiate them from the metaphorical
heavens, earth, and waters used to describe the creations which occurred on
the second day.
Another interesting note, grass, herb, and fruit tree "whose seed is in
itself" are created on the third day. I say interesting because, as I said,
the things in the Bible are in there, in that way for specific reasons.
Rather than simply saying, on the third day God made plants, specific
mention is made of the REPRODUCTIVE method of these plants. This would seem
to be blatantly trivial and unnecessary fact, especially considering the
brevity of the other descriptions of creation(such as "Let there be light").
And yet, as trivial as it may seem in the context of the Genesis account, it
was important enough to God that it be included.
Gen 1:14 "Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven..to give light upon
the earth"
Gen 1:16 "God made two great lights;the greater light to rule the day; and
the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also." Day 4
This is your point of contentiont, and let me point out the subtleties once
again. First of all we have the firmament of heaven(small h) and earth(small
e). remember from Gen1:2 that "earth" small e was formless and void
initially. It was then filled, first with light(Big Bang), then with
waters(H,O,H2O,liquid state compounds etc.) which were gathered together
(formation of galaxies as dust clouds, still super hot from Big Bang),
planets, and specifically Earth(Big E) formed within these dust clouds, God
created plant life(I know you want to hammer me on this one, so let me
continue and come back to it), THEN God created light"s", plural. Remember
that light(electromagnetic radiation visible to the human eye) was created
on day one, and now God creates lights(a source of light: as a: a heavenly
body, b: candle c: an electric light). This describes the formation and
ignition of stars throughout the universe. "in" the firmament of heaven
means that they are contained WITHIN our universe, i.e inside the balloon.
This is the point at which the Sun and moon were formed--the greater light
to rule the day, the lesser light to rule the night, and the stars also.
Now, your point of contention may be that plant life cannot exist without
light from the Sun. One, this is not true, as plants exist far below the
surface of the ocean, two, plants survived whatever catastrophe allegedly
killed the dinosaurs(meaning that scientific models which project a massive
dust cloud encirling the Earth and blocking the sun show plant life
surviving), three, the universe is still at this point, filled with the
ambiant light of the Big Bang, Four, evolutionist models of an Earth covered
in deep cloud cover and electromagnetic storms, theorize plant life being
generated by lightning strikes, which form proteins, which form, algae, etc.
also show the developement of earlier plant life without the benefit of
Sunlight. Astonomial models of the formation of galaxies also demonstrate
the seperation of the gasses and particles into planets happening sooner
than the collection of all remaining particles into the center of the galaxy
to form the star or stars.
In short, igniting the Sun AFTER forming plant life is no more of a
difficulty for Creationists than it is for Evolutionist. Both have plant
life forming in extreme low-light conditions. And both have planets(albeit
infantile ones) forming before the sun is completely formed(as it is still
collecting ambiant dust).
Moving on...
Gen 1:20, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that
hath life, and fowl that may fly...Day 5
Here we see the creation of fishes and birds. The birds of course will
create a huge uproar, to say that birds existed prior to land animals, which
come on day 6. It is likely that we will have to agree to disagree on this
point, but I have seen too many examples of a single geological sample being
carbon dated at 5 million, 10 million, 50 million, AND 100million, and then
just stuck into whatever geological era they thought that it should be in in
the first place. This is similar to my objection to evolutionary studies,
whcih seem to manufacture evidence more often than observing it. I will be
making several in depth postings regarding Evolutionary studies and carbon
dating, so look for them. For the mean time, suffice it to say that I find
great fault with any "scientific" method which produces unrepeatable and
widely variant results.
If I must make a leap of faith, I am going to choose to leap OPPOSITE the
direction of a method which is proven unreliable(i.e carbon dating)
P.S. Ever hear of "Nebraska Man"? Wonderful story. Greatest fraud in
evolutionist history. I will tell you about it some time.
>
>> In other words, the theory of the creation of the universe, as
described
>> in the Bible, DOES not contradict the observations of modern science. And
>> keep in mind that this account was written by Moses, four thousand years
>> prior to the discovery of the atom or the expanding universe theory.
Ironic,
>> isn't it?
>
>Yes, quite ironic. After all, it DOES very clearly contradict modern
>scientific observations, yet you boldly claim otherwise.
See above, the only contradictions come from misreadings of the text of
Genesis, and the timeline for birds--of which the "scientific observations"
are questionable. While this may not be enough to convince you to go to
church next Sunday, I hope that it has at least closed the gap between what
you believe and what is stated in the bible. I do not claim that this PROVES
the Bible, I only claim that the differences between the Bible and the
scientific observation are not as great as many people believe them to be.
The leap of faith still exists on either side. There is still too much which
we do not, will not and cannot know about the origins of the Universe and
Life. I understand how you could so easily discount the Genesis account of
creation, based upon the way it has been historically interpreted. Even the
interpretations of Christians tend to try to take the account far too
literally. Considering that the entire account of the creation of the
universe encompasses roughly a page and a half in an average bible, and the
fact the the story was related to a man(Moses) 5 thousand years ago who had
no concept of even the simplest chemical formulations (H2O), it must be read
as a conceptual outline of creation, and not as a literal formula. After
all, the literal formula would be far too complex to be contained within all
of the volumes ever written by man.
>> I was once a "thoughtful ten-year old" who thought that God did not
>> exist, because I was taught differently in school. It was only when I
took
>> the time to investigate the sciences of physics, genetics, biology,
>> archeology, etc. that I came to find that the theories which I had been
>> taught were unproven, undocumented, and constantly in a state of change.
>> Every time a new discovery comes, the theories are changed to match the
>> evidence. I also came to discover that all of these new discoveries fit
>> perfectly within the description of Creation given to Moses by God.
>
>*sigh* You have been completely duped into believing a fairy tale by
>lies and misinformation. Why does this not surprise me?
If you get nothing from this, even if you do not agree, I hope that you will
realize that I have been "duped" into nothing. In fact, I know that I have
been lied to and misled by people who proclaim the truth of Creation just as
much as I feel I have been lied to and misled by those who claim evolution.
There are many fairy tales to support both sides of the issue. My faith
comes from a careful and thoughtful analysis of both the scientific
literature and the Bible itself. In fact, I would not consider myself
arrogant at all to say that I have applied significantly more fairness and
equality of time/research/and reason to both sides of the issue than ANYONE
that I personally know.
This is not to say that others have not spent more time or been more fair in
their assessments. In fact, that is the reason that I have logged into this
newsgroup and investigatedthe links and info that others have posted..to
continue my study and to deepen my understanding.
I have seen many studies posted which I had not previously read, I have been
opened up to new paths of research which I did not know of before. And I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss and learn new things provided by
newsgroups such as this.
I hope that others can equally appreciate the knowledge which I have gained
through my own research and reading. I know that I personally left the
Church for almost ten years, because of the "mythology and mysticism" which
it represented. I sought a greater understanding through my own research and
reading, and I found that there were many misinterpretations of evidence
being perpetuated by both sides. Hopefully through these discussions we can
uncover some of the misrepresentation, and clarify the facts of both
positions
> I encourage you to look at the evidence which science presents you
with
> an open mind. After all, science must keep an open mind if it is to
discover
>> the answers to the unknown mysteries of the universe.
>
>"Science" is not the same as "mystical theology".
Again, I do not believe the "mystical theology". There is alot of bad
theology out there. There is also a lot of bad science. Through discussion
and discovery, we can uncover both.
>
>> Let me also suggest that you do a little brief research into genetic
>> theory as it relates to evolution. Though I will certainly be posting
again
>> on that subject later(I have a Chiefs game to go to now), I think you
will
>> discover some serious difficulties with that theory as well. (Hint, read
>> about genetic mutations. Even an encyclopedia article should be
sufficient
>> to give you the basic info on how mutations take place, and what the
results
>> turn out to be).
>
>Been there, done that, took a piss and walked away. Genetic theory
>*supports* evolution.
I will have a more thorough posting on this later. But there ARE many
aspects of genetic theory which do not support evolution, and which
scientists are still try to explain. Negative effects of genetic mutation.
Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record(everyone hits me on this
one, so I pose the question, If paleontologists have found solid evidence of
transitional form, why do they propose the theory of punctated equilibrium?
Why create a theory to explain a problem in the evidence which does not
exist? The very existense of the theory demonstrates that the evidence for
transitional forms is lacking.), unverifiable and unrepeatable studies,
studies which rely on genetic mutation and cross-breading(acts of creation
due to the influece of outside intelligence).
>> I hope to avoid the typical name calling and shouting matches which
all
>> too often come into discusions of origins and religion. You have quite
>> adamently insisted that "brainlessness", idiocy, and lies offend you, and
I
>> can respect that. Hopefully we can open a thoughtful dialogue, and
explore
>> these issues together to develope greater understanding for all.
>
>And yet you still believe a load of lies. You have my pity.
Actually, I have heard many of the lies in support of both theories. I have
chosen a path which will help me uncover the truth. And that path includes
reading the scientific literature as well as the Bible with an equal amount
of skepticism. I think that if you were to look at many of the scientific
studies, and just for the sake of understanding, pick them apart in the same
way you would the Bible--look for any contradictions, look to see if the
evidence supports the conclusion, ask yourself "Does this demonstrate a
NATURAL process?" or "Did the researches possibly apply too much "control"
to consider the experiment a true reflection of nature?" "Could the methods
of this study actually occur in nature?"
If the study is blatantly "unnatural", such as removing all cross-breed from
the general population, genetically altering the structure of an organism in
a controlled fashion, or producing "sterile" or unviable "offspring", then
look around for another study. Every one of these characteristics is opposed
to the theory of evolution and natural selection, and yet nearly every study
(though not all) which I have seen has been so unnatural in its methods and
results, that I cannot consider them as evidence of anything more than what
is possible in a laboratory under tightly controlled conditions.
That's all for now. But I hope that we can continue this discussion in the
future.
>
>--
>
>The Deadly Nightshade
>http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade
>
>|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
>|"I, too, believe in fate... |"Ack. Thpppbt." Bill the Cat |
>|the fate a man makes for himself." |-----------------------------------|
>|Lord Soth | Atheist #119 |
>|-----------------------------------| Knight of BAAWA! |
>|"Quoth the raven, 'Eat my shorts!'"|-----------------------------------|
>|Edgar Allan Bart | niteshade(at)mindspring(dot)com |
>|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
Louann Miller wrote in message <363DB9...@mail.smu.edu>...
>simplep...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> I believe that God made us, along with the fishes in the sea, and birds
in the
>> sky etc. etc.
>
>> The Bible is written by Man. The word "day" from the Bible is just a
metaphor.
>
>This viewpoint, when it's given a name, is usually called "theistic
>evolution." This is the majority viewpoint worldwide among people who
>are both educated and who practice a religion (Christian or otherwise).
>You're utterly mainstream, it's the Young Earth Creationists who are out
>in left field.
>
>--
>Updated 9/28/98! Media fan fiction at http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers
>
Adam P. R. Taylor
>
> No record of evolution = no evolution.
The first part is in error, so your idea fails there.
> Don't think too hard huh? Much of life is
> simple to understand.
I think that you may have been following your
own advice a bit too much.
> We just have to take some things at face value.
Blind acceptance of something may be a good idea
in your book, but it is not a positive character
trait in mine.
Some advice;
Step 1, Look.
Step 2, Think.
Step 3, Ask.
Step 4, Think.
Step 5, Repeat Step 1.
You might surprise yourself with what you learn.
Fritz
simplep...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I believe that God made us, along with the fishes in the sea, and birds in the
> sky etc. etc.
I believe that fishes and birds evolved, because that is the conclusion
the collective evidence from a number of scientific disciplines supports.
I do not believe that any god "made us" because there is no evidence that
any god exists.
> God also crated a multidimensional universe. God is also the creator of time.
> Which means God created time-space, black holes etc. All these are part of the
> Grand design of things.
My dog can warp the fabric of the space-time continuum so she can eat the
can of dog food I would have given her tommorrow this evening.
See how easy it is to make unsupported assertions?
> I also believe in evolution. I believe that God made us WITH evolution.
Which brings us to a bit of a problem. Evolution works by mechanisms
which require no external intervention whatsoever. For any deity to "use"
evolution as you or I would "use" a tool would require that the path of
evolution be different from what would have occurred with no such
intervention. Yet there is no evidence that anything of the sort
occurred.
I can appreciate your attempt to accept the undeniable evidence of the
fact of evolution while maintaining your religious convictions. However,
for your position to be true, you must find evidence of where this deity
altered the course of evolution, in a way which would not have occurred
without such divine intervention.
In the professional science journals that I read, no such evidence has
ever been documented.
Fritz
--
"If we assume that man actually does resemble God, then we are
forced into the impossible theory that God is a coward, an idiot
and a bounder." H.L. Mencken
Matt K.
out so great in this universe of so called chaos. There must be a binding and unseen force at
work here. I believe it is God. The probability for amino acids in DNA to just randomly
assemble into structured DNA strands and be stable is astronomically high. In other words
incalculable or better yet unknown! Just go ahead there genius and give me a table with
calculated data representing the bonds every amino acid makes to make up one single strand of
human DNA. Go ahead try. I dare ya!
Chaos Theory
Matt K. wrote:
> It's not that simple. I could back my previous statement up but it would require quoting
> the entire Bible page for page.
He asked for "some simple evidence", not your idea of a proof of the whole thing.
> How do you know if something is true unless you have
> seen or experienced it. The most important word here is "experienced". The Bible story
> is about human experience not a quick reference only compilation.
So you're taking it as a novel.
> There are tons of
> things in the Bible that compare to everyday topics.
Or is it a self-help book?
> It is the book about life and us in
> general.
Then you claim it's a science book?
> It describes how we should act and treat each other.
So it's political, eh?
> It also describes moments
> of faith, hope and yes love.
And moments of hate, cruelty, and stupidity. Ask if you want quotes.
> It is a complete story unto itself with chapters like any
> other book.
So it's only "like any other book" i.e. it's not sacred or to be assumed true. Gotcha.
> I can tell you that if you read it you will start to believe and then my
> friend you eventually will.
If you read it you will get sick. Then you will feel like you will hurl and then my friend you eventually will. The bible
contains the sickest, most demented passages
I have ever seen.
> I don't see why more good people don't read it more often.
Good question. Why don't xtians read their own book?
> I
> won't bite you in the head if you read it.
You won't bite me in the head for any reason.
> It's much much easier to read than say
> quantum physics, by far.
Hah. You must not know me. I read quantum physics at the age of 10, no joke. While I didn't understand the math
involved, I understood the ideas and I almost know enough
math now to delve into the quantum world myself.
> Any good person should have the opportunity to read at least
> something in their life that is good.
What does that have to do with the bible?
> I think the Bible stands for what is ultimately
> good in our Earth and universe.
Then it also stands for everything which is evil and terrible.
> There are many laws and teachings found in the Bible
> that are followed to this day by good people all over the world.
Because people wrote it. There are also many laws which have longbeen regarded as BS (e.g. a law against wearing mixed
fabrics, sorry
I am still waiting for a website to get the location of that passage up.)
> Even if a bad or median
> person reads the Bible they can understand it.
So it's a book for simpletons.
> So back to you're original question that
> said if I can prove that what I said was true.
The bible contradicts itself. You can't possible prove the whole thing true.
> My answer to that would be yes but for
> the listener to listen takes a great deal of faith in the teacher as well as trust.
So the listener trusts you, you tell him that it's true, and he believes you? Sounds like evangelicism in action.
> Are
> not those things what society needs to strengthen the most.
Yes they are not. The bible contains not only arbitrary laws but also terrible, disgusting commands. Like before, ask if
you want
quotes, I have posted too much to trolls to do it again.
> So you see you will just
> have to trust yourself and just pick it up and start reading.
I did once. I hurled.
> If you are of good but not
> evil mind and welcome any possibilities then the Bible is the book for you.
The bible should be the first book on a banned list, though I disagree with those.
> Be aware
> that the Bible can bring out the soul in all of us.
Yeah, it also brings out the killer in people. Eric Robert Rudolph?
> The Bible can get complicated at
> times due to our lack of knowledge on certain subjects.
So it's not, as you said earlier, a book for simpletons, rather an extremely abstruse book.
> Many themes were written for
> audiences who already new what Gods plan is.
So it's propaganda.
> Themes in the Bible such as prophecy and
> ultimate law are among the few that are often not very accurately understood.
Oh, they're understood completely. Prophecy is understood to be BS. Ultimate law is understood to be BS.
> Good luck
Luck is not something I depend upon. I depend upon me and those I trust.
> and may God be with you.
Oh, there are many non-existant things with me.
> [The logical person]
> "We are one person but yet we live as two lives, good and evil yet we have the right to
> choose which one ultimately controls our destiny. The evil person goes to hell and the
> good person goes to heaven. Which road do you want to choose?"
Huh?
> Fact:
> -------
> Those that believe in no hell are just as guilty as those who don't believe in a heaven.
Guilty of what? Not blindly following the blind? Fact sez who? Just more scare tactics.
> A majority of world citizens believe in some form of an afterlife containing both good
> and evil.
A majority of world citizens can't tell cause they haven't found out forthemselves. How many dead people do you know who
talk to you?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Honus wrote:
>
> > Care to back that statement up with some proof? Or how about just some simple >
> evidence?
--
-Brought to you by the letter C and the number e
Special thanks to the chaotically insane mind of Chaos Theory
for thinking this message.
Chaos Theory
Matt K. wrote:
> GO AWAY SATAN!!!
Hahahahahahahahahaha <wipes tears from face>
ahahahahahahahahahahaha!
What a moron! First off, he believes in satan,
then he believes that telling him to go away will
make him go away. Hehehehehe....
Or is he an atheist playing a joke?
Either way it's funny.
> > Then by claiming that the bible is literally "true", you must accept that it
> > is quite factually false.
> >
> > --
> > Dick
> > Mark of the Beast Recipient
> > Awarded by John McCoy. June 26, 1998
> > email: dic...@drizzle.com
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
Matt K.
power in this universe and throughout everything. There is no if's and's or
but's about it. This is the bottom line. If you don't like God then you will
rott in hell. Otherwise, believe in God and be saved. Pure and simple. Heaven or
Hell, what's it going to be people. Time is running out folks.
Chaos Theory
Matt K. wrote:
> > How do we know we're not a simulation runing on some alien supercomputer?
> >
> > Reply by mail to jb...@jancomulti.com
>
> Because when you die you don't get to hit the reset button!
How do you know? Have you tried?
> The game is over
> and then your score will be shown to you. 666 or 777.
>
> 666=you are going to hell.
> 777=you are going to Heaven plus some extra goodies if you have been real
> good.
>
> Note: Please don't take this literally. I only used it as an example.
--
Dick C.
>GO AWAY SATAN!!!
Man o man. First nameless gives me the mark of the beast, now someone
else labels me as satan. And all I did both times was point out a fallacy in
their thinking. How easy it is to be evil to them. :-).
>
>
>> Then by claiming that the bible is literally "true", you must accept that it
>> is quite factually false.
Dick, Atheist #1349
Number 1 poster for month of Aug. Meaning too much free time I guess.
email: dic...@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
Dick C.
>This is very true. Physics states that molecules tend to form less complicated
>structures from higher ordered ones. This is the same when density of matter is
>concerned. Molecules of higher density tend to dissipate to a lower density in
>whatever medium they are in. To form more complicated structured molecules
> requires
>a considerable greater net increase in energy when compared to making less
>structured molecules. No math is necessary here, only pure logic. :-)
Just like the separate atoms of hydrogen and oxygen never join to make h20?
Or just like all chemistry is built upon how the highly complex individual
atoms join with other equally highly complex atoms to form less complex
molecules? Just like the highly complex single cell in a mothers uterus ends up
a much less complex adult being?
Rightttttt.
John Wilkins
|In article <363E4F0D...@mtu.edu>, "Matt K." <mjkr...@mtu.edu> wrote:
|>GO AWAY SATAN!!!
|
|Man o man. First nameless gives me the mark of the beast, now someone
|else labels me as satan. And all I did both times was point out a fallacy in
|their thinking. How easy it is to be evil to them. :-).
Logic is the INSTRUMENT OF SATAN! It is designed to take the INNOCENT AWAY
FROM GOD!
[Yes... this is meant as satire, folks.]
|
|
|>
|>
|>> Then by claiming that the bible is literally "true", you must accept
that it
|>> is quite factually false.
|
|Dick, Atheist #1349
|Number 1 poster for month of Aug. Meaning too much free time I guess.
|email: dic...@drizzle.com
|Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
|
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute
of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
Matt K.
> >Matt K. wrote:
> >No record of evolution = no evolution.
>
> The first part is in error, so your idea fails there.
It is not an idea pal. We know this already, get with the program.
Were just too damned ashamed to say it.
> Some advice;
> Step 1, Look.
> Step 2, Think.
> Step 3, Ask.
> Step 4, Think.
> Step 5, Repeat Step 1.
Duly noted. What? You seem to not even follow your own
presumptuous rules.
> You might surprise yourself with what you learn.
I have learned many things in my life. Collect data,
weed out the bad and then make certain hypothesis.
Certainly that's how you do it to, right?
Boikat
>
> Sure and GM made the Corvette with play-doh.
Actually, prior to wide spread computer usage and
CAD programs, they did just that when designing
the body.
Now, what was your point?
Boikat
J. Michael Phillips
What the HELL are you talking about?!?!?!?!?
***snip***
>
>I believe that fishes and birds evolved, because that is the conclusion
>the collective evidence from a number of scientific disciplines supports.
>I do not believe that any god "made us" because there is no evidence that
>any god exists.
Bullshit. Don't confuse "I don't believe the evidence MEANS 'X'" with
"There is no evidence."
***snip***
>
>> I also believe in evolution. I believe that God made us WITH evolution.
>
>Which brings us to a bit of a problem.
This is a PROBLEM?!?!?
>Evolution works by mechanisms
>which require no external intervention whatsoever. For any deity to "use"
>evolution as you or I would "use" a tool would require that the path of
>evolution be different from what would have occurred with no such
>intervention.
Bullshit. I can round over this edge of my wood without a router.
That does not mean I COULDN'T have used a router.
Do you see how stupid your argument is?
>Yet there is no evidence that anything of the sort
>occurred.
>
>I can appreciate your attempt to accept the undeniable evidence of the
>fact of evolution while maintaining your religious convictions. However,
>for your position to be true, you must find evidence of where this deity
>altered the course of evolution, in a way which would not have occurred
>without such divine intervention.
Why? Recognizing the unmistakable marks of a router doesn't require
that ONLY a router is POSSIBLE.
>
>In the professional science journals that I read, no such evidence has
>ever been documented.
That's because professional science journals don't even TRY to PRETEND
to address the question of metaphysics. They are concerned ONLY with
Physics . . . PERIOD.
Overheard:
"I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous"
Chaos Theory
Scott Sullivan wrote:
> This is a repost from another thread, but it seemed to fit in here as well.
> I have left the previous posts intact, so it is a little long, but I think
> that you may find it interesting.
>
> Frank Wustner wrote in message ...
> >"Scott Sullivan" <inf...@qni.com> wrote:
> >
>
<snipercalifragilisticakesmealidosious>
> >
> >And yet we still have viable fields such as Chaos Theory
Here I am!
> and Quantum
> >Mechanics.
>
> Just as we have randomization(or good approximations thereof) in computer
> programming. The point here is that any omnipient being attempting to create
> a universe which could last long enough to sustain life would realize that
> certain fundamental principals must be applied. Random occurences can
> happen, but must be the exception, not the rule. Net result, physics, chaos
> theory and quantum mechanics do not disprove God. They can all coexist,
> which leaves God as an equally viable theory when considered against no God.
<more irrelevant and bandwidth consuming stuff>
> >
> >> As you look at the scientific observations of "today's day and age",
> you
> >> must ask two questions, Do these observations support the theory of
> >> evolution? and Do these observations support the theory of Creation?
> Failure
> >> to ask both questions would be a fundemental failure of the scientific
> >> method.
> >
> >*sigh* Do please pay attention when we speak. We are *constantly*
> >asking both questions. And the constant and inevitable answers are,
> >respectively, "yes" and "no".
>
> I had nearly finished 3 hours worth of analysis of evolutionary studies
> which maff91 refered me to at
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html regarding evidence of
> speciation when a random occurrence in my perfectly mathematical dial up
> networking connection caused my machine to lock and the entire post to be
> lost
Chaotic occurances, or, your ISP got struck by lightning.
> . I will post my full analysis later, but to be brie-- a common problem of
> the studies involving
> plants and fruit flies is that these studies demonstrate the results of
> outside intelligent manipulation as opposed to natural forces at work. The
> researchers are regularly "cross-breeding", changing DNA, deleting certain
> specimens which do not suit their needs, conducting the experiments in
> unnatural environments, etc.
Now, but that's because our goal is to locate genes and determine
their characteristics or something like that, not to demonstrate evolution.
> Another problem is the overwhelming frequency with which these studies
> produce sterile offspring. If the mutation produces sterile or unviable
> offspring, then it would disprove the underlying theory of evolution, that
> mutations beget new species.
High rates of sterility are due to different species mating.
> Rather than acknowledge this problem, they
> construct polyploid mutations of the mutation to get a new one that may(or
> may not) be fertile)Many of the studies are, by their own admission,
> non-repeatable, and therefore unverifiable and unscientific.
Don't know which studies these are.
> It is also
> questionable whether a fruit fly attracted to acetaldehyde is a different
> species than a fruit fly attracted to ethanol.
That's cause our definition of species is fuzzy. The line between species is not
clear.
> Because their is no evidence
> of superior characteristics, there is no evidence of evolution.
No, it's evidence of speciation. Speciation in natural settings can lead to
evolution.
> Only
> evidence that fruit flies choose their mates in part due to chemical
> attraction(as do all animals). Please read the studies in Maff's link at :
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> and you will see these problems occuring over and over again.
>
> In light of some of the unscientific methods, and failure to consider
> alternative hypotheses in these studies, I think it is understandable that I
> would doubt their results as a basis for proclaiming "evolution as the
> origin of species".
What would you suggest? goddidit? Or a variation on evolution?
> To use a specific example, consider the following hypothesis(based upon the
> fruit fly experiment--5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster
> at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html ) which concludes
>
> "-- reproductive isolation was produced...Their results, they stated, show
> the possibility of sympatric speciation."
>
> perhaps fruit flies that are attracted to ethanol simply are not attracted
> to fruit flies that spend all of their time flying around in acetaldehyde
> vapors. The observable mating preference may have more to do with the odor
> of a particular fruit fly than it does with genetic alteration, or
> evolution. If a man failed to bath himself for 60 days, rest assured that
> "reproductive isolation" would be the result. This would not prove that he
> was a new species.
Humans are different than every other species regarding reproduction. Humans are
the only species to have sex purely for pleasure. Humans
are the only species to ever choose to not have (more) children. Humans
have thousands if not more mates to pick from per person, so extreme
pickiness is tolerated. Animals don't care about smell, except in special
cases, such as when a person touches a baby bird, the mother abandons
them.
> Please also note, that I am very picky about what may and may not be deemed
> evolution. Genetic differences from one generation to the next are a fact of
> nature. My genetic make-up is different from that of either my mother or my
> father. I would not, however claim to be "evolved" from them.
I gather from your other text that you consider evolution to be the forward
progression of life.
> Similarly, a plant/fruit fly etc. which is genetically altered, either
> through cross-breeding, DNA manipulation, etc. which displays different
> physical and genetic characteristics, but is STERILE, would also not be an
> example of evolution, but rather of DEevolution--the regression of a species
> into a lesser form as a result of genetic mutation. Every study which I have
> seen into genetic mutation results in an inferior offspring. This is in
> direct contradiction to the theory that life "evolve" into higher lifeforms.
And how many studies is that? Mind you, beneficial mutations are very rare, and
to find them in a laboratory setting, where the
observed population is small, is even harder. Thus we check the
fossil record. See more below.
> In order to prove the theory of evolution as the origins of man,
Red alert! Red alert! Person who does not understand that science is not
involved in proof, only in the overwhelming
prepondernence of the evidence.
> it must be
> shown that genetic mutation can result in successively higher forms of life.
So you want to actually observe a mutation? Become a biology major. Do research.
Aside from actual research, one can look
at the current genome on earth. Interestingly, the development of
feathers from avian scales is caused by only one gene. One simple
protein leads to the evolution of avian-like reptiles to primative
birds. And, since it's a simple mutation, many of them can show
up within the same generation.
> Otherwise, we cannot explain the progression of life from lower
> forms(proteins, single cells, plants) to higher forms (animal, man).
>
>
> >> With regards to the creation of the universe, it has been observed
> that
> >> all known galaxies are moving AWAY from each other. This has led to the
> >> theory of the Big Bang, a massive explosion in which the entire Universe
> >> came to be from nothingness. A mass of energy expanding outward cooled,
> >> coalesced and fused, to produce all of the elements, then the dust, then
> the
> >> planets/stars/galaxies etc.
> >
> >Among other observations, yes. There are others which also support
> >the big bang.
> >
> >> No observation has yet answered the question, "How did ALL of the
> energy
> >> of the universe come to be in that one ininitesimle spot simultaneously?
> The
> >> theory that is most often proposed is the expanding/contracting universe
> >> theory?
> >
> >And so you commit the fallacy of arguing from ignorence by concluding
> >that since we don't know how it happened, it must be God.
>
> I am sorry if I misled you into thinking that I believe in God BECAUSE I
> don't know how it happened. I believe in God because I find that God's
> creation is the single most comprehensive theory of the origins of man and
> the Universe.
It's the most simplistic idea (not theory, it's not testable and it's not valid)
Note that simplistic is bad.
> I believe specifically in the Christian God, because I have
> found that all other religions and non-religions are self-contradictory on
> far too many levels. (Huge long discussion. Let's save that one for another
> message thread)
Hehehe. The xtian god is self-contradictory on far too many levels.
> But on the subject of arguing from ignorance(meaning lack of knowledge--not
> intended as an insult), let me point out that we DO NOT know how it
> happened.
That means no one can say they know goddidit.
> It would be equally fallacious to conclude that it happened
> spontaneously, without any guiding force, because, again, we simply do not
> know.
We have a couple of options:1) god exists with no cause and he made the universe
2) the universe exists with no cause
3) the IPU did it
Obviously, #2 is much simpler than #1. #3 is for another thread :)
> >
> >> This theory has a major flaw though, in that it contradicts the
> original
> >> observation which led to the Big Bang theory. If there were a massive
> >> gravitational center to the universe, strong enough to pull all matter
> back
> >> into the original spot for the next Big Bang contraction to begin, slower
> >> moving galaxies of higher mass nearer the "Center of Origin", would be
> drawn
> >> into the center sooner than smaller faster more distant galaxies. Net
> >> result, some galaxies would be moving inward while others are moving
> >> outward. This is a direct violation of the observable facts, and
> therefore
> >> should be discounted.
The Andromeda Galaxy is moving toward the Milky Way at about 50 mi./sec
IIRC. It is moving towards us, whatever its speed is. Oh, and about the center,
the center is nowhere. It's like finding the center of the earth on its surface;
you're
never gonna find it. However, from every place the center appears to be there.
Therefore, while we are not the center of the universe, it appears as such.
> >
> >Completely silly. First, this in no way contradicts the big bang theory
> >because the conditions you describe could still occur at some time in
> >the future. And second, even if what you say is completely true it does
> >not lead to the conclusion that your god exists.
>
> Granted, we could be in the first expansion of an expanding contracting
> universe. Which again leaves us without the answer to how it happened. And
> second, even if what you say is completely true it does not lead to the
> conclusion that God DOES NOT exist.
>
> Pardon the plaguerism there, but I do it to make a point. All theories of
> origin are faith based. i.e. drawing a conclusion based upon inconclusive
> evidence is by definition a leap of faith.
So do the intelligent thing, and when asked how the universe started, say, "I
don't know" instead of goddidit.
Wrong. First, a few minutes after t=0, we would have hydrogen and helium. No
compounds, not even atoms, we would have nuclei and electrons. A
few hundred thousand years later, atoms begin to form. We still have no
compounds. Then, a while later, stars form and burn hydrogen to make
helium. Then, when the heaviest stars run out of hydrogen they burn helium
to make carbon. Then, only after all that, do they make oxygen, which does
not combine with hydrogen at least until after the stars go supernova.
> The simplest compound H2O would possibly be
> coming into existence in vaporized form, and,more complex compounds would
> still be too hot to exist in anything above liquid form, and so the entire
> universe could be described figuratively as "waters".
The universe was full of dilute gases until stars formed, then it was full of
dilute gases and plasma. Only when the first generation of stars died
did we get higher elements, which could make dust like we see in the sky.
> By contrast, Heaven,
> here a proper name(and therefore capitalized for the first time), is the
> firmament(modern definition-the arch of the sky) which divides our universe
> from God's universe, much like the firmament(modern definition) divides our
> atmosphere from outer space. Picture the expanding universe as a ballon:
> inside it is earth(our realm), outside it is heavens (God's realm) and the
> latex is Heaven. For some reason, many people read firmament to mean dry
> land and presume that it is there to seperate the oceans, one from another.
Maybe cause the bible is so metaphorical it can be interpreted almost any way.
> However, it is abundantly clear that this cannot be what is meant, simply by
> reading the following passage:
>
> Gen1:9"Let the waters..be gathered together..and let the dry land appear.
> Gen 1:10"And God called the dry land Earth: and the gathering together of
> the waters called he Seas.
> Gen 1:11"Let the Earth bring forth grass, the herb.., and the fruit tree..
> whose seed is in itself. Day 3
>
> NOTE:It doesn't take a Bible scholar to realize that God did not create the
> continents and oceans on the second day and then do it AGAIN on the third
> day.
It takes a fundie to do that! :)
Photosynthetic plants cannot photosynthesize without light. Herbs and trees are
photosynthetic, and, unlike the plants under the ocean, are not able to
survive such harsh conditions. The best they could do is gather nutrients left
by dead plants in the soil. Land-based plants would slowly die without
sunlight.
> , two, plants survived whatever catastrophe allegedly
> killed the dinosaurs(meaning that scientific models which project a massive
> dust cloud encirling the Earth and blocking the sun show plant life
> surviving),
It wasn't dark for long enough.
> three, the universe is still at this point, filled with the
> ambiant light of the Big Bang,
No, the universe is quite dark 8 to 15 billion years after t=0.
> Four, evolutionist models of an Earth covered
> in deep cloud cover and electromagnetic storms, theorize plant life being
> generated by lightning strikes, which form proteins, which form, algae, etc.
> also show the developement of earlier plant life without the benefit of
> Sunlight.
Abundant lightning strikes can fuel photosynthesis. Plants don't need SUNlight,
they need light, and sunlight is usually the most plentiful
source.
> Astonomial models of the formation of galaxies also demonstrate
> the seperation of the gasses and particles into planets happening sooner
> than the collection of all remaining particles into the center of the galaxy
> to form the star or stars.
It's possible the first planets could form before galaxies had fully
developed. However, the first stars had short (<1 billion yrs) lives and
catastrophically
exploded at the end, so life never really had a chance to get going under such
conditions.
> In short, igniting the Sun AFTER forming plant life is no more of a
> difficulty for Creationists than it is for Evolutionist. Both have plant
> life forming in extreme low-light conditions. And both have planets(albeit
> infantile ones) forming before the sun is completely formed(as it is still
> collecting ambiant dust).
But the planets cannot develop life for hundreds of millions of years because
it takes that long for Earth's surface to solidify and cool to temperatures
which
would not denature proteins.
> Moving on...
I'll move on later. I've got other things to do now.
--
Bud
Boikat
>
> You would still have at least some record of links within skeleton families.
And we do in some cases, and we do not in a great
many. But we have enough to get a good idea of
the big picture.
> Lets just
> face it the Earth isn't as old as we once thought.
And your evidence for this?
> There was no time for species to even
> think about about evolving.
Evolution is not something populations of
organisms "think" about. And also, evolution
occures at various rates depending upon several
factors: Envionmental stability, rates of
reproduction, number of offspring, that sort of
thing.
> No record of evolution = no evolution.
Record of evolution = fact. And bear in mind,
that it's not all fossil evidence. Thre are
directly observed examples of evolution both in
labs and in nature.
> Same as with UFO's.
> No UFO's = no UFO's.
Until one lands, that is. Not that I expect one
to.
>Very simple idea pal.
Then what do you fail to understand?
> Don't think too hard huh?
(Unplugs smoking irony meter)
I don't seem to have a problem thinking. What's
your excuse sport?
> Much of life is
> simple to understand.
Yes it is. Well, it's pretty complex once you
roll it over and start checking the details, but
by and large, rocket science, it's not.
> We just have to take some things at face value.
Hence, evolution is a fact.
> There is no sense
> in searching for something that is not there.
Then you abandon Young Earth Creationism and a
World wide Flood? Good. That's progress. I'm
right proud of you.
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Matt K. wrote in message <363E846E...@mtu.edu>...
|Lets just make one thing clear for the people out there. God is the
ultimate
|power in this universe and throughout everything. There is no if's and's or
|but's about it. This is the bottom line. If you don't like God then you
will
|rott in hell. Otherwise, believe in God and be saved. Pure and simple.
Heaven or
|Hell, what's it going to be people. Time is running out folks.
yea, time is running out, and I hear Allah is pissed. You better hurry and
join the Islamic faith before it's too late!
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
Thomas Paine
>Yes it is.Try reading it. It may help you're situation.
Sorry. I must have misunderstood when I mentioned that you were smart enough
to recognize that your beliefs were just your beliefs and not absolute facts.
Apparently you aren't that smart.
BTW. What's his situation that he needs help with? Halitosis? Athlete's feet?
Lack-o-nookie?
>
>Bill Thacker wrote:
>
>> Congratulations! You've realized that the Bible isn't *literally* true.
> You're
>> halfway home.
>
Thomas Paine
Sure would be nice to know what the hell he's answering.
>It's not that simple. I could back my previous statement up but it would
> require quoting
>the entire Bible page for page.
Quoting your bible only backs up your beliefs, not reality.
How do you know if something is true unless you
> have
>seen or experienced it.
Ummmmmmm.... evidence?
(babblesnip)
>[The logical person]
>"We are one person but yet we live as two lives, good and evil yet we have the
> right to
>choose which one ultimately controls our destiny. The evil person goes to hell
> and the
>good person goes to heaven. Which road do you want to choose?"
>
>Fact:
>-------
>Those that believe in no hell are just as guilty as those who don't believe in
> a heaven.
>A majority of world citizens believe in some form of an afterlife containing
> both good
>and evil.
Fact:
You don't know the difference between a fact and a religious opinion.
I know. I tried to find a religion that believed in free Dairy Queen cones for
everyone .. but I couldn't find any.
Just what would you expect from a religious belief?
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Michael Phillips
On 2 Nov 1998 23:05:46 -0500, Chaos Theory
<i_am_cha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Finally, someone to carve up. :)))
Arrogance from the start, huh?
>
>Matt K. wrote:
>
>> It's not that simple. I could back my previous statement up but it would require quoting
>> the entire Bible page for page.
>
>He asked for "some simple evidence", not your idea of a proof of the whole thing.
Having a difficult time reading, eh? He said, it's not as simple as
you would have people think . . .
>
>> How do you know if something is true unless you have
>> seen or experienced it. The most important word here is "experienced". The Bible story
>> is about human experience not a quick reference only compilation.
>
>So you're taking it as a novel.
That's not what he said at all. Why do you want to lie about it? Is
the truth of what he said that threatening to you?
>
>> There are tons of
>> things in the Bible that compare to everyday topics.
>
>Or is it a self-help book?
That's not what he said either. Comprehension not your strong suit?
>
>> It is the book about life and us in
>> general.
>
>Then you claim it's a science book?
Apparently, somprehension is NOT your strong suit. That's not even
CLOSE to what he said . . .
>
>> It describes how we should act and treat each other.
>
>So it's political, eh?
Again - you REALLY need to work on your English Comprehension skills .
. . that's NOT what he said . . .
>
>> It also describes moments
>> of faith, hope and yes love.
>
>And moments of hate, cruelty, and stupidity. Ask if you want quotes.
. . . in your *not so humble* opinion, eh?
>
>> It is a complete story unto itself with chapters like any
>> other book.
>
>So it's only "like any other book" i.e. it's not sacred or to be assumed true. Gotcha.
Why do you find it necessary to lie? That is NOT what he said, and
were it not for your arrogance, I believe you actually knew that. But
then again, maybe I give you too much credit - maybe you really can't
understand the simplest of concepts after all . . .
>
>> I can tell you that if you read it you will start to believe and then my
>> friend you eventually will.
>
>If you read it you will get sick. Then you will feel like you will hurl and then my friend you eventually will. The bible
>contains the sickest, most demented passages
>I have ever seen.
Apparently you don't read much . . . there are PLENTY of books that
are sicker, and more demented . . .
>
>> I don't see why more good people don't read it more often.
>
>Good question. Why don't xtians read their own book?
Now that ***IS*** a good question . . .
>
>> I
>> won't bite you in the head if you read it.
>
>You won't bite me in the head for any reason.
That's true . . .
>
>> It's much much easier to read than say
>> quantum physics, by far.
>
>Hah. You must not know me. I read quantum physics at the age of 10, no joke. While I didn't understand the math
>involved, I understood the ideas and I almost know enough
>math now to delve into the quantum world myself.
Bully - I didn't read quantum physics until I was almost 12 . . .
>
>> Any good person should have the opportunity to read at least
>> something in their life that is good.
>
>What does that have to do with the bible?
Not paying attention again? He TELLS you POINT BLANK in the next
paragraph . . .
>
>> I think the Bible stands for what is ultimately
>> good in our Earth and universe.
>
>Then it also stands for everything which is evil and terrible.
Again, in your *not so humble* opinion . . . but then you can't seem
to understand the simplest statements from the original poster . . .
it would be too much to ask for you to understand the Bible, I
suppose, whether by your design, or by your stupidity, I don't know .
. .
>
>> There are many laws and teachings found in the Bible
>> that are followed to this day by good people all over the world.
>
>Because people wrote it. There are also many laws which have longbeen regarded as BS (e.g. a law against wearing mixed
>fabrics, sorry
>I am still waiting for a website to get the location of that passage up.)
>
>> Even if a bad or median
>> person reads the Bible they can understand it.
>
>So it's a book for simpletons.
Why do you try so hard to twist his words? Is it THAT important to
you to lie? That's not at all what he said . . .
>
>> So back to you're original question that
>> said if I can prove that what I said was true.
>
>The bible contradicts itself. You can't possible prove the whole thing true.
Your point? That Christian fundamentalists can't "prove" via
scientific, peer reviewed journals that every word in the Bible is
written DIRECTLY by GOD? So what? I've never actually met a REAL
human being, IN PERSON who said that it was. You can't POSSIBLY be
THAT obtuse, can you???
>
>> My answer to that would be yes but for
>> the listener to listen takes a great deal of faith in the teacher as well as trust.
>
>So the listener trusts you, you tell him that it's true, and he believes you? Sounds like evangelicism in action.
Sounds like teaching . . . period . . .
>
>> Are
>> not those things what society needs to strengthen the most.
>
>Yes they are not. The bible contains not only arbitrary laws but also terrible, disgusting commands. Like before, ask if
>you want
>quotes, I have posted too much to trolls to do it again.
How convenient . . . can't actually post anything that an instructed
Christian, who doesn't say that EVERY WORD of the Bible was written IN
ENGLISH . . . DIRECTLY BY GOD . . . wouldn't laugh at, eh?
>
>> So you see you will just
>> have to trust yourself and just pick it up and start reading.
>
>I did once. I hurled.
Oh, how noble you are . . . how superior . . . how great your
intellect, and how awesome your honesty . . . (gag, barf)
>
>> If you are of good but not
>> evil mind and welcome any possibilities then the Bible is the book for you.
>
>The bible should be the first book on a banned list, though I disagree with those.
OIC - so NO book should be banned . . . EXCEPT the Bible, huh? How
open-minded you are . . . how big of you . . . how tolerant . . .
(gag, barf)
>
>> Be aware
>> that the Bible can bring out the soul in all of us.
>
>Yeah, it also brings out the killer in people. Eric Robert Rudolph?
Wht arrogance, what sublime, smug superiority . . . How BLISSFULLY
ignorant . . . I'm truely impressed . . .
While you're here, be SURE not to mention Desmond Tutu, Mother
Theresa, etc, etc, ad nauseum . . .
Heaven FORBID we mention Tammerlaine . . . etc, etc, ad nauseum . . .
>
>> The Bible can get complicated at
>> times due to our lack of knowledge on certain subjects.
>
>So it's not, as you said earlier, a book for simpletons, rather an extremely abstruse book.
No, it was your lie that said it was for simpletons . . . remember?
This only serves to DEMONSTRATE your lie . . .
>
>> Many themes were written for
>> audiences who already new what Gods plan is.
>
>So it's propaganda.
Again with the lies? That's not what he said at all . . .
>
>> Themes in the Bible such as prophecy and
>> ultimate law are among the few that are often not very accurately understood.
>
>Oh, they're understood completely.
They are???!!!!! By whom?? By you?!?!?!?
> Prophecy is understood to be BS. Ultimate law is understood to be BS.
Really?!?!?!? Can you PROVE that with articles from peer-reviwed,
scientific journals? If not, you're a liar, because that's what you
REQUIRE of your opponent . . .
>
>> Good luck
>
>Luck is not something I depend upon. I depend upon me and those I trust.
So you admit that your beliefs are based on trust . . . that's a step
in the right direction . . .
>
>> and may God be with you.
>
>Oh, there are many non-existant things with me.
Hmmm . . . admitting to halucinations?
>
>> [The logical person]
>> "We are one person but yet we live as two lives, good and evil yet we have the right to
>> choose which one ultimately controls our destiny. The evil person goes to hell and the
>> good person goes to heaven. Which road do you want to choose?"
>
>Huh?
Apparently, comprehension is NOT your strong suit . . . too bad . . .
>
>> Fact:
>> -------
>> Those that believe in no hell are just as guilty as those who don't believe in a heaven.
>
>Guilty of what? Not blindly following the blind? Fact sez who? Just more scare tactics.
Scare tactics? You're pretty easily scared, aren't you?
>
>> A majority of world citizens believe in some form of an afterlife containing both good
>> and evil.
>
>A majority of world citizens can't tell cause they haven't found out forthemselves. How many dead people do you know who
>talk to you?
Casting aspersions on his character? That's MIGHTY scientific of you
. . . NOT!!!
>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Honus wrote:
>>
>> > Care to back that statement up with some proof? Or how about just some simple >
>> evidence?
>
>
>
>--
>-Brought to you by the letter C and the number e
>Special thanks to the chaotically insane mind of Chaos Theory
>for thinking this message.
>
>
***YAWN***
Jim Mindigo or Corine
Matt K. wrote in message <363E4F0D...@mtu.edu>...
l>GO AWAY SATAN!!!
l>
l>> Then by claiming that the bible is literally "true", you must accept
that it
l>> is quite factually false.
l>> --
l>> Dick
l>> Mark of the Beast Recipient
l>> Awarded by John McCoy. June 26, 1998
Naughty,naughty Dick, you scared him!
Jim
Thomas Paine
>> How do we know we're not a simulation runing on some alien supercomputer?
>>
>> Reply by mail to jb...@jancomulti.com
>
>and then your score will be shown to you. 666 or 777.
>
>666=you are going to hell.
>777=you are going to Heaven plus some extra goodies if you have been real
>
Heather Locklear??????????????????
Thomas Paine
>You would still have at least some record of links within skeleton families.
There is.
> Lets just
>face it the Earth isn't as old as we once thought.
Actually, it's older.
There was no time for
> species to even
>think about about evolving.
A couple of billion years seems like enough time to me.
No record of evolution = no evolution.
You've been living in a cave ... haven't you!?
Same as with
> UFO's.
>No UFO's = no UFO's. Very simple idea pal. Don't think too hard huh? Much of
> life is
>simple to understand. We just have to take some things at face value. There is
> no sense
>in searching for something that is not there.
Like god!?
Thomas Paine
>He is correct. We do not know why living organisms just create themselves and
> happen to work
>out so great in this universe of so called chaos. There must be a binding and
> unseen force at
>work here. I believe it is God.
"We don't know why ....... there must be a force.......god".
You don't know why.
Therefore equates to:
Your ignorance means there must be a god.
The probability for amino acids in DNA to just
> randomly
>assemble into structured DNA strands and be stable is astronomically high. In
> other words
>incalculable or better yet unknown! Just go ahead there genius and give me a
> table with
>calculated data representing the bonds every amino acid makes to make up one
> single strand of
>human DNA. Go ahead try. I dare ya!
The probability, as you describe it, is misguided.
(1) To insure that I have the same birthday as someone else in a crowd, you
would need 366 other people.
(2) To insure that ANY two people in a crowd have the same birthday, you only
need 50.
Your strawman is using the reasoning behind # 1, where #2 is closer to the
truth.
You obviously know nothing about mathmatics either.
Matt K.
Well Mr. Chaos I am glad to see that you have written your own death certificate. I am glad I won't be seeing you in Heaven.
Cheers. Hope Hell is fun for ya! May God forgive you if at all.
P.S. Just for reference people don't mock the Bible at all it is a baaaaad thing to do. I am trying to give good advise here.
Don't be like this stubborn man.
> Chaos Theory wrote:
> > A majority of world citizens believe in some form of an afterlife containing both good
> > and evil.
> A majority of world citizens can't tell cause they haven't found out forthemselves. How many dead people do you know who
> talk to you?> I can tell you that if you read it you will start to believe and then my friend you eventually will.
>
> If you read it you will get sick. Then you will feel like you will hurl and then my friend you eventually will. ----The
> bible contains the sickest, most demented passages
> I have ever seen.----
Boikat
>
> He is correct. We do not know why living organisms just create themselves and happen to work
> out so great in this universe of so called chaos. There must be a binding and unseen force at
> work here.
Ionic bonding and covalent bonding, to name a few.
Look it up.
>I believe it is God.
So do I. But that doesn't give me any reason to
be ignorant, nor to attempt to push my personal
religious beliefs down anyone's throat.
> The probability for amino acids in DNA to just randomly
> assemble into structured DNA strands and be stable is astronomically high.
And the chemical bonding is not random. it
follows certain laws. These laws work quite well
without evoking Divine intervention.
> In other words
> incalculable or better yet unknown!
The if the odds are unknown, how can you imply
that the formation of DNA (As a result of several
other steps building up to DNA) is improbably.
Given the right environments and conditions, it
may be a certainty.
> Just go ahead there genius and give me a table with
> calculated data representing the bonds every amino acid makes to make up one single strand of
> human DNA. Go ahead try. I dare ya!
Why? Aside from the fact that you are asking for
something that I don't happen to have laying
around right now, and that the human Genome
project is still chewing away at the data, showing
you such a chart or graph would be like showing a
pig a news paper and expecting it to do the
crossword puzzle. Besides wisenheimer, who ever
said that science had everything figured out? Are
you so dim that you think science has all the
answers?
Now. Your turn hotshot. Please have God produce
a miracle to prove his existence. Ask him to
forgive the Serpent of Eden, and the children of
the serpent. If tomorrow morning, all snakes have
legs, I'll start thumping the Bible along side you
and do my best to convert all these evolutionist
heathens. If, on the other hand, the snakes are
still legless tomorrow morning, you have failed.
Now that shouldn't be too hard now should it. If
the snakes have no legs tomorrow, that will be
proof that God does not exist. Sound fair?
And you still don't know squat about chemistry.
Boikat
Bud
> Jeez, ya know I was just trying to explain something when guess who
dropped by?!
> Well Mr. Chaos I am glad to see that you have written your own death
certificate. I am glad I won't be seeing you in Heaven.
> Cheers. Hope Hell is fun for ya! May God forgive you if at all.
Don't forget, Matt, the Bible says that pride goeth before the fall. You
better watch out Matt.
And you know who Jesus had the most problems with -- the pharisees who
thought they had the right to judge others. You could easily pass for a
pharisee. Prehaps you should spread more time reading the Bible and
examining your own shortfalls before try to take God's place as judge. God
doesn't like it when arrogant folks like you try to muscle in in his
terrority.
>
> P.S. Just for reference people don't mock the Bible at all it is a
baaaaad thing to do. I am trying to give good advise here.
> Don't be like this stubborn man.
>
Bible's good for toliet paper. Bible's good substitute for hockey pucks.
Bible's good for starting fires. Bible's mother wears combat boots. Am I
going to hell now? Prehaps you forgot that one doesn't go to heaven
because they worship or respect the Bible, they go to heaven because the
have belief in God. For someone who came here to peach, you show a marked
lack of understanding of God and his word. Be gone little boy.
mike
Rudy Gonzalez wrote:
*snip*
This ignores natural selection, while only taking into consideration cosmic radiation. I've
read creationist bullshit before. It amazes me people are ignorant enough to trust it, or
even less, not see it's fallacies. Who can we blame? You choose to remain ignorant of
science the moment of abandoning ratiocination and reading the bible. Now you just take
someones word on it without researching it much. That's why we call ministers preachers and
followers sheep.
-mike
Bonz
>Yes it is.Try reading it. It may help you're situation.
The bible is mostly superatitous crap.
>
>Bill Thacker wrote:
>
>> Congratulations! You've realized that the Bible isn't *literally* true. You're
>> halfway home.
>
い Bonz
To reply by Email, please remove THE OBVIOUS
mike
rfbunting wrote:
> Sure and GM made the Corvette with play-doh.
Actually, clay.
Bonz
>The theory of evolution is just that...a theory. Evolution is virtually a
>statistical impossibility. In fact, statisticians have put the odds of evolution
>on par with a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving a fully functional 747
>behind.
No problem. Send the tornado, then hang a sign saying "Fully
Functional Boeing 747". Ta-daaaa!
Of course, it won't look like what YOU think a 747 is, but why
should it?
>
>Furthermore, if evolution had taken place, for every animal there would literally
>be millions of "in-between" fossils for each and every species. As an example try
>to envision this...an animal that existed "millions of years ago" shaped like a
>perfect square. Now today, scientists take it's presumed evolutionary descendent
>the "octogon" animal and proclaim that the "octogon" has evolved from the
>primitive "square". If this were true, archeologists would inevitably have found
>thousands of fossils of this evolutionary progression...i.e., the 5-sided animal,
>the six-sided animal, and finally the seven-sided animal. Instead, the fossil
>record shows huge gaps between every species of animal.
What are you talking about? How can you have a gap 'between a
species'?
That's like having a gap between a brick.
>Lastly, if one to presume that God exists
Why would one do that, in tne complete absence of any evidence?
> and the He created the universe in all
>his power and omniscience, then why doubt that he could create all that we know in
>an instant. Next time you look up into the starry night and see the vastness of
>creation, it's unfathomable beauty, and perfect designer...think a moment about
>the awesomeness of the Designer.
>There are many resources out there that show that the theory of evolution is built
>on a house of cards. Included are Hank Hannegraf's "The F.A.C.E. of Evolution" as
>well as "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown.
ROFL! Hydroplates waay!!!!!!!!!!!
Bonz
>Mike,
>
>The laws of physics dictate that things run down, not become more organized and
>complex.
No, they do not. Where did you study physics? Houses get built.
Tornados form. Snowflakes freeze. Beach sand is sorted into grain
sizes by wave action.
> Hence the airplane analogy. But you are absolutely correct, DNA doesn't just
>spring into being. That's the point. The statisticians do not base this on the
>function of time, but on probability. So even if billions of years passed, the
>likelihood of matter going from an unorganized random state to a sophisticated piece of
>mechanical or biological machinery is virtually nil.
I agree. But since the Earth was not in a random state, and
chemistry and physics are not random processes, and there is no
goal, what is your point?
If a 747 was made entirely of lead it wouldn't fly.
But since it's not made of lead, and no one thinks it is...
>Regarding the fossil record...it speaks for itself. There is not a single
>archeological evidence that shows ANY animal gradually progressing in the fossil record
>from one point to the other.
Of course not. Archaeology doesn't deal with fossils. There is no
evidence in a cookbook, either.
> The transitional species that you refer to are assumed
>points of an evolutionary time-line that are spread far apart. If evolution were fact,
>then the fossil record would consist of a "morphing" progression of bones at all points
>in this evolution.
No, it would not.
> Assuming these fossils existed, then shouldn't we be able to have
>at least one animal exhibit at the Smithsonian that shows at least forty or fifty
>"in-between" stages of this animal going from a 4-legged creature with a long tail to a
>bi-pedal creature with a short tail?
If the fossil ecord were better, probably so. As it is, we see maybe
5 or 6 stages. <shrug> So what?
>
>If you were to take a gigantic poster and place the pictures of a thousand animals of
>all types on it, then you might see similarities between on animal to another. And
>because there are similarities, you might be tempted to draw lines connecting one
>animal to another and so on until you have made a "psuedo" progression.
Evolution doesn't have 'progressions'.
> Unfortunately,
>this is what many scientists have assumed. However, there are also many scientists
>(agnostics and atheists) who have looked at the hard facts and ruled out evolution as a
>possibility.
None that I know of. Where did they publish this?
> They, like myself, started out believing what we've been told all of our
>lives. When things didn't seem to hold true or make any logical sense, I had to find
>out for myself.
You seem very confused.
Matt K.
saviour and then be happy knowing that you will go to Heaven. Simple! Just ask
him anytime. Look people coming close to God is not hard. Why are most of you
scared? If you decide not to chose Jesus as your saviour then you will be
forgotten in Heaven and you will be placed in Hell. After reading the Bible I
have decided I don't want to end up there. It's ultimately up to you. Ask
Jesus now.
Hey look, I am not kidding around here. This is serious stuff man! Do it now
and all of your sins will be forgiven. Trust me I know how the Lord works.
Can't you feel his presence around you?
Bud wrote:
> Matt K. <mjkr...@mtu.edu> wrote in article <363E846E...@mtu.edu>...
> >Lets just make one thing clear for the people out there. God is the
> >ultimate power in this universe and throughout everything. There is no if's
> and's
> >or but's about it. This is the bottom line. If you don't like God then you
> >will rott in hell. Otherwise, believe in God and be saved. Pure and
> simple.
> >Heaven or Hell, what's it going to be people. Time is running out folks.
>
> Prove it.
Bonz
>He is correct. We do not know why living organisms just create themselves and happen to work
>out so great in this universe of so called chaos. There must be a binding and unseen force at
>work here. I believe it is God. The probability for amino acids in DNA to just randomly
>assemble into structured DNA strands and be stable is astronomically high.
I agree. But the reason people study chemistry is --- no chemical
ANYWHERE forms at random.
> In other words
>incalculable or better yet unknown! Just go ahead there genius and give me a table with
>calculated data representing the bonds every amino acid makes to make up one single strand of
>human DNA. Go ahead try. I dare ya!
I cannot do that, and neither can anyone else. DNA is not made of
amino acids.
>
>Boikat wrote:
>
>> > But you are absolutely correct, DNA doesn't just
>> > spring into being. That's the point.
>>
>> Don't know much chemistry, do you?
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Matt K. wrote in message <363E99B0...@mtu.edu>...
|P.S. Just for reference people don't mock the Bible at all it is a baaaaad
thing to do. I am trying to give good advise here.
|Don't be like this stubborn man.
When I think of god I want to vomit. What a putrid sorry excuse for an
undetectable entity he is. God can kiss my ass, that sorry piece of crap. He
must be one hell of an illiterate son of a bitch too. Can't even write his
own autobiography. Had to get a bunch of flunkies to do it for him. I could
shit into a book and have a better piece of literature then the bible.
In other words:
I don't give a damn about your misguided beliefs.
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
Davidson
>
> Can you prove otherwise? Of course you can't. So just accept Jesus as your
> saviour and then be happy knowing that you will go to Heaven. Simple! Just ask
> him anytime. Look people coming close to God is not hard. Why are most of you
> scared? If you decide not to chose Jesus as your saviour then you will be
> forgotten in Heaven and you will be placed in Hell. After reading the Bible I
> have decided I don't want to end up there. It's ultimately up to you. Ask
> Jesus now.
>
Hey Jesus, is this guy right?
No answer.
Guess your Jeezy baby doesn't exist.
And get out of our newsgroup, bleater.
Followups set to remove t.o and a.a You can bleat to yourself now.
Scott #1045
John Wilkins
<mi...@NOSPAMstudents.wisc.edu> wrote:
Is this the Clay Corvette Template theory of an-auto-origins?
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute
of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
Boikat
>
> Lets just make one thing clear for the people out there. God is the ultimate
> power in this universe and throughout everything.
Can he create a rock so big and heavy that He
Himself cannot move it?
> There is no if's and's or
> but's about it.
Oh?
The invisible Pink Unicorn is the most powerful
being in the Universe.
We know this because she is both invisible and
pink.
The invisible Pink unicorn has never lied to
anyone.
If any of the above statements are true, they are
all true.
>
>This is the bottom line. If you don't like God then you will
> rott in hell.
And who says I don't like God?
> Otherwise, believe in God and be saved.
No. Jesus saves.
>Pure and simple.
I'm sure that you are simple. But those who are
pure of heart do not summarily condemn others to
Hell just because their beliefs differ. Beside,
who are you to judge who is going to hell or not?
> Heaven or
> Hell, what's it going to be people.
I'd prefer a guided tour through time, stating
with the Big Bang.
> Time is running out folks.
Oh, I thought the God Book said something to the
effect of "No man will know when..."
So, you are either a female, or you are not a
human. Since you seem to be implying that "the
end is near." This implies you know when the end
is going to occur. Therefore, according to the
littoral Bible, you are either a girl (Not that
there's anything wrong with that!), or a non
human. It's in the Book!
Now, about the evidence. Got any?
Boikat
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Matt K. wrote in message <363EA07F...@mtu.edu>...
|Can you prove otherwise? Of course you can't.
ignorance is bliss, eh?
|So just accept Jesus as your
|saviour and then be happy knowing that you will go to Heaven.
BBBZZZTTT!!!!
I'm sure there are some Islamic people who not only have a much stronger
faith in their god, but would be glad to inform you that your going to hell
for believing in Jesus Christ, and not Allah. Sorry, but this is Pascal's
wager, look it up on the internet sometime if you want to learn why it's an
arguement for morons.
|Simple! Just ask
|him anytime.
OK.
Hey Jesus!
JJJJJJJEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZUUUUUUSSSSSSSS?!?!?
Maybe he's not there... Should I leave a message on his machine?
|Look people coming close to God is not hard. Why are most of you
|scared?
Who said anyone here was scared?
If anything I'd say god is scared to contact us.
|If you decide not to chose Jesus as your saviour then you will be
|forgotten in Heaven and you will be placed in Hell.
"If anyone desires a religion other then Islam (Allah's way of life), never
will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of
those who have lost all spiritual good". TMQ Al-Imran:86
Hey, how could several million people be wrong?
Better start reading the Quran, and find out where your local Islamic temple
is located!
|After reading the Bible I
|have decided I don't want to end up there.
Yea, I'd hate to end up as a character in one of Steven King's books, too...
Scary!
|It's ultimately up to you. Ask
|Jesus now.
should I call back? I just called him a few seconds ago... I left a message
on his machine though, and if he wants, I'm sure he'll get back to me.
|Hey look, I am not kidding around here. This is serious stuff man! Do it
now
|and all of your sins will be forgiven.
Oh great. So god's holding me responsible for the sins *he* introduced 6000
years ago to a couple of kids?
Fuck him, what an asshole!
|Trust me I know how the Lord works.
|Can't you feel his presence around you?
I thought it was a little cold in here.
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
Splifford
<nos...@nospamxxx.net> wrote:
> Matt K. <mjkr...@mtu.edu> wrote in article <363E99B0...@mtu.edu>...
> > Jeez, ya know I was just trying to explain something when guess who
> dropped by?!
> > Well Mr. Chaos I am glad to see that you have written your own death
> certificate. I am glad I won't be seeing you in Heaven.
> > Cheers. Hope Hell is fun for ya! May God forgive you if at all.
>
> Don't forget, Matt, the Bible says that pride goeth before the fall. You
> better watch out Matt.
>
> And you know who Jesus had the most problems with -- the pharisees who
> thought they had the right to judge others. You could easily pass for a
> pharisee. Prehaps you should spread more time reading the Bible and
> examining your own shortfalls before try to take God's place as judge. God
> doesn't like it when arrogant folks like you try to muscle in in his
> terrority.
> >
> > P.S. Just for reference people don't mock the Bible at all it is a
> baaaaad thing to do. I am trying to give good advise here.
> > Don't be like this stubborn man.
> >
> Bible's good for toliet paper. Bible's good substitute for hockey pucks.
> Bible's good for starting fires. Bible's mother wears combat boots. Am I
> going to hell now? Prehaps you forgot that one doesn't go to heaven
> because they worship or respect the Bible, they go to heaven because the
> have belief in God. For someone who came here to peach, you show a marked
> lack of understanding of God and his word. Be gone little boy.
>
Be nice. The Bible has some really neato stories in there. It's at least a
good a soap opera as "Dallas"... It's got sex, kinky sex, incest, murder,
war, infanticide, genocide... Great stuff.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
ignorance with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.
Boikat
>
> In article <363E4F0D...@mtu.edu>, "Matt K." <mjkr...@mtu.edu> wrote:
> >GO AWAY SATAN!!!
>
> Man o man. First nameless gives me the mark of the beast, now someone
> else labels me as satan. And all I did both times was point out a fallacy in
> their thinking. How easy it is to be evil to them. :-).
Hey, look at it this way: You've gone from a
sniveling servant of evil to the Big Kahoona
himself in one fell swoop! :}
Boikat
A mere "ruffian"....
Rune Boersjoe
>>the collective evidence from a number of scientific disciplines supports.
>>I do not believe that any god "made us" because there is no evidence that
>>any god exists.
>
>Bullshit. Don't confuse "I don't believe the evidence MEANS 'X'" with
>"There is no evidence."
Christian science in work... BWAHAHAHAHAAH. Contradiction in terms.
Like having criminals teching you about ethics... or advertisers tell
you about an actual product. Lies lies lies!
--
Splifford
> Jeez, ya know I was just trying to explain something when guess who
dropped by?!
> Well Mr. Chaos I am glad to see that you have written your own death
certificate. I am glad I won't be seeing you in Heaven.
> Cheers. Hope Hell is fun for ya! May God forgive you if at all.
>
> P.S. Just for reference people don't mock the Bible at all it is a
baaaaad thing to do. I am trying to give good advise here.
> Don't be like this stubborn man.
>
Intriguing. Who gave you the authority to damn someone to hell? You're
either a troll or a very sad little man.
--
Two views on Christianity:
You obviously are no Christian, therefore you must be Godless, atheist. -- Ronald Vogelaar <ro...@life4u.net>
The Real Christian(tm) fallacy strikes again! Who are _you_, moron, to say
who is a Christian and who isn't? From where did you get your authority?
_I_ have never disputed Jimbo Browning's or any other person's, faith; I
may say that their theology stinks, but _I_ would never say that because
in my opinion their theology stinks they cannot be Christian. Why is it
that only fundie cretins say that "You _MUST_ Believe _EXACTLY_ as I do or
you are not a Christian?" -- me
yang hu
[snip]
If we can only get a nickel for every Pascal's wager.....
Yang
#28
Splifford
> GO AWAY SATAN!!!
You're a troll. You've got to be. If you're not, you'd be too stupid to breathe.
>
>
> > Then by claiming that the bible is literally "true", you must accept that it
> > is quite factually false.
> >
> > --
> > Dick
> > Mark of the Beast Recipient
> > Awarded by John McCoy. June 26, 1998
> > email: dic...@drizzle.com
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mike
J. Michael Phillips wrote:
> On 2 Nov 1998 22:21:37 -0500, Fr...@someplace.net (Fritz) wrote:
>
> What the HELL are you talking about?!?!?!?!?
>
If you would have read a bit more carefully, you would realize he answered much
of what you asked in this latest post of yours, in his. Next time pay
attention. Three hundred demerits for you. What makes this humourous is you are
bleating to us you can't understand a thing we say, proudly.
Don't get excited about your beleifs when surrounded by people smarter than
you. You might open up your mouth and prove yourself to be the dumbest person
around.
Splifford
> Lets just make one thing clear for the people out there. God is the ultimate
> power in this universe and throughout everything. There is no if's and's or
> but's about it. This is the bottom line. If you don't like God then you will
> rott in hell. Otherwise, believe in God and be saved. Pure and simple.
Heaven or
> Hell, what's it going to be people. Time is running out folks.
You're either a troll or completely nuts. Or possibly both.
--
A Real Christian(tm) speaks:
I'll bet that when you use the phrase 'think for yourself' you include a
self-promise never to give up sovereign control of your life to any other
person, let alone some 'god'. The Bible considers such unwillingness to
surrender to the sovereign Lord the very prototype and essence of sin. Such
rebellion justifies any punishment which God renders, even an eternity in
hell. - Jim Browning <rev...@worldnet.att.net>
To evaluate my character requires understanding that I don't consider this a
fantasy or myth. I'm not out to scare people about nothing. I have
preached funerals for people who aren't saved. It is often very disturbing
to the family and friends. To suggest that I take some kind of sadistic
satisfaction in someone's going to hell is inaccurate. - Jim Browning <rev...@worldnet.att.net>
Matt K.
fire. Do you not fear death. I know you do. Getting your kicks by telling the
world your a bad ass? Turn to Christianity son. It's never too late to enter the
Kingdom of God. Oh boy! There goes another one I think unless someone saves him.
tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:
> When I think of god I want to vomit. What a putrid sorry excuse for
> anundetectable entity he is. God can kiss my ass, that sorry piece of crap. He
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
yang hu wrote in message <71m9fm$e...@news.service.uci.edu>...
|tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:
|
|[snip]
|
|If we can only get a nickel for every Pascal's wager.....
millionares....
|Yang
|#28
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
Bud
<patjames-031...@dialup21.worldtele.net>...
>
> Be nice. The Bible has some really neato stories in there. It's at least
a
> good a soap opera as "Dallas"... It's got sex, kinky sex, incest, murder,
> war, infanticide, genocide... Great stuff.
>
books because they contain too much sex and violence. I gess they've never
really read the Bible. I went to a Lutheran grade school. My fellow
students and I found all the "good" parts of the Bible at an early age.
It's amazing we all turned out as normal as we did. Why, much of Ezekiel
would be considered porn by the average fundie if it weren't part of the
Bible.
tetrahydrocannabinol
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
denotes acceptance of these terms.
Matt K. wrote in message <363EB069...@mtu.edu>...
|You are joking right?
I'm as serious as I can be when relating to any fictional character in any
book.
|If you aren't you are sentencing your soul to an eternal
|fire. Do you not fear death. I know you do.
You know jack shit
I don't fear death. Why should I? It's the end of life, the end of being.
Whats to fear?
|Getting your kicks by telling the
|world your a bad ass?
Nope, telling the world about how stuid you are to have such a deep
psycological fear that you rely in a 2000 year old myth to make it from day
to day.
|Turn to Christianity son.
No.
|It's never too late to enter the
|Kingdom of God.
Ok, good. I'll repent after I'm dead...
|Oh boy! There goes another one I think unless someone saves him.
saves? I'm sorry, you mis spelled "brainwashed"
|> When I think of god I want to vomit. What a putrid sorry excuse for
|> anundetectable entity he is. God can kiss my ass, that sorry piece of
crap. He
|> must be one hell of an illiterate son of a bitch too. Can't even write
his own
|> autobiography. Had to get a bunch of flunkies to do it for him. I could
shit
|> into a book and have a better piece of literature then the bible.
-=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
simplep...@my-dejanews.com
"Matt K." <mjkr...@mtu.edu> wrote:
> face it the Earth isn't as old as we once thought.
is this a poetic statement or a scientific one ? your statements are vague and
so is your perception about yourself and the universe.
>There was no time for species to even
> think about about evolving.
you are right, there is no time to think about evolving, its NOT about
thoughts, it's about instincts. It's about making the right choices to get
food on your table or be on someone else's table.
>No record of evolution = no evolution. Same as with UFO's.
> No UFO's = no UFO's. Very simple idea pal.
man, you are really asking for it buddy. maybe read what u typed next time
before pressing the 'send' button. I don't have to tell you how stupid you
really sound.
>Don't think too hard huh? Much of life is
> simple to understand. We just have to take some things at face value. There
is no sense
> in searching for something that is not there.
if you choose a simple life. that is cool. In that case, you don't belong
here. Turn off your computer and go back to the TV.
simplep...@my-dejanews.com
> for your position to be true, you must find evidence of where this deity
> altered the course of evolution, in a way which would not have occurred
> without such divine intervention.
in my statement of "God made us with Evolution", the word "God" was not
referencing a deity at all.
I only borrowed the word "God" to mean "source of all energy". (and pls don't
take it literally and say "the sun")
You can call it Big Bang, or "God created light " , whatever - it's the same
to me. It was the beginning of everything there is.
> I can appreciate your attempt to accept the undeniable evidence of the
> fact of evolution while maintaining your religious convictions.
I don't have a religion, and I am not commited to one set of scientific
believes neither.
You may think I am sitting on the fence. But to me, there is no fence. The
line between science vs. religion, hard evidence vs. leap of faith is only
drawn by ignorance.
> In the professional science journals that I read, no such evidence has
> ever been documented.
as the replies to my original post had said : "Theistic Evolution".
Professional science journals does not cover everything, just like the Bible
does not cover everything.
thanks for your comments.
Splifford
> Can you prove otherwise?
I am an avatar of Shiva. Prove otherwise.
Of course you can't.
If you can't prove that I'm _not_ an avatar of Shiva, you better start
shakin', bro, cause us mult-armed Hindu destroyer-gods live for blood,
death, and destruction... "I am become Shiva, shatterer of worlds,
destroyer of universes" sayeth the scripture. And it's a lot older
scripture than anything produced by barbarian desert nomad Hebrews, too.
So just accept Jesus as your
> saviour and then be happy knowing that you will go to Heaven.
Pascal's Wager. Don't work too well if there might be other gods about...
and St. Paul (remember him? wrote a few epistles, he did...) speficially
says that those who profess faith because of fear are the sorriest and
silliest of men. Which is a fair description of _you_.
Simple! Just ask
> him anytime. Look people coming close to God is not hard. Why are most of you
> scared? If you decide not to chose Jesus as your saviour then you will be
> forgotten in Heaven and you will be placed in Hell. After reading the Bible I
> have decided I don't want to end up there.
Hip-hip-hooray for you. The question I want answered is what is this doing
on talk.origins. Could it be yet another creationist cretin who thinks
that evilutionist=atheist? Nah, that would be too simple... or is it that
the _creationist_ is too simple?
It's ultimately up to you. Ask
> Jesus now.
>
> Hey look, I am not kidding around here. This is serious stuff man! Do it now
> and all of your sins will be forgiven. Trust me I know how the Lord works.
I can see where you have either directly lied at least once or were very,
very, very badly mistaken. Why should I trust you about anything?
> Can't you feel his presence around you?
Nope. But I can smell the bullshit around you.
>
>
> Bud wrote:
>
> > Matt K. <mjkr...@mtu.edu> wrote in article <363E846E...@mtu.edu>...
>
> > >Lets just make one thing clear for the people out there. God is the
> > >ultimate power in this universe and throughout everything. There is no if's
> > and's
> > >or but's about it. This is the bottom line. If you don't like God then you
> > >will rott in hell. Otherwise, believe in God and be saved. Pure and
> > simple.
> > >Heaven or Hell, what's it going to be people. Time is running out folks.
> >
> > Prove it.
Splifford
<iget...@hempseed.com> wrote:
> --
> Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227, any and
> all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to
> a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing
> denotes acceptance of these terms.
>
> Matt K. wrote in message <363EA07F...@mtu.edu>...
> |Can you prove otherwise? Of course you can't.
>
> ignorance is bliss, eh?
I wish that I was ignorant of Matt K's existance. If I see much more of
his crap I'm gonna plonk him and return to my previous state of bliss.
>
> |So just accept Jesus as your
> |saviour and then be happy knowing that you will go to Heaven.
>
> BBBZZZTTT!!!!
>
> I'm sure there are some Islamic people who not only have a much stronger
> faith in their god, but would be glad to inform you that your going to hell
> for believing in Jesus Christ, and not Allah. Sorry, but this is Pascal's
> wager, look it up on the internet sometime if you want to learn why it's an
> arguement for morons.
Why are you insulting morons?
>
> |Simple! Just ask
> |him anytime.
>
> OK.
>
> Hey Jesus!
>
> JJJJJJJEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZUUUUUUSSSSSSSS?!?!?
>
> Maybe he's not there... Should I leave a message on his machine?
>
> |Look people coming close to God is not hard. Why are most of you
> |scared?
>
> Who said anyone here was scared?
>
> If anything I'd say god is scared to contact us.
>
> |If you decide not to chose Jesus as your saviour then you will be
> |forgotten in Heaven and you will be placed in Hell.
>
> "If anyone desires a religion other then Islam (Allah's way of life), never
> will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of
> those who have lost all spiritual good". TMQ Al-Imran:86
>
> Hey, how could several million people be wrong?
>
> Better start reading the Quran, and find out where your local Islamic temple
> is located!
Mosque. Jews and Hindus have temples. Moslems have mosques.
>
> |After reading the Bible I
> |have decided I don't want to end up there.
>
> Yea, I'd hate to end up as a character in one of Steven King's books, too...
> Scary!
>
> |It's ultimately up to you. Ask
> |Jesus now.
>
>
> should I call back? I just called him a few seconds ago... I left a message
> on his machine though, and if he wants, I'm sure he'll get back to me.
>
> |Hey look, I am not kidding around here. This is serious stuff man! Do it
> now
> |and all of your sins will be forgiven.
>
> Oh great. So god's holding me responsible for the sins *he* introduced 6000
> years ago to a couple of kids?
>
> Fuck him, what an asshole!
>
> |Trust me I know how the Lord works.
> |Can't you feel his presence around you?
>
>
> I thought it was a little cold in here.
>
> -=+tetrahydrocannabinol+=-
--
Splifford
> You are joking right? If you aren't you are sentencing your soul to an eternal
> fire. Do you not fear death. I know you do. Getting your kicks by telling the
> world your a bad ass? Turn to Christianity son. It's never too late to
enter the
> Kingdom of God. Oh boy! There goes another one I think unless someone
saves him.
You _are_ a troll, aren't you? Please, please, _please_ be a troll. It
would be a really, really, REALLY Bad Thing if you're not, 'cause that
would mean that people with extreme mental illness are allowed to walk
around without a keeper.
>
> tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:
>
> > When I think of god I want to vomit. What a putrid sorry excuse for
> > anundetectable entity he is. God can kiss my ass, that sorry piece of
crap. He
> > must be one hell of an illiterate son of a bitch too. Can't even write
his own
> > autobiography. Had to get a bunch of flunkies to do it for him. I could shit
> > into a book and have a better piece of literature then the bible.
Let's not get carried away, now.
> >
> > In other words:
> >
> > I don't give a damn about your misguided beliefs.
> >
Michael L. Siemon
wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
+ In article <71m0qi$3is...@news.drizzle.com>, talk-o...@ediacara.org
wrote:
+
+ |In article <363E4F0D...@mtu.edu>, "Matt K." <mjkr...@mtu.edu> wrote:
+ |>GO AWAY SATAN!!!
+ |
+ |Man o man. First nameless gives me the mark of the beast, now someone
+ |else labels me as satan. And all I did both times was point out a
fallacy in
+ |their thinking. How easy it is to be evil to them. :-).
+
+ Logic is the INSTRUMENT OF SATAN! It is designed to take the INNOCENT AWAY
+ FROM GOD!
'Tweren't "satire" when Bernard used essentially that same argument against
Abelard!
--
Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must
m...@panix.com love the truth we know, and we must
act according to the measure of our love.
-- Thomas Merton
John Hattan
>tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>If we can only get a nickel for every Pascal's wager.....
We'd have been BRIBED into Christianity by now!
---
John Hattan High UberPopeness -The First Church of Shatnerology
The Code Zone Sweet Software for a Saturnine World
hat...@fastlane.net http://www.fastlane.net/~hattan/