A truthful bible
John Bates
A Truthful Bible
For all people -- (religious and non religious)
This bible retains the better parts of all religious teaching whilst
omitting the mass of ridiculous ritualistic ranting and myths. We should be
thankful that years ago many wise men wrote much wisdom.
References; - Christian Bible, Quran, Torah, Hinduism,
Buddhism, Chuang Tzu, Omar Khayam, Plato, Socroties and others. -
But of most importance - Truth.
All individuals are dependent - not on the actions of gods -
But on their own actions and those of other individuals.
In the last 100 years mankind's general level of knowledge has
risen to a point whereby all religious teaching has become highly suspect.
The realization that forcing people to believe in a religion
that gives orders, e,g, Thou shall not, this and that, using
the threat of retribution from a hypothetical god in order
to enforce the orders, is not in keeping with the now higher
standards of general education attained Worldwide.
The theory of 'Creation' by a god or gods is another reason
for the rejection of religions that teach it - Evolution can
be seen by people, they can touch it - it is real - Visible -
Touchable - Factual - therefore Truthful. People need Truth.
Our bible does not advocate the belief in gods.- However =
For the millions of Earth Dwellers who have been taught to
believe in any one of the thousands of gods that exist in the
minds of all mankind, if their belief in a particular god,
helps them or gives them comfort, then no one should deny
them the right to worship that god or those gods. But
it is not correct for one person to force his god onto
another person. One god cannot be better than another
as each exists only in the mind of the believer.
This book does not consider any person a sinner, unless that
person has been proven to be sinful. Faith is not prerequisite
to honesty. Faith means 'To believe lies' Truth is paramount.
A Desirable Moral Code for All Mankind.
Commit no act - Physically or Verbally that harms another
Person Mentally or Physically.
Do act to others as you would wish them to act to you.
Speak to others in a manner that you would wish them to speak
to you. - But consider; when all men use foul words they
become normality, thereby harmless.
Endeavor to recognize another's weakness and assist them.
Help yourself and others by taking interest in others and in
all things around you, Speak to Him, Wish Her well.
Read and Learn to find interests, to entertain yourself and
use your knowledge to help others, in thus so doing, there
will be times when others reactions will surprise you, as reward.
'HELPING HANDS' the new religion (without gods)
michael burt
> In the last 100 years mankind's general level of knowledge has
> risen to a point whereby all religious teaching has become highly suspect.
> The realization that forcing people to believe in a religion
> that gives orders, e,g, Thou shall not, this and that, using
> the threat of retribution from a hypothetical god in order
> to enforce the orders, is not in keeping with the now higher
> standards of general education attained Worldwide.
> The theory of 'Creation' by a god or gods is another reason
> for the rejection of religions that teach it - Evolution can
> be seen by people, they can touch it - it is real - Visible -
> Touchable - Factual - therefore Truthful. People need Truth.
So what are the actual proofs of evolution? I have never found any. In
fact, the fossil record supports creation and not evolution. Darwin's
theories of mechanisms have been entirely discredited even by the most
devout evolutionists.
How can you touch evolution? If you believe in evolution, you must argue
against the laws of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics support
creation, and the fossil records supports the laws of thermodynamics.
Higher standards of general education? That is not very evident in most
school districts. Knowledge appears to be falling around here, especially
the ability to think and reason. There has been a grade inflation, so
grades are not necessarily a good measure. College entrance scores, are
generally falling, an overbroad statement but more truthful than the
overgeneralization of higher standards.
--
May God Bless You,
Michael
Character Counts. It is not hypocritical to set a high goal and occasionally fail. It is hypocritical to set a low goal and occasionally succeed.
michael burt
> The theory of 'Creation' by a god or gods is another reason
> for the rejection of religions that teach it - Evolution can
> be seen by people, they can touch it - it is real - Visible -
> Touchable - Factual - therefore Truthful. People need Truth.
I have recently finished a book by Tattersail, the Fossil Record. He
admits in this book that there are no real proofs of evolution, but he
feels that it is inituatively obvious. Perhaps it is to him, it is not to
me.
How would you *proove* the theory of evolution?
John Bates
our standpoints. From mine everything is crystal clear.
And from yours it is no daubt just as crytal clear.
When I say you can touch it I can touch the soil
on the top of the grand canyon that's today, I can
slide down a rope passing millions of years as till
I reach some where below that was soil or sea
bottom 250 million years ago and touch it.
What can you see from your standpoint.
When you answer please try to imagine you
had been born in China. Best wishes John Bates.
David Jones
burt) wrote:
>
>I have recently finished a book by Tattersail, the Fossil Record. He
>admits in this book that there are no real proofs of evolution, but he
>feels that it is inituatively obvious. Perhaps it is to him, it is not to
>me.
>
>How would you *proove* the theory of evolution?
>
Mt 19:4 And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not
read, that He which made them AT THE BEGINNING made them
male and female.
It would seem that Jesus Christ was NOT an evolutionist :-)
May Yahweh be with you.
David.
flying under radar
michael burt wrote in message ...
>How would you *proove* the theory of evolution?
By definition, theories cannot be proven. My question is, why waste time
debating the issue?
John Bates
Keep up the good work J.Bates
michael burt
<bate...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
What is crystal clear to me is Scripture. It says that the universe was
created, it does not say when. The next thing said is that the world was
destroyed through the beliefs advocated by satan. This included a
pre-Adamic race which was destroyed as well. It may have been by atomic
war, germ warfare, gene research gone astray, cloning, exactly how,
Scripture does not say. I can also stand on the top of the grand canyon
and touch the soil--that's today. I can also slide down a rope passing
millions of years until I perhaps reach down to soil or sea bottom 250
million years ago and touch it. Nothing in Scripture would argue with
this view as you present it. And neither would I. Where I would be born
makes little difference, The Scripture is available in Chinese as well as
Hebrew and Greek.
Peace be with you.
cla...@ix.netcom.com
mike...@ix.netcom.com (michael burt) wrote:
>
> > In the last 100 years mankind's general level of knowledge has
> > risen to a point whereby all religious teaching has become highly suspect.
> > The realization that forcing people to believe in a religion
> > that gives orders, e,g, Thou shall not, this and that, using
> > the threat of retribution from a hypothetical god in order
> > to enforce the orders, is not in keeping with the now higher
> > standards of general education attained Worldwide.
> > for the rejection of religions that teach it - Evolution can
> > be seen by people, they can touch it - it is real - Visible -
> > Touchable - Factual - therefore Truthful. People need Truth.
>
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I have never considered evolution to
be "the Truth". It is a tool... a set of ideas that has been very useful in
the exploration of certain areas of knowledge. Now that we've gotten that out
of the way, let me explain where your arguments fall flat. ;)
First of all, you'll understand if I assume that any evidence I might provide
you that is generally accepted as support for the theory of evolution will be
attacked and "discredited" by you and yours. Given that, I find it would be a
waste of time to actually list the evidence itself. Suffice it to say that the
strength and accuracy (and usefulness) of a theory is based on its reliability
in predicting future observations. The theory of evolution has been thus
utilized time and time again.
"The actual proofs"? I don't understand what you're asking for. Evolution is
a theory. Give me the proofs that the earth revolves around the sun! You
can't see the earth move. As far as you can tell, the sun does all the
moving! The Catholic Church punished a lot of great thinkers over the years
for arging that the earth was not the center of the universe. Don't confuse
science and religion, please. You'll only be disappointed in the end.
> In fact, the fossil record supports creation and not evolution.
You have got to be kidding me. You have some guts, making such assertions
without backing them up. How much do you really know about fossils? Are you
aware that it has been proven that it takes millions of years for the actual
process of fossilization to take place? That fact, in and of itself,
disproves the popular Christian misconception that the Earth is only 4 or
6,000 years old.
You want evidence that creation is a load of bunk? How about the geologic
record indicating that the more complex creatures appear higher (that is,
more recently) in the record than simpler animals... that humans (indeed,
almost all mammals) appear millions of years after the dinosaurs... that no
human with anything more complicated than stone chip tools has ever been
found fossilized? If dinosaurs and modern mammals (especially humans) lived
at the same time, why is there no mingling of bones? You mean to say that a
single dinosaur never managed to consume a single sloth, or cow, or crippled
old man? That these so-called "deformed men" (what many anti-evolutionists
consider homo habilis, australopithecus, etc. fossils to be) never died or
lived amidst healthy brothers and sisters? Come on!
This is completely beside the point that the fossil record is evidence of
things that happened millions of years ago. Many creationists attempt to
discredit evolution by saying "Science is about observing, and, since no one
was there to observe evolution 'taking place', it can never be fact!" What
are you doing now by even referring to fossils? The Bible refers to things
that "no one" was there to see! Who knows that God created the heaven and the
earth a day before the fish (or whatever the order was)? No one was there!
The Bible doesn't say "And God told Ureah all about Genesis" or anything!
Evolution is not a fact. It is simply a theory that has been so corroborated
by decades of research and evidence that it can be (and has been) reliably
utilized as a means to predict future developments in genetics and biology.
>Darwin's theories of mechanisms have been entirely discredited even by the most
> devout evolutionists.
Hello. My name is John. I'm here to explain something to you. It's a very
simple fact, and it's something you need to understand.
DISCREDITING SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF A THEORY DOES NOT DISCREDIT THE THEORY AS A
WHOLE.
There are no creditable scientists who deny that, in general, evolution is
the process by which life developed on this planet. Complex creatures evolved
from simple creatures. Yes, it sounds incredible. So does the idea that a big
man in the sky made people out of clay. It all depends on your point of view.
Besides... the whole point of the scientific method is that ideas and theories
and hypotheses are constantly created and refuted or supported. That's what's
_supposed_ to happen! Lamarck had an idea about passing traits on to the next
generation. He was wrong and he was proven wrong. That's how science works! Do
you not understand that, or are you just trying to be difficult!
Edison tried hundreds of different materials to be used as the filament in
his light bulbs. The fact that he tried such things as human hair and cotton
fibers doesn't discredit the process of trial and error, does it?
He got it right eventually.
The fact that Stephen Jay Gould supports the theory of sudden, as opposed to
gradual, change within the process of evolution does not in any way discredit
the theory of evolution.
How many Catholic denominations are there out there? Lutheran, Baptist, Roman
Catholic, Christian, Protestant, Christian Scientist, Greek Orthodox, Russian
Orthodox, Episcopalian, etc., etc., etc. Get it? These established groups all
disagree on aspects of the interpretation of the Bible. They all believe they
are right and everyone else is wrong. Yet they all believe that the Bible is
the Word of God. How is that possible?
I implore you to answer some of my questions, instead of constantly attempting
to keep the "battle" in the arena of evolution. If you are allowed to "attack"
evolution, then I am allowed to "attack" creationism. I demand that you defend
yourself.
> How can you touch evolution?
Pet your dog. If man is capable of turning wild dogs and wolves into such
bizarre forms as the Great Dane, the Chihuahua, the Chow and that ugly
wrinked dog in a matter of centuries, imagine what God, acting through
natural forces and covering an entire planet, could do with hundreds of
millions of years? (This is besides the fact that I don't actually believe in
God. But you do. Couldn't God have decided to utilize the process of
evolution as a beautiful and harmonious means of creating the myriad of
animals and plants we have today? Are your only two options evolution without
God or a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of Genesis? Think
about that.)
>If you believe in evolution, you must argue
> against the laws of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics support
> creation, and the fossil records supports the laws of thermodynamics.
Boy, I was waiting for this. You creationists never cease to amaze me. Here
is a refutation of this preposterous, self-deluding idea you people have that
the Second Law of Thermodynamics is somehow violated by the process of
evolution:
THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS. THE EARTH IS NOT
A CLOSED SYSTEM. THE SUN IS A CONSTANT SOURCE OF ENERGY, AND HAS BEEN FOR
BILLIONS OF YEARS. THAT IS WHY COMPLEX MOLECULES AND ORGANISMS CAN DEVELOP
FROM BASIC CHEMICALS.
This is not to mention the countless meteorites and comets that have entered
our atmosphere, as well as the vital tidal effects the moon has provided us.
And the fact that it has been recently postulated that the first organisms
developed near volcanic rifts on the ocean floor. Presto! All the heat and
energy a developing organism could ever need!
Okay? Do you get it? The thermodynamics argument doesn't work. End of
discussion.
> Higher standards of general education? That is not very evident in most
> school districts. Knowledge appears to be falling around here, especially
> the ability to think and reason. There has been a grade inflation, so
> grades are not necessarily a good measure. College entrance scores, are
> generally falling, an overbroad statement but more truthful than the
> overgeneralization of higher standards.
Call me crazy, but the scientific method - the method by which the theory of
evolution has been developed and augmented - is a much better bet for the
exercising and development of young minds than the repression and dogma
present in most religious communities.
John Olinyk
--
http://www.oneworldcorporation.com
One World Corporation. Keep up the good work.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
michael burt
>
> First of all, you'll understand if I assume that any evidence I might provide
> you that is generally accepted as support for the theory of evolution will be
> attacked and "discredited" by you and yours.
Depends on the defination of attacked and discredited. Debate and honest
discussion is neither.
Given that, I find it would be a
> waste of time to actually list the evidence itself. Suffice it to say that the
> strength and accuracy (and usefulness) of a theory is based on its reliability
> in predicting future observations. The theory of evolution has been thus
> utilized time and time again.
Many theories are used, but that does not mean that they are true.
Darwin, predicted a fossil record that does not exist, and as a result,
his mechanisms are completely discredited. This is confirmed by
Tattersail and other evolutionists in such as The Fossil Trail.
>
> "The actual proofs"? I don't understand what you're asking for. Evolution is
> a theory. Give me the proofs that the earth revolves around the sun! You
> can't see the earth move. As far as you can tell, the sun does all the
> moving! The Catholic Church punished a lot of great thinkers over the years
> for arging that the earth was not the center of the universe. Don't confuse
> science and religion, please. You'll only be disappointed in the end.
The two are acutally quite compatable. The Scripture says that the earth
is an orb suspended in space, It it a travesty, as you say, however, when
men, whether Christian or not do not take the time to understand what is
written.
>
> > In fact, the fossil record supports creation and not evolution.
>
> You have got to be kidding me. You have some guts, making such assertions
> without backing them up. How much do you really know about fossils? Are you
> aware that it has been proven that it takes millions of years for the actual
> process of fossilization to take place? That fact, in and of itself,
> disproves the popular Christian misconception that the Earth is only 4 or
> 6,000 years old.
The Scripture does not say that the Earth is only 6000 years old. That
belief went out with Elizabethian times. The Scripture says that the
forming of Adam and Eve was 6000 years ago. Many things happened before
that, according to Scripture including another entire earth age including,
perhaps a pre-Adamic race, and for which time frame is not specified by
Scripture.
>
> You want evidence that creation is a load of bunk? How about the geologic
> record indicating that the more complex creatures appear higher (that is,
> more recently) in the record than simpler animals... that humans (indeed,
> almost all mammals) appear millions of years after the dinosaurs... that no
> human with anything more complicated than stone chip tools has ever been
> found fossilized? If dinosaurs and modern mammals (especially humans) lived
> at the same time, why is there no mingling of bones? You mean to say that a
> single dinosaur never managed to consume a single sloth, or cow, or crippled
> old man? That these so-called "deformed men" (what many anti-evolutionists
> consider homo habilis, australopithecus, etc. fossils to be) never died or
> lived amidst healthy brothers and sisters? Come on!
The creation record in this earth age confirms most of what you say, the
balance is certainly possible from the Scriptural record of the first
earth age.
>
> This is completely beside the point that the fossil record is evidence of
> things that happened millions of years ago. Many creationists attempt to
> discredit evolution by saying "Science is about observing, and, since no one
> was there to observe evolution 'taking place', it can never be fact!" What
> are you doing now by even referring to fossils? The Bible refers to things
> that "no one" was there to see! Who knows that God created the heaven and the
> earth a day before the fish (or whatever the order was)? No one was there!
> The Bible doesn't say "And God told Ureah all about Genesis" or anything!
I believe that God told Adam, who handed the Word down orally until the
time of Moses. Your comments about creationalists discrediting evolution
by saying "Science is about observing, and, since no one
> was there to observe evolution 'taking place it can never be fact!" is a
good one. As a creationalists, I would agree with you as well, this is a
silly argument.
>
> Evolution is not a fact. It is simply a theory that has been so corroborated
> by decades of research and evidence that it can be (and has been) reliably
> utilized as a means to predict future developments in genetics and biology.
Such as, the most common proofs of evolution are beak width, bacterial
changes, dog breeding, iincreasing human height, etc. None of these prove
evolution, but are extensively talked about as if they are proofs.
>
> >Darwin's theories of mechanisms have been entirely discredited even by
the most
> > devout evolutionists.
>
> Hello. My name is John. I'm here to explain something to you. It's a very
> simple fact, and it's something you need to understand.
>
> DISCREDITING SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF A THEORY DOES NOT DISCREDIT THE THEORY AS A
> WHOLE.
I agree, but in order to argue Darwin's theory, all of his mechanisms have
been proven not true by the fossil record. More seriously, the fossil
record clearly suppots the laws of thermodynamics which is not surprising,
and that supports creation. How would you argue against the laws of
thermodynamics with the fossil record currently documented?
>
> There are no creditable scientists who deny that, in general, evolution is
> the process by which life developed on this planet. Complex creatures evolved
> from simple creatures. Yes, it sounds incredible. So does the idea that a big
> man in the sky made people out of clay. It all depends on your point of view.
There were no creditable scientists who denied that, in general, leeching
was not a valuable medical principle a century ago either. Einstien
denied the possibility of black holes predicted by his own theories. The
theory of evolution has actually been around since Babylon empire. Since
neo-evolution in Darwin's day, the theory has changed drastically based
upon additional fossil record discoveries; however, blind faith in the
religion of evolution has produced Piltdown man-an equally bad product of
blind faith not unlike what you have charged Christianity alone with. Can
you be sure that there are not other Piltdown faith solutions currently
accepted as fact without proof? Tattersail claims that the bones talk to
him and the proofs of evolution are intuitive! This is spiritualism, not
scientific. It is not surprising that Wallace advocated the theory at the
same time as Darwin--entirely from spiritualism.
>
> Besides... the whole point of the scientific method is that ideas and theories
> and hypotheses are constantly created and refuted or supported. That's what's
> _supposed_ to happen! Lamarck had an idea about passing traits on to the next
> generation. He was wrong and he was proven wrong. That's how science works! Do
> you not understand that, or are you just trying to be difficult!
I am really trying to helpful. But the same applies to the application of
Scripture. The Elizabethians thought they saw in Scripture that which
they believed scientifically. What they saw, such as a 6000 year old
earth, is not what Scripture actually says. Applying the scientific
method and returning to what Scripture actually says, creationalists
should also be given the same opportunity to understand Scripture as
evolutionalists have been given.
>
> Edison tried hundreds of different materials to be used as the filament in
> his light bulbs. The fact that he tried such things as human hair and cotton
> fibers doesn't discredit the process of trial and error, does it?
Absolutely not. That is why returning to the Hebrew Scripture and
understanding what it actually says is important. It does not confirm the
Elizabethian thoughts, it does validate the fossil record so far.
>
> He got it right eventually.
>
> The fact that Stephen Jay Gould supports the theory of sudden, as opposed to
> gradual, change within the process of evolution does not in any way discredit
> the theory of evolution.
You are right, but note that it is also supportive of creation as well.
>
> How many Catholic denominations are there out there? Lutheran, Baptist, Roman
> Catholic, Christian, Protestant, Christian Scientist, Greek Orthodox, Russian
> Orthodox, Episcopalian, etc., etc., etc. Get it? These established groups all
> disagree on aspects of the interpretation of the Bible. They all believe they
> are right and everyone else is wrong. Yet they all believe that the Bible is
> the Word of God. How is that possible?
I agree that there are many denominations with differences regarding
timing and mechanisms of Scripture as evolutionalists disagree regarding
timing and mechanisms as well, I disagree that there is much debate on the
basic truths of Scripture, such as creation, as the various demonimations
of evolutionalists share their common belief in the overall theory without
conclusive proofs.
How is the Bible the Word of God? There are many proofs, none of which
you would probably find conclusive. The one that is absolutely conclusive
to me is what is in my heart. This followed an extensive study of
Scripture questioning everything as you have also. There is no
prohibition against questioning, God calls us to do this for He wants my
love by choice, not by force.
>
> I implore you to answer some of my questions, instead of constantly attempting
> to keep the "battle" in the arena of evolution. If you are allowed to "attack"
> evolution, then I am allowed to "attack" creationism. I demand that you defend
> yourself.
>
> > How can you touch evolution?
>
> Pet your dog. If man is capable of turning wild dogs and wolves into such
> bizarre forms as the Great Dane, the Chihuahua, the Chow and that ugly
> wrinked dog in a matter of centuries, imagine what God, acting through
> natural forces and covering an entire planet, could do with hundreds of
> millions of years? (This is besides the fact that I don't actually believe in
> God. But you do. Couldn't God have decided to utilize the process of
> evolution as a beautiful and harmonious means of creating the myriad of
> animals and plants we have today? Are your only two options evolution without
> God or a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of Genesis? Think
> about that.)
I am well aware of dog breeding. It is also a proof of creation. For in
dog breeding, different breeds are created. But notice that they are
still dogs, not a new species--and the new dog is a result of intelligent
intervention by the dog breeder, not natural selection or process. This
is an intraspecies change and if this is all evolution is, I as a
creationalists would quickly agree. But dog breeding does not verify
species to species evolution which is the belief of evolutionalists.
>
> >If you believe in evolution, you must argue
> > against the laws of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics support
> > creation, and the fossil records supports the laws of thermodynamics.
>
> Boy, I was waiting for this. You creationists never cease to amaze me. Here
> is a refutation of this preposterous, self-deluding idea you people have that
> the Second Law of Thermodynamics is somehow violated by the process of
> evolution:
>
> THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS. THE EARTH IS NOT
> A CLOSED SYSTEM. THE SUN IS A CONSTANT SOURCE OF ENERGY, AND HAS BEEN FOR
> BILLIONS OF YEARS. THAT IS WHY COMPLEX MOLECULES AND ORGANISMS CAN DEVELOP
> FROM BASIC CHEMICALS.
But the universe is a closed system, which was created first. What is the
probability by chance alone that organic tissue could happen? Or the
probability that a slight difference at the moment of the bang that
created the universe that we know and love would have created an entirely
different universe? Statistically, they are enormous. When the energy
pattern at the outside of the universe was discovered reflecting the
moment of creation, even the discoverer identified the marks as the hand
of God, he was not particularly religious, but understood the pattern,
and the results of the pattern.
>
> This is not to mention the countless meteorites and comets that have entered
> our atmosphere, as well as the vital tidal effects the moon has provided us.
> And the fact that it has been recently postulated that the first organisms
> developed near volcanic rifts on the ocean floor. Presto! All the heat and
> energy a developing organism could ever need!
God uses all creation to His ends.
>
> Okay? Do you get it? The thermodynamics argument doesn't work. End of
> discussion.
Absolutely not, it works quite well. These laws suggests a burst of new
created species through an input of evergy followed by a gradual decline
into extinction, This is the fossil record and quite well supported by
the creation account as well.
>
> > Higher standards of general education? That is not very evident in most
> > school districts. Knowledge appears to be falling around here, especially
> > the ability to think and reason. There has been a grade inflation, so
> > grades are not necessarily a good measure. College entrance scores, are
> > generally falling, an overbroad statement but more truthful than the
> > overgeneralization of higher standards.
>
> Call me crazy, but the scientific method - the method by which the theory of
> evolution has been developed and augmented - is a much better bet for the
> exercising and development of young minds than the repression and dogma
> present in most religious communities.
OK, I will call you crazy. Seriously, I apologize for that, but your
comments that Scripture is repressive is personally repugnant to me. I
will agree with you that the dogma of man has been repressive, at times,
as those who hold to any religious belief such as evolution can also
demonstrate. God's Word is not oppressive, but man's use of it can be.
Whenever the Scripture is represented to say something it does not say
such as the earth is 6000 years old, we need to question that, for that is
not what Scripture says. Neither do we need to believe without question
the proofs of Piltdown man.
Peace be with you, my friend.
cla...@ix.netcom.com
a.bsu.religion)
>
>
>>
>> First of all, you'll understand if I assume that any evidence I might provide
>> you that is generally accepted as support for the theory of evolution will be
>> attacked and "discredited" by you and yours.
>
>Depends on the defination of attacked and discredited. Debate and honest
discussion is neither.
That's… you'll pardon the pun… debatable. Creationists have used the debate
as a means to disseminate their half-truths and deliberate obfuscation (and,
by extension, their religion) across community centers and college campuses
for decades. Your Duane Gish is a classic example of how the tactics of
effective debate can change people's minds far more than actual, logical
exploration of the facts of a controversy.
Furthermore, you must realize that I expect you to enter into this exchange
with preconceptions that, being based in faith and dogma, are utterly
resistant to change, whatever new evidence or information you may gain.
>Given that, I find it would be a
>> waste of time to actually list the evidence itself. Suffice it to say that
the
>> strength and accuracy (and usefulness) of a theory is based on its
reliability
>> in predicting future observations. The theory of evolution has been thus
>> utilized time and time again.
>
>Many theories are used, but that does not mean that they are true. Darwin,
predicted a fossil record that does not exist, and as a result, his mechanisms
are completely discredited. This is confirmed by Tattersail and other
evolutionists in such as The Fossil Trail.
Darwin's "mechanisms" are not at the heart of his work; his theories and
hypotheses are. Besides, as you yourself point out, the idea that life
evolved, rather than being created intact, has existed long before Darwin was
even born. It wouldn't matter if it turned out that Darwin were a raving
lunatic. His theories were not accepted because anyone thought Darwin was the
Messiah. They were accepted (along with the work of many other, though
lesser-known, scientists) because they fit the evidence and accurately
predicted future discoveries. Yes, there were errors. We don't claim to be
perfect. You do.
If Charles Manson were running down the street screaming "The sky is blue!
The sky is blue!!", that wouldn't mean the sky wasn't blue, would it? There
have been plenty of psychos in history who have claimed that their heinous
deeds were inspired… even required… by God or the Bible. That doesn't
discredit your holy book, does it? Asking whether a theory is "true" is to
miss the whole point of a theory… the whole VALUE of a theory! You utilize a
theory to predict future events. Evolution has already predicted numerous
successive discoveries. Its value is scientifically cemented.
Understand that, unlike creationists, whose "science" is based on a slavish
devotion to a 2,000-year-old book (and I anticipate your automatic response:
do not deign to refer to the evolutionist's acceptance of evolution as the
dominant paradigm as a religious devotion), the evolutionist is so-called
because of his present acceptance of the idea that life evolved through a
process of natural selection.
Was Einstein "completely discredited" because he predicted an
anti-gravitational force to prevent the collapse of the universe that turned
out not to exist? No. Einstein hypothesized, and his hypothesis was proven
wrong. Scientists hypothesize for the same reason that treasure-hunters run
their metal detectors back and forth across the ground as they slowly walk
forward. They must explore in order to find the real treasure.
Why is it so difficult for creationists to comprehend that science is a
living, ongoing process of interpretation and exploration? Is it because your
book - your "Truth" (with a capital "T") - is completely immutable, because
you consider it absolutely without error or even possibility of error? That
is not science. Looking for evidence to support assertions you accept on
faith is nonsensical. To attempt to point to scientifically-compiled data as
evidence that miraculous events occurred is a contradiction in terms.
>> "The actual proofs"? I don't understand what you're asking for. Evolution is
>> a theory. Give me the proofs that the earth revolves around the sun! You
>> can't see the earth move. As far as you can tell, the sun does all the
>> moving! The Catholic Church punished a lot of great thinkers over the years
>> for arging that the earth was not the center of the universe. Don't confuse
>> science and religion, please. You'll only be disappointed in the end.
>
>The two are acutally quite compatable. The Scripture says that the earth is an
orb suspended in space, It it a travesty, as you say, however, when men,
whether Christian or not do not take the time to understand what is written.
Please. The Biblical account of Genesis can not be taken literally, or you
ask for such a suspension of natural law that you might as well claim that
God is living in your refrigerator. Creationists (although they often
disagree amongst themselves) assert such a wide range of scientifically
inaccurate and laughable suppositions (such as the idea that the coral reefs
that would have taken millions of years to grow somehow arrived in a matter
of millenia, or that the Great Flood caused the formation of the Grand
Canyon) that it is infuriating to even try to argue with them in any
scientific manner.
>> In fact, the fossil record supports creation and not evolution.
>>
>> You have got to be kidding me. You have some guts, making such assertions
>> without backing them up. How much do you really know about fossils? Are you
>> aware that it has been proven that it takes millions of years for the actual
>> process of fossilization to take place? That fact, in and of itself,
>> disproves the popular Christian misconception that the Earth is only 4 or
>> 6,000 years old.
>
>The Scripture does not say that the Earth is only 6000 years old. That belief
went out with Elizabethian times. The Scripture says that the forming of Adam
and Eve was 6000 years ago. Many things happened before that, according to
Scripture including another entire earth age including, perhaps a pre-Adamic
race, and for which time frame is not specified by Scripture.
Don't split hairs. First of all, I'm sure you'd find a lot of Creationists
out there who believed the whole Earth history only encompassed 6,000 years
or so. How was I to know you weren't one of them? Furthermore, that is
besides the fact that your myth is still scientifically unsound. Do you
believe in the Noachian Ark myth? Try explaining the logistics of storing all
those species and their food and dealing with their defecation… as well as
the geological impossibilities of a sudden flood and equally sudden repeal of
the waters? I know, I know… God did it. That's quite a science you've got
there.
>> You want evidence that creation is a load of bunk? How about the geologic
>> record indicating that the more complex creatures appear higher (that is,
>> more recently) in the record than simpler animals... that humans (indeed,
>> almost all mammals) appear millions of years after the dinosaurs... that no
>> human with anything more complicated than stone chip tools has ever been
>> found fossilized? If dinosaurs and modern mammals (especially humans) lived
>> at the same time, why is there no mingling of bones? You mean to say that a
>> single dinosaur never managed to consume a single sloth, or cow, or crippled
>> old man? That these so-called "deformed men" (what many anti-evolutionists
>> consider homo habilis, australopithecus, etc. fossils to be) never died or
>> lived amidst healthy brothers and sisters? Come on!
>
>The creation record in this earth age confirms most of what you say, the
balance is certainly possible from
>the Scriptural record of the first earth age.
The "First Earth Age"? According to Creationist interpretation of the
Scripture, the Great Flood supposedly occurred about 4,000 years ago - well
after many established Middle Eastern and European civilizations were laying
down written texts that have survived to this day. Don't tell me those people
got flooded out. There is no evidence to support that theory.
There are a variety of geological features of this planet that could not have
developed and remained as they did with the occurrence of a great and sudden
flood less that 10,000 years ago. Nor could the animals in Noah's ark have
been disseminated as widely, and found niches as perfectly as they did, in
such a short amount of time.
>> This is completely beside the point that the fossil record is evidence of
>> things that happened millions of years ago. Many creationists attempt to
>> discredit evolution by saying "Science is about observing, and, since no one
>> was there to observe evolution 'taking place', it can never be fact!" What
>> are you doing now by even referring to fossils? The Bible refers to things
>> that "no one" was there to see! Who knows that God created the heaven and the
>> earth a day before the fish (or whatever the order was)? No one was there!
>> The Bible doesn't say "And God told Ureah all about Genesis" or anything!
>
>I believe that God told Adam, who handed the Word down orally until the time of
Moses. Your comments about creationalists discrediting evolution by saying
"Science is about observing, and, since no one
>> was there to observe evolution 'taking place it can never be fact!" is a good
one. As a creationalists, I would agree with you as well, this is a silly
argument.
I sincerely appreciate your concessions. What you must realize is that the
scientific assertions as to the age and the origin of man are not made
lightly, nor are they pulled whole from the writings of some 19th-century
loon. They are the result of the legitimate reconciliation of data from so
many and such varied areas of scientific inquiry (and from so many separate
agencies and institution) that the fact that they agree as much as they do
could be considered a miracle in and of itself! The theory of evolution does
not normally concern itself with the origin of organic life at all - rather,
it concerns itself with the origin of different species. And the evidence
(including, despite creationist protests, transitional fossils) is
overwhelmingly in favor of the evolution of species, through a process of
divergence and natural selection. The fact that two chapters of a book that
is obviously a compilation of regional creation myths in a work that is
supposedly a collection of moral teachings say otherwise is, you must admit,
hardly a genuine counterargument.
>> Evolution is not a fact. It is simply a theory that has been so corroborated
>> by decades of research and evidence that it can be (and has been) reliably
>> utilized as a means to predict future developments in genetics and biology.
>
>Such as, the most common proofs of evolution are beak width, bacterial changes,
dog breeding, iincreasing human height, etc. None of these prove evolution,
but are extensively talked about as if they are proofs.
Who are you to judge whether findings are corroborative evidence to support a
theory? Who am I? If your implied question is whether it is ultimately more
fruitful for scientists and other people to utilize the evolutionary theory
of the origin of species or the Biblical account of Genesis to make and apply
further predictions about biological exploration, my money would be on
evolution. And so, whether you like it or not, do you. The Biblical account
of Genesis is unsupported and unsupportable, as it posits a wide range of
miraculous functions and actions of a deity undetectable by any sort of
scientific endeavor. So what's the point? We might as well give up on trying
to know anything, if we are the product of a series of magical events.
>>
>>Darwin's theories of mechanisms have been entirely discredited even by the
most
>>
>> devout evolutionists.
>>
>> Hello. My name is John. I'm here to explain something to you. It's a very
>> simple fact, and it's something you need to understand.
>>
>> DISCREDITING SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF A THEORY DOES NOT DISCREDIT THE THEORY AS A
>> WHOLE.
>
>I agree, but in order to argue Darwin's theory, all of his mechanisms have been
proven not true by the >fossil record. More seriously, the fossil record
clearly suppots the laws of thermodynamics which is not >surprising, and that
supports creation. How would you argue against the laws of thermodynamics
with the >fossil record currently documented?
I have no idea what you mean by the laws of thermodynamics relating in any way
to the fossil record. Please elaborate. Furthermore, I explain later in my
message how the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the origin of
life and species on this planet.
>> There are no creditable scientists who deny that, in general, evolution is
>> the process by which life developed on this planet. Complex creatures evolved
>> from simple creatures. Yes, it sounds incredible. So does the idea that a big
>> man in the sky made people out of clay. It all depends on your point of view.
>
> There were no creditable scientists who denied that, in general, leeching was
not a valuable medical
> principle a century ago either.
How do you know? There had to be at least one, because the process originally
stopped. Get it? That's how science works. First a theory is revolutionary (or
even considered dangerous), then it is radical, then it is tested, then it (if
supported) is tolerated, then accepted, then… eventually… it becomes the
standard model. This process allows for error, true: but it also allows for a
great deal of TRIAL and error. That trial is the trial of testing,
experimentation and analysis. Someone, at some point, instead of blindly
adhering to the suppositions of his peers and forefathers, suspected and
asserted that leeching was not the efficacious practice it was assumed to be.
You support the scientific method, whether you realize it or not.
> Einstien denied the possibility of black holes predicted by his own theories.
Yes. He is an individual. He is human. He made a mistake. He has made others
and, as I've pointed out, he admitted it when he was "called" on it. He never
claimed to know "The Truth". The only people who ever do are you and yours.
The process of scientific exploration is an ongoing process. Mistakes will be
made. However, the further and more completely and minutely a subject or area
is explored, and the more securely the basic aspects of a given theory are
corroborated, the more "robust" the theory is considered to be. Such is the
case with evolution. You can not seriously believe that the fossil record
supports the theory of creation. It does no such thing.
> The theory of evolution has
> actually been around since Babylon empire. Since neo-evolution in Darwin's
day, the theory has changed
>drastically based upon additional fossil record discoveries;
A variety of fossils supporting the basic ideas of evolution have been found
in the century following the publication of Darwin's work. It would surely be
the find of the century - perhaps even the greatest find of all time - if a
fossil or other evidence were found that dramatically altered the perception
of the origin of man. It would certainly make a man's career - far more than
finding evidence to support a theory already in existence. How surprising,
then, that scientist after scientist, around the world, continue to find
fossil evidence of the evolution of species. Just recently, a fossil dubbed
"ambulocetus natans" was discovered that appears to be a transitional form
related to the whale. What a bore: more evidence of evolution!
>however, blind faith in the religion of evolution
>has produced Piltdown man-an equally bad product of blind faith not unlike what
you have charged
>Christianity alone with.
You insult my and your own intelligence by making such a patently phony
attack. You can not expect me to believe that you actually think that
Piltdown Man was the result of "blind faith in evolution"?!? The Piltdown Man
was a deliberate hoax. So are the countless scraps of the Shroud of Turin and
the splinters of the True Cross and the Spear of Destiny. Do they refute, in
your mind, the knowledge that such items exist or existed? Evolution is not a
religion. It is not even a dogma. There is spirited and welcome debate within
the scientific community (and outside it) on many aspects of the process by
which evolution took place. What is generally accepted, BASED ON THE
EVIDENCE, is that evolution is the process by which different species
occurred and developed. If there were a better theory, we would probably
already be using it. The fact that one does not exist is one of the strongest
indicators that the theory is relatively close to what actually occurred.
But, of course, we can never know, just as we can never KNOW that the sun
will come up tomorrow. But billions of days in a row is a pretty good body of
evidence in favor of a sunrise tomorrow, isn't it?
How many times do I have to tell you? Science, unlike Christianity, evolves.
More recent data indicate that what we thought was fossilized bacteria in
that famous Mars rock may simply turn out to be crystallization. Is this
disappointing? Yes. But such is science. Cold fusion is now considered a
joke. Why? Because scientists were unable to reproduce the supposed results
of an experiment. The story illustrates the strength of the scientific method
and the ongoing process of scientific exploration. We take nothing for
granted. No one thinks the Piltdown Man is a legitimate fossil. Not anymore.
Past failures are not illustrations of weakness in the scientific method.
Quite the opposite, because we know them to be failures now. But you still
think that Noah was able to fit all those animals into an Ark and then get
them to all the necessary continents. You should read some of the attempts to
"scientificize" the process by which the flood and repopulation of the Earth
occurred. It is truly ridiculous (i.e. deserving of ridicule). You can not
change your mind, no matter how crazy it seems, because it is in that book of
yours. It is "gospel". That is blind faith.
> Can you be sure that there are not other Piltdown faith solutions currently
>accepted
>as fact without proof? Tattersail claims that the bones talk to him and the
proofs of evolution are >intuitive!
>This is spiritualism, not scientific. It is not surprising that Wallace
advocated the theory at the same time as
Darwin--entirely from spiritualism.
Thank you. I was not familiar with the work of Mr. Tattersail. But you,
yourself, attempted to quote him as a detractor of Darwin's claims… and now
you seem to portray him as an unreliable kook! Remember what I said: it
doesn't matter who says it. Judge the theory on its own merit. The Pope said
that nothing in Scripture is contradictory with the theory of evolution,
which he has welcomed as the likely process by which God allowed the world's
animals and plants to arrive and develop. The Pope said it. Do you accept
what he said, without hesitation, because he is your spiritual leader, or do
you decide for yourself whether his words have merit?
>> Besides... the whole point of the scientific method is that ideas and
theories
>> and hypotheses are constantly created and refuted or supported. That's what's
>> _supposed_ to happen! Lamarck had an idea about passing traits on to the next
>> generation. He was wrong and he was proven wrong. That's how science works!
Do
>> you not understand that, or are you just trying to be difficult!
>
>I am really trying to helpful. But the same applies to the application of
Scripture. The Elizabethians
>thought they saw in Scripture that which they believed scientifically. What
they saw, such as a 6000 year
>old earth, is not what Scripture actually says. Applying the scientific method
and returning to what
>Scripture actually says, creationalists should also be given the same
opportunity to understand Scripture as
>evolutionalists have been given.
First of all, Scripture is hardly evidence. Besides the fact that it was
written a long time ago, which would indicate a lack of reliability in your
own opinion (if the Elizabethans were able to misrepresent Scripture, think
about what those actually transcribing the Scripture must have thought they
were witnessing when they made the claims and assertions they did!), it is a
religious text. It can not be claimed as evidence of anything other than
anthropological study of the literature of past cultures. What scientific
explanation could there possibly be for the anecdote in the Bible where the
sun stops in the sky for a while? What could have caused such an event? Is it
more likely that such an event actually occurred, which would have likely
resulted in the destruction of all life on the planet, or is it more likely
that the composers of that part of the Bible were simply relating an
exaggerating, epic tale of the sort often told in olden days - where
miraculous and magical events were mingled into a story simply to make it
more interesting?
And if you're going to say that all those amazing things happened because God
made them possible, then I'm afraid we can discuss it no longer, because you
then leave the area of rational discussion and enter the realm of religious
mania.
>> Edison tried hundreds of different materials to be used as the filament in
>> his light bulbs. The fact that he tried such things as human hair and cotton
>> fibers doesn't discredit the process of trial and error, does it?
>
>Absolutely not. That is why returning to the Hebrew Scripture and
understanding what it actually says is important. It does not confirm the
Elizabethian thoughts, it does validate the fossil record so far.
As though the Hebrews were scientifically-minded in their transcription of the
Old Testament! Current Hebrew scholars endlessly debate the contradictions and
paradoxes in their texts. They consider them to be interesting tests.
However, the fact remains that, again, if you explore the subject rationally,
Occam's Razor applies: if the two choices are that the Biblical account of
Genesis is a perfectly accurate account of events leading to the relative
present, or a series of stories developed by our ancestors to provide answers
to then-unanswerable questions… I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with the
story theory.
>> He got it right eventually.
>>
>> The fact that Stephen Jay Gould supports the theory of sudden, as opposed to
>> gradual, change within the process of evolution does not in any way discredit
>> the theory of evolution.
>
>You are right, but note that it is also supportive of creation as well.
Nonsense. How many ways can you use the term "creation"? Gould merely
postulates that the process of development from a simpler creature to a more
complex one took fewer steps and less time than do some other people. At no
point does he concede the possibility that a god had any hand in it. Read his
work. Hell, write him a letter. Get the facts from the man himself. You'll
find out just how supportive he is of creation and creationists.
>> How many Catholic denominations are there out there? Lutheran, Baptist, Roman
>> Catholic, Christian, Protestant, Christian Scientist, Greek Orthodox, Russian
>> Orthodox, Episcopalian, etc., etc., etc. Get it? These established groups all
>> disagree on aspects of the interpretation of the Bible. They all believe they
>> are right and everyone else is wrong. Yet they all believe that the Bible is
>> the Word of God. How is that possible?
>
>I agree that there are many denominations with differences regarding timing and
mechanisms of Scripture
> as evolutionalists disagree regarding timing and mechanisms as well, I
disagree that there is much debate
>on the basic truths of Scripture, such as creation, as the various
demonimations of evolutionalists share
>their common belief in the overall theory without conclusive proofs.
You had me up until the last part. You must be crazy. You must be.
"Conclusive proofs"?!? I just explained to you that, at this point, and given
the wealth of corroborative evidence we have, evolution is far and away the
best and most comprehensive explanation we have for the origin of species.
Your parrot-like chanting that there is no "proof" of the "truth" of
evolution does not make it so. There is no evidence against the theory of
evolution. If there were, maybe you'd have an argument. But you don't.
Besides… as I've said, I don't imagine that there would any proof anyone
COULD find that would convince you. So why bother?
>How is the Bible the Word of God? There are many proofs, none of which you
would probably find
>conclusive. The one that is absolutely conclusive to me is what is in my
heart. This followed an
>extensive study of Scripture questioning everything as you have also. There is
no prohibition against
>questioning, God calls us to do this for He wants my love by choice, not by
force.
Exactly. You have faith that you are right. You neither need nor would respond
to evidence. Since you "KNOW" that you are right, you would not be in any way
open or even cognizant of evidence disproving or discrediting your Book of
TRUTH. How the hell am I supposed to talk to someone like that?
This is insanity. The concept of "creation", in which something that did not
previously exist as a concept, now does, is not proof that the Biblical
account of Genesis (the "Creation") is in any way valid. You are confusing
creation with Creation.
If you take a dog with spots and breed it with a small dog, and you end up
with a small dog with spots, that's not "creation". That's evolution. If you
have 200 dogs, and you let them roam free in a national park, and let them
interbreed, and come back in fifty years, you'll probably find resourceful,
medium-sized dogs with aggressive behavior and an ability to work in teams.
That's survival of the fittest. That's natural selection. Selection by
nature. Is that a difficult concept for you to get?
Dogs can breed with wolves, can't they? What about coyotes? What about foxes?
What about foxes and arctic foxes? They are different breeds. They are all
cross-breedable. And there are many, many other examples.
Besides, evolution does not claim that animals were created through any sort
of daisy-chain process. The most commonly accepted model would be the
branching tree model, wherein multiple species evolved from a common
ancestor. Does it seem completely out of the question that all the cats - the
lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, snow leopards, cougars, and so on -
evolved from a common "proto-cat" ancestor? I know you don't believe it, but
does it seem impossible? Really impossible? There are cat species that exist
in such different climates and on different continents that it would seem
impossible that they would have ever encountered one another - yet they share
so many characteristics that, scientifically, we are forced to note their
similarities. That's why they are all considered "cats".
Where do you draw the line? If cats could all evolve from a single cat
ancestor, maybe that cat ancestor evolved, along with dogs and bears, from
single predator mammal ancestor, whereas all the hundreds of different
ungulates (ibexes, gemsboks, springboks, moose, deer, zebras) evolved from a
single ungulate ancestor… and all the pigs evolved from a single pig, etc.
And whose to say all these mammals didn't evolve from a common mammal
ancestor? Obviously, I'm simplifying the process, but you get the point.
Where is your evidence that evolution did NOT take place? With what do you
replace it? You have no details, and are unable to provide any details. All
you have are two chapters of a book written back when people thought hyssop
and sandalroot (along with a long and ludicruous [and paganistic] ritual)
would protect one from leprosy.
>>
>>If you believe in evolution, you must argue
>>
>> against the laws of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics support
>>
[Cot'd in part II]
cla...@ix.netcom.com
>> creation, and the fossil records supports the laws of thermodynamics.
>>
>> Boy, I was waiting for this. You creationists never cease to amaze me. Here
>> is a refutation of this preposterous, self-deluding idea you people have that
>> the Second Law of Thermodynamics is somehow violated by the process of
>> evolution:
>>
>> THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS. THE EARTH IS NOT
>> A CLOSED SYSTEM. THE SUN IS A CONSTANT SOURCE OF ENERGY, AND HAS BEEN FOR
>> BILLIONS OF YEARS. THAT IS WHY COMPLEX MOLECULES AND ORGANISMS CAN DEVELOP
>> FROM BASIC CHEMICALS.
>
>But the universe is a closed system, which was created first. What is the
probability by chance alone that
>organic tissue could happen? Or the probability that a slight difference at
the moment of the bang that
>created the universe that we know and love would have created an entirely
different universe? >Statistically,
>they are enormous. When the energy pattern at the outside of the universe was
discovered reflecting the
>moment of creation, even the discoverer identified the marks as the hand of
God, he was not particularly
>religious, but understood the pattern, and the results of the pattern.
Please. If you're going to demand that I accept that the fact that the
universe that exists, exists, indicates an intelligent creator… besides, even
if I did - what about the God as Watchmaker Theory? I've said it before and
I'll say it again… the theory of evolution is only concerned with the
development of species AFTER the origin of organic material and life on the
planet. Anything that came before is not within the venue of the theory.
Besides, there are more than two choices. God could have stopped
"participating" at any given point. He could have created the entire universe
- and then stopped. He could have created the Earth - and then stopped. He
could have created the first ameoba - and then stopped. It's not all or
nothing. You don't get to make the argument for or against Christian Genesis.
There are a lot more options.
>> This is not to mention the countless meteorites and comets that have entered
>> our atmosphere, as well as the vital tidal effects the moon has provided us.
>> And the fact that it has been recently postulated that the first organisms
>> developed near volcanic rifts on the ocean floor. Presto! All the heat and
>> energy a developing organism could ever need!
>
>God uses all creation to His ends.
Thanks for completely ignoring my refutation. You insisted that the Second
Law of Thermodynamics works against the Theory of Evolution. I explained how
it does not. You then proceeded to change the subject without acknowledging
that your argument was invalid.
I'm about to make a concession that every scientist worth his sodium chloride
would also make: science doesn't have all the answers. Okay? We never claimed
to know everything yet, or even be capable of KNOWING EVERYTHING. You claim
it. Maybe even individual scientists, feeling their oats, might claim to be
on to something really "big". But, for the most part, it is accepted that
there are a lot of things we don't - or even can't - know yet. Then again, we
landed on the moon back in 1969. What were the odds of that 100 years ago?
>> Okay? Do you get it? The thermodynamics argument doesn't work. End of
>> discussion.
>
>Absolutely not, it works quite well. These laws suggests a burst of new
created species through an input of evergy followed by a gradual decline into
extinction, This is the fossil record and quite well supported by the
creation account as well.
Didn't you even read what I said? The earth has been getting energy from the
sun for billions of years, and continues to do so. What "burst"?
Actually, after reading this last sentence of yours, I think I should just
give up. It is a combination of ignorance, blind assertions ("quite well
supported") and doubtless confidence that you are already as right as rain.
The Second Law does not suggest a burst of any new species. It simply allows
for the gradual increase of complexity in organic structures.
The fossil record? Why does the fossil record not show a single fossil out of
place? Not a single man fossil amidst the dinosaurs? Not a single cat eating
the delicious pre-Cambrian fishies? Heck, there are species of dinosaurs that
we know to have been consecutive (rather than simultaneous) by their
separation in the geologic record.
Core studies of Antarctic ice indicated a series of Ice Ages, rather an a
single one. This goes against the Creationist timeline.
Let me explain something else to you. Creationists love to take individual
pieces of evidence and find ways to refute them (in your response alone, we
have counter-experts, discrediting of experts, alternate interpretation of
evidence, blanket statements, unsupported assertions, changing the subject,
quoting of Scripture (!), misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the
theory of evolution, misrepresentation of evolutionists and the extension of
past "mistakes" of science). However, what you can not refute is that the
evidence overwhelmingly and cumulatively points to evolution (as opposed to
divine intervention) as the origin of species.
You believe in God and in Creation because it is your religion. This is your
dogma. You have no intention or willingness to change your opinion because you
believe you are RIGHT. That is not science. That is religion.
>> Call me crazy, but the scientific method - the method by which the theory of
>> evolution has been developed and augmented - is a much better bet for the
>> exercising and development of young minds than the repression and dogma
>> present in most religious communities.
>
>OK, I will call you crazy. Seriously, I apologize for that, but your comments
that Scripture is repressive is
>personally repugnant to me. I will agree with you that the dogma of man has
been repressive, at times, as
>those who hold to any religious belief such as evolution can also demonstrate.
God's Word is not
>oppressive, but man's use of it can be. Whenever the Scripture is represented
to say something it does not
>say such as the earth is 6000 years old, we need to question that, for that is
not what Scripture says.
>Neither do we need to believe without question the proofs of Piltdown man.
Scripture, among other things, supports slavery, oppression of women, and the
persecution of those who do not share your beliefs. What would you call that?
Evolution is not a religious belief. You calling it that doesn't make it so.
There is no Bible for evolution. You may think "The Origin of Species" is our
Bible, but it isn't. It is the work of a man, and I accept it as that and
only that. It is a landmark scientific publication, of course. But anyone can
arrive at a similar conclusion given the evidence. You have come about your
beliefs the other way. First you had the book. Then you interpreted the
evidence to fit your beliefs.
Let's put it this way: since God, in the old days, threw around miracles like
they were softballs, how do you know he didn't put evidence in the earth that
would indicate that evolution occurred? The Bible doesn't say either way.
And I believe I've already addressed Piltdown Man. Who didn't question it? We
know it's a fraud, don't we? Didn't someone have to have questioned the Man
for us to know that now?
I find it hard to believe that you think that past hoaxes and mistakes of
science discredit the process of scientific inquiry and the scientific
method. I don't think you think that at all. I think you simply distrust a
process that would never lead to the conclusion that to you is already
foregone… that a series of physically impossible acts and occurrences
happened "by the hand of God" so as to fit with the words of a book written
when the literal truth had no meaning.
Mike Painter
>>The Scripture does not say that the Earth is only 6000 years old. That
belief
>went out with Elizabethian times. The Scripture says that the forming of
Adam
>and Eve was 6000 years ago. Many things happened before that, according to
>Scripture including another entire earth age including, perhaps a
pre-Adamic
>race, and for which time frame is not specified by Scripture.
This was cross posted to T.O at a fairly late stage of the conversation I
suspect.
Nothing new, nothing that has not been discussed many times. Usually by
YEC's (Young Earth Creationists) that hit and run.
I would dearly love to see somebody come up with something original.
Why don't some of you YEC's examine core samples taken in the deep ocean to
prove there is no continuity in the fossil record?
"That belief went out with Elizabethian (sic) times. " is somewhat amusing.
The vast number of people defending creation here argue for a 6000 year old
universe. When the bible says a day it means a 24 hour day. Period.
A small number admit to a longer span.
There have also been a few flat earthers here. A search of the web will show
that the belief in a flat earth in a geocentric universe is still held by
most.
All of them will tell you that their view is truth and that anyone who does
not agree is wrong and will probably be condemned to hell.
All will tell you it is obvious if you just read the bible.
My view and that of many others on T.O. is that they have made the bible
their god to the exclusion of all else.
Scott Sullivan
place in eternity is determined.
John Bates wrote in message <75h7rp$cbq$1...@news1.cableinet.co.uk>...
michael burt
>unlike what you have charged
>>Christianity alone with.
>
>phony attack. You can not expect me to believe that you actually think
>that Piltdown Man was the result of "blind faith in evolution"?!? The
>Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax.
Why would someone attempt a hoax other than to prove a belief? One needs
to think rationally about why one promotes hoaxes. What purpose would it
serve--evidence of scientific method? Fame for one to proove evolution?
Personal gain? More likely evidence of wanting to proove what can not be
proved for political purposes.
So are the countless scraps of the
>Shroud of Turin and the splinters of the True Cross and the Spear of
>Destiny.
Testing of the Shroud of
Turin is also inconclusive as are some splinters of the cross. That does
not either proove nor disproove the actual event which is well docuemnted.
Do they refute, in your mind, the knowledge that such items
>exist or existed? Evolution is not a religion.
Do not be so sure. Religion is defined as any system of beliefs under
defination 3 of my dictionary. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is not even a dogma.
Really. A dogma is an assertion a priori without proof. I admit my
religion and dogma, others should be as honest. Neither hypothesis is
proven by the fossil record, my mind is open, is yours?
>There is spirited and welcome debate within the scientific community
>(and outside it) on many aspects of the process by which evolution
>took place. What is generally accepted, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, is that
>evolution is the process by which different species occurred and
>developed.
You keep talking about evidence, but to what are you referring to?
Tattersail, a reputable evolutionalists states that łEventually I pluched
up the courage to ask a distinguished scholar the crucial question: how
does on study fossils? The answer? You look at them long enough, and they
speak to you....When youąre out there selling such complicagted
narratives, normal scientiific testability just innąt an issue: how many
of your colleagues or others buy your story depends principally on how
convincing or forceful a storyteller you are-and on how willing your
audience is to believe the kind of thing you are saying˛
The above quote is from 165 and 169 of the Fossil Trail.
Is this the evidentuary conslusions to which you refer? How willing are
evolutionalists to believe the kind of convincing storytelling that is
being said? This is hardly sceintific method at its best.
If there were a better theory, we would probably already be
>using it. The fact that one does not exist is one of the strongest
>indicators that the theory is relatively close to what actually
>occurred. But, of course, we can never know, just as we can never KNOW
>that the sun will come up tomorrow. But billions of days in a row is a
>pretty good body of evidence in favor of a sunrise tomorrow, isn't it?
Interesting that you use the word sunrise? Do you believe that the earth
is still and the sun is moving as your statement clearly states? Can you
be sure that your dismissal of Scriptural statements are not also
dependent upon a misunderstanding of solid planar references (in the
Einstien sense) and figures of speech, rather than studying what they
actually meant to the writers? If the Hebrews used the phrase, Judah
painted the town red, and it was literally translated into English, would
you ask what size paint brust he used or would you laugh at his stupidity?
>
>How many times do I have to tell you? Science, unlike Christianity,
>evolves.
Evolves no, you could never tell me enough times that would be
convincing. Social sciences nor sceintific method evolves. That is a mis
application of the term. Advancing theories and testing them is the
scientific method. In your example of Edison inventing the light bulb, it
did not evolve. Each test was carefully documented, failures were
discredited until a reliable solution was achieved. The final light bulb
did not evolve from the first. It has no relation to the failures.
More recent data indicate that what we thought was fossilized
>bacteria in that famous Mars rock may simply turn out to be
>crystallization. Is this disappointing? Yes. But such is science. Cold
>fusion is now considered a joke. Why? Because scientists were unable
>to reproduce the supposed results of an experiment. The story
>illustrates the strength of the scientific method and the ongoing
>process of scientific exploration. We take nothing for granted.
Nor do I, certainly evolution included.
No one
>thinks the Piltdown Man is a legitimate fossil. Not anymore.
But thy did once as a convenient winning argument that was widely held for
a while.
Past
>failures are not illustrations of weakness in the scientific method.
You are quite right, Piltdown was a disgrace to the scientific method, as
any preconceived notions without any basis are.
>Quite the opposite, because we know them to be failures now. But you
>still think that Noah was able to fit all those animals into an Ark
>and then get them to all the necessary continents. You should read
>some of the attempts to "scientificize" the process by which the flood
>and repopulation of the Earth occurred. It is truly ridiculous (i.e.
>deserving of ridicule). You can not change your mind, no matter how
>crazy it seems, because it is in that book of yours. It is "gospel".
>That is blind faith.
I have read many creationalists books as well. I also disagree often with
the timing and mechanisms of their position, that does not discredit the
Scripture which does not say what many want it to say, apparently,
including you own intrepretation. Your intrepretation of the flood
certainly is not supported by the Hebrew, in my opinion.
>
>
>> Can you be sure that there are not other Piltdown faith solutions
>currently >accepted
>>as fact without proof? Tattersail claims that the bones talk to him
>and the proofs of evolution are >intuitive!
>>This is spiritualism, not scientific. It is not surprising that
>Wallace advocated the theory at the same time as
>Darwin--entirely from spiritualism.
>
>Thank you. I was not familiar with the work of Mr. Tattersail. But
>you, yourself, attempted to quote him as a detractor of Darwin's
>claimsÖ and now you seem to portray him as an unreliable kook!
Not so, I believe him to be highly respectable evolutionalists, if the
bones speak to him, I am sure that it is using the best of his sceintific
ability to listen. I do not call him a kook, that is a technique of the
mean spirited; but I am never surprised to find evolutionalists calling
me a kook, My take of Tattersail is merely that in the final analysis, he
admits that evolution is more intuition than fact.
>Remember what I said: it doesn't matter who says it. Judge the theory
>on its own merit.
I am, are you?
The Pope said that nothing in Scripture is
>contradictory with the theory of evolution, which he has welcomed as
>the likely process by which God allowed the world's animals and plants
>to arrive and develop. The Pope said it. Do you accept what he said,
>without hesitation, because he is your spiritual leader, or do you
>decide for yourself whether his words have merit?
I hope that you do not believe that the papacy is infallable!!!!! I
donąt. I question the Pope and all men in all that they say whether
religious or scientific. To believe in any belief without questioning is
the defination of a cult. I have questioned almost everything in
Scripture, and I disagree with many Christians on timing and
mechanisms-but never on the basic truths which I have found to be
reliable. That is how I came to study both the Scripture and evolution.
It is also presumptious that you assume that the Pope is my spiratual
leader, he is not. I take his positions with careful study, but certainly
not blind faith. I believe in the traditions of John Wycliffe and have
found numerous mis statements of Scripture by the Roman church that I
suspect we would both agree with. John Wycliffe did not take a stand on
evolution. That does not discredit Scripture nor Christianity, it does
discredit blind faith in any man whether Pope or scientist. It is fine to
hold to any hypothesis until proven or discarded, but not to demean other
viewpoints nor those who hold them that can be equally valid. I do not
agree with the Pope in this matter, perhaps he is right and someday the
fossil record may substantiate that evolution was used by God in the
process of evolution. I do not see that in the fossil record as it
exists, and I believe that if Tattersail was honest, neither would he.
But a great many Christians believe that creation was achieved through
evolution, I believe that they are wrong regarding both their timing and
mechanisms based upon what the Hebreew says rather than what most believe
that it says without study , but not in their basic belief of creation.
>
>>> Besides... the whole point of the scientific method is that ideas
>and theories
>>> and hypotheses are constantly created and refuted or supported.
>That's what's
>>> _supposed_ to happen! Lamarck had an idea about passing traits on
>to the next
>>> generation. He was wrong and he was proven wrong. That's how
>science works! Do
>>> you not understand that, or are you just trying to be difficult!
I am not trying to be difficult. I do not find the proofs that support
evolution credible. And you are not presenting any.
>>
>>I am really trying to helpful. But the same applies to the
>application of Scripture. The Elizabethians
>>thought they saw in Scripture that which they believed
>scientifically. What they saw, such as a 6000 year
>>old earth, is not what Scripture actually says. Applying the
>scientific method and returning to what
>>Scripture actually says, creationalists should also be given the same
>opportunity to understand Scripture as
>>evolutionalists have been given.
>
>First of all, Scripture is hardly evidence.
Not to you, but you are presumptious and somewhat judgemental regarding
what beliefs I hold with respect to Scripture.
Besides the fact that it
>was written a long time ago, which would indicate a lack of
>reliability in your own opinion (if the Elizabethans were able to
>misrepresent Scripture, think about what those actually transcribing
>the Scripture must have thought they were witnessing when they made
>the claims and assertions they did!),
I did not state that the Elizabethians misrepresented Scripture. They
gave it their best shot in the choice of words used to represent the
Hebrew consistent with their scientific views, it was not consequential to
them nor were they deliberately misleading anyone nor attempting to
corrupt Scripture as the social scientis are want to do in our present age
in the purposefully politically altered versions of Scripture. Most words
in Hebrew have exact equivalents in English, but some donąt. And it is
these words that must be carefully considered in the original Hebrew for
the correct shade of meaning. The Amplified Bible attempts to provide
several words which together attempt to more correctly connote the actual
meaning of the original in Hebrew or Greek which is between two or three
English words. It makes for poorer reading, but a better representation of
the actual meaning of the Hebrew. Even here, additional study in
lexiconography is sometimes required unless you want to take the
translation in blind faith, which neither you nor I would be willing to do
without first checking it out for ourselves. May I therefore assume that
you have done so?
Likewise some clear concepts in English take several Hebrew words to
formulate. One must also consider figures of speech clear to the Hebrew,
but needing transliterating into English. Binding and loosening is an
example of a Hebrew idiom well known to Paul which was transliterated into
Greek in his letters and in tern transliterated into English. In order to
make the mose sense of the expression, the original Hebrew idiom must be
considered. The concept is simple, once understood.
it is a religious text. It can
>not be claimed as evidence of anything other than anthropological
>study of the literature of past cultures.
That would not be intuitively obvious to me, nor would it be a reasonable
intrepretation of Scripture in my studied opinion.
What scientific explanation
>could there possibly be for the anecdote in the Bible where the sun
>stops in the sky for a while?
I do not have a definative answer for this, but I do offer the possibility
of Einstien reference planes which could provide a possible answer to that
which we both seek.
What could have caused such an event? Is
>it more likely that such an event actually occurred, which would have
>likely resulted in the destruction of all life on the planet, or is it
>more likely that the composers of that part of the Bible were simply
>relating an exaggerating, epic tale of the sort often told in olden
>days - where miraculous and magical events were mingled into a story
>simply to make it more interesting?
Certainly a possible explanation. The answer may be in the lost book of
Jasher, which is not part of Scripture and an interruption in this passage
to include reference to another event. The thing requested by the Hebrew
is additional daylight at the time of the meridian based upon the
seclection of Gideon and the Valley of Ajlon referenced for the time of
eventual sunset. A possible explanation is possible using reflection and
refraction, there is the possibility of refraction making the sun appear
above the horizon when its actual location is below due to some sort of
atmospheric volcanic dust, etc. Keil and Bush have done some possible
explanations using the laws of refraction as possible scientific
explanations. This passage is frequently used to state that the Scripture
says that the sun is the center of the universe, it clearly does not say
this.
>
>And if you're going to say that all those amazing things happened
>because God made them possible, then I'm afraid we can discuss it no
>longer, because you then leave the area of rational discussion and
>enter the realm of religious mania.
I never claimed to have all the answers, not even on creation. only that
the fossil record in no way discredits what Scripture says nor that it
prooves evolution. Referring to me as a manic depressive physochosis
which is a specific defination of mania in my dictionary is not very
tolerant to my viewpoint, irrespective of yours, however.
>
>>> Edison tried hundreds of different materials to be used as the
>filament in
>>> his light bulbs. The fact that he tried such things as human hair
>and cotton
>>> fibers doesn't discredit the process of trial and error, does it?
>>
>>Absolutely not. That is why returning to the Hebrew Scripture and
>understanding what it actually says is important. It does not confirm
>the Elizabethian thoughts, it does validate the fossil record so far.
>
>As though the Hebrews were scientifically-minded in their
>transcription of the Old Testament! Current Hebrew scholars endlessly
>debate the contradictions and paradoxes in their texts. They consider
>them to be interesting tests.
Who is they? Those I study Hebrew with have a markedly different viewpoint.
>
>However, the fact remains that, again, if you explore the subject
>rationally, Occam's Razor applies: if the two choices are that the
>Biblical account of Genesis is a perfectly accurate account of events
>leading to the relative present, or a series of stories developed by
>our ancestors to provide answers to then-unanswerable questionsÖ I'm
>afraid I'm going to have to go with the story theory.
It would seem that you conclusions are based upon a rather brief, and I
might add, rather light study of the Scripture. At one time, I would have
agreed with you and woudl have been cheered on by my college professors
who were largely ignorant of Scripture. I didnąt have blind faith in
their opinion either, but sought my own research which completely
discredited their view in my opinion. I did not expect nor plan to reach
the conclusions I have reached, but God in His grace has provided me with
more that I had bargained for.
>
>>> He got it right eventually.
>>>
>>> The fact that Stephen Jay Gould supports the theory of sudden, as
>opposed to
>>> gradual, change within the process of evolution does not in any way
>discredit
>>> the theory of evolution.
>>
>>You are right, but note that it is also supportive of creation as well.
>
>Nonsense. How many ways can you use the term "creation"?
Sudden evolution. Gradual change. How many ways can you use the term
evolution?
These are two markedly different timing and mechanisms. Tattersail
confirms that there is no generally accepted concept of the timing nor
mechanisms of evolution. He further refutes that there is any real idea
on how the process could begin.
Gould merely
>postulates that the process of development from a simpler creature to
>a more complex one took fewer steps and less time than do some other
>people. At no point does he concede the possibility that a god had any
>hand in it. Read his work. Hell, write him a letter. Get the facts
>from the man himself. You'll find out just how supportive he is of
>creation and creationists.
I would love to read his work--and write him a letter. I am not familiar
with him, what work would you recommend. Please send by e-mail if
possible. By the time I get done with this, I suspect that the intolerant
humanists evolutionalists will have well plastered me with their mean
spirited cat calls of ignorant fundie--and I do not wish to read through
all of the dribble. I have far better things to do with my time.
>
>>> How many Catholic denominations are there out there? Lutheran,
>Baptist, Roman
>>> Catholic, Christian, Protestant, Christian Scientist, Greek
>Orthodox, Russian
>>> Orthodox, Episcopalian, etc., etc., etc. Get it? These established
>groups all
>>> disagree on aspects of the interpretation of the Bible. They all
>believe they
>>> are right and everyone else is wrong. Yet they all believe that the
>Bible is
>>> the Word of God. How is that possible?
>>
>>I agree that there are many denominations with differences regarding
>timing and mechanisms of Scripture
>> as evolutionalists disagree regarding timing and mechanisms as well,
>I disagree that there is much debate
>>on the basic truths of Scripture, such as creation, as the various
>demonimations of evolutionalists share
>>their common belief in the overall theory without conclusive proofs.
>
>You had me up until the last part. You must be crazy. You must be.
>"Conclusive proofs"?!? I just explained to you that, at this point,
>and given the wealth of corroborative evidence we have, evolution is
>far and away the best and most comprehensive explanation we have for
>the origin of species.
Explanation yes, you have been emphatic regarding your belief, but absent
in proofs. The Scripture suggests men created on day 6, Adam and Eve
formed on day 8, the Nephilim born in Chapter 6, the descendants of Cain
whose father may not have been Adam, and a possible pre-Adamic race before
verse 2 of Chapter 1.
Your parrot-like chanting that there is no
>"proof" of the "truth" of evolution does not make it so.
Your parrot like chanting that Scripture says man was created 6000 years
ago as a single event does not make it so.
There is no
>evidence against the theory of evolution. If there were, maybe you'd
>have an argument. But you don't. BesidesÖ as I've said, I don't
>imagine that there would any proof anyone COULD find that would
>convince you. So why bother?
There is no evidence against the theory of creation. If there were, maybe you'd
have an argument. But you don't. Besides, as I've said, I don't
imagine that there would any proof anyone COULD find that would
convince you. So why bother?
>
>>How is the Bible the Word of God? There are many proofs, none of
>which you would probably find
>>conclusive. The one that is absolutely conclusive to me is what is
>in my heart. This followed an
>>extensive study of Scripture questioning everything as you have also.
> There is no prohibition against
>>questioning, God calls us to do this for He wants my love by choice,
>not by force.
>
>Exactly. You have faith that you are right. You neither need nor would
>respond to evidence. Since you "KNOW" that you are right, you would
>not be in any way open or even cognizant of evidence disproving or
>discrediting your Book of TRUTH. How the hell am I supposed to talk to
>someone like that?
Exactly. You have faith that you are right. You neither need nor would
respond to a possibility which disagrees with your faith. Since you "KNOW"
that you are right, you would not be in any way open or even cognizant of
evidence disproving or
discrediting your łtruth˛ of evolution. How the heck am I supposed to talk to
someone like that?
>
>This is insanity. The concept of "creation", in which something that
>did not previously exist as a concept, now does, is not proof that the
>Biblical account of Genesis (the "Creation") is in any way valid. You
>are confusing creation with Creation.
I am not sure that I follow your question? Do you mean that creation is
different than Creation? What you may be saying that your intrepretation
of Scripture is not believable while I am questioning your intrepretation
of Scripture. Perhaps you are dismissing creation because you disagree
with what you see as the timing and mechanisms. I believe that if you
study beyond a cursory reading of even the AV version, you will find that
your reading of the Scripture is not entirely accurate.
>
>If you take a dog with spots and breed it with a small dog, and you
>end up with a small dog with spots, that's not "creation". That's
>evolution. If you have 200 dogs, and you let them roam free in a
>national park, and let them interbreed, and come back in fifty years,
>you'll probably find resourceful, medium-sized dogs with aggressive
>behavior and an ability to work in teams. That's survival of the
>fittest. That's natural selection. Selection by nature. Is that a
>difficult concept for you to get?
Not at all, but hardly a proof of evolution.
The first is a good example of intra-specis evolution with or without
intelligenet intervention, but not specis to species evolution required to
proove evolution. We are not talking about intra-species evolution or I
would agree with you on every point. The Biblical account in paraphrase
states that dogs will begat dogs of their own kind. Your example starts
with a dog and ends with a dog. That hardly prooves what you want to
proove. The environment of your second example can cause behavioural
changes, but after 1 million years, they may even bevome more aggressive,
but they are still dogs they are not a new species under either the
gradual change nor quick change scenerio.
>
>Dogs can breed with wolves, can't they?
Would you call them a new species if they did?
What about coyotes? What about
>foxes? What about foxes and arctic foxes?
They are different breeds.
>They are all cross-breedable. And there are many, many other examples.
To quote Tattersail at page 43, łBut as people like dog breeders,
selecting for longer legs or shorter muzzles or whatever, had known before
evolutionary ideas had ever taken shape,
May God Bless You
Michael
michael burt
>newsgroups: a.bsu.religion)
>>
>>
>>>
>might provide
>>> you that is generally accepted as support for the theory of
>evolution will be
>>> attacked and "discredited" by you and yours.
>>
>>Depends on the defination of attacked and discredited. Debate and
>honest discussion is neither.
>
>debate as a means to disseminate their half-truths and deliberate
>obfuscation (and, by extension, their religion) across community
>centers and college campuses for decades. Your Duane Gish is a classic
>example of how the tactics of effective debate can change people's
>minds far more than actual, logical exploration of the facts of a
>controversy.
I am not aware of Duane Gish, but I am aware that in most public schools,
creation is forbidden to be discussed. That hardly qualifies as honest
debate, and forces the religious beliefs of athiesm as a de facto state
religion and limits free speech and denying God in a nation that places
its trust in God.
>
>Furthermore, you must realize that I expect you to enter into this
>exchange with preconceptions that, being based in faith and dogma, are
>utterly resistant to change, whatever new evidence or information you
>may gain.
I could also make the same charges against most evolutionalists. My
position is that the fossil record in no way discredits the Biblical
account of creation based upon the Hebrew script. Are you resistant to
changing your views regarding what the Hebrew states?
>
>>Given that, I find it would be a
>>> waste of time to actually list the evidence itself. Suffice it to
>say that the
>>> strength and accuracy (and usefulness) of a theory is based on its
>reliability
>>> in predicting future observations. The theory of evolution has been
>thus
>>> utilized time and time again.
>>
>>Many theories are used, but that does not mean that they are true.
>Darwin, predicted a fossil record that does not exist, and as a
>result, his mechanisms are completely discredited. This is confirmed
>by Tattersail and other evolutionists in such as The Fossil Trail.
>
>Darwin's "mechanisms" are not at the heart of his work; his theories
>and hypotheses are. Besides, as you yourself point out, the idea that
>life evolved, rather than being created intact, has existed long
>before Darwin was even born.
On this point we can agree. The tree of life of evolution was an ingral
part of the ancient religious beliefs of Babel. Scripture identifies the
author and purpose of the religious beliefs which included evolution.
It wouldn't matter if it turned out that
>Darwin were a raving lunatic. His theories were not accepted because
>anyone thought Darwin was the Messiah. They were accepted (along with
>the work of many other, though lesser-known, scientists) because they
>fit the evidence and accurately predicted future discoveries. Yes,
>there were errors. We don't claim to be perfect. You do.
I am personally offended by your allegations. No Christian is perfect,
all Christians and non Christians are sinners alike. You may believe that
I am perfect; but those are your words, not mine. And they are personally
offensive to me. Darwinšs theory is logical, no one disputes that, but
creation is equally logical.
>
>If Charles Manson were running down the street screaming "The sky is
>blue! The sky is blue!!", that wouldn't mean the sky wasn't blue,
>would it?
Of course not, but if scientists run down the street claiming that
Newtonian laws would always explain all behaviour of matter, would you
believe that as well? The claims of scientists neither proves nor dis
proves evolution.
There have been plenty of psychos in history who have
>claimed that their heinous deeds were inspiredÖ even requiredÖ by God
>or the Bible.
On this point we can also agree, and if people had studied the Scripture,
they would have found that they would be wrong. It is not a problem with
Scripture, it is a problem with people who twist Scripture, omit
Scripture, add to Scripture, or pluck out a verse out of context. The
Bible says many things, many are in the context of what not to do.
That doesn't discredit your holy book, does it? Asking
>whether a theory is "true" is to miss the whole point of a theoryÖ the
>whole VALUE of a theory! You utilize a theory to predict future
>events. Evolution has already predicted numerous successive
>discoveries. Its value is scientifically cemented.
I donšt discredit searching for truth nor nul hypothesis. That is not my
argument. My argument is that the fossil record is not inconsistent with
the Scriptural statement.
>
>Understand that, unlike creationists, whose "science" is based on a
>slavish devotion to a 2,000-year-old book (and I anticipate your
>automatic response: do not deign to refer to the evolutionist's
>acceptance of evolution as the dominant paradigm as a religious
>devotion), the evolutionist is so-called because of his present
>acceptance of the idea that life evolved through a process of natural
>selection.
Sounds like an intolerant statement, and mean spirited as well. Slavish?
Those are fighting words, not words of an honest debate. Parts of the
Scripture are much older than your estimate. I would anticipate your
automatic response to refer to the creationalists position as slavish,
blind devotion, antiquated, and not well imformed. You have performed
well according to expectations. As evolution may date back to Babel, both
theries are of equal antiquity.
>
>Was Einstein "completely discredited" because he predicted an
>anti-gravitational force to prevent the collapse of the universe that
>turned out not to exist? No. Einstein hypothesized, and his hypothesis
>was proven wrong. Scientists hypothesize for the same reason that
>treasure-hunters run their metal detectors back and forth across the
>ground as they slowly walk forward. They must explore in order to find
>the real treasure.
We are both in agreement there as well.
>
>Why is it so difficult for creationists to comprehend that science is
>a living, ongoing process of interpretation and exploration? Is it
>because your book - your "Truth" (with a capital "T") - is completely
>immutable, because you consider it absolutely without error or even
>possibility of error? That is not science. Looking for evidence to
>support assertions you accept on faith is nonsensical. To attempt to
>point to scientifically-compiled data as evidence that miraculous
>events occurred is a contradiction in terms.
Not if one understands God. I support you in your questioning of
statements put forth by religious leaders, I do as well. The government
recently published a *scientific report* that confirms that second hand
smoke causes certain disease. But the report was found to be seriously
flawed. When caught, the government defended itself by saying but the
unsupported conclusions are what we know to be true eventhough we canšt
proove it. That is not scientific despite the scientific trappings it is
wrapped in. We would be wise to question scientists with an agenda as
well.
>
>>> "The actual proofs"? I don't understand what you're asking for.
>Evolution is
>>> a theory. Give me the proofs that the earth revolves around the
>sun! You
>>> can't see the earth move. As far as you can tell, the sun does all
>the
>>> moving! The Catholic Church punished a lot of great thinkers over
>the years
>>> for arging that the earth was not the center of the universe. Don't
>confuse
>>> science and religion, please. You'll only be disappointed in the end.
Hardly, Scripture describes the earth as an orb suspended in space. No
where does it state that the sun is the center of the universe. However,
until we determine the quantity and location of dark matter, the answer to
that question is still up for grabs.
>>
>>The two are acutally quite compatable. The Scripture says that the
>earth is an orb suspended in space, It it a travesty, as you say,
>however, when men, whether Christian or not do not take the time to
>understand what is written.
>
>Please. The Biblical account of Genesis can not be taken literally, or
>you ask for such a suspension of natural law that you might as well
>claim that God is living in your refrigerator. Creationists (although
>they often disagree amongst themselves
as do evolutions as to exactly which fossils are human)
>assert such a wide range of
>scientifically inaccurate and laughable suppositions (such as the idea
>that the coral reefs that would have taken millions of years to grow
>somehow arrived in a matter of millenia, or that the Great Flood
>caused the formation of the Grand Canyon) that it is infuriating to
>even try to argue with them in any scientific manner.
I agree, there are many arguments regarding timing and mechanisms in
creationalism, not unlike similar arguments within the evolutionalists
camp. Scripture says that Noahšs flood was to destroy the Nephilim who
lived within a specific geographic region. The Nephilim were humanoid,
but not descended from Adam and Eve who were formed on day 8 nor the men
and women created on day 6.
>
>>> In fact, the fossil record supports creation and not evolution.
>>>
>>> You have got to be kidding me. You have some guts, making such
>assertions
>>> without backing them up. How much do you really know about fossils?
>Are you
>>> aware that it has been proven that it takes millions of years for
>the actual
>>> process of fossilization to take place? That fact, in and of itself,
>>> disproves the popular Christian misconception that the Earth is
>only 4 or
>>> 6,000 years old.
>>
>>The Scripture does not say that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
>That belief went out with Elizabethian times. The Scripture says that
>the forming of Adam and Eve was 6000 years ago. Many things happened
>before that, according to Scripture including another entire earth age
>including, perhaps a pre-Adamic race, and for which time frame is not
>specified by Scripture.
>
>Don't split hairs.
In all humbleness, I an not splitting hairs, merely providing more
accurate evidence for you to consider, if you are not prejudiced to
receive it.
First of all, I'm sure you'd find a lot of
>Creationists out there who believed the whole Earth history only
>encompassed 6,000 years or so.
And there are a lot of evolutionalists argueing about the accuracy of
Cladograms of human origins as well.
How was I to know you weren't one of
>them?
Then why treat me as if I were?
Furthermore, that is besides the fact that your myth is still
>scientifically unsound. Do you believe in the Noachian Ark myth?
As I said, the flood was to destroy the Nephilim, its purpose was not to
deatroy the earth. It is an extrapolation to assume that the flood was
world wide.
Try
>explaining the logistics of storing all those species and their food
>and dealing with their defecationÖ as well as the geological
>impossibilities of a sudden flood and equally sudden repeal of the
>waters? I know, I knowÖ God did it. That's quite a science you've got
>there.
You are correct, only your assumption of the flood as described in
Scripture is flawed.
>
>>> You want evidence that creation is a load of bunk? How about the
>geologic
>>> record indicating that the more complex creatures appear higher
>(that is,
>>> more recently) in the record than simpler animals...
Quite similar to the creation described in Genesis in the second earth
age, actually. No information is provided for creation in the first earth
age regarding order and timing.
that humans
>(indeed,
>>> almost all mammals) appear millions of years after the dinosaurs...
Dinosaurs were of the first earth age, not the current one.
>that no
>>> human with anything more complicated than stone chip tools has ever
>been
>>> found fossilized? If dinosaurs and modern mammals (especially
>humans) lived
>>> at the same time, why is there no mingling of bones? You mean to
>say that a
>>> single dinosaur never managed to consume a single sloth, or cow, or
>crippled
>>> old man? That these so-called "deformed men" (what many
>anti-evolutionists
>>> consider homo habilis, australopithecus, etc. fossils to be) never
>died or
>>> lived amidst healthy brothers and sisters? Come on!
I never advocated that which you imply of my arguments. I have no idea
what happened in the destruction of the first earth age. But polar
shifting, of which there was evidence of having occured in the past would
wipe out all of us if it were to happen tomorrow morning and leave few
scant eviidence of what some consider our greatness. And a meteror the
size of the moon would be even more devastating. I never claimed to know
all of the answers, only that the evidence does not discredit the
Scriptural account as it was written in Hebrew.
>>
>>The creation record in this earth age confirms most of what you say,
>the balance is certainly possible from
>>the Scriptural record of the first earth age.
>
>The "First Earth Age"? According to Creationist interpretation of the
>Scripture, the Great Flood supposedly occurred about 4,000 years ago -
>well after many established Middle Eastern and European civilizations
>were laying down written texts that have survived to this day. Don't
>tell me those people got flooded out. There is no evidence to support
>that theory.
Again, the purpose of the flood was to destroy the Nephilim, a specific
and perhaps local event. Noah presumably lived in the cradel of
civilization as well as Abraham. A great flood is well remembered in the
antiquities of the cradle both Biblically and extra-Biblically. Certainly
Abraham was from the society from which these records were maintained.
>
>There are a variety of geological features of this planet that could
>not have developed and remained as they did with the occurrence of a
>great and sudden flood less that 10,000 years ago. Nor could the
>animals in Noah's ark have been disseminated as widely, and found
>niches as perfectly as they did, in such a short amount of time.
I am inclined to agree with you; however, the Hebrew does not necessarly
record a flood as you envision it.
>
>
>>> This is completely beside the point that the fossil record is
>evidence of
>>> things that happened millions of years ago. Many creationists
>attempt to
>>> discredit evolution by saying "Science is about observing, and,
>since no one
>>> was there to observe evolution 'taking place', it can never be
>fact!"
I agree with you and find such as argument mere gibberish as much of the
social sciences are. I do agree, however, with the creationalists basic
beliefs, and stand firm with them, but would argue with this mechanism.
What
>>> are you doing now by even referring to fossils?
Seeking the truth like you. Do you think that creationalists should be
prevented from considering the fossil record in their quest for truth? Or
do you believe that only evolutionalists are entitled to study fossils?
My point is that the fossil record does not discredit creation. I do not
make such a statement without studying the fossil record. That would be
unscientific of me. We are both scientists, our only difference should be
our hypothesis, neither may ever be provable within science. Only one is
provable in to me within my relationship with God.
The Bible refers to
>things
>>> that "no one" was there to see! Who knows that God created the
>heaven and the
>>> earth a day before the fish (or whatever the order was)? No one was
>there!
>>> The Bible doesn't say "And God told Ureah all about Genesis" or
>anything!
>>
>>I believe that God told Adam, who handed the Word down orally until
>the time of Moses. Your comments about creationalists discrediting
>evolution by saying "Science is about observing, and, since no one
>>> was there to observe evolution 'taking place it can never be fact!"
>is a good one. As a creationalists, I would agree with you as well,
>this is a silly argument.
>
>I sincerely appreciate your concessions. What you must realize is that
>the scientific assertions as to the age and the origin of man are not
>made lightly, nor are they pulled whole from the writings of some
>19th-century loon.
That is why I study the fossil record as well.
They are the result of the legitimate
>reconciliation of data from so many and such varied areas of
>scientific inquiry (and from so many separate agencies and
>institution) that the fact that they agree as much as they do could be
>considered a miracle in and of itself! The theory of evolution does
>not normally concern itself with the origin of organic life at all -
>rather, it concerns itself with the origin of different species. And
>the evidence (including, despite creationist protests, transitional
>fossils) is overwhelmingly in favor of the evolution of species,
>through a process of divergence and natural selection. The fact that
>two chapters of a book that is obviously a compilation of regional
>creation myths in a work that is supposedly a collection of moral
>teachings say otherwise is, you must admit, hardly a genuine
>counterargument.
I disagree, both with you conclusions and assertions. What is obvious to
you is not well supported. Your belief that only two chapters of the
Scripture relate to the first and second earth ages does not indicate that
you have ever seriously studied the Scripture. It is not a good position
to mock any work without being familiar with what it says relying solely
upon the unsupportable conclusions of others who may have their own bias.
I am certainly not the worldšs foremost authority on the fossil recocrd
and have to study the works of others. Most of the works I have read find
evolution intuitavely obvious. That is not a proof, it is a faith. And
the proofs offered are not conclusive.
>
>>> Evolution is not a fact.
Thank you for your assertions.
It is simply a theory that has been so
>corroborated
>>> by decades of research and evidence that it can be (and has been)
>reliably
>>> utilized as a means to predict future developments in genetics and
>biology.
Genetics? You mean intelligent intervention of the gene pool? Or
intelligent intervention in the creation of medicine that has unnaturally
forced bacteria to mutate? What future developments in genetics and
biology are you referring to?
>>
>>Such as, the most common proofs of evolution are beak width,
>bacterial changes, dog breeding, iincreasing human height, etc. None
>of these prove evolution, but are extensively talked about as if they
>are proofs.
>
>Who are you to judge whether findings are corroborative evidence to
>support a theory?
Who are you to judge whether Scripture is as you say it is based on a
unreliable representation of your belief that creation occurs in a mere
two chapters of Scripture?
Who am I? If your implied question is whether it is
>ultimately more fruitful for scientists and other people to utilize
>the evolutionary theory of the origin of species or the Biblical
>account of Genesis to make and apply further predictions about
>biological exploration, my money would be on evolution.
I apreciate your conviction, but why are you so convinced?
And so,
>whether you like it or not, do you. The Biblical account of Genesis is
>unsupported and unsupportable, as it posits a wide range of miraculous
>functions and actions of a deity undetectable by any sort of
>scientific endeavor. So what's the point? We might as well give up on
>trying to know anything, if we are the product of a series of magical
>events.
Nothing is magical, but all has a purpose. Godšs plan for man is not
magical, but purposeful, specific, and well documented.
>
>>>
>>>Darwin's theories of mechanisms have been entirely discredited even
>by the most
>>>
>>> devout evolutionists.
>>>
>>> Hello. My name is John. I'm here to explain something to you. It's
>a very
>>> simple fact, and it's something you need to understand.
>>>
>>> DISCREDITING SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF A THEORY DOES NOT DISCREDIT THE
>THEORY AS A
>>> WHOLE.
I agree, neither do your agruments discrediting Scripture based upon what
it does not say support evolution, nor your proofs offered discredit
creation.
>>
>>I agree, but in order to argue Darwin's theory, all of his mechanisms
>have been proven not true by the >fossil record. More seriously, the
>fossil record clearly suppots the laws of thermodynamics which is not
>>surprising, and that supports creation. How would you argue against
>the laws of thermodynamics with the >fossil record currently documented?
>
>I have no idea what you mean by the laws of thermodynamics relating in
>any way to the fossil record. Please elaborate. Furthermore, I explain
>later in my message how the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not
>apply to the origin of life and species on this planet.
>
>>> There are no creditable scientists who deny that, in general,
>evolution is
>>> the process by which life developed on this planet. Complex
>creatures evolved
>>> from simple creatures. Yes, it sounds incredible. So does the idea
>that a big
>>> man in the sky made people out of clay. It all depends on your
>point of view.
Your representation of Scripture relating to a big man in the sky making
peple out of clay is seriously lacking in understanding of the Scripture.
Or do you advocate that flesh is not made up of the same earthly compounds
found commonly throughout the planet? Hello, my name is Michael.
>>
>> There were no creditable scientists who denied that, in general,
>leeching was not a valuable medical
>> principle a century ago either.
>
>How do you know?
If there were, they would have not done it so long.
There had to be at least one, because the process
>originally stopped. Get it?
Not until after centuries of worthless blood letting.
That's how science works. First a theory
>is revolutionary (or even considered dangerous), then it is radical,
>then it is tested, then it (if supported) is tolerated, then accepted,
>thenÖ eventuallyÖ it becomes the standard model. This process allows
>for error, true: but it also allows for a great deal of TRIAL and
>error. That trial is the trial of testing, experimentation and
>analysis. Someone, at some point, instead of blindly adhering to the
>suppositions of his peers and forefathers, suspected and asserted that
>leeching was not the efficacious practice it was assumed to be. You
>support the scientific method, whether you realize it or not.
There we both agree again, and I am fully cognizant of my support of the
scientific method, it is a method built upon Christian capital.
>
>> Einstien denied the possibility of black holes predicted by his own
>theories.
>
>Yes. He is an individual. He is human. He made a mistake.
Are you saying that black holes do not exist? I do not think that you
would find a lot of company in the scientific community that would be so
authoritative. You are right, he is human, as are all scientists.
He has made
>others and, as I've pointed out, he admitted it when he was "called"
>on it. He never claimed to know "The Truth".
He did know God, however.
The only people who ever
>do are you and yours.
Not so, Einstien was not a Christian, but he is a brother in Isreal to me,
I believe by blood, others believe by adoption. It makes little
difference either way.
The process of scientific exploration is an
>ongoing process. Mistakes will be made.
Hopefully, some day they will be fixed.
However, the further and more
>completely and minutely a subject or area is explored, and the more
>securely the basic aspects of a given theory are corroborated, the
>more "robust" the theory is considered to be. Such is the case with
>evolution. You can not seriously believe that the fossil record
>supports the theory of creation. It does no such thing.
Here we disagree, completely.
>
>> The theory of evolution has
>> actually been around since Babylon empire. Since neo-evolution in
>Darwin's day, the theory has changed
>>drastically based upon additional fossil record discoveries;
>
>A variety of fossils supporting the basic ideas of evolution have been
>found in the century following the publication of Darwin's work. It
>would surely be the find of the century - perhaps even the greatest
>find of all time - if a fossil or other evidence were found that
>dramatically altered the perception of the origin of man. It would
>certainly make a man's career - far more than finding evidence to
>support a theory already in existence. How surprising, then, that
>scientist after scientist, around the world, continue to find fossil
>evidence of the evolution of species. Just recently, a fossil dubbed
>"ambulocetus natans" was discovered that appears to be a transitional
>form related to the whale. What a bore: more evidence of evolution!
One of few that would be required to substantiate such a grand theory, and
inconclusive at best.
>
>>however, blind faith in the religion of evolution
May God Bless You
Michael
--
michael burt
selecting for longer legs or shorter muzzles or whatever, had known before
frequencies you could produce neither true anatomical innovation-you were
restricted to producing variations on existing themes--not new species.
Yet evolution depends both on anatomicaql change and on the production of
new species, and at the end of the ninetenth century the relationship
betwen these two differrent things remained far from clear--as, to be
quite frank, it still does.˛
So far, this is one of the greatest proofs offered for species to species
evolution, and from a scientific method position, it fails. It does
support the Biblical record where each kind begats its own kind. One can
also intelligently intervene to breed donkeys and horses to m ake a mule,
but the mule is sterile. In the study of insects, many of the insects
have almost what could be called a lock and key system in male and female
sex organs giving the appearance to restrict reproduction within narrow
limits.
>
>Besides, evolution does not claim that animals were created through
>any sort of daisy-chain process.
How many ways can you describe evolution?
The most commonly accepted model
>would be the branching tree model, wherein multiple species evolved
>from a common ancestor. Does it seem completely out of the question
>that all the cats - the lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, snow
>leopards, cougars, and so on - evolved from a common "proto-cat"
>ancestor?
No it seems quite logical, merely unsupportable by the fossil record.
I know you don't believe it, but does it seem impossible?
Logical yes, possible, yes. Supported by the fossil record, no.
>Really impossible? There are cat species that exist in such different
>climates and on different continents that it would seem impossible
>that they would have ever encountered one another - yet they share so
>many characteristics that, scientifically, we are forced to note their
>similarities. That's why they are all considered "cats".
All earth was at one time connected based upon plate tecktonics and they
may have well encountered one another if my beliefs in the first earth age
are not true. However, we are still stuck with the same problem, cats are
cats, dogs are dogs, not a new species. The fossil record does not
support that cats became dogs nor that dogs became cats.
>
>Where do you draw the line? If cats could all evolve from a single cat
>ancestor, maybe that cat ancestor evolved, along with dogs and bears,
>from single predator mammal ancestor, whereas all the hundreds of
>different ungulates (ibexes, gemsboks, springboks, moose, deer,
>zebras) evolved from a single ungulate ancestorÖ and all the pigs
>evolved from a single pig, etc. And whose to say all these mammals
>didn't evolve from a common mammal ancestor? Obviously, I'm
>simplifying the process, but you get the point. Where is your evidence
>that evolution did NOT take place? With what do you replace it? You
>have no details, and are unable to provide any details. All you have
>are two chapters of a book written back when people thought hyssop and
>sandalroot (along with a long and ludicruous [and paganistic] ritual)
>would protect one from leprosy.
You are mixing two different things. Cures and ceremony. Leprosy is
caused by bacilli, Today it is treated by dapsone, rifampin, and
clophazimine and a good nutrition (dietary laws). Cedar wood, hyssop, and
scarlet have anti-bacterial and anti-fungal properties and were prevelant
in the Isreal area. The ceremony of the two birds has prophetic
theological significance and were fulfilled by Christ in the Dispensation
of Grace and is neither unnecessarily long nor necessarily liudicruous. I
assume that you threw in the term paganistic to insult me-pagan is defined
as one that do not hold to the Hebrew Scripture in the broadest sense,
anyone not Christian, Jew, nor Islamic and would therefore not make sense
in your use and requires a re-defination of pagan not established by
definational use. It is an interesting thought, but has little to do with
evolution. There are many references to creation in the Bible, this is
not one of them.
>
>>>
>>>If you believe in evolution, you must argue
>>>
>>> against the laws of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics
>support
>>>
>>> creation, and the fossil records
>> creation, and the fossil records supports the laws of thermodynamics.
>>
>Part II:
>
>>> creation, and the fossil records supports the laws of thermodynamics.
>>>
>>> Boy, I was waiting for this. You creationists never cease to amaze
>me. Here
>>> is a refutation of this preposterous, self-deluding idea you people
>have that
>>> the Second Law of Thermodynamics is somehow violated by the process
>of
>>> evolution:
>>>
>>> THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS. THE
>EARTH IS NOT
>>> A CLOSED SYSTEM. THE SUN IS A CONSTANT SOURCE OF ENERGY, AND HAS
>BEEN FOR
>>> BILLIONS OF YEARS. THAT IS WHY COMPLEX MOLECULES AND ORGANISMS CAN
>DEVELOP
>>> FROM BASIC CHEMICALS.
The sun shines every day. If that were a sufficient source of energy,
would not new species be forming every day? Would they not be forming
before our very eyes?
>>
>>But the universe is a closed system, which was created first. What
>is the probability by chance alone that
>>organic tissue could happen? Or the probability that a slight
>difference at the moment of the bang that
>>created the universe that we know and love would have created an
>entirely different universe? >Statistically,
>>they are enormous. When the energy pattern at the outside of the
>universe was discovered reflecting the
>>moment of creation, even the discoverer identified the marks as the
>hand of God, he was not particularly
>>religious, but understood the pattern, and the results of the pattern.
>
>Please. If you're going to demand that I accept that the fact that the
>universe that exists, exists, indicates an intelligent creatorÖ
>besides, even if I did - what about the God as Watchmaker Theory?
What about it? That is not evident either in my own life, or in what I
see around me.
I've
>said it before and I'll say it againÖ the theory of evolution is only
>concerned with the development of species AFTER the origin of organic
>material and life on the planet. Anything that came before is not
>within the venue of the theory.
It may be more significant than you may think. The source of life will
more likely be found in cosmological study rather than biology. The
Hebrew Scripture is the only ancient writing that affirms the current
findings in cosmology. That would not be a surprise to me.
Besides, there are more than two
>choices. God could have stopped "participating" at any given point.
>He could have created the entire universe - and then stopped. He could
>have created the Earth - and then stopped. He could have created the
>first ameoba - and then stopped. It's not all or nothing. You don't
>get to make the argument for or against Christian Genesis. There are a
>lot more options.
Genesis is not a Christian document, it is Godąs Word in my belief. All
of the options you provide are still creation events. Why would you
restrict me to agrue in the framework established by you? My study of
Genesis suggests a much different timing and mechanism from that which you
want to restrict it to.
>
>
>>> This is not to mention the countless meteorites and comets that
>have entered
>>> our atmosphere, as well as the vital tidal effects the moon has
>provided us.
>>> And the fact that it has been recently postulated that the first
>organisms
>>> developed near volcanic rifts on the ocean floor. Presto! All the
>heat and
>>> energy a developing organism could ever need!
>>
>>God uses all creation to His ends.
>
>Thanks for completely ignoring my refutation. You insisted that the
>Second Law of Thermodynamics works against the Theory of Evolution. I
>explained how it does not. You then proceeded to change the subject
>without acknowledging that your argument was invalid.
Sorry, the laws of thermodynamics, not necessarily restricted to the
second, suggest a burst of created species through an energy input, and
then a gradual decline of species into extinction. This is the fossil
record of both the first and second earth ages. The Genesis account in
the second age records a progression of creative bursts from lower to
higher forms of life as well, which is why some intrepret it as creation
by evolution. The difference between the Hebrew words used throughoout
this chapter where the English only commonly uses create, is the key, in
my opinion, that would not support this view, especially as it relates to
the descendents of Adam and Eve who were formed in the physical and given
life in the spiratual for a specific purpose being fulfilled before our
eyes.
>
>I'm about to make a concession that every scientist worth his sodium
>chloride would also make: science doesn't have all the answers. Okay?
Nor can I calim such as all the answers, Adam and Eve chose knowledge of
good and evil and the resultant temptation of sin that would surely
follow. Part of their choice means that some of the timing and mechanisms
we will have to discover by ourselves. God has only given the framework
which includes the most important pieces.
>We never claimed to know everything yet, or even be capable of KNOWING
>EVERYTHING. You claim it.
At the rist of repeating myself, it is you who claim that I know
everything, not I.
Maybe even individual scientists, feeling
>their oats, might claim to be on to something really "big". But, for
>the most part, it is accepted that there are a lot of things we don't
>- or even can't - know yet. Then again, we landed on the moon back in
>1969. What were the odds of that 100 years ago?
>
>>> Okay? Do you get it? The thermodynamics argument doesn't work. End of
>>> discussion.
>>
>>Absolutely not, it works quite well. These laws suggests a burst of
>new created species through an input of evergy followed by a gradual
>decline into extinction, This is the fossil record and quite well
>supported by the creation account as well.
>
>Didn't you even read what I said? The earth has been getting energy
>from the sun for billions of years, and continues to do so. What
>"burst"?
The burst that was provided by the Creator.
>
>Actually, after reading this last sentence of yours, I think I should
>just give up. It is a combination of ignorance, blind assertions
>("quite well supported") and doubtless confidence that you are already
>as right as rain. The Second Law does not suggest a burst of any new
>species. It simply allows for the gradual increase of complexity in
>organic structures.
Actually, it simply allows for the gradual increase of entropy which would
best be characterized by extinction rather than evolution.
The Biblical record is how man fell from the image of God to his present
state, and what he must do to regain eternal life. The evolutionalists
beleives that man is a chance happening with no purpose and that anything
new is better than anything old having evolved into a superior state. A
review of history indicates that what is often thought of as new is really
discarded old principles that didnąt work the last time around either.
>
>The fossil record? Why does the fossil record not show a single fossil
>out of place? Not a single man fossil amidst the dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs were first earth age, current man from the second earth age.
Not a
>single cat eating the delicious pre-Cambrian fishies? Heck, there are
>species of dinosaurs that we know to have been consecutive (rather
>than simultaneous) by their separation in the geologic record.
As the fish proceeded the cattle in the second earth age?
>
>Core studies of Antarctic ice indicated a series of Ice Ages, rather
>an a single one. This goes against the Creationist timeline.
Not at all, there is no mention of specific events in the first earth
age. It is irrelevant to my salvation. With each covenant or
dispensation in the Bible, the focus is narrowed to the covenant people
until the dispensation of grace is provided to all in fulfillment of the
covenant of Abraham. Peter provides the balance of information for any of
those who you might worry about in summary form.
>
>Let me explain something else to you. Creationists love to take
>individual pieces of evidence and find ways to refute them (in your
>response alone, we have counter-experts, discrediting of experts,
>alternate interpretation of evidence, blanket statements, unsupported
>assertions, changing the subject, quoting of Scripture (!),
>misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the theory of evolution,
>misrepresentation of evolutionists and the extension of past
>"mistakes" of science). However, what you can not refute is that the
>evidence overwhelmingly and cumulatively points to evolution (as
>opposed to divine intervention) as the origin of species.
Let me explain something else to you. Evolutionalists love to take
individual pieces of evidence and find ways to refute them (in your
response alone, we have counter-experts, discrediting of experts,
alternate interpretation of evidence, blanket statements, unsupported
assertions, changing the subject, mis-quoting of Scripture (!),
misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the theory of creation,
misrepresentation of creationalists and the extension of past
"mistakes" of religion). However, what you can not refute is that the
evidence overwhelmingly and cumulatively points to creation (as
opposed to happless error) as the origin of species.
>
>You believe in God and in Creation because it is your religion. This
>is your dogma. You have no intention or willingness to change your
>opinion because you believe you are RIGHT. That is not science. That
>is religion.
>
\You believe in evolution because it is your religion as it was in ancient
Babel. This
An incorrect representation of Scripture. Often stated, never true. And
has little to do with creation and appears to be more of a diversionary
tactic.
There are many definations to slavery. I suspect that you are using the
popular neo-racist image wherein a slave is defined as a black man chained
and beaten once a day whether he needs it or not. That is not a good
defination of slavery and NEVER sanctioned in the Bible. Slavery is also
defined as one who is completely dominated by some influence, habit, etc.
Those bound to governmental dependency and certain employment contracts
today meed this defination of slavery.
If you believe that the Bible supports slavery as it is more commonly
thought of today, you are not well versed in the Laws of Moses or the
relationship of Onesimus and Philemon. Nor does the Bible support the
form of slavery practiced in the American colonies, although plantation
slaves were more commonly treated as family members There were large
numbers of free blacks as well. These slaves were most commonly purchased
in black slave markets run by black Africans, not Christians. Not that
Americans were right in propagating the practice, but they did not
necessarily instigate it but inherited it and spent countelss fortunes
determining how to get rid of it. And it was the forces embodied in the
American Constitution based upon Godąs Word that set into place the events
that ended the practice of that form of slavery in this country because of
the efforts of a great many Christians ending the ancient practice of
slavery here only after the shedding of a lot of blood of a great many
Christian men. Christians finally ended the practice of slaverly in the
last of its strongholds of Africa and China only in the last century in
the former and almost within this century in China until the Christians in
China became persecuted coincident with the reserruction of slavery in
China.
Oppression of women? The laws of Moses give women great rights. It is
the daughter of King Zeddiakiah that inherited the throne of David that
may be in existenance still. You are probably confused between womanąs
rights and feminists rights. They are not the same thing as a reading of
such as Domestic Tranquility by Gragalia will document. There are more
men who are feminists than there are women as feminism liberates men from
responsibilities, but forces a particular stereotype on women. In
Gragaliaąs opinon, feminism takes away womanąs rights and undermines the
strength of our nation in a revisionism of history. The basis of feminism
is that women and men are equal, the same, interchangeable, and identical
to men. Feminism is sexist/and or hypocritical, for if their basic beliefs
are true, they deny men the opportunity to bear one half of all children.
They also trivialize the importance of men in the one flesh of marriage
and such as The Feminist Mystique hatefully misrepresent history. The
author later admitted that the anti-male statements were not true, but the
corrections for truth are not printed in the book.
There is no persecution of those who do not share my beliefs in the
Bible. Cnhristianity is available to anyone, it has never been exclusive
except for those who choose not to believe. In fact, it is the most
inclusive organization of people in the world transcending all cultures,
people, and continents.
What you are probably referring to are the verses of Joshua and Judges.
This is not persucution but self defense against the Cannanites who did
not welcome the Isrealites into Cannan. The gates of Jerico were not open
wide, the traditional sign of peace, but shut tight, the sign of war.
These were not peaceful folks as athiests want to paint them, but used by
satan to attempt to destroy the covenant of promise given before satan in
the garden of eden. Satan attemps this first through the introduction of
murder in Cain, the introduction of war by the Cannanites in Chapter 14,
Pharoh of Egypt, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, Persians and others. The
Cannanites sacrificed their young to their gods, established slavery as an
acceptable alternative lifestyle, abandoned their old people to die,
attacked the Isrealites, and their cities were so filled with immorality
and its resultant diseases that nothing was clean. Upon the birth of
Christ, satanąs plan failed and the covenant of grace was established. If
it is these events that you are concerned about, they are specific to the
covenant of law, not grace. You would be more accurate to call it an
Isrealite problem than a Christian problem; however there are those who
would call you anti-semetic if you tried, and I would be included among
those.
>
>Evolution is not a religious belief. You calling it that doesn't make
>it so. There is no Bible for evolution. You may think "The Origin of
>Species" is our Bible, but it isn't. It is the work of a man, and I
>accept it as that and only that. It is a landmark scientific
>publication, of course. But anyone can arrive at a similar conclusion
>given the evidence. You have come about your beliefs the other way.
>First you had the book. Then you interpreted the evidence to fit your
>beliefs.
The defination of religion does not require a Bible, nor a god. What I
see is first evolutionalists had the idea. Then they intrepreted the
evidence to fit their beliefs.
>
>Let's put it this way: since God, in the old days, threw around
>miracles like they were softballs, how do you know he didn't put
>evidence in the earth that would indicate that evolution occurred? The
>Bible doesn't say either way.
That is a possiblity, but not a probable one for such would be contraty to
the nature of God.
>
>And I believe I've already addressed Piltdown Man. Who didn't question
>it? We know it's a fraud, don't we? Didn't someone have to have
>questioned the Man for us to know that now?
I doubt that it was an evolutionalists, but I donąt know. Do you know any
more specifics? Smith Woodward, Grafton Smith, Arthur Kieth, Theilhard de
Chardin, and Alex Hrdlicka were principle actors. The fraud was
perpertrated in 1912 and not fully discovered until 1953. Dawson
undoubteldy had a hand in the deception. Tnose involved certainly knew
what to fake so as to be accepted by the establishment relatively
uncritically. It was the fradulent esistence of Piltdown man as THE
MISSING LINK SCIENTIFICALLY :PROVEN that changes the public perception
against evolution to evolution since it was though to be conclusively
proven for over 40 years, two entire generations. Piltdown is still the
main reason many believe that evolution has been scientifically proven,
even though it was a purposeful hoax intended to mislead the public.
The stories of Piltdown that I have read read much like the politically
prejudiced governmenttal *scientific* study regarding second hand smoke.
It got the public to believe something was scientifically proven because
someone thought that they should believe it anyway. Everyone remembers
the study and the false indictments against men in Feminie Mystique, no
one remembers the corrections.
I do not ask you to believe anything I say, but I do ask you to give it
consideration. Trust no man whether religious or scientist. We must not
leave our theology nor our education completely in the hands of others.
>
>I find it hard to believe that you think that past hoaxes and mistakes
>of science discredit the process of scientific inquiry and the
>scientific method. I don't think you think that at all. I think you
>simply distrust a process that would never lead to the conclusion that
>to you is already foregoneÖ that a series of physically impossible
>acts and occurrences happened "by the hand of God" so as to fit with
>the words of a book written when the literal truth had no meaning.
Your credit to me is well placed. I can not tell you the exact timing and
mechanisms, but I can tell you that the fossil record still supports
creation over evolution. It is being added back into the cirricula at one
of our local school systems after being banned for over 40 years to be
taught along with evolution. The reason given by the school system,
evolution is just a theory that is not convincingly supportable at this
time.
To God be the Glory.
>
>
>John Olinyk
May God Bless You
Michael
Sorry, not spell checked given the length and multiple postings.
Wesley R. Elsberry
michael burt <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
MB>I don't discredit searching for truth nor nul
MB>hypothesis. That is not my argument. My argument is that
MB>the fossil record is not inconsistent with the Scriptural
MB>statement.
[...]
It's not inconsistent with some interpretations of scripture.
There are some interpretations of scripture that it is
inconsistent with, such as any of them that require
compression of earth history into a timeline of no more than a
few thousand years, or those which require that no speciation
or other obvious evolutionary transitions take place. For
those, one can adopt a different interpretation of scripture,
spend one's time attempting to get others to ignore the fossil
evidence, or keep the interpretation and just settle on
ignoring the fossil evidence yourself.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"Your voice goes funny when you're quoting"-SG
maff91
wrote:
>>>has produced Piltdown man-an equally bad product of blind faith not
>>unlike what you have charged
>>>Christianity alone with.
>>
>>You insult my and your own intelligence by making such a patently
>>phony attack. You can not expect me to believe that you actually think
>>that Piltdown Man was the result of "blind faith in evolution"?!? The
>>Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax.
>
>Why would someone attempt a hoax other than to prove a belief? One needs
>to think rationally about why one promotes hoaxes. What purpose would it
>serve--evidence of scientific method? Fame for one to proove evolution?
>Personal gain? More likely evidence of wanting to proove what can not be
>proved for political purposes.
Who uncovered the fraud? It was scientists who uncovered the fraud.
That's why the peer review process has become even stricter.
Piltdown Man
It took over 40 years to realize that Piltdown man, represented by
hominid-like fossil specimens found in Britain, was a fraud. Why did
it take so long to discover the hoax, who was the hoaxer, and what
does this episode say about evolution?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
So why not now look at creationist frauds?
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
>
>So are the countless scraps of the
>>Shroud of Turin and the splinters of the True Cross and the Spear of
>>Destiny.
>
>Testing of the Shroud of
>Turin is also inconclusive as are some splinters of the cross. That does
>not either proove nor disproove the actual event which is well docuemnted.
Nope. If it was well documented then there would be no need for
apologetics.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html
>
>Do they refute, in your mind, the knowledge that such items
>>exist or existed? Evolution is not a religion.
>
>Do not be so sure. Religion is defined as any system of beliefs under
>defination 3 of my dictionary. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why don't stop lying and provide the dictionary definition?
>
>It is not even a dogma.
>
>Really. A dogma is an assertion a priori without proof. I admit my
>religion and dogma, others should be as honest. Neither hypothesis is
>proven by the fossil record, my mind is open, is yours?
The evidence for evolution doesn't depend on 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
>
>>There is spirited and welcome debate within the scientific community
>>(and outside it) on many aspects of the process by which evolution
>>took place. What is generally accepted, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, is that
>>evolution is the process by which different species occurred and
>>developed.
>
>You keep talking about evidence, but to what are you referring to?
>Tattersail, a reputable evolutionalists states that łEventually I pluched
>up the courage to ask a distinguished scholar the crucial question: how
>does on study fossils? The answer? You look at them long enough, and they
>speak to you....When youąre out there selling such complicagted
>narratives, normal scientiific testability just innąt an issue: how many
>of your colleagues or others buy your story depends principally on how
>convincing or forceful a storyteller you are-and on how willing your
>audience is to believe the kind of thing you are saying˛
>
>The above quote is from 165 and 169 of the Fossil Trail.
>
>Is this the evidentuary conslusions to which you refer? How willing are
>evolutionalists to believe the kind of convincing storytelling that is
>being said? This is hardly sceintific method at its best.
Isn't bearing false witness a sin in your religion?
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195061012/qid=914746749/sr=1-1/002-5644889-4602234>
>
>If there were a better theory, we would probably already be
>>using it. The fact that one does not exist is one of the strongest
>>indicators that the theory is relatively close to what actually
>>occurred. But, of course, we can never know, just as we can never KNOW
>>that the sun will come up tomorrow. But billions of days in a row is a
>>pretty good body of evidence in favor of a sunrise tomorrow, isn't it?
>
>Interesting that you use the word sunrise? Do you believe that the earth
>is still and the sun is moving as your statement clearly states? Can you
>be sure that your dismissal of Scriptural statements are not also
>dependent upon a misunderstanding of solid planar references (in the
>Einstien sense) and figures of speech, rather than studying what they
>actually meant to the writers? If the Hebrews used the phrase, Judah
>painted the town red, and it was literally translated into English, would
>you ask what size paint brust he used or would you laugh at his stupidity?
"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)
>>
>>How many times do I have to tell you? Science, unlike Christianity,
>>evolves.
>
>Evolves no, you could never tell me enough times that would be
>convincing. Social sciences nor sceintific method evolves. That is a mis
>application of the term. Advancing theories and testing them is the
>scientific method. In your example of Edison inventing the light bulb, it
>did not evolve. Each test was carefully documented, failures were
>discredited until a reliable solution was achieved. The final light bulb
>did not evolve from the first. It has no relation to the failures.
Do you understand the scientific method?
http://www.scientificmethod.com/chapters.htm
>
>More recent data indicate that what we thought was fossilized
>>bacteria in that famous Mars rock may simply turn out to be
>>crystallization. Is this disappointing? Yes. But such is science. Cold
>>fusion is now considered a joke. Why? Because scientists were unable
>>to reproduce the supposed results of an experiment. The story
>>illustrates the strength of the scientific method and the ongoing
>>process of scientific exploration. We take nothing for granted.
>
>Nor do I, certainly evolution included.
The scientific and business world doesn't think so. Only
fundamentalist cretins think so.
>
>No one
>>thinks the Piltdown Man is a legitimate fossil. Not anymore.
>
>But thy did once as a convenient winning argument that was widely held for
>a while.
Nope. Many scientists were suspicious. But they were unable to prove
it at that time.
>
>Past
>>failures are not illustrations of weakness in the scientific method.
>
>You are quite right, Piltdown was a disgrace to the scientific method, as
>any preconceived notions without any basis are.
The fraud of one person doesn't tarnish science. Even after pointing
out the countless frauds of creationists, they continue to lie.
>
>
>>Quite the opposite, because we know them to be failures now. But you
>>still think that Noah was able to fit all those animals into an Ark
>>and then get them to all the necessary continents. You should read
>>some of the attempts to "scientificize" the process by which the flood
>>and repopulation of the Earth occurred. It is truly ridiculous (i.e.
>>deserving of ridicule). You can not change your mind, no matter how
>>crazy it seems, because it is in that book of yours. It is "gospel".
>>That is blind faith.
>
>I have read many creationalists books as well. I also disagree often with
>the timing and mechanisms of their position, that does not discredit the
>Scripture which does not say what many want it to say, apparently,
>including you own intrepretation. Your intrepretation of the flood
>certainly is not supported by the Hebrew, in my opinion.
A global flood cannot explain the sorting of fossils observed in the
geological record. This was recognized even prior to the proposal of
evolutionary theory. See the Problems with a Global
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Flood FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Flood Geology FAQs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
>>
>>
>>> Can you be sure that there are not other Piltdown faith solutions
>>currently >accepted
>>>as fact without proof? Tattersail claims that the bones talk to him
>>and the proofs of evolution are >intuitive!
>>>This is spiritualism, not scientific. It is not surprising that
>>Wallace advocated the theory at the same time as
>>Darwin--entirely from spiritualism.
>>
>>Thank you. I was not familiar with the work of Mr. Tattersail. But
>>you, yourself, attempted to quote him as a detractor of Darwin's
>>claimsÖ and now you seem to portray him as an unreliable kook!
>
>Not so, I believe him to be highly respectable evolutionalists, if the
>bones speak to him, I am sure that it is using the best of his sceintific
>ability to listen. I do not call him a kook, that is a technique of the
>mean spirited; but I am never surprised to find evolutionalists calling
>me a kook, My take of Tattersail is merely that in the final analysis, he
>admits that evolution is more intuition than fact.
You're bearing false witness again. Why don't you read the whole book
instead of quoting from creationist tracts?
>
>
>>Remember what I said: it doesn't matter who says it. Judge the theory
>>on its own merit.
>
>I am, are you?
Yep. Development of new medicines and other products and services
depend upon the theory of evolution.
>
>The Pope said that nothing in Scripture is
>>contradictory with the theory of evolution, which he has welcomed as
>>the likely process by which God allowed the world's animals and plants
>>to arrive and develop. The Pope said it. Do you accept what he said,
>>without hesitation, because he is your spiritual leader, or do you
>>decide for yourself whether his words have merit?
>
>I hope that you do not believe that the papacy is infallable!!!!! I
>donąt. I question the Pope and all men in all that they say whether
>religious or scientific. To believe in any belief without questioning is
>the defination of a cult. I have questioned almost everything in
>Scripture, and I disagree with many Christians on timing and
>mechanisms-but never on the basic truths which I have found to be
>reliable. That is how I came to study both the Scripture and evolution.
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
>
>It is also presumptious that you assume that the Pope is my spiratual
>leader, he is not. I take his positions with careful study, but certainly
>not blind faith. I believe in the traditions of John Wycliffe and have
>found numerous mis statements of Scripture by the Roman church that I
>suspect we would both agree with. John Wycliffe did not take a stand on
>evolution. That does not discredit Scripture nor Christianity, it does
>discredit blind faith in any man whether Pope or scientist. It is fine to
>hold to any hypothesis until proven or discarded, but not to demean other
>viewpoints nor those who hold them that can be equally valid. I do not
>agree with the Pope in this matter, perhaps he is right and someday the
>fossil record may substantiate that evolution was used by God in the
>process of evolution. I do not see that in the fossil record as it
>exists, and I believe that if Tattersail was honest, neither would he.
>But a great many Christians believe that creation was achieved through
>evolution, I believe that they are wrong regarding both their timing and
>mechanisms based upon what the Hebreew says rather than what most believe
>that it says without study , but not in their basic belief of creation.
Majority of the Christians don't even consider fundamentalists to be
Christians. That's why the need for civil war, emancipation
proclamation, 14th amendment and de-segregation.
>>
>>>> Besides... the whole point of the scientific method is that ideas
>>and theories
>>>> and hypotheses are constantly created and refuted or supported.
>>That's what's
>>>> _supposed_ to happen! Lamarck had an idea about passing traits on
>>to the next
>>>> generation. He was wrong and he was proven wrong. That's how
>>science works! Do
>>>> you not understand that, or are you just trying to be difficult!
>
>I am not trying to be difficult. I do not find the proofs that support
>evolution credible. And you are not presenting any.
You're nothing but a liar. You have been posted enough evidence. But
you haven't even replied to them.
>>>
>>>I am really trying to helpful. But the same applies to the
>>application of Scripture. The Elizabethians
>>>thought they saw in Scripture that which they believed
>>scientifically. What they saw, such as a 6000 year
>>>old earth, is not what Scripture actually says. Applying the
>>scientific method and returning to what
>>>Scripture actually says, creationalists should also be given the same
>>opportunity to understand Scripture as
>>>evolutionalists have been given.
>>
>>First of all, Scripture is hardly evidence.
>
>Not to you, but you are presumptious and somewhat judgemental regarding
>what beliefs I hold with respect to Scripture.
So do you hold the Quran, Bhagvad Gita, etc with respect?
See above about biblical errancy. You can always take it to
alt.bible.errancy.
>
>it is a religious text. It can
>>not be claimed as evidence of anything other than anthropological
>>study of the literature of past cultures.
>
>That would not be intuitively obvious to me, nor would it be a reasonable
>intrepretation of Scripture in my studied opinion.
See above.
>
>What scientific explanation
>>could there possibly be for the anecdote in the Bible where the sun
>>stops in the sky for a while?
>
>I do not have a definative answer for this, but I do offer the possibility
>of Einstien reference planes which could provide a possible answer to that
>which we both seek.
Nope. That won't do. If that were so it'll be head line news.
>
>What could have caused such an event? Is
>>it more likely that such an event actually occurred, which would have
>>likely resulted in the destruction of all life on the planet, or is it
>>more likely that the composers of that part of the Bible were simply
>>relating an exaggerating, epic tale of the sort often told in olden
>>days - where miraculous and magical events were mingled into a story
>>simply to make it more interesting?
>
>Certainly a possible explanation. The answer may be in the lost book of
>Jasher, which is not part of Scripture and an interruption in this passage
>to include reference to another event. The thing requested by the Hebrew
>is additional daylight at the time of the meridian based upon the
>seclection of Gideon and the Valley of Ajlon referenced for the time of
>eventual sunset. A possible explanation is possible using reflection and
>refraction, there is the possibility of refraction making the sun appear
>above the horizon when its actual location is below due to some sort of
>atmospheric volcanic dust, etc. Keil and Bush have done some possible
>explanations using the laws of refraction as possible scientific
>explanations. This passage is frequently used to state that the Scripture
>says that the sun is the center of the universe, it clearly does not say
>this.
Nope. See alt.bible errancy.
>>
>>And if you're going to say that all those amazing things happened
>>because God made them possible, then I'm afraid we can discuss it no
>>longer, because you then leave the area of rational discussion and
>>enter the realm of religious mania.
>
>I never claimed to have all the answers, not even on creation. only that
>the fossil record in no way discredits what Scripture says nor that it
>prooves evolution. Referring to me as a manic depressive physochosis
>which is a specific defination of mania in my dictionary is not very
>tolerant to my viewpoint, irrespective of yours, however.
Listen to the advice of St Augustine.
>>
>>>> Edison tried hundreds of different materials to be used as the
>>filament in
>>>> his light bulbs. The fact that he tried such things as human hair
>>and cotton
>>>> fibers doesn't discredit the process of trial and error, does it?
>>>
>>>Absolutely not. That is why returning to the Hebrew Scripture and
>>understanding what it actually says is important. It does not confirm
>>the Elizabethian thoughts, it does validate the fossil record so far.
>>
>>As though the Hebrews were scientifically-minded in their
>>transcription of the Old Testament! Current Hebrew scholars endlessly
>>debate the contradictions and paradoxes in their texts. They consider
>>them to be interesting tests.
>
>Who is they? Those I study Hebrew with have a markedly different viewpoint.
People who are much more knowledgeable than you in alt.bible.errancy.
>>
>>However, the fact remains that, again, if you explore the subject
>>rationally, Occam's Razor applies: if the two choices are that the
>>Biblical account of Genesis is a perfectly accurate account of events
>>leading to the relative present, or a series of stories developed by
>>our ancestors to provide answers to then-unanswerable questionsÖ I'm
>>afraid I'm going to have to go with the story theory.
>
>It would seem that you conclusions are based upon a rather brief, and I
>might add, rather light study of the Scripture. At one time, I would have
>agreed with you and woudl have been cheered on by my college professors
>who were largely ignorant of Scripture. I didnąt have blind faith in
>their opinion either, but sought my own research which completely
>discredited their view in my opinion. I did not expect nor plan to reach
>the conclusions I have reached, but God in His grace has provided me with
>more that I had bargained for.
Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
>>
>>>> He got it right eventually.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that Stephen Jay Gould supports the theory of sudden, as
>>opposed to
>>>> gradual, change within the process of evolution does not in any way
>>discredit
>>>> the theory of evolution.
>>>
>>>You are right, but note that it is also supportive of creation as well.
>>
>>Nonsense. How many ways can you use the term "creation"?
>
>Sudden evolution. Gradual change. How many ways can you use the term
>evolution?
> These are two markedly different timing and mechanisms. Tattersail
>confirms that there is no generally accepted concept of the timing nor
>mechanisms of evolution. He further refutes that there is any real idea
>on how the process could begin.
That's not what he says.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
Creationist Arguments: Misquotes
Creationist Arguments: Misquotes. This file contains some of the more
blatant instances in which creationists have misquoted their sources.
In all cases where text had been made bold, the emphasis has been
added by me. Robert Kofahl'sHandy Dandy Evolution Refuter. and Wallace
Johnson's book. both use the following qu
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html
>
>Gould merely
>>postulates that the process of development from a simpler creature to
>>a more complex one took fewer steps and less time than do some other
>>people. At no point does he concede the possibility that a god had any
>>hand in it. Read his work. Hell, write him a letter. Get the facts
>>from the man himself. You'll find out just how supportive he is of
>>creation and creationists.
>
>I would love to read his work--and write him a letter. I am not familiar
>with him, what work would you recommend. Please send by e-mail if
>possible. By the time I get done with this, I suspect that the intolerant
>humanists evolutionalists will have well plastered me with their mean
>spirited cat calls of ignorant fundie--and I do not wish to read through
>all of the dribble. I have far better things to do with my time.
"Full House : The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin" by
Stephen Jay Gould - Paperback - 256 pages Reprint edition (October
1997) Random House (Paper); ISBN: 0609801406
"Dinosaur in a Haystack : Reflections in Natural History" by Stephen
Jay Gould - Paperback - 496 pages Reprint edition (January 1997) Crown
Pub; ISBN: 0517888246
How can there be pre-Adamic race if Adam was the first man?
>
>Your parrot-like chanting that there is no
>>"proof" of the "truth" of evolution does not make it so.
>
>Your parrot like chanting that Scripture says man was created 6000 years
>ago as a single event does not make it so.
So why don't you quote from the Bible, Quran, etc?
>
>There is no
>>evidence against the theory of evolution. If there were, maybe you'd
>>have an argument. But you don't. BesidesÖ as I've said, I don't
>>imagine that there would any proof anyone COULD find that would
>>convince you. So why bother?
>
>There is no evidence against the theory of creation. If there were, maybe you'd
>have an argument. But you don't. Besides, as I've said, I don't
>imagine that there would any proof anyone COULD find that would
>convince you. So why bother?
There is no evidence for creation. Try
http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=372243992
http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=372683542
>
>>
>>>How is the Bible the Word of God? There are many proofs, none of
>>which you would probably find
>>>conclusive. The one that is absolutely conclusive to me is what is
>>in my heart. This followed an
>>>extensive study of Scripture questioning everything as you have also.
>> There is no prohibition against
>>>questioning, God calls us to do this for He wants my love by choice,
>>not by force.
>>
>>Exactly. You have faith that you are right. You neither need nor would
>>respond to evidence. Since you "KNOW" that you are right, you would
>>not be in any way open or even cognizant of evidence disproving or
>>discrediting your Book of TRUTH. How the hell am I supposed to talk to
>>someone like that?
>
>Exactly. You have faith that you are right. You neither need nor would
When you have evidence, you don't need faith.
>respond to a possibility which disagrees with your faith. Since you "KNOW"
>that you are right, you would not be in any way open or even cognizant of
>evidence disproving or
>discrediting your łtruth˛ of evolution. How the heck am I supposed to talk to
>someone like that?
So are you going to refuse to take medicines, etc which were developed
based on the theory of evolution? Hey! This is going to be good. We
can save billions in MedicAid and MediCare costs.
Majority of the Christians don't even consider you a Christian.
>>
>>If you take a dog with spots and breed it with a small dog, and you
>>end up with a small dog with spots, that's not "creation". That's
>>evolution. If you have 200 dogs, and you let them roam free in a
>>national park, and let them interbreed, and come back in fifty years,
>>you'll probably find resourceful, medium-sized dogs with aggressive
>>behavior and an ability to work in teams. That's survival of the
>>fittest. That's natural selection. Selection by nature. Is that a
>>difficult concept for you to get?
>
>Not at all, but hardly a proof of evolution.
>The first is a good example of intra-specis evolution with or without
>intelligenet intervention, but not specis to species evolution required to
>proove evolution. We are not talking about intra-species evolution or I
There's more than enough evidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
>would agree with you on every point. The Biblical account in paraphrase
>states that dogs will begat dogs of their own kind. Your example starts
>with a dog and ends with a dog. That hardly prooves what you want to
>proove. The environment of your second example can cause behavioural
>changes, but after 1 million years, they may even bevome more aggressive,
>but they are still dogs they are not a new species under either the
>gradual change nor quick change scenerio.
Nope. Bible was written for ignorant goat herders. Most Christians
take these stories as metaphorical.
>>
>>Dogs can breed with wolves, can't they?
>
>Would you call them a new species if they did?
>
>What about coyotes? What about
>>foxes? What about foxes and arctic foxes?
>
>They are different breeds.
>>They are all cross-breedable. And there are many, many other examples.
>
>To quote Tattersail at page 43, łBut as people like dog breeders,
>selecting for longer legs or shorter muzzles or whatever, had known before
>evolutionary ideas had ever taken shape,
Your ignorance and misquotes are boundless.
>
>May God Bless You
May IPU bless you
>
>Michael
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
investing billions in developing new technologies, medicines and other
products and services based on the theory of evolution don't seem to
buy your argument.
What is Darwinian Medicine?
http://157.242.64.83/hbes/medicine.htm
Evolution and Origins of disease
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198nesse.html
Gene Therapy
http://www.natx.com/
Hopeful Monsters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture industry
http://www.pcug.org.au/~jallen/coggene.htm
http://www.pavich.com/links.htm
I quote from _The Origins of Order_ by Stuart Kauffmam
(Page xv) "Thus it is possible to explore sequence spaces for the
first time. I believe this exploration will lead in the coming decades
to what might be called "Applied Molecular Evolution" with very great
medical and industrial implications, such as rapid evolution of new
drugs, vaccines, biosensors, and catalysts".
Creationism is only used by fundamentalist religion business.
The only way you can get people to accept your fantasy is to institute
a theocratic dictatorship and to get all free enterprise nationalized.
maff91
wrote:
>been posted to the following
>>newsgroups: a.bsu.religion)
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> First of all, you'll understand if I assume that any evidence I
>>might provide
>>>> you that is generally accepted as support for the theory of
>>evolution will be
>>>> attacked and "discredited" by you and yours.
>>>
>>>Depends on the defination of attacked and discredited. Debate and
>>honest discussion is neither.
>>
>>That'sÖ you'll pardon the punÖ debatable. Creationists have used the
>>debate as a means to disseminate their half-truths and deliberate
>>obfuscation (and, by extension, their religion) across community
>>centers and college campuses for decades. Your Duane Gish is a classic
>>example of how the tactics of effective debate can change people's
>>minds far more than actual, logical exploration of the facts of a
>>controversy.
>
>I am not aware of Duane Gish, but I am aware that in most public schools,
You can read all about Duane Gish.
http://www.talkorigins.org/scripts/search/query.idq?Cmd=gish&Where=FAQs
>creation is forbidden to be discussed. That hardly qualifies as honest
Creationist were unable to prove that they were doing science.
Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with creationism in
public school science classrooms. The majority opinions and the
dissenting opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia are provided along with
the amicus curiae brief filed by 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
>debate, and forces the religious beliefs of athiesm as a de facto state
>religion and limits free speech and denying God in a nation that places
>its trust in God.
Why don't you listen to the founding fathers?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html
>>
>>Furthermore, you must realize that I expect you to enter into this
>>exchange with preconceptions that, being based in faith and dogma, are
>>utterly resistant to change, whatever new evidence or information you
>>may gain.
>
>I could also make the same charges against most evolutionalists. My
>position is that the fossil record in no way discredits the Biblical
>account of creation based upon the Hebrew script. Are you resistant to
>changing your views regarding what the Hebrew states?
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
>>
>>>Given that, I find it would be a
>>>> waste of time to actually list the evidence itself. Suffice it to
>>say that the
>>>> strength and accuracy (and usefulness) of a theory is based on its
>>reliability
>>>> in predicting future observations. The theory of evolution has been
>>thus
>>>> utilized time and time again.
>>>
>>>Many theories are used, but that does not mean that they are true.
>>Darwin, predicted a fossil record that does not exist, and as a
>>result, his mechanisms are completely discredited. This is confirmed
>>by Tattersail and other evolutionists in such as The Fossil Trail.
>>
>>Darwin's "mechanisms" are not at the heart of his work; his theories
>>and hypotheses are. Besides, as you yourself point out, the idea that
>>life evolved, rather than being created intact, has existed long
>>before Darwin was even born.
>
>On this point we can agree. The tree of life of evolution was an ingral
>part of the ancient religious beliefs of Babel. Scripture identifies the
>author and purpose of the religious beliefs which included evolution.
But they were ignorant of evolution in a modern sense.
>
>It wouldn't matter if it turned out that
>>Darwin were a raving lunatic. His theories were not accepted because
>>anyone thought Darwin was the Messiah. They were accepted (along with
>>the work of many other, though lesser-known, scientists) because they
>>fit the evidence and accurately predicted future discoveries. Yes,
>>there were errors. We don't claim to be perfect. You do.
>
>I am personally offended by your allegations. No Christian is perfect,
>all Christians and non Christians are sinners alike. You may believe that
>I am perfect; but those are your words, not mine. And they are personally
>offensive to me. Darwinšs theory is logical, no one disputes that, but
>creation is equally logical.
Nope.
>>
>>If Charles Manson were running down the street screaming "The sky is
>>blue! The sky is blue!!", that wouldn't mean the sky wasn't blue,
>>would it?
>
>Of course not, but if scientists run down the street claiming that
>Newtonian laws would always explain all behaviour of matter, would you
>believe that as well? The claims of scientists neither proves nor dis
>proves evolution.
Newton's theories are a good approximation of natural phenomena.
Einstein's theories are a better approximation of natural phenomena.
That's why we still use Newton's theories in most cases. You should
learn about the scientific method.
>
>There have been plenty of psychos in history who have
>>claimed that their heinous deeds were inspiredÖ even requiredÖ by God
>>or the Bible.
>
>On this point we can also agree, and if people had studied the Scripture,
>they would have found that they would be wrong. It is not a problem with
>Scripture, it is a problem with people who twist Scripture, omit
>Scripture, add to Scripture, or pluck out a verse out of context. The
>Bible says many things, many are in the context of what not to do.
Shocking! Is this a case of cultural moral relativism?
>
>That doesn't discredit your holy book, does it? Asking
>>whether a theory is "true" is to miss the whole point of a theoryÖ the
>>whole VALUE of a theory! You utilize a theory to predict future
>>events. Evolution has already predicted numerous successive
>>discoveries. Its value is scientifically cemented.
>
>I donšt discredit searching for truth nor nul hypothesis. That is not my
>argument. My argument is that the fossil record is not inconsistent with
>the Scriptural statement.
But it is. Try
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
>>
>>Understand that, unlike creationists, whose "science" is based on a
>>slavish devotion to a 2,000-year-old book (and I anticipate your
>>automatic response: do not deign to refer to the evolutionist's
>>acceptance of evolution as the dominant paradigm as a religious
>>devotion), the evolutionist is so-called because of his present
>>acceptance of the idea that life evolved through a process of natural
>>selection.
>
>Sounds like an intolerant statement, and mean spirited as well. Slavish?
>Those are fighting words, not words of an honest debate. Parts of the
>Scripture are much older than your estimate. I would anticipate your
>automatic response to refer to the creationalists position as slavish,
>blind devotion, antiquated, and not well imformed. You have performed
>well according to expectations. As evolution may date back to Babel, both
>theries are of equal antiquity.
But we know a lot more about evolution than the wandering tribes of
Israel.
So if's true why did the Tobacco companies suppressed their own
scientific evidence that they were harmful?
>>
>>>> "The actual proofs"? I don't understand what you're asking for.
>>Evolution is
>>>> a theory. Give me the proofs that the earth revolves around the
>>sun! You
>>>> can't see the earth move. As far as you can tell, the sun does all
>>the
>>>> moving! The Catholic Church punished a lot of great thinkers over
>>the years
>>>> for arging that the earth was not the center of the universe. Don't
>>confuse
>>>> science and religion, please. You'll only be disappointed in the end.
>
>Hardly, Scripture describes the earth as an orb suspended in space. No
>where does it state that the sun is the center of the universe. However,
>until we determine the quantity and location of dark matter, the answer to
>that question is still up for grabs.
Yep. But you're not going to supply them.
>>>
>>>The two are acutally quite compatable. The Scripture says that the
>>earth is an orb suspended in space, It it a travesty, as you say,
>>however, when men, whether Christian or not do not take the time to
>>understand what is written.
>>
>>Please. The Biblical account of Genesis can not be taken literally, or
>>you ask for such a suspension of natural law that you might as well
>>claim that God is living in your refrigerator. Creationists (although
>>they often disagree amongst themselves
>
>as do evolutions as to exactly which fossils are human)
They certainly can. Haven't you heard about forensic science? That's
how you catch criminals.
>
>>assert such a wide range of
>>scientifically inaccurate and laughable suppositions (such as the idea
>>that the coral reefs that would have taken millions of years to grow
>>somehow arrived in a matter of millenia, or that the Great Flood
>>caused the formation of the Grand Canyon) that it is infuriating to
>>even try to argue with them in any scientific manner.
>
>I agree, there are many arguments regarding timing and mechanisms in
>creationalism, not unlike similar arguments within the evolutionalists
>camp. Scripture says that Noahšs flood was to destroy the Nephilim who
>lived within a specific geographic region. The Nephilim were humanoid,
>but not descended from Adam and Eve who were formed on day 8 nor the men
>and women created on day 6.
Majority of the Christians don't even consider Mormons to be
Christian.
>>
>>>> In fact, the fossil record supports creation and not evolution.
>>>>
>>>> You have got to be kidding me. You have some guts, making such
>>assertions
>>>> without backing them up. How much do you really know about fossils?
>>Are you
>>>> aware that it has been proven that it takes millions of years for
>>the actual
>>>> process of fossilization to take place? That fact, in and of itself,
>>>> disproves the popular Christian misconception that the Earth is
>>only 4 or
>>>> 6,000 years old.
>>>
>>>The Scripture does not say that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
>>That belief went out with Elizabethian times. The Scripture says that
>>the forming of Adam and Eve was 6000 years ago. Many things happened
>>before that, according to Scripture including another entire earth age
>>including, perhaps a pre-Adamic race, and for which time frame is not
>>specified by Scripture.
>>
>>Don't split hairs.
>
>In all humbleness, I an not splitting hairs, merely providing more
>accurate evidence for you to consider, if you are not prejudiced to
>receive it.
You can't even convince Christians with that kind of evidence.
>
>First of all, I'm sure you'd find a lot of
>>Creationists out there who believed the whole Earth history only
>>encompassed 6,000 years or so.
>
>And there are a lot of evolutionalists argueing about the accuracy of
>Cladograms of human origins as well.
Nope. Not really. New evidence refines the branches of the tree of
life.
>
>How was I to know you weren't one of
>>them?
>
>Then why treat me as if I were?
All your pronouncements make it so.
>
>Furthermore, that is besides the fact that your myth is still
>>scientifically unsound. Do you believe in the Noachian Ark myth?
>
>As I said, the flood was to destroy the Nephilim, its purpose was not to
>deatroy the earth. It is an extrapolation to assume that the flood was
>world wide.
Yep. Mormonism was a designer religion for it's time
http://www.california.com/~rpcman/TP_JS.HTM
.
>
>Try
>>explaining the logistics of storing all those species and their food
>>and dealing with their defecationÖ as well as the geological
>>impossibilities of a sudden flood and equally sudden repeal of the
>>waters? I know, I knowÖ God did it. That's quite a science you've got
>>there.
>
>You are correct, only your assumption of the flood as described in
>Scripture is flawed.
So which version of the Bible is the truth?
>>
>>>> You want evidence that creation is a load of bunk? How about the
>>geologic
>>>> record indicating that the more complex creatures appear higher
>>(that is,
>>>> more recently) in the record than simpler animals...
>
>Quite similar to the creation described in Genesis in the second earth
>age, actually. No information is provided for creation in the first earth
>age regarding order and timing.
It's not surprising. It was written by scientific illiterates.
>
>that humans
>>(indeed,
>>>> almost all mammals) appear millions of years after the dinosaurs...
>
>Dinosaurs were of the first earth age, not the current one.
So did Joseph Smith hear about Dinosaurs?
>
>
>>that no
>>>> human with anything more complicated than stone chip tools has ever
>>been
>>>> found fossilized? If dinosaurs and modern mammals (especially
>>humans) lived
>>>> at the same time, why is there no mingling of bones? You mean to
>>say that a
>>>> single dinosaur never managed to consume a single sloth, or cow, or
>>crippled
>>>> old man? That these so-called "deformed men" (what many
>>anti-evolutionists
>>>> consider homo habilis, australopithecus, etc. fossils to be) never
>>died or
>>>> lived amidst healthy brothers and sisters? Come on!
>
>I never advocated that which you imply of my arguments. I have no idea
>what happened in the destruction of the first earth age. But polar
>shifting, of which there was evidence of having occured in the past would
>wipe out all of us if it were to happen tomorrow morning and leave few
>scant eviidence of what some consider our greatness. And a meteror the
>size of the moon would be even more devastating. I never claimed to know
>all of the answers, only that the evidence does not discredit the
>Scriptural account as it was written in Hebrew.
But it does in many instances.
>>>
>>>The creation record in this earth age confirms most of what you say,
>>the balance is certainly possible from
>>>the Scriptural record of the first earth age.
>>
>>The "First Earth Age"? According to Creationist interpretation of the
>>Scripture, the Great Flood supposedly occurred about 4,000 years ago -
>>well after many established Middle Eastern and European civilizations
>>were laying down written texts that have survived to this day. Don't
>>tell me those people got flooded out. There is no evidence to support
>>that theory.
>
>Again, the purpose of the flood was to destroy the Nephilim, a specific
>and perhaps local event. Noah presumably lived in the cradel of
>civilization as well as Abraham. A great flood is well remembered in the
>antiquities of the cradle both Biblically and extra-Biblically. Certainly
>Abraham was from the society from which these records were maintained.
So where are the records? Why are there no independent records?
>>
>>There are a variety of geological features of this planet that could
>>not have developed and remained as they did with the occurrence of a
>>great and sudden flood less that 10,000 years ago. Nor could the
>>animals in Noah's ark have been disseminated as widely, and found
>>niches as perfectly as they did, in such a short amount of time.
>
>I am inclined to agree with you; however, the Hebrew does not necessarly
>record a flood as you envision it.
Mormonism is different from Christianity.
>>
>>
>>>> This is completely beside the point that the fossil record is
>>evidence of
>>>> things that happened millions of years ago. Many creationists
>>attempt to
>>>> discredit evolution by saying "Science is about observing, and,
>>since no one
>>>> was there to observe evolution 'taking place', it can never be
>>fact!"
>
>I agree with you and find such as argument mere gibberish as much of the
>social sciences are. I do agree, however, with the creationalists basic
>beliefs, and stand firm with them, but would argue with this mechanism.
Do you think that they are going to recognize that MOrmonism is
Christianity if you do that?
>
>What
>>>> are you doing now by even referring to fossils?
>
>Seeking the truth like you. Do you think that creationalists should be
>prevented from considering the fossil record in their quest for truth? Or
>do you believe that only evolutionalists are entitled to study fossils?
>
>My point is that the fossil record does not discredit creation. I do not
>make such a statement without studying the fossil record. That would be
>unscientific of me. We are both scientists, our only difference should be
>our hypothesis, neither may ever be provable within science. Only one is
>provable in to me within my relationship with God.
Creationists don't do any science.
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
>
>The Bible refers to
>>things
>>>> that "no one" was there to see! Who knows that God created the
>>heaven and the
>>>> earth a day before the fish (or whatever the order was)? No one was
>>there!
>>>> The Bible doesn't say "And God told Ureah all about Genesis" or
>>anything!
>>>
>>>I believe that God told Adam, who handed the Word down orally until
>>the time of Moses. Your comments about creationalists discrediting
>>evolution by saying "Science is about observing, and, since no one
>>>> was there to observe evolution 'taking place it can never be fact!"
>>is a good one. As a creationalists, I would agree with you as well,
>>this is a silly argument.
>>
>>I sincerely appreciate your concessions. What you must realize is that
>>the scientific assertions as to the age and the origin of man are not
>>made lightly, nor are they pulled whole from the writings of some
>>19th-century loon.
>
>That is why I study the fossil record as well.
But your knowledge is still lacking.
>
>They are the result of the legitimate
>>reconciliation of data from so many and such varied areas of
>>scientific inquiry (and from so many separate agencies and
>>institution) that the fact that they agree as much as they do could be
>>considered a miracle in and of itself! The theory of evolution does
>>not normally concern itself with the origin of organic life at all -
>>rather, it concerns itself with the origin of different species. And
>>the evidence (including, despite creationist protests, transitional
>>fossils) is overwhelmingly in favor of the evolution of species,
>>through a process of divergence and natural selection. The fact that
>>two chapters of a book that is obviously a compilation of regional
>>creation myths in a work that is supposedly a collection of moral
>>teachings say otherwise is, you must admit, hardly a genuine
>>counterargument.
>
>I disagree, both with you conclusions and assertions. What is obvious to
>you is not well supported. Your belief that only two chapters of the
>Scripture relate to the first and second earth ages does not indicate that
>you have ever seriously studied the Scripture. It is not a good position
>to mock any work without being familiar with what it says relying solely
>upon the unsupportable conclusions of others who may have their own bias.
>I am certainly not the worldšs foremost authority on the fossil recocrd
>and have to study the works of others. Most of the works I have read find
>evolution intuitavely obvious. That is not a proof, it is a faith. And
>the proofs offered are not conclusive.
In science, faith doesn't produce results. Evidence and analysis
produces results.
>>
>>>> Evolution is not a fact.
>
>Thank you for your assertions.
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
>
>It is simply a theory that has been so
>>corroborated
>>>> by decades of research and evidence that it can be (and has been)
>>reliably
>>>> utilized as a means to predict future developments in genetics and
>>biology.
>
>Genetics? You mean intelligent intervention of the gene pool? Or
>intelligent intervention in the creation of medicine that has unnaturally
>forced bacteria to mutate? What future developments in genetics and
>biology are you referring to?
It's much more than that.
What is Darwinian Medicine?
http://157.242.64.83/hbes/medicine.htm
Evolution and Origins of disease
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198nesse.html
Gene Therapy
http://www.natx.com/
Hopeful Monsters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture industry
http://www.pcug.org.au/~jallen/coggene.htm
http://www.pavich.com/links.htm
>>>
>>>Such as, the most common proofs of evolution are beak width,
>>bacterial changes, dog breeding, iincreasing human height, etc. None
>>of these prove evolution, but are extensively talked about as if they
>>are proofs.
>>
>>Who are you to judge whether findings are corroborative evidence to
>>support a theory?
>
>Who are you to judge whether Scripture is as you say it is based on a
>unreliable representation of your belief that creation occurs in a mere
>two chapters of Scripture?
Lack of evidence.
>
>Who am I? If your implied question is whether it is
>>ultimately more fruitful for scientists and other people to utilize
>>the evolutionary theory of the origin of species or the Biblical
>>account of Genesis to make and apply further predictions about
>>biological exploration, my money would be on evolution.
>
>I apreciate your conviction, but why are you so convinced?
See above. All the fruits of science. You're not sending this message
by the power of prayer.
>
>And so,
>>whether you like it or not, do you. The Biblical account of Genesis is
>>unsupported and unsupportable, as it posits a wide range of miraculous
>>functions and actions of a deity undetectable by any sort of
>>scientific endeavor. So what's the point? We might as well give up on
>>trying to know anything, if we are the product of a series of magical
>>events.
>
>Nothing is magical, but all has a purpose. Godšs plan for man is not
>magical, but purposeful, specific, and well documented.
That's what all religions claim.
>>
>>>>
>>>>Darwin's theories of mechanisms have been entirely discredited even
>>by the most
>>>>
>>>> devout evolutionists.
>>>>
>>>> Hello. My name is John. I'm here to explain something to you. It's
>>a very
>>>> simple fact, and it's something you need to understand.
>>>>
>>>> DISCREDITING SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF A THEORY DOES NOT DISCREDIT THE
>>THEORY AS A
>>>> WHOLE.
>
>I agree, neither do your agruments discrediting Scripture based upon what
>it does not say support evolution, nor your proofs offered discredit
>creation.
There is nil evidence for creation. There are 1000s of creation
stories. All different.
>>>
>>>I agree, but in order to argue Darwin's theory, all of his mechanisms
>>have been proven not true by the >fossil record. More seriously, the
>>fossil record clearly suppots the laws of thermodynamics which is not
>>>surprising, and that supports creation. How would you argue against
>>the laws of thermodynamics with the >fossil record currently documented?
>>
>>I have no idea what you mean by the laws of thermodynamics relating in
>>any way to the fossil record. Please elaborate. Furthermore, I explain
>>later in my message how the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not
>>apply to the origin of life and species on this planet.
>>
>>>> There are no creditable scientists who deny that, in general,
>>evolution is
>>>> the process by which life developed on this planet. Complex
>>creatures evolved
>>>> from simple creatures. Yes, it sounds incredible. So does the idea
>>that a big
>>>> man in the sky made people out of clay. It all depends on your
>>point of view.
>
>Your representation of Scripture relating to a big man in the sky making
>peple out of clay is seriously lacking in understanding of the Scripture.
>Or do you advocate that flesh is not made up of the same earthly compounds
>found commonly throughout the planet? Hello, my name is Michael.
You're still grasping at straws. There's no evidence that they knew
anything substantial about evolution.
>>>
>>> There were no creditable scientists who denied that, in general,
>>leeching was not a valuable medical
>>> principle a century ago either.
>>
>>How do you know?
>
>If there were, they would have not done it so long.
There was no alternative treatment. There was not enough funding for
basic research at that time.
>
>There had to be at least one, because the process
>>originally stopped. Get it?
>
>Not until after centuries of worthless blood letting.
Do you mean that we give science and go back to the standard of living
of 1st century Palestine?
>
>That's how science works. First a theory
>>is revolutionary (or even considered dangerous), then it is radical,
>>then it is tested, then it (if supported) is tolerated, then accepted,
>>thenÖ eventuallyÖ it becomes the standard model. This process allows
>>for error, true: but it also allows for a great deal of TRIAL and
>>error. That trial is the trial of testing, experimentation and
>>analysis. Someone, at some point, instead of blindly adhering to the
>>suppositions of his peers and forefathers, suspected and asserted that
>>leeching was not the efficacious practice it was assumed to be. You
>>support the scientific method, whether you realize it or not.
>
>There we both agree again, and I am fully cognizant of my support of the
>scientific method, it is a method built upon Christian capital.
Is that why Galileo and others were persecuted? Many research
facilities were established and funded by the secular state.
>>
>>> Einstien denied the possibility of black holes predicted by his own
>>theories.
>>
>>Yes. He is an individual. He is human. He made a mistake.
>
>Are you saying that black holes do not exist? I do not think that you
>would find a lot of company in the scientific community that would be so
>authoritative. You are right, he is human, as are all scientists.
Science doesn't depend on one person however famous. That's why even
famous scientists have to publish in peer reviewed journal so that any
scientist anywhere in the world can either confirm or falsify a
hypothesis.
>
>He has made
>>others and, as I've pointed out, he admitted it when he was "called"
>>on it. He never claimed to know "The Truth".
>
>He did know God, however.
Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the
universe]", but the quote is purposely taken out of context by theists
in order to mislead and lend credence to their religion.
Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model for
the physical data available. He did not accept claims that the theory
was complete, or that probability and randomness were an essential
part of nature. He believed that a better, more complete theory would
be found, which would have no need for statistical interpretations or
randomness.
His "God does not play dice..." comment in his debate with Niels Bohr
was a simple reflection of this sentiment. A better quote, which
refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of the most
popular interpretations of quantum theory would be:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony
of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and
actions of human beings."
(Note: Baruch (or Benedict) Spinoza (1632-1677), was a Dutch
philosopher and pantheistic theologian. Pantheism is a doctrine
equating a deity with the universe and its phenomena.)
Further, according to the book "Albert Einstein: The Human Side"
(edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press,
publisher), Einstein wrote in a March 24, 1954 letter:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it."
He also said in his autobiographical notes (translated from German):
"Thus I came -- despite the fact that I was the son of entirely
irreligious (Jewish) parents -- to a deep religiosity, which, however,
found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of
popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in
the stories of the bible could not be true. The consequence was a
positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression
that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies;
it was a crushing impression. Suspicion against every kind of
authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude towards
the convictions which were alive in any specific social environment
... "
Go to <http://www.westegg.com/einstein/>, page down to the "In His Own
Words" section, and follow the link labeled "Einstein on Science and
Religion" to the URL <http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~lesikar/ESR.html>
where more of Einstein's comments on religion can be found.
>
>The only people who ever
>>do are you and yours.
>
>Not so, Einstien was not a Christian, but he is a brother in Isreal to me,
>I believe by blood, others believe by adoption. It makes little
>difference either way.
See above.
>
>The process of scientific exploration is an
>>ongoing process. Mistakes will be made.
>
>Hopefully, some day they will be fixed.
Much more than religion. If science was useless then you won't enjoy
all it's fruits.
>
>However, the further and more
>>completely and minutely a subject or area is explored, and the more
>>securely the basic aspects of a given theory are corroborated, the
>>more "robust" the theory is considered to be. Such is the case with
>>evolution. You can not seriously believe that the fossil record
>>supports the theory of creation. It does no such thing.
>
>Here we disagree, completely.
So?
>>
>>> The theory of evolution has
>>> actually been around since Babylon empire. Since neo-evolution in
>
>>Darwin's day, the theory has changed
>>>drastically based upon additional fossil record discoveries;
>>
>>A variety of fossils supporting the basic ideas of evolution have been
>>found in the century following the publication of Darwin's work. It
>>would surely be the find of the century - perhaps even the greatest
>>find of all time - if a fossil or other evidence were found that
>>dramatically altered the perception of the origin of man. It would
>>certainly make a man's career - far more than finding evidence to
>>support a theory already in existence. How surprising, then, that
>>scientist after scientist, around the world, continue to find fossil
>>evidence of the evolution of species. Just recently, a fossil dubbed
>>"ambulocetus natans" was discovered that appears to be a transitional
>>form related to the whale. What a bore: more evidence of evolution!
>
>One of few that would be required to substantiate such a grand theory, and
>inconclusive at best.
Nope.
>>
>>>however, blind faith in the religion of evolution
>
>
>May God Bless You
>Michael
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
maff91
wrote:
>To quote Tattersail at page 43, łBut as people like dog breeders,
>selecting for longer legs or shorter muzzles or whatever, had known before
>evolutionary ideas had ever taken shape, by simply shifting gene
>frequencies you could produce neither true anatomical innovation-you were
>restricted to producing variations on existing themes--not new species.
>Yet evolution depends both on anatomicaql change and on the production of
>new species, and at the end of the ninetenth century the relationship
>betwen these two differrent things remained far from clear--as, to be
>quite frank, it still does.˛
Why don't you read the whole book instead of quoting from a
creationist tract?
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195061012/qid=914754068/sr=1-1/002-5644889-4602234>
>
>So far, this is one of the greatest proofs offered for species to species
>evolution, and from a scientific method position, it fails. It does
>support the Biblical record where each kind begats its own kind. One can
>also intelligently intervene to breed donkeys and horses to m ake a mule,
>but the mule is sterile. In the study of insects, many of the insects
>have almost what could be called a lock and key system in male and female
>sex organs giving the appearance to restrict reproduction within narrow
>limits.
Your ignorance is showing. Where are your citations from peer reviewed
science journals?
>>
>>Besides, evolution does not claim that animals were created through
>>any sort of daisy-chain process.
>
>How many ways can you describe evolution?
Why don't you learn a bit more science before trying to challenge all
the scientists in the world?
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
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
>
>The most commonly accepted model
>>would be the branching tree model, wherein multiple species evolved
>>from a common ancestor. Does it seem completely out of the question
>>that all the cats - the lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, snow
>>leopards, cougars, and so on - evolved from a common "proto-cat"
>>ancestor?
>
>No it seems quite logical, merely unsupportable by the fossil record.
The evidence for evolution doesn't depend on fossils alone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
>
>I know you don't believe it, but does it seem impossible?
>
>Logical yes, possible, yes. Supported by the fossil record, no.
See above.
>
>>Really impossible? There are cat species that exist in such different
>>climates and on different continents that it would seem impossible
>>that they would have ever encountered one another - yet they share so
>>many characteristics that, scientifically, we are forced to note their
>>similarities. That's why they are all considered "cats".
>
>All earth was at one time connected based upon plate tecktonics and they
>may have well encountered one another if my beliefs in the first earth age
>are not true. However, we are still stuck with the same problem, cats are
>cats, dogs are dogs, not a new species. The fossil record does not
>support that cats became dogs nor that dogs became cats.
Who said they did? They had a common ancestor.
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/sequence.html
So you say!
>>
>>>>
>>>>If you believe in evolution, you must argue
>>>>
>>>> against the laws of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics
>>support
>>>>
>>>> creation, and the fossil records
>
>>> creation, and the fossil records supports the laws of thermodynamics.
>>>
>>Part II:
>>
>>>> creation, and the fossil records supports the laws of thermodynamics.
>>>>
>>>> Boy, I was waiting for this. You creationists never cease to amaze
>>me. Here
>>>> is a refutation of this preposterous, self-deluding idea you people
>>have that
>>>> the Second Law of Thermodynamics is somehow violated by the process
>>of
>>>> evolution:
>>>>
>>>> THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS. THE
>>EARTH IS NOT
>>>> A CLOSED SYSTEM. THE SUN IS A CONSTANT SOURCE OF ENERGY, AND HAS
>>BEEN FOR
>>>> BILLIONS OF YEARS. THAT IS WHY COMPLEX MOLECULES AND ORGANISMS CAN
>>DEVELOP
>>>> FROM BASIC CHEMICALS.
>
>The sun shines every day. If that were a sufficient source of energy,
>would not new species be forming every day? Would they not be forming
>before our very eyes?
Conditions of early Earth is not the same as at present.
Lab molecules mimic life
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_217000/217054.stm
Hopeful Monsters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
Mechanism for evolution described
Scientists have discovered what they believe may be the molecular
basis of evolution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_222000/222096.stm
The first self replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long, not so
far away from Millers work after all. The first self replicating
ribsozyme complex is made up of 3 subunits of 45, 75 and 39
nucleotides, easily generated in abiogenic polymerization experiments.
1) Demonstration that the building blocks of life can be made from
simple inorganics and delivered to the Early earth.
Done: Amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, lipids, enzymic
cofactors from Miller, Wacherhauser, Sagan and others.
2) Demonstration that simple building blocks can become long polymers:
Done (with some work in progress): for peptides, nucleotides
and some lipids (eg Orgel, Ferris, and others)
3) Demonstration that these polymers have enzyme activity and can act
as templates.
Partly done, lots of work still in progress: Peptides as weak
enzymes (eg Fox), nucleotides as enzyme free templates
(Ferris, Orgel, and others)
4) Demonstration of the self replication potential of small polymers.
Still in progress, shown for one peptide and one set of RNA
ribozymes, promising results with random synthesis of
ribozymes. Mathematical models of self replication chemistry
predict self-sustaining and evolving self replication.
5) Demonstration of membrane encapsulation of catalytic cycles
Done, and work in progress: Deamers work
Millers lab work surprised many people (including himself) because his
yields were so high compared to predicted yields.
Here's some web sites that might help:
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
It will dump you at the Discover site, go to the Archives, search on
November 1995 and click on the First Cell link.
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/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html and
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/prob.htm
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.
>
>>>
>>>But the universe is a closed system, which was created first. What
>>is the probability by chance alone that
>>>organic tissue could happen? Or the probability that a slight
>>difference at the moment of the bang that
>>>created the universe that we know and love would have created an
>>entirely different universe? >Statistically,
>>>they are enormous. When the energy pattern at the outside of the
>>universe was discovered reflecting the
>>>moment of creation, even the discoverer identified the marks as the
>>hand of God, he was not particularly
>>>religious, but understood the pattern, and the results of the pattern.
>>
>>Please. If you're going to demand that I accept that the fact that the
>>universe that exists, exists, indicates an intelligent creatorÖ
>>besides, even if I did - what about the God as Watchmaker Theory?
>
>
>What about it? That is not evident either in my own life, or in what I
>see around me.
Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true.
See the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
Speciation has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature.
See the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ and another FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
listing some more observed speciation events.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Macroevolution FAQ
In evolutionary biology today macroevolution is used to refer to any
evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the
splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time
into another.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey
This set of articles surveys some of the scientific literature
presenting interesting or unique lines of evidence for evolution.
Cichlid fish, sexual selection, sperm competition, and endosymbiosis
are but a few of the topics discussed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
>
>I've
>>said it before and I'll say it againÖ the theory of evolution is only
>>concerned with the development of species AFTER the origin of organic
>>material and life on the planet. Anything that came before is not
>>within the venue of the theory.
>
>It may be more significant than you may think. The source of life will
>more likely be found in cosmological study rather than biology. The
>Hebrew Scripture is the only ancient writing that affirms the current
>findings in cosmology. That would not be a surprise to me.
Ignorance is no excuse.
>
>Besides, there are more than two
>>choices. God could have stopped "participating" at any given point.
>>He could have created the entire universe - and then stopped. He could
>>have created the Earth - and then stopped. He could have created the
>>first ameoba - and then stopped. It's not all or nothing. You don't
>>get to make the argument for or against Christian Genesis. There are a
>>lot more options.
>
>Genesis is not a Christian document, it is Godąs Word in my belief. All
>of the options you provide are still creation events. Why would you
>restrict me to agrue in the framework established by you? My study of
>Genesis suggests a much different timing and mechanism from that which you
>want to restrict it to.
Because the world is not going to the living standards of 1st century
Palestine on your say so.
Your lame excuses are not accepted by scientists.
Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order
emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and
embryos develop, etc. See the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution,
and Probability FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
>>
>>I'm about to make a concession that every scientist worth his sodium
>>chloride would also make: science doesn't have all the answers. Okay?
>
>Nor can I calim such as all the answers, Adam and Eve chose knowledge of
>good and evil and the resultant temptation of sin that would surely
>follow. Part of their choice means that some of the timing and mechanisms
>we will have to discover by ourselves. God has only given the framework
>which includes the most important pieces.
The Golden rule arose long before your religion.
http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/golden.html
Frans de Waal, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans
and Other Animals, 1996, Harvard University Press, Cambridge; ISBN
0-674-35660-8.
Frans de Waal, Peacemaking among primates (Harvard
University Press, 1989).
Frans de Waal, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among
Apes. Harper and Row, New York (1983).
Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society'' Scientific
American 272(4):82- 88 (March 1995)
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~wcalvin/refs.html
>
>
>>We never claimed to know everything yet, or even be capable of KNOWING
>>EVERYTHING. You claim it.
>
>At the rist of repeating myself, it is you who claim that I know
>everything, not I.
>
>Maybe even individual scientists, feeling
>>their oats, might claim to be on to something really "big". But, for
>>the most part, it is accepted that there are a lot of things we don't
>>- or even can't - know yet. Then again, we landed on the moon back in
>>1969. What were the odds of that 100 years ago?
>>
>>>> Okay? Do you get it? The thermodynamics argument doesn't work. End of
>>>> discussion.
>>>
>>>Absolutely not, it works quite well. These laws suggests a burst of
>>new created species through an input of evergy followed by a gradual
>>decline into extinction, This is the fossil record and quite well
>>supported by the creation account as well.
>>
>>Didn't you even read what I said? The earth has been getting energy
>>from the sun for billions of years, and continues to do so. What
>>"burst"?
>
>The burst that was provided by the Creator.
Why don't you learn a bit more about Cosmology before pretending that
you know more than them?
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/cosmo_timeline.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/web_site.html
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/acosmbb.html
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/cosmology/
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www2.ari.net/home/odenwald/cafe.html
http://www2.ari.net/home/odenwald/cosmol.html
http://casa.colorado.edu/~indebeto/infl/bb.shtml
http://www.ardsleyschools.k12.ny.us/ahsl_web/5231-1.htm
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html
http://www.asu.edu/lib/noble/space/cosmol.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jun98.html
>>
>>Actually, after reading this last sentence of yours, I think I should
>>just give up. It is a combination of ignorance, blind assertions
>>("quite well supported") and doubtless confidence that you are already
>>as right as rain. The Second Law does not suggest a burst of any new
>>species. It simply allows for the gradual increase of complexity in
>>organic structures.
>
>Actually, it simply allows for the gradual increase of entropy which would
>best be characterized by extinction rather than evolution.
>The Biblical record is how man fell from the image of God to his present
>state, and what he must do to regain eternal life. The evolutionalists
>beleives that man is a chance happening with no purpose and that anything
>new is better than anything old having evolved into a superior state. A
>review of history indicates that what is often thought of as new is really
>discarded old principles that didnąt work the last time around either.
So why don't you provide any citation published in a peer reviewed
science journal?
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
>>
>>The fossil record? Why does the fossil record not show a single fossil
>>out of place? Not a single man fossil amidst the dinosaurs?
>
>Dinosaurs were first earth age, current man from the second earth age.
Mormon mythology shouldn't be confused with Christian mythology.
>
>Not a
>>single cat eating the delicious pre-Cambrian fishies? Heck, there are
>>species of dinosaurs that we know to have been consecutive (rather
>>than simultaneous) by their separation in the geologic record.
>
>As the fish proceeded the cattle in the second earth age?
See above.
>>
>>Core studies of Antarctic ice indicated a series of Ice Ages, rather
>>an a single one. This goes against the Creationist timeline.
>
>Not at all, there is no mention of specific events in the first earth
>age. It is irrelevant to my salvation. With each covenant or
>dispensation in the Bible, the focus is narrowed to the covenant people
>until the dispensation of grace is provided to all in fulfillment of the
>covenant of Abraham. Peter provides the balance of information for any of
>those who you might worry about in summary form.
The people who wrote the Bible and other religious texts were ignorant
of science.
>>
>>Let me explain something else to you. Creationists love to take
>>individual pieces of evidence and find ways to refute them (in your
>>response alone, we have counter-experts, discrediting of experts,
>>alternate interpretation of evidence, blanket statements, unsupported
>>assertions, changing the subject, quoting of Scripture (!),
>>misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the theory of evolution,
>>misrepresentation of evolutionists and the extension of past
>>"mistakes" of science). However, what you can not refute is that the
>>evidence overwhelmingly and cumulatively points to evolution (as
>>opposed to divine intervention) as the origin of species.
>
>Let me explain something else to you. Evolutionalists love to take
>individual pieces of evidence and find ways to refute them (in your
>response alone, we have counter-experts, discrediting of experts,
>alternate interpretation of evidence, blanket statements, unsupported
>assertions, changing the subject, mis-quoting of Scripture (!),
>misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the theory of creation,
>misrepresentation of creationalists and the extension of past
>"mistakes" of religion). However, what you can not refute is that the
>evidence overwhelmingly and cumulatively points to creation (as
>opposed to happless error) as the origin of species.
Do you mean that you produce medicines and all other fruits of
science? So why do businesses which apply science don't rely on
creationist science?
>>You believe in God and in Creation because it is your religion. This
>>is your dogma. You have no intention or willingness to change your
>>opinion because you believe you are RIGHT. That is not science. That
>>is religion.
>
>>
>\You believe in evolution because it is your religion as it was in ancient
>Babel. This
>is your dogma. You have no intention or willingness to change your
>opinion because you believe you are RIGHT. That is not science. That
>is religion.
If science were a dogma then it'll be as useless a religion. Why don't
you offer that choice to the world? To choose between religion and
science. You cult will be hunted down and destroyed even by your own
supporters as living standards plunge to 4th world levels.
Slavery was against the Golden rule. That's why people began to oppose
it even though it was justified by the Bible. See
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=425234835
>thought of today, you are not well versed in the Laws of Moses or the
>relationship of Onesimus and Philemon. Nor does the Bible support the
>form of slavery practiced in the American colonies, although plantation
>slaves were more commonly treated as family members There were large
>numbers of free blacks as well. These slaves were most commonly purchased
>in black slave markets run by black Africans, not Christians. Not that
>Americans were right in propagating the practice, but they did not
>necessarily instigate it but inherited it and spent countelss fortunes
>determining how to get rid of it. And it was the forces embodied in the
>American Constitution based upon Godąs Word that set into place the events
>that ended the practice of that form of slavery in this country because of
>the efforts of a great many Christians ending the ancient practice of
>slavery here only after the shedding of a lot of blood of a great many
>Christian men. Christians finally ended the practice of slaverly in the
>last of its strongholds of Africa and China only in the last century in
>the former and almost within this century in China until the Christians in
>China became persecuted coincident with the reserruction of slavery in
>China.
So why don't you provide any citation for slavery in China?
>
>Oppression of women? The laws of Moses give women great rights. It is
>the daughter of King Zeddiakiah that inherited the throne of David that
>may be in existenance still. You are probably confused between womanąs
>rights and feminists rights. They are not the same thing as a reading of
>such as Domestic Tranquility by Gragalia will document. There are more
>men who are feminists than there are women as feminism liberates men from
>responsibilities, but forces a particular stereotype on women. In
>Gragaliaąs opinon, feminism takes away womanąs rights and undermines the
>strength of our nation in a revisionism of history. The basis of feminism
>is that women and men are equal, the same, interchangeable, and identical
>to men. Feminism is sexist/and or hypocritical, for if their basic beliefs
>are true, they deny men the opportunity to bear one half of all children.
>They also trivialize the importance of men in the one flesh of marriage
>and such as The Feminist Mystique hatefully misrepresent history. The
>author later admitted that the anti-male statements were not true, but the
>corrections for truth are not printed in the book.
So why did the Churches oppose granting of votes to women and many
other civil rights?
>
>There is no persecution of those who do not share my beliefs in the
>Bible. Cnhristianity is available to anyone, it has never been exclusive
>except for those who choose not to believe. In fact, it is the most
>inclusive organization of people in the world transcending all cultures,
>people, and continents.
>
>What you are probably referring to are the verses of Joshua and Judges.
>This is not persucution but self defense against the Cannanites who did
>not welcome the Isrealites into Cannan. The gates of Jerico were not open
>wide, the traditional sign of peace, but shut tight, the sign of war.
>These were not peaceful folks as athiests want to paint them, but used by
>satan to attempt to destroy the covenant of promise given before satan in
>the garden of eden. Satan attemps this first through the introduction of
>murder in Cain, the introduction of war by the Cannanites in Chapter 14,
>Pharoh of Egypt, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, Persians and others. The
>Cannanites sacrificed their young to their gods, established slavery as an
>acceptable alternative lifestyle, abandoned their old people to die,
>attacked the Isrealites, and their cities were so filled with immorality
>and its resultant diseases that nothing was clean. Upon the birth of
>Christ, satanąs plan failed and the covenant of grace was established. If
>it is these events that you are concerned about, they are specific to the
>covenant of law, not grace. You would be more accurate to call it an
>Isrealite problem than a Christian problem; however there are those who
>would call you anti-semetic if you tried, and I would be included among
>those.
I would include you as one of those.
>>
>>Evolution is not a religious belief. You calling it that doesn't make
>>it so. There is no Bible for evolution. You may think "The Origin of
>>Species" is our Bible, but it isn't. It is the work of a man, and I
>>accept it as that and only that. It is a landmark scientific
>>publication, of course. But anyone can arrive at a similar conclusion
>>given the evidence. You have come about your beliefs the other way.
>>First you had the book. Then you interpreted the evidence to fit your
>>beliefs.
>
>The defination of religion does not require a Bible, nor a god. What I
>see is first evolutionalists had the idea. Then they intrepreted the
>evidence to fit their beliefs.
What was that belief, pray tell? Darwin initially wanted to become a
priest.
Darwin's precursors and influences
It is sometimes claimed by those who wish to denigrate the
achievements of Charles Darwin that he was little more than a 'serial
plagiarist'. This essay aims to show that Darwin, like any scientist,
had influences, but that he was honest in his theoretical development.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwin-precursors.html
>>
>>Let's put it this way: since God, in the old days, threw around
>>miracles like they were softballs, how do you know he didn't put
>>evidence in the earth that would indicate that evolution occurred? The
>>Bible doesn't say either way.
>
>That is a possiblity, but not a probable one for such would be contraty to
>the nature of God.
We have to go by visible evidence rather by an interpretation of a
sectarian cult belief of one religion.
>>
>>And I believe I've already addressed Piltdown Man. Who didn't question
>>it? We know it's a fraud, don't we? Didn't someone have to have
>>questioned the Man for us to know that now?
>
>I doubt that it was an evolutionalists, but I donąt know. Do you know any
>more specifics? Smith Woodward, Grafton Smith, Arthur Kieth, Theilhard de
>Chardin, and Alex Hrdlicka were principle actors. The fraud was
>perpertrated in 1912 and not fully discovered until 1953. Dawson
>undoubteldy had a hand in the deception. Tnose involved certainly knew
>what to fake so as to be accepted by the establishment relatively
>uncritically. It was the fradulent esistence of Piltdown man as THE
>MISSING LINK SCIENTIFICALLY :PROVEN that changes the public perception
>against evolution to evolution since it was though to be conclusively
>proven for over 40 years, two entire generations. Piltdown is still the
>main reason many believe that evolution has been scientifically proven,
>even though it was a purposeful hoax intended to mislead the public.
Try http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html for the full story.
>
>The stories of Piltdown that I have read read much like the politically
>prejudiced governmenttal *scientific* study regarding second hand smoke.
>It got the public to believe something was scientifically proven because
Theory of evolution never depended on Piltdown fraud. You're just
showing your ignorance.
>someone thought that they should believe it anyway. Everyone remembers
>the study and the false indictments against men in Feminie Mystique, no
>one remembers the corrections.
You certainly don't. I wonder why?
>
>I do not ask you to believe anything I say, but I do ask you to give it
>consideration. Trust no man whether religious or scientist. We must not
>leave our theology nor our education completely in the hands of others.
The day your sectarian cult takes over education, you would have
declared war on the world including the American people. Don't blame
the world for the consequences.
>>
>>I find it hard to believe that you think that past hoaxes and mistakes
>>of science discredit the process of scientific inquiry and the
>>scientific method. I don't think you think that at all. I think you
>>simply distrust a process that would never lead to the conclusion that
>>to you is already foregoneÖ that a series of physically impossible
>>acts and occurrences happened "by the hand of God" so as to fit with
>>the words of a book written when the literal truth had no meaning.
>
>Your credit to me is well placed. I can not tell you the exact timing and
>mechanisms, but I can tell you that the fossil record still supports
>creation over evolution. It is being added back into the cirricula at one
So why don't you provide citations published in a peer reviewed
journal to support your claim?
>of our local school systems after being banned for over 40 years to be
>taught along with evolution. The reason given by the school system,
>evolution is just a theory that is not convincingly supportable at this
>time.
The creationists were unable to prove to the court that they were
doing science.
>
>To God be the Glory.
>>
>>
>>John Olinyk
>
>May God Bless You
May IPU save you
>Michael
>
>Sorry, not spell checked given the length and multiple postings.
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
>
>Why would someone attempt a hoax other than to prove a belief? One needs
>to think rationally about why one promotes hoaxes. What purpose would it
>serve--evidence of scientific method? Fame for one to proove evolution?
>Personal gain? More likely evidence of wanting to proove what can not be
>proved for political purposes.
'prove what cant be proved'. interesting. since evolution is observed,
it doesnt need proof. there are all kinds of hoaxes in EVERY
scientific discipline, even today. and the chances of being caught are
MUCH better today than 50 yrs ago, but people still do it. evolution
cannot explain why people commit fraud but that has no bearing on the
fact of evolution.
>
>Do not be so sure. Religion is defined as any system of beliefs under
>defination 3 of my dictionary. Nothing more, nothing less.
evolution is an observation. its seen. thus its not a religion
>
>It is not even a dogma.
>
>Really. A dogma is an assertion a priori without proof. I admit my
>religion and dogma, others should be as honest. Neither hypothesis is
>proven by the fossil record, my mind is open, is yours?
except evolution's proof does not rest on the fossil record.
>
>Is this the evidentuary conslusions to which you refer? How willing are
>evolutionalists to believe the kind of convincing storytelling that is
>being said? This is hardly sceintific method at its best.
as i said, since we can SEE evolution happening today, its proof is
not based on fossil evidence
incidentally, can you tell us where we can see ONE SINGLE creation
event? thats how creationists could disprove evolution. but so far
they havent.
>>That is how I came to study both the Scripture and evolution.
they have as much to do with each other as scripture and bowling.
science is not a religious belief.
>
>
>I never claimed to have all the answers, not even on creation. only that
>the fossil record in no way discredits what Scripture says nor that it
>prooves evolution.
except, of course, we see in the fossil record the results of
evolution: descent with modification. and its observed today. we see
evolution happening now.
we dont see creation.
>
>There is no evidence against the theory of creation
depends. 6 day creation is wrong, and there is evidence against it.
however, 'creation' is so flexible an idea (up to 'theistic evolution)
that your statement is meaningless
>
>Not at all, but hardly a proof of evolution.
>The first is a good example of intra-specis evolution with or without
>intelligenet intervention, but not specis to species evolution required to
>proove evolution.
except we SEE speciation happening TODAY (j.r. weinberg "evolution"
1992).
no such observation has been made about creation
We are not talking about intra-species evolution or I
>would agree with you on every point. The Biblical account in paraphrase
>states that dogs will begat dogs of their own kind. Your example starts
>with a dog and ends with a dog.
and humans are the same 'kind' as chimps? we share almost 99% of our
genetic material with them. which is greater, the difference between a
dachshund and great dane, or human and chimp? both the same 'kind'?
'kind' is a scientifically meaningless term.
the basic FACT remains
we SEE evolution. we have NEVER seen creation.
wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
>
>I am not aware of Duane Gish, but I am aware that in most public schools,
>creation is forbidden to be discussed. That hardly qualifies as honest
>debate, and forces the religious beliefs of athiesm as a de facto state
>religion and limits free speech and denying God in a nation that places
>its trust in God.
what bizarre paranoia.
creation is forbidden because its religion. and religion is NOT
PERMITTED TO BE TAUGHT BY THE STATE. it is NOT forbidden because
'evolution is fact' but because religion cant be taught by the state
and it hardly establishes atheism as state religion. thats another
paranoid delusion of religious fanatics stated without proof.
>>
>
>I am personally offended by your allegations. No Christian is perfect,
>all Christians and non Christians are sinners alike. You may believe that
>I am perfect; but those are your words, not mine. And they are personally
>offensive to me. Darwin零 theory is logical, no one disputes that, but
>creation is equally logical.
really? then why do we SEE ONLY EVOLUTION? where do we see even
ONE...even ONE SINGLE creation event? its logical to compare what is
SEEN to something that NEVER happens?
yeah, thats creationist logic!
>
>
>My point is that the fossil record does not discredit creation.
what is 'creation'? evolution is defined as
1. descent with modification or
2. a change in a populations genetic structure
what is 'creation'?
Just recently, a fossil dubbed
>>"ambulocetus natans" was discovered that appears to be a transitional
>>form related to the whale. What a bore: more evidence of evolution!
>
>One of few that would be required to substantiate such a grand theory, and
>inconclusive at best.
even ONE such fossil supports evolution
again, please cite ONE instance of observed creation...for a 'theory'
thats supposed to have evidence, creationists have never posted such
an observation.
\
wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
>
>So far, this is one of the greatest proofs offered for species to species
>evolution, and from a scientific method position, it fails. It does
>support the Biblical record where each kind begats its own kind.
actually there is much support for evolution, including OBERVED
speciation detailed by J.R. Weinberg in "evolution" 1992, where N.
Acuminata was OBSERVED to undergo speciation in populations raised at
UCLA and Woods Hole between 1962 and 1992.
so far we've never seen ONE..even ONE creation event. not a single
one.
>
>All earth was at one time connected based upon plate tecktonics and they
>may have well encountered one another if my beliefs in the first earth age
>are not true. However, we are still stuck with the same problem, cats are
>cats, dogs are dogs, not a new species. The fossil record does not
>support that cats became dogs nor that dogs became cats.
november 19, 1998 'nature'
>PAUL PEARSON
>In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin lamented that the
>imperfection of the fossil record detracts from the glory of
>geology. Fossilization is such a rare and capricious event,
>our collections are so poor, and sedimentary formations are
>so full of gaps, that Darwin could not point to a single
>example where fossils in successive geological strata
>showed evolution from one species to another.
>Unknown to Darwin, uninterrupted sedimentation does
>occur in the open ocean, especially on aseismic ridges and
>plateaux. These areas experience a continuous rain of
>particles to the sea bed, and are among the most
>geologically quiescent places on Earth. A steady build-up
>of sediment is the result.
>Now, after thirty years of systematic ocean drilling, many
>of these sites can be studied. Piston coring generally
>allows hundreds of meters of sediment to be fully
>recovered, spanning millions of years of deposition. Where
>gaps occur, they can easily be identified.
>A continuous sediment
>A good example of this is ODP Site 926 on the Ceara Rise,
>western equatorial Atlantic. As far as we can tell from
>biostratigraphy, this site has been sedimenting continuously
>for about 60 million years1. Regular and gradual changes in
>the Earth's orbit affect the chemical composition of
>sediments which allows us to prove that there are no
>significant gaps whatsoever in the record for the last 14
>million years2. The activity of burrowing animals is the
>main factor that limits our temporal resolution, but the
>effect is generally negligible over evolutionary time-scales.
>Sites like this are well appreciated by paleoceanographers.
>Many detailed chronologies of chemical and environmental
>change in the oceans have been reconstructed from them.
>Biologists, on the other hand, seem curiously reluctant to
>"unlearn" the difficult lesson of the supposedly incomplete
>fossil record.
>Tracing evolution
>The sediments in question are composed mainly of the
>shells of microscopic plankton such as foraminifera,
>radiolaria, diatoms and coccolithophorids. Large numbers
>of individuals can easily be extracted. Their evolution can
>be followed through geological time, simply by comparing
>one closely spaced sample with the next. This reveals
>morphologically isolated and continuous lineages which it
>is reasonable to infer represent lines of genetic descent3-6.
>These lineages sometimes split from one another7-8, and
>often evolve gradually over vast periods of time, or
>become extinct.
>Recent DNA sequencing on modern planktonic
>microorganisms allows us to put such data into context.
>Although there is some debate about possible "cryptic
>species" in the modern plankton9, the genetic and fossil
>data are in broad agreement10-11. This is encouraging for
>everyone involved.
>Does the fossil record provide a true and accurate record
>of first and last occurrences of species? Emphatically, the
>answer is yes!
so, yes, virginia, we do, metaphorically, see 'cats becoming dogs'.
sorry to disabuse you of that notion.
>
>The sun shines every day. If that were a sufficient source of energy,
>would not new species be forming every day? Would they not be forming
>before our very eyes?
gee how long does evolution say speciation takes?
and you havent answered the question:
where have we seen ONE SINGLE creation event happen? we have SEEN
speciation.
we have NEVER seen creation.
>
>Sorry, the laws of thermodynamics, not necessarily restricted to the
>second, suggest a burst of created species through an energy input, and
>then a gradual decline of species into extinction.
huh? whats your proof of THIS fairy tale?
>
>Actually, it simply allows for the gradual increase of entropy which would
>best be characterized by extinction rather than evolution.
of course, evolution allows species to go extinct...do you think it
doesnt?
>The Biblical record is how man fell from the image of God to his present
>state, and what he must do to regain eternal life. The evolutionalists
>beleives that man is a chance happening with no purpose and that anything
>new is better than anything old having evolved into a superior state.
bizarre. absolutely bizarre
uh, chemists and physicists believe the same things about science
evolutionary biologists do. just because your arbitrary religious
beliefs require 'purpose' to be part of science does NOT mean ANY
science, including physics, chemistry or biology has to have a
'purpose' for humans.
and WHERE did you get that crap about 'anything new'? you say you're a
scientist? prove it! cite even ONE reference from the peer reviewed
literature that backs up your nonsense!
it is, however, very typical of creationists to distort science to
support their religious beliefs...you just did so.
However, what you can not refute is that the
>evidence overwhelmingly and cumulatively points to creation (as
>opposed to happless error) as the origin of species.
really? since descent with modification is how evolution is DEFINED,
and its what's SEEN both in the fossil record AND TODAY how does that
support creation?
and you still have a problem: we SEE evolution happening TODAY!!
can you cite ONE creation event?
>\You believe in evolution because it is your religion as it was in ancient
>Babel. This
>is your dogma. You have no intention or willingness to change your
>opinion because you believe you are RIGHT. That is not science. That
>is religion.
funny, aint it, that scientists of ALL religions accept evolution
while NONE accepts creation. if thats incorrect, please cite even ONE
paper from ANY peer reviewed journal in the WORLD that says evolution
DIDNT happen or that creation DID
creationism is a cultural/religious belief, not a scientific one.
>>Scripture, among other things, supports slavery, oppression of women,
>>and the persecution of those who do not share your beliefs. What would
>>you call that?
>
>An incorrect representation of Scripture. Often stated, never true. And
>has little to do with creation and appears to be more of a diversionary
>tactic.
really? 'incorrect'? since the bible LITERALLY tells slaves to obey
their masters how is that an 'incorrect reading' of scripture?
>
>There are many definations to slavery. I suspect that you are using the
>popular neo-racist image wherein a slave is defined as a black man chained
>and beaten once a day whether he needs it or not. That is not a good
>defination of slavery and NEVER sanctioned in the Bible. Slavery is also
>defined as one who is completely dominated by some influence, habit, etc.
incorrect. for example, in paul's letter to the ephesians, he tells
slaves to obey their masters. ephesus was a greco-roman community.
roman slavery was every bit as cruel as was slavery in the south.
(see, for example, anthony pagden 'the new republic', dec 1997; e.m
burns 'western civilization')
you are distorting both the bible AND history.
>Those bound to governmental dependency and certain employment contracts
>today meed this defination of slavery.
really? prove it.
>
>If you believe that the Bible supports slavery as it is more commonly
>thought of today, you are not well versed in the Laws of Moses or the
>relationship of Onesimus and Philemon. Nor does the Bible support the
>form of slavery practiced in the American colonies
gee thats not what paul wrote to the community at ephesus
And it was the forces embodied in the
>American Constitution based upon Godąs Word that set into place the events
>that ended the practice of that form of slavery in this country
funny, isnt it, it took 19 centuries for xtians to discover slavery
was wrong. it was practiced in virtually every christian country. and
it took 1800 yrs for xtians to discover its immoral.
>
>The defination of religion does not require a Bible, nor a god. What I
>see is first evolutionalists had the idea. Then they intrepreted the
>evidence to fit their beliefs.
of course, every science does this. if you think its wrong, please
cite an example of the way evolutionary biology treats data
differently than any other science.
objectivity, as gould says, consists not in not having opinions but in
being willing to change them, based on evidence. its obvious that
evolution is an objective science. thats why various theories of
evolution are no longer held.
creationism is a religious belief. its a form of xtian apologetics.
creationists dont start with 'does the evidence support this theory',
they start with 'how can i rig the evidence to support my view of the
bible'.
Piltdown is still the
>main reason many believe that evolution has been scientifically proven,
>even though it was a purposeful hoax intended to mislead the public.
really? do you have proof of this? you seem to make ALOT of bizarre
statements with NO references or NO proof at all beyond your strange
fantasies.
>
>Your credit to me is well placed. I can not tell you the exact timing and
>mechanisms, but I can tell you that the fossil record still supports
>creation over evolution.
hmmm we see descent with modification in the record, just like
evolution predicts. we NEVER see a goat coming from a sheep, or the
appearance of horses in the middle of africa, like creation would
allow.
we SEE evolution TODAY. we have NEVER seen creation EVER
thats your evidence?
thats a religious belief!
It is being added back into the cirricula at one
>of our local school systems after being banned for over 40 years to be
>taught along with evolution. The reason given by the school system,
>evolution is just a theory that is not convincingly supportable at this
>time.
really? betcha its not gonna be there long. its a religious belief,
and since 'edwards vs aguillard', is NOT permitted to be taught in
state schools
and ANY idea in science is 'just a theory'. you obviously havent a
clue about how science works.
>
Bonz
burt) wrote:
>been posted to the following
>>newsgroups: a.bsu.religion)
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> First of all, you'll understand if I assume that any evidence I
>>might provide
>>>> you that is generally accepted as support for the theory of
>>evolution will be
>>>> attacked and "discredited" by you and yours.
>>>
>>>Depends on the defination of attacked and discredited. Debate and
>>honest discussion is neither.
>>
>>That'sÖ you'll pardon the punÖ debatable. Creationists have used the
>>debate as a means to disseminate their half-truths and deliberate
>>obfuscation (and, by extension, their religion) across community
>>centers and college campuses for decades. Your Duane Gish is a classic
>>example of how the tactics of effective debate can change people's
>>minds far more than actual, logical exploration of the facts of a
>>controversy.
>
>I am not aware of Duane Gish, but I am aware that in most public schools,
>creation is forbidden to be discussed.
In science class, of course it is. Creation is religion, pure and
simple.
> That hardly qualifies as honest
>debate, and forces the religious beliefs of athiesm as a de facto state
>religion and limits free speech and denying God in a nation that places
>its trust in God.
No, it just means the government doesn't decide which religions
are better than others.
>>
>>Furthermore, you must realize that I expect you to enter into this
>>exchange with preconceptions that, being based in faith and dogma, are
>>utterly resistant to change, whatever new evidence or information you
>>may gain.
>
>I could also make the same charges against most evolutionalists. My
>position is that the fossil record in no way discredits the Biblical
>account of creation based upon the Hebrew script.
Then you are wrong.
> Are you resistant to
>changing your views regarding what the Hebrew states?
I don't care what the Hebrew states.
>offensive to me. Darwinąs theory is logical, no one disputes that, but
>creation is equally logical.
No, it is not. If it is, why hasn't anyone come up with a
creationist theory yet?
>>
>>If Charles Manson were running down the street screaming "The sky is
>>blue! The sky is blue!!", that wouldn't mean the sky wasn't blue,
>>would it?
>
>Of course not, but if scientists run down the street claiming that
>Newtonian laws would always explain all behaviour of matter, would you
>believe that as well? The claims of scientists neither proves nor dis
>proves evolution.
Nonsense.
>There have been plenty of psychos in history who have
>>claimed that their heinous deeds were inspiredÖ even requiredÖ by God
>>or the Bible.
>
>On this point we can also agree, and if people had studied the Scripture,
>they would have found that they would be wrong. It is not a problem with
>Scripture, it is a problem with people who twist Scripture, omit
>Scripture, add to Scripture, or pluck out a verse out of context. The
>Bible says many things, many are in the context of what not to do.
>
>That doesn't discredit your holy book, does it? Asking
>>whether a theory is "true" is to miss the whole point of a theoryÖ the
>>whole VALUE of a theory! You utilize a theory to predict future
>>events. Evolution has already predicted numerous successive
>>discoveries. Its value is scientifically cemented.
>
>I donąt discredit searching for truth nor nul hypothesis. That is not my
>unsupported conclusions are what we know to be true eventhough we canąt
>proove it. That is not scientific despite the scientific trappings it is
>wrapped in. We would be wise to question scientists with an agenda as
>well.
>>
>>>> "The actual proofs"? I don't understand what you're asking for.
>>Evolution is
>>>> a theory. Give me the proofs that the earth revolves around the
>>sun! You
>>>> can't see the earth move. As far as you can tell, the sun does all
>>the
>>>> moving! The Catholic Church punished a lot of great thinkers over
>>the years
>>>> for arging that the earth was not the center of the universe. Don't
>>confuse
>>>> science and religion, please. You'll only be disappointed in the end.
>
>Hardly, Scripture describes the earth as an orb suspended in space.
Nope. The OT describes the world as flat, covered by a metal dome
holding back the waters above it. The sun and moon are small, and
attached to the inside of the dome.
> No
>where does it state that the sun is the center of the universe. However,
>until we determine the quantity and location of dark matter, the answer to
>that question is still up for grabs.
ROFL! You need to spend less time on biblical crap and more on
science.
>>>
>>>The two are acutally quite compatable. The Scripture says that the
>>earth is an orb suspended in space, It it a travesty, as you say,
>>however, when men, whether Christian or not do not take the time to
>>understand what is written.
>>
>>Please. The Biblical account of Genesis can not be taken literally, or
>>you ask for such a suspension of natural law that you might as well
>>claim that God is living in your refrigerator. Creationists (although
>>they often disagree amongst themselves
>
>as do evolutions as to exactly which fossils are human)
>
>>assert such a wide range of
>>scientifically inaccurate and laughable suppositions (such as the idea
>>that the coral reefs that would have taken millions of years to grow
>>somehow arrived in a matter of millenia, or that the Great Flood
>>caused the formation of the Grand Canyon) that it is infuriating to
>>even try to argue with them in any scientific manner.
>
>I agree, there are many arguments regarding timing and mechanisms in
>creationalism, not unlike similar arguments within the evolutionalists
>camp. Scripture says that Noahąs flood was to destroy the Nephilim who
>lived within a specific geographic region. The Nephilim were humanoid,
>but not descended from Adam and Eve who were formed on day 8 nor the men
>and women created on day 6.
>>
>>>> In fact, the fossil record supports creation and not evolution.
>>>>
>>>> You have got to be kidding me. You have some guts, making such
>>assertions
>>>> without backing them up. How much do you really know about fossils?
>>Are you
>>>> aware that it has been proven that it takes millions of years for
>>the actual
>>>> process of fossilization to take place? That fact, in and of itself,
>>>> disproves the popular Christian misconception that the Earth is
>>only 4 or
>>>> 6,000 years old.
>>>
>>>The Scripture does not say that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
>>That belief went out with Elizabethian times. The Scripture says that
>>the forming of Adam and Eve was 6000 years ago. Many things happened
>>before that, according to Scripture including another entire earth age
>>including, perhaps a pre-Adamic race, and for which time frame is not
>>specified by Scripture.
All of which is superstitious nonsense.
>>
>>Don't split hairs.
>
>In all humbleness, I an not splitting hairs, merely providing more
>accurate evidence for you to consider, if you are not prejudiced to
>receive it.
>
>First of all, I'm sure you'd find a lot of
>>Creationists out there who believed the whole Earth history only
>>encompassed 6,000 years or so.
>
>And there are a lot of evolutionalists argueing about the accuracy of
>Cladograms of human origins as well.
What do the two have in common? Two people disagree whether
something is 95 or 100 years old. Third person says, "Since you
can't agree, maybe a magic fairy pulled it out of his ass ten
seconds ago."
>I am certainly not the worldąs foremost authority on the fossil recocrd
>Nothing is magical, but all has a purpose. Godąs plan for man is not
>magical, but purposeful, specific, and well documented.
>>
>>>>
>>>>Darwin's theories of mechanisms have been entirely discredited even
>>by the most
>>>>
>>>> devout evolutionists.
>>>>
>>>> Hello. My name is John. I'm here to explain something to you. It's
>>a very
>>>> simple fact, and it's something you need to understand.
>>>>
>>>> DISCREDITING SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF A THEORY DOES NOT DISCREDIT THE
>>THEORY AS A
>>>> WHOLE.
>
>I agree, neither do your agruments discrediting Scripture based upon what
>it does not say support evolution, nor your proofs offered discredit
>creation.
No one cares about Scripture. It is not important.
>>>
>>>I agree, but in order to argue Darwin's theory, all of his mechanisms
>>have been proven not true by the >fossil record. More seriously, the
>>fossil record clearly suppots the laws of thermodynamics which is not
>>>surprising, and that supports creation. How would you argue against
>>the laws of thermodynamics with the >fossil record currently documented?
Thermodynamics? LOL! How do fossils support thermo? :)
Another moron.
>>
>>I have no idea what you mean by the laws of thermodynamics relating in
>>any way to the fossil record. Please elaborate. Furthermore, I explain
>>later in my message how the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not
>>apply to the origin of life and species on this planet.
>>
>>>> There are no creditable scientists who deny that, in general,
>>evolution is
>>>> the process by which life developed on this planet. Complex
>>creatures evolved
>>>> from simple creatures. Yes, it sounds incredible. So does the idea
>>that a big
>>>> man in the sky made people out of clay. It all depends on your
>>point of view.
>
>Your representation of Scripture relating to a big man in the sky making
>peple out of clay is seriously lacking in understanding of the Scripture.
>Or do you advocate that flesh is not made up of the same earthly compounds
>found commonly throughout the planet? Hello, my name is Michael.
>>>
>>> There were no creditable scientists who denied that, in general,
>>leeching was not a valuable medical
>>> principle a century ago either.
>>
>>How do you know?
>
>If there were, they would have not done it so long.
>
>There had to be at least one, because the process
>>originally stopped. Get it?
>
>Not until after centuries of worthless blood letting.
What do you mean, stopped? I was leeched not two years ago.
¤¤ Bonz
To reply by Email, please remove THE OBVIOUS
So you're using the findings of one field of science (Astronomy, say) to
"prove" the validity of findings in another field (say, Biology). In
other words, you're using science to support science and that is
circular reasoning. - Dan Abbott 11/98 Message ID <36451EAB...@dakota.net>
Kevin R. Henke
michael burt wrote in message ...
>newsgroups: a.bsu.religion)
[snip]
I am not aware of Duane Gish, but I am aware that in most public schools,
creation is forbidden to be discussed. That hardly qualifies as honest
debate, and forces the religious beliefs of athiesm as a de facto state
religion and limits free speech and denying God in a nation that places
its trust in God.
KRH: Since when does quackery deserve equal time? Do you want Voodoo taught
as an alterative to Western medicine in our medical schools? Do pro-NAZI
denials of the Holocaust deserve equal time in history classes? Is
astrology a scientific alternative to astronomy? Creationism belongs in
comparitive religion classes. It's not science.
[snip]
Thomas Paine
mike...@ix.netcom.com (michael burt) wrote:
(snip)
>I am not aware of Duane Gish, but I am aware that in most public schools,
>creation is forbidden to be discussed.
Then you should also be aware that the teaching of creationism was banned
because it is a religious - not scientific - subject.
That hardly qualifies as honest
>debate,
The debate is honest, as long as you understand that you are arguing
scientific realities vs religious beliefs.
and forces the religious beliefs of atheism as a de facto state
Evolution is not atheistic.
You lost that point already.
>religion and limits free speech and denying God in a nation that places
>its trust in God.
My money says trust in god ... but since a dollar is only really worth a few
cents ... I rarely take my money's word for anything.
That's two points you've lost.
>>
>>Furthermore, you must realize that I expect you to enter into this
>>exchange with preconceptions that, being based in faith and dogma, are
>>utterly resistant to change, whatever new evidence or information you
>>may gain.
>
>I could also make the same charges against most evolutionalists.
You can make any charges you want. Since the evidence does not comply with
your charges ... that's three.
My
>position is that the fossil record in no way discredits the Biblical
>account of creation based upon the Hebrew script. Are you resistant to
>changing your views regarding what the Hebrew states?
Is there any evidence that the hebrew script has anything to do with science -
other than your personal opinion?
Point 4 lost.
>>
>>>Given that, I find it would be a
>>>> waste of time to actually list the evidence itself. Suffice it to
>>say that the
>>>> strength and accuracy (and usefulness) of a theory is based on its
>>reliability
>>>> in predicting future observations. The theory of evolution has been
>>thus
>>>> utilized time and time again.
>>>
>>>Many theories are used, but that does not mean that they are true.
>>Darwin, predicted a fossil record that does not exist, and as a
>>result, his mechanisms are completely discredited. This is confirmed
>>by Tattersail and other evolutionists in such as The Fossil Trail.
>>
>>Darwin's "mechanisms" are not at the heart of his work; his theories
>>and hypotheses are. Besides, as you yourself point out, the idea that
>>life evolved, rather than being created intact, has existed long
>>before Darwin was even born.
>
>On this point we can agree. The tree of life of evolution was an ingral
>part of the ancient religious beliefs of Babel. Scripture identifies the
>author and purpose of the religious beliefs which included evolution.
You'll have to take that one up with the "True Christians"(TM).
>
>It wouldn't matter if it turned out that
>>Darwin were a raving lunatic. His theories were not accepted because
>>anyone thought Darwin was the Messiah. They were accepted (along with
>>the work of many other, though lesser-known, scientists) because they
>>fit the evidence and accurately predicted future discoveries. Yes,
>>there were errors. We don't claim to be perfect. You do.
>
>I am personally offended by your allegations. No Christian is perfect,
>all Christians and non Christians are sinners alike. You may believe that
>I am perfect; but those are your words, not mine.
Then you better do something to clean up the impressions made by such alleged
christians ... because everyone I've seen in here comes off as being so close
to god (and the perfect understanding of god's word) that the aura of
(assumed) perfection surrounds their every word.
And they are personally
>offensive to me. Darwinšs theory is logical, no one disputes that, but
>creation is equally logical.
Logic has nothing to do with a religious belief.
5 down.
>>
>>If Charles Manson were running down the street screaming "The sky is
>>blue! The sky is blue!!", that wouldn't mean the sky wasn't blue,
>>would it?
>
>Of course not, but if scientists run down the street claiming that
>Newtonian laws would always explain all behaviour of matter, would you
>believe that as well?
And where did you find that little tidbit?
$100.00 says it wasn't in a science book.
The claims of scientists neither proves nor dis
>proves evolution.
Claims prove nothing (that's why creationism is still a fantasy ... all it has
are claims).
But the evidence all points to evolution.
>
>There have been plenty of psychos in history who have
>>claimed that their heinous deeds were inspiredÖ even requiredÖ by God
>>or the Bible.
>
>On this point we can also agree, and if people had studied the Scripture,
>they would have found that they would be wrong. It is not a problem with
>Scripture, it is a problem with people who twist Scripture, omit
>Scripture, add to Scripture, or pluck out a verse out of context.
Which can, in fact, include any and all people claiming to be christian.
The
>Bible says many things, many are in the context of what not to do.
>
>That doesn't discredit your holy book, does it? Asking
>>whether a theory is "true" is to miss the whole point of a theoryÖ the
>>whole VALUE of a theory! You utilize a theory to predict future
>>events. Evolution has already predicted numerous successive
>>discoveries. Its value is scientifically cemented.
>
>I donšt discredit searching for truth nor nul hypothesis. That is not my
>argument. My argument is that the fossil record is not inconsistent with
>the Scriptural statement.
>>
>>Understand that, unlike creationists, whose "science" is based on a
>>slavish devotion to a 2,000-year-old book (and I anticipate your
>>automatic response: do not deign to refer to the evolutionist's
>>acceptance of evolution as the dominant paradigm as a religious
>>devotion), the evolutionist is so-called because of his present
>>acceptance of the idea that life evolved through a process of natural
>>selection.
>
>Sounds like an intolerant statement, and mean spirited as well.
Sadly, it is also true.
Jerry Falwell, one of the extreme right's extreme spokespersons, was being
interviewed and was, during the interview, asked about several different parts
of the bible (quoted by the interviewer). His most common response was "I'm
not familiar with that portion of the bible".
Most people, including some of the leaders, do not read the bible and/or do
not read the bible for understanding. They just blindly follow a group, group
leader or group concept without giving truth even a slight glance.
Slavish?
>Those are fighting words, not words of an honest debate. Parts of the
>Scripture are much older than your estimate. I would anticipate your
>automatic response to refer to the creationalists position as slavish,
>blind devotion, antiquated, and not well imformed. You have performed
>well according to expectations. As evolution may date back to Babel, both
>theries are of equal antiquity.
Evolution dates back to biogenisis.
Many people may have thought of it before, but it wasn't until Darwin that it
became an idea that stuck and change the scientific world.
(enoughsnip)
Bonz
burt) wrote:
It is so depressing to think that people like Burt are walking
around out there, free to spew their nonsense. Just think of how
any kids he'll hurt with this crap.
Still, that's the price of a plural society. You have to give the
dregs of humanity a voice, and just hope that not too many listen.
There's a post-Christmas Klan rally in town today. Depressing. But
Burt would feel right at home.
>To quote Tattersail at page 43, ³But as people like dog breeders,
>selecting for longer legs or shorter muzzles or whatever, had known before
>evolutionary ideas had ever taken shape, by simply shifting gene
>frequencies you could produce neither true anatomical innovation-you were
>restricted to producing variations on existing themes--not new species.
>Yet evolution depends both on anatomicaql change and on the production of
>new species, and at the end of the ninetenth century the relationship
>betwen these two differrent things remained far from clear--as, to be
>quite frank, it still does.²
>
>So far, this is one of the greatest proofs offered for species to species
>evolution, and from a scientific method position, it fails.
How is this more important than the new species we see arising?
> It does
>support the Biblical record where each kind begats its own kind.
No,it does not. Not until you define 'kind'.
> One can
>also intelligently intervene to breed donkeys and horses to m ake a mule,
>but the mule is sterile.
This seems to be a non sequitur. Why is it here?
> In the study of insects, many of the insects
>have almost what could be called a lock and key system in male and female
>sex organs giving the appearance to restrict reproduction within narrow
>limits.
OK, how does it give that appearance? I don't see it.
>>
>>Besides, evolution does not claim that animals were created through
>>any sort of daisy-chain process.
>
>How many ways can you describe evolution?
>
>The most commonly accepted model
>>would be the branching tree model, wherein multiple species evolved
>>from a common ancestor. Does it seem completely out of the question
>>that all the cats - the lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, snow
>>leopards, cougars, and so on - evolved from a common "proto-cat"
>>ancestor?
>
>No it seems quite logical, merely unsupportable by the fossil record.
>
>I know you don't believe it, but does it seem impossible?
>
>Logical yes, possible, yes. Supported by the fossil record, no.
>
>>Really impossible? There are cat species that exist in such different
>>climates and on different continents that it would seem impossible
>>that they would have ever encountered one another - yet they share so
>>many characteristics that, scientifically, we are forced to note their
>>similarities. That's why they are all considered "cats".
>
>All earth was at one time connected based upon plate tecktonics and they
>may have well encountered one another if my beliefs in the first earth age
>are not true. However, we are still stuck with the same problem, cats are
>cats, dogs are dogs, not a new species. The fossil record does not
>support that cats became dogs nor that dogs became cats.
Good. No one thinks they did.
Go back 65 MY or so. No cats or dogs at all. Very few mammals.
Where did they all come from?
>>Where do you draw the line? If cats could all evolve from a single cat
>>ancestor, maybe that cat ancestor evolved, along with dogs and bears,
>>from single predator mammal ancestor, whereas all the hundreds of
>>different ungulates (ibexes, gemsboks, springboks, moose, deer,
>>zebras) evolved from a single ungulate ancestorÖ and all the pigs
>>evolved from a single pig, etc. And whose to say all these mammals
>>didn't evolve from a common mammal ancestor? Obviously, I'm
>>simplifying the process, but you get the point. Where is your evidence
>>that evolution did NOT take place? With what do you replace it? You
>>have no details, and are unable to provide any details. All you have
>>are two chapters of a book written back when people thought hyssop and
>>sandalroot (along with a long and ludicruous [and paganistic] ritual)
>>would protect one from leprosy.
>
>You are mixing two different things. Cures and ceremony. Leprosy is
>caused by bacilli, Today it is treated by dapsone, rifampin, and
>clophazimine and a good nutrition (dietary laws). Cedar wood, hyssop, and
>scarlet have anti-bacterial and anti-fungal properties and were prevelant
>in the Isreal area. The ceremony of the two birds has prophetic
>theological significance and were fulfilled by Christ in the Dispensation
>of Grace and is neither unnecessarily long nor necessarily liudicruous.
Nonsense. Jesus is not mentioned at all in the OT. Nor are there
any prophecies of note.
I
>assume that you threw in the term paganistic to insult me-pagan is defined
>as one that do not hold to the Hebrew Scripture in the broadest sense,
>anyone not Christian, Jew, nor Islamic and would therefore not make sense
>in your use and requires a re-defination of pagan not established by
>definational use. It is an interesting thought, but has little to do with
>evolution. There are many references to creation in the Bible, this is
>not one of them.
I think his point was that much of the bible is superstitious
nonsense, like your ceremony of the two birds nonsense above.
>>
>>>>
>>>>If you believe in evolution, you must argue
>>>>
>>>> against the laws of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics
>>support
>>>>
>>>> creation, and the fossil records
>
>>> creation, and the fossil records supports the laws of thermodynamics.
>>>
>>Part II:
>>
>>>> creation, and the fossil records supports the laws of thermodynamics.
>>>>
>>>> Boy, I was waiting for this. You creationists never cease to amaze
>>me. Here
>>>> is a refutation of this preposterous, self-deluding idea you people
>>have that
>>>> the Second Law of Thermodynamics is somehow violated by the process
>>of
>>>> evolution:
>>>>
>>>> THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS. THE
>>EARTH IS NOT
>>>> A CLOSED SYSTEM. THE SUN IS A CONSTANT SOURCE OF ENERGY, AND HAS
>>BEEN FOR
>>>> BILLIONS OF YEARS. THAT IS WHY COMPLEX MOLECULES AND ORGANISMS CAN
>>DEVELOP
>>>> FROM BASIC CHEMICALS.
>
>The sun shines every day. If that were a sufficient source of energy,
>would not new species be forming every day? Would they not be forming
>before our very eyes?
They are. Where have you been?
>
>>>
>>>But the universe is a closed system, which was created first.
No, it is NOT a closed system in classical thermo. Who told you
that it is closed?
>Genesis is not a Christian document, it is God¹s Word in my belief. All
>of the options you provide are still creation events. Why would you
>restrict me to agrue in the framework established by you? My study of
>Genesis suggests a much different timing and mechanism from that which you
>want to restrict it to.
>>
>>
>>>> This is not to mention the countless meteorites and comets that
>>have entered
>>>> our atmosphere, as well as the vital tidal effects the moon has
>>provided us.
>>>> And the fact that it has been recently postulated that the first
>>organisms
>>>> developed near volcanic rifts on the ocean floor. Presto! All the
>>heat and
>>>> energy a developing organism could ever need!
>>>
>>>God uses all creation to His ends.
>>
>>Thanks for completely ignoring my refutation. You insisted that the
>>Second Law of Thermodynamics works against the Theory of Evolution. I
>>explained how it does not. You then proceeded to change the subject
>>without acknowledging that your argument was invalid.
>
>Sorry, the laws of thermodynamics, not necessarily restricted to the
>second, suggest a burst of created species through an energy input, and
>then a gradual decline of species into extinction.
Idiotic nonsense. Show me the equations which support this.
> This is the fossil
>record of both the first and second earth ages. The Genesis account in
>the second age records a progression of creative bursts from lower to
>higher forms of life as well, which is why some intrepret it as creation
>by evolution.
We do not see a trend from 'lower to higher'.
You have not demonstrated such a burst. Nor shown the need for it.
>>
>>Actually, after reading this last sentence of yours, I think I should
>>just give up. It is a combination of ignorance, blind assertions
>>("quite well supported") and doubtless confidence that you are already
>>as right as rain. The Second Law does not suggest a burst of any new
>>species. It simply allows for the gradual increase of complexity in
>>organic structures.
>
>Actually, it simply allows for the gradual increase of entropy which would
>best be characterized by extinction rather than evolution.
No, it would not. Can you defend your argument at all?
>The Biblical record is how man fell from the image of God to his present
>state, and what he must do to regain eternal life. The evolutionalists
>beleives that man is a chance happening with no purpose and that anything
>new is better than anything old having evolved into a superior state.
Huh? Nipping at the cooking sherry again?
> A
>review of history indicates that what is often thought of as new is really
>discarded old principles that didn¹t work the last time around either.
Are you drunk? You seem not to be able to follow a single track.
No, it does not. Not even CLOSE.
>American Constitution based upon God¹s Word that set into place the events
>that ended the practice of that form of slavery in this country because of
>the efforts of a great many Christians ending the ancient practice of
>slavery here only after the shedding of a lot of blood of a great many
>Christian men. Christians finally ended the practice of slaverly in the
>last of its strongholds of Africa and China only in the last century in
>the former and almost within this century in China until the Christians in
>China became persecuted coincident with the reserruction of slavery in
>China.
>
>Oppression of women? The laws of Moses give women great rights. It is
>the daughter of King Zeddiakiah that inherited the throne of David that
>may be in existenance still. You are probably confused between woman¹s
>rights and feminists rights. They are not the same thing as a reading of
>such as Domestic Tranquility by Gragalia will document. There are more
>men who are feminists than there are women as feminism liberates men from
>responsibilities, but forces a particular stereotype on women. In
>Gragalia¹s opinon, feminism takes away woman¹s rights and undermines the
>Christ, satan¹s plan failed and the covenant of grace was established. If
>I doubt that it was an evolutionalists, but I don¹t know. Do you know any
If the school is in the US, that is illegal. Care to name the
school district?
>To God be the Glory.
>>
>>
>>John Olinyk
>
>May God Bless You
>Michael
>
>Sorry, not spell checked given the length and multiple postings.
¤¤ Bonz
David Byrden
<mikeburt-2712980245080001@pon-mi9-
> I am personally offended by your allegations. No Christian is perfect,
> all Christians and non Christians are sinners alike. You may believe
that
> I am perfect; but those are your words, not mine. And they are
personally
> offensive to me. Darwin零 theory is logical, no one disputes that, but
> creation is equally logical.
There is nothing logical about
taking a book, of unknown origin, and
treating it as a reliable source of
facts.
Why not look at reality instead?
David
Pim van Meurs
"Kevin R. Henke" wrote:
>
> I am not aware of Duane Gish, but I am aware that in most public schools,
> creation is forbidden to be discussed.
Which creation account are you talking about ? And what class would you have it
be discussed ?
> That hardly qualifies as honest debate, and forces the religious beliefs of
> athiesm as a de facto state
> religion and limits free speech and denying God in a nation that places its
> trust in God.
>
On the contrary it applies the laws of this country. Or would you now allow any
crackpot theory to have equal time in schools ?
Kevin R. Henke
Pim van Meurs wrote in message <36868127...@eskimo.com>...
"Kevin R. Henke" wrote:
>
> I am not aware of Duane Gish, but I am aware that in most public schools,
> creation is forbidden to be discussed.
Which creation account are you talking about ? And what class would you have
it
be discussed ?
> That hardly qualifies as honest debate, and forces the religious beliefs
of
> athiesm as a de facto state
> religion and limits free speech and denying God in a nation that places
its
> trust in God.
>
On the contrary it applies the laws of this country. Or would you now allow
any
crackpot theory to have equal time in schools ?
KRH: WAIT! WAIT! WAIT!
MICHAEL BURT WROTE THIS. NOT ME. GO BACK AND LOOK AT MY POST AGAIN. I
ALWAYS PUT MY INITIALS BEFORE WHAT I WRITE. Please be careful on how you
snip. Kevin
Boikat
>
> been posted to the following
> >newsgroups: a.bsu.religion)
>
> >
> >That'sÖ you'll pardon the punÖ debatable. Creationists have used the
> >debate as a means to disseminate their half-truths and deliberate
> >obfuscation (and, by extension, their religion) across community
> >centers and college campuses for decades. Your Duane Gish is a classic
> >example of how the tactics of effective debate can change people's
> >minds far more than actual, logical exploration of the facts of a
> >controversy.
>
> I am not aware of Duane Gish, but I am aware that in most public schools,
> creation is forbidden to be discussed. That hardly qualifies as honest
> debate, and forces the religious beliefs of athiesm as a de facto state
> religion and limits free speech and denying God in a nation that places
> its trust in God.
The public school system is not a debate forum
between religion and mainstream science.
> >
> >Furthermore, you must realize that I expect you to enter into this
> >exchange with preconceptions that, being based in faith and dogma, are
> >utterly resistant to change, whatever new evidence or information you
> >may gain.
>
> I could also make the same charges against most evolutionalists. My
> position is that the fossil record in no way discredits the Biblical
> account of creation based upon the Hebrew script. Are you resistant to
> changing your views regarding what the Hebrew states?
If the fossil record in no way discredits the
original Hebrew, what's the problem? And from the
opening paragraph, why would that mean that
Biblical Creationism should be taught in school?
The Purpose of school is to educate, not to
indoctrinate children into a particular religious
belief. And no, science is not a religion, and
creationism is not science. Claims to the
contrary are the straw man arguments of religious
fanatics.
[snip]
> >>
> >>Many theories are used, but that does not mean that they are true.
> >Darwin, predicted a fossil record that does not exist, and as a
> >result, his mechanisms are completely discredited. This is confirmed
> >by Tattersail and other evolutionists in such as The Fossil Trail.
> >
> >Darwin's "mechanisms" are not at the heart of his work; his theories
> >and hypotheses are. Besides, as you yourself point out, the idea that
> >life evolved, rather than being created intact, has existed long
> >before Darwin was even born.
>
> On this point we can agree. The tree of life of evolution was an ingral
> part of the ancient religious beliefs of Babel. Scripture identifies the
> author and purpose of the religious beliefs which included evolution.
Damn clever them Babylonians. But what does the
ancient Babylonian belief have to do with modern
biology? Just because the Babylonians
incorporated observed relationships (if that's
what their "tree of life" was based upon) into
their religious beliefs, doesn't mean that it has
anything to do with modern taxonomy or cladistics.
>
> It wouldn't matter if it turned out that
> >Darwin were a raving lunatic. His theories were not accepted because
> >anyone thought Darwin was the Messiah. They were accepted (along with
> >the work of many other, though lesser-known, scientists) because they
> >fit the evidence and accurately predicted future discoveries. Yes,
> >there were errors. We don't claim to be perfect. You do.
>
> I am personally offended by your allegations. No Christian is perfect,
> all Christians and non Christians are sinners alike. You may believe that
> I am perfect; but those are your words, not mine. And they are personally
> offensive to me. Darwinšs theory is logical, no one disputes that, but
> creation is equally logical.
So? Most Christians accept evolution based upon
the evidence, and are offended when religious
fundamentalist fanatics claim that, "evolution is
a religion" and that Creationism of the YEC kind
should be taught in *public* school along with, or
instead of, mainstream biology or science. Even
more insidious is their claim that since
Creationism has been declared a religious dogma,
and not religion, they shifted to claiming that
evolution, and therefore, mainstream biology, at
least, but science in general, is therefore a
religion, and should not be taught in *public*
school. The desire to dumb down american
children is most telling to the goals of the
Creationists. It's easier to indoctrinate
ignorant people than it is to indoctrinate the
educated. What it boils down to is the
*religious* aims of those that endorse
creationism, is to convert as many people to
drooling followers as possible. News flash: It Is
Not Going To Happen!
> >
> >If Charles Manson were running down the street screaming "The sky is
> >blue! The sky is blue!!", that wouldn't mean the sky wasn't blue,
> >would it?
>
> Of course not, but if scientists run down the street claiming that
> Newtonian laws would always explain all behaviour of matter, would you
> believe that as well? The claims of scientists neither proves nor dis
> proves evolution.
Proof is for math and Philosophy. Evolution rests
upon the evidence. So far, it's rested quite
well, despite the overt ignorant rantings of
religious fanatics.
>
> There have been plenty of psychos in history who have
> >claimed that their heinous deeds were inspiredÖ even requiredÖ by God
> >or the Bible.
>
> On this point we can also agree, and if people had studied the Scripture,
> they would have found that they would be wrong. It is not a problem with
> Scripture, it is a problem with people who twist Scripture, omit
> Scripture, add to Scripture, or pluck out a verse out of context. The
> Bible says many things, many are in the context of what not to do.
>
> That doesn't discredit your holy book, does it? Asking
> >whether a theory is "true" is to miss the whole point of a theoryÖ the
> >whole VALUE of a theory! You utilize a theory to predict future
> >events. Evolution has already predicted numerous successive
> >discoveries. Its value is scientifically cemented.
>
> I donšt discredit searching for truth nor nul hypothesis. That is not my
> argument. My argument is that the fossil record is not inconsistent with
> the Scriptural statement.
The you accept evolution, even if the fossil
record is not the best evidence. That would be
DNA and the "Nested Hierarchy" of morphology.
> >
> >Understand that, unlike creationists, whose "science" is based on a
> >slavish devotion to a 2,000-year-old book (and I anticipate your
> >automatic response: do not deign to refer to the evolutionist's
> >acceptance of evolution as the dominant paradigm as a religious
> >devotion), the evolutionist is so-called because of his present
> >acceptance of the idea that life evolved through a process of natural
> >selection.
>
> Sounds like an intolerant statement, and mean spirited as well. Slavish?
> Those are fighting words, not words of an honest debate. Parts of the
> Scripture are much older than your estimate. I would anticipate your
> automatic response to refer to the creationalists position as slavish,
> blind devotion, antiquated, and not well imformed. You have performed
> well according to expectations. As evolution may date back to Babel, both
> theries are of equal antiquity.
Calling evolution a religion is also "fighting
words", and the word of a fanatic that is ignorant
of the meaning of "science" and religion. If the
word "slavish" is offensive to you, how about
"Blind faith", or Unquestioning adherence"?
> >
> >Was Einstein "completely discredited" because he predicted an
> >anti-gravitational force to prevent the collapse of the universe that
> >turned out not to exist? No. Einstein hypothesized, and his hypothesis
> >was proven wrong. Scientists hypothesize for the same reason that
> >treasure-hunters run their metal detectors back and forth across the
> >ground as they slowly walk forward. They must explore in order to find
> >the real treasure.
>
> We are both in agreement there as well.
> >
> >Why is it so difficult for creationists to comprehend that science is
> >a living, ongoing process of interpretation and exploration? Is it
> >because your book - your "Truth" (with a capital "T") - is completely
> >immutable, because you consider it absolutely without error or even
> >possibility of error? That is not science. Looking for evidence to
> >support assertions you accept on faith is nonsensical. To attempt to
> >point to scientifically-compiled data as evidence that miraculous
> >events occurred is a contradiction in terms.
>
> Not if one understands God.
Nobody understands God. Anyone that claims they
do is a charlatan, and a quack. Get your money
back, because next in line is a sweet deal on a
Bridge in San Francisco.
> .. I support you in your questioning of
> statements put forth by religious leaders, I do as well. The government
> recently published a *scientific report* that confirms that second hand
> smoke causes certain disease. But the report was found to be seriously
> flawed. When caught, the government defended itself by saying but the
> unsupported conclusions are what we know to be true eventhough we canšt
> proove it. That is not scientific despite the scientific trappings it is
> wrapped in. We would be wise to question scientists with an agenda as
> well.
Yes, damn evil of them scientists, always
theorizing on why this or that happens. Evil to
the core! Especially when they come up with a
theory that goes against the religious dogma of a
small group of religions that adhere to Biblical
literalism. Shocking. And like the creation
"scientist" don't have an agenda? Actually, they,
like the supposed scientists you referred to (if
it's a true statement) would have been guilty of
the same thing: Starting out with a prior
conclusion. The scientists that set out to
demonstrate that second hand smoke caused health
problem found evidence to support their views,
politically motivated ones at that. The point is,
and one of the reason real science works, is that
it is open to scientific review, otherwise, their
findings would have gone unchallenged. This is
the same with creation science. It proceeds with
the Genesis account as being actual, literal
history, and therefore, by excluding contrary
evidence (Not to be confused with excluding
contrary theories) find evidence for a 6000 year
old earth. You can prove *anything* by excluding
contrary evidence.
> >
> >>> "The actual proofs"? I don't understand what you're asking for.
> >Evolution is
> >>> a theory. Give me the proofs that the earth revolves around the
> >sun! You
> >>> can't see the earth move. As far as you can tell, the sun does all
> >the
> >>> moving! The Catholic Church punished a lot of great thinkers over
> >the years
> >>> for arging that the earth was not the center of the universe. Don't
> >confuse
> >>> science and religion, please. You'll only be disappointed in the end.
>
> Hardly, Scripture describes the earth as an orb suspended in space. No
> where does it state that the sun is the center of the universe. However,
> until we determine the quantity and location of dark matter, the answer to
> that question is still up for grabs.
What does the location and quantity of dark matter
have to do with the location of the Earth, or
whether it orbits the sun? Or the location of the
sun in space for that matter? Or are you just
grabbing catch phrases from somewhere?
> >>
> >>The two are acutally quite compatable. The Scripture says that the
> >earth is an orb suspended in space, It it a travesty, as you say,
> >however, when men, whether Christian or not do not take the time to
> >understand what is written.
> >
> >Please. The Biblical account of Genesis can not be taken literally, or
> >you ask for such a suspension of natural law that you might as well
> >claim that God is living in your refrigerator. Creationists (although
> >they often disagree amongst themselves
>
> as do evolutions as to exactly which fossils are human)
"Where to draw the line?" Not a problem.
>
> >assert such a wide range of
> >scientifically inaccurate and laughable suppositions (such as the idea
> >that the coral reefs that would have taken millions of years to grow
> >somehow arrived in a matter of millenia, or that the Great Flood
> >caused the formation of the Grand Canyon) that it is infuriating to
> >even try to argue with them in any scientific manner.
>
> I agree, there are many arguments regarding timing and mechanisms in
> creationalism, not unlike similar arguments within the evolutionalists
> camp. Scripture says that Noahšs flood was to destroy the Nephilim who
> lived within a specific geographic region. The Nephilim were humanoid,
> but not descended from Adam and Eve who were formed on day 8 nor the men
> and women created on day 6.
My, my. Interpreting the Bible. Not very
literal.
> >
> >>> In fact, the fossil record supports creation and not evolution.
> >>>
> >>> You have got to be kidding me. You have some guts, making such
> >assertions
> >>> without backing them up. How much do you really know about fossils?
> >Are you
> >>> aware that it has been proven that it takes millions of years for
> >the actual
> >>> process of fossilization to take place? That fact, in and of itself,
> >>> disproves the popular Christian misconception that the Earth is
> >only 4 or
> >>> 6,000 years old.
> >>
> >>The Scripture does not say that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
> >That belief went out with Elizabethian times. The Scripture says that
> >the forming of Adam and Eve was 6000 years ago. Many things happened
> >before that, according to Scripture including another entire earth age
> >including, perhaps a pre-Adamic race, and for which time frame is not
> >specified by Scripture.
> >
> >Don't split hairs.
>
> In all humbleness, I an not splitting hairs, merely providing more
> accurate evidence for you to consider, if you are not prejudiced to
> receive it.
No matter where the 6000 year figure came from,
6-10 thousand years old is what the Creationist
are trying to assert as the the age of the Earth
and Universe. And if you are willing to toss that
out, then why not also accept evolution based upon
the evidence? There is a lot of evidence to
support evolution, and it's not "made up" to fit
the theory either.
>
> First of all, I'm sure you'd find a lot of
> >Creationists out there who believed the whole Earth history only
> >encompassed 6,000 years or so.
>
> And there are a lot of evolutionalists argueing about the accuracy of
> Cladograms of human origins as well.
Irrelevant.
>
> How was I to know you weren't one of
> >them?
>
> Then why treat me as if I were?
Because you sound like one?
>
> Furthermore, that is besides the fact that your myth is still
> >scientifically unsound. Do you believe in the Noachian Ark myth?
>
> As I said, the flood was to destroy the Nephilim, its purpose was not to
> deatroy the earth. It is an extrapolation to assume that the flood was
> world wide.
Tell that to the literalists.
>
> Try
> >explaining the logistics of storing all those species and their food
> >and dealing with their defecationÖ as well as the geological
> >impossibilities of a sudden flood and equally sudden repeal of the
> >waters? I know, I knowÖ God did it. That's quite a science you've got
> >there.
>
> You are correct, only your assumption of the flood as described in
> Scripture is flawed.
So are Creationists', then. I trust that the next
time one of them pipes up and claims that there
was a world wide flood, you will correct them?
> >
> >>> You want evidence that creation is a load of bunk? How about the
> >geologic
> >>> record indicating that the more complex creatures appear higher
> >(that is,
> >>> more recently) in the record than simpler animals...
>
> Quite similar to the creation described in Genesis in the second earth
> age, actually. No information is provided for creation in the first earth
> age regarding order and timing.
"Second Earth Age"?
>
> that humans
> >(indeed,
> >>> almost all mammals) appear millions of years after the dinosaurs...
>
> Dinosaurs were of the first earth age, not the current one.
I get the distinct impression of a "New Ager", or
possibly, a Catastrophist.
[snip]
> I never advocated that which you imply of my arguments. I have no idea
> what happened in the destruction of the first earth age. But polar
> shifting, of which there was evidence of having occured in the past would
> wipe out all of us if it were to happen tomorrow morning and leave few
> scant eviidence of what some consider our greatness. And a meteror the
> size of the moon would be even more devastating. I never claimed to know
> all of the answers, only that the evidence does not discredit the
> Scriptural account as it was written in Hebrew.
There was no "pole shift", such as you imply. If
the poles were to shift at rates of speed implied
by such catastrophists, the heat generated would
have melted the crust of the earth, especially the
thin crust of the ocean floors. There is no
evidence of this, and core drillings into the
crust of the ocean floors demonstrate this beyond
a shadow of reasonable doubt. Even the structure
of the sediment overlying the oceanic basalt shows
that there was not "pole shift", along with the
magnetic "fossils" that record the orientation and
strength of the magnetic field on either sides of
the spreading zones show that there was no "pole
shift". The pole shift is a fantasy based upon
selective, and misunderstood, evidence.
[snipped]
> >>> This is completely beside the point that the fossil record is
> >evidence of
> >>> things that happened millions of years ago. Many creationists
> >attempt to
> >>> discredit evolution by saying "Science is about observing, and,
> >since no one
> >>> was there to observe evolution 'taking place', it can never be
> >fact!"
>
> I agree with you and find such as argument mere gibberish as much of the
> social sciences are. I do agree, however, with the creationalists basic
> beliefs, and stand firm with them, but would argue with this mechanism.
Then forensic evidence is invalid? Look, if you
come home, and find the front window of your house
broken, and inside find the shards of glass laying
in a pattern radiating from the window's location,
and a brick laying on the floor among the pieces
of glass, is it erroneous to conclude that someone
threw a brick through the window, simply because
there were no witnesses? If you believe that is
faulty reasoning, and invalidates historical
sciences, such as paleontology, or historical
geology, then you need to re-examine the
methodology again, as in, the "scientific method".
>
> What
> >>> are you doing now by even referring to fossils?
>
> Seeking the truth like you. Do you think that creationalists should be
> prevented from considering the fossil record in their quest for truth? Or
> do you believe that only evolutionalists are entitled to study fossils?
Creationists should study the fossil record. Then
we wouldn't hear the incipient claim of "No
transitional fossils have been found" so often.
It would save a lot of time. But then, one leg of
their cherished dogma would fall down. That being
their claim that all "kinds" were created, and
immutable".
>
> My point is that the fossil record does not discredit creation. I do not
> make such a statement without studying the fossil record. That would be
> unscientific of me. We are both scientists, our only difference should be
> our hypothesis, neither may ever be provable within science. Only one is
> provable in to me within my relationship with God.
Perhaps if you did not refer to yourself as a
"Creationist", but rather a "Catastrophist", you
would not be classed as a "Creationist".
Creationists, usually interpreted to mean
(Especially in Talk.Origins, means Young Earth
Creationist, or shortened to YEC.)
[snip]
It would be a good idea for you to augment your
study with a couple of good texts on both
historical and physical geology, so that you can
see why both creationism and catastrophism are
"mocked" (disagreed with).
> >
> >>> Evolution is not a fact.
>
> Thank you for your assertions.
And an incorrect assertion at that. Evolution is
the name that describes the change of the genetic
characteristic of populations of organisms through
time. That this occurs, is a fact, supported by
direct observation, both in the labs and in
nature. *Why* populations evolve are
theoretical. The relations ship is identical to
lightning. We see the flash of light, the bright
stream of light connecting the cloud to the
ground, and we hear the clap of thunder. That
this event occurs is without question. It is a
fact that can be verified on a daily, even
hourly, basis, somewhere in the world,
continuously. *How* and *Why* lightning occurs,
is theoretical. Thor's hammer, Zeus, or God
smiting someone or something that offended them,
or the release of accumulated electrical charge.
>
> It is simply a theory that has been so
> >corroborated
> >>> by decades of research and evidence that it can be (and has been)
> >reliably
> >>> utilized as a means to predict future developments in genetics and
> >biology.
>
> Genetics? You mean intelligent intervention of the gene pool? Or
> intelligent intervention in the creation of medicine that has unnaturally
> forced bacteria to mutate? What future developments in genetics and
> biology are you referring to?
A better way to put it, "Genetics, the study of
genes, or DNA, if you like, shows a clear
relationship between closely related species, and
demonstrates a divergence the forward through
time, and a convergence back in time, which
matches theoretical relationships based upon
morphology, and in most cases, strongly supported
by the fossil record.
> >>
> >>Such as, the most common proofs of evolution are beak width,
> >bacterial changes, dog breeding, iincreasing human height, etc. None
> >of these prove evolution, but are extensively talked about as if they
> >are proofs.
> >
> >Who are you to judge whether findings are corroborative evidence to
> >support a theory?
>
> Who are you to judge whether Scripture is as you say it is based on a
> unreliable representation of your belief that creation occurs in a mere
> two chapters of Scripture?
Nice subject change.
>
> Who am I? If your implied question is whether it is
> >ultimately more fruitful for scientists and other people to utilize
> >the evolutionary theory of the origin of species or the Biblical
> >account of Genesis to make and apply further predictions about
> >biological exploration, my money would be on evolution.
>
> I apreciate your conviction, but why are you so convinced?
Personally, the evidence. Please feel free to
refute mainstream science using the scientific
methodology required. That means any refutation
must be verifiable or repeatable, consistent, and
objective. It would help if it was falsifiable
too. IN other word, is your refutation
falsifiable too?
>
> And so,
> >whether you like it or not, do you. The Biblical account of Genesis is
> >unsupported and unsupportable, as it posits a wide range of miraculous
> >functions and actions of a deity undetectable by any sort of
> >scientific endeavor. So what's the point? We might as well give up on
> >trying to know anything, if we are the product of a series of magical
> >events.
>
> Nothing is magical, but all has a purpose. Godšs plan for man is not
> magical, but purposeful, specific, and well documented.
You are sounding like a YEC again. What purpose?
> >
> >>>
> >>>Darwin's theories of mechanisms have been entirely discredited even
> >by the most
> >>>
> >>> devout evolutionists.
I don't know who said this, but they must have
been tipping the keg a weeeee bit too much, and
are ignorant of the facts.
> >>>
> >>> Hello. My name is John. I'm here to explain something to you. It's
> >a very
> >>> simple fact, and it's something you need to understand.
> >>>
> >>> DISCREDITING SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF A THEORY DOES NOT DISCREDIT THE
> >THEORY AS A
> >>> WHOLE.
>
> I agree, neither do your agruments discrediting Scripture based upon what
> it does not say support evolution, nor your proofs offered discredit
> creation.
The inerrancy of Scripture has nothing to do with
the real world. It only concerns the consistency
of the works themselves. The Scriptures are
nothing more that a body of written works that
provide the foundation of certain religious
beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less. Though they
may contain historical items that may be actual
history, and morality guides, their usefulness as
a science text, is virtually nil. Even worse, is
the idea that the Scriptures are a *source* of
scientific knowledge, over what the people that
wrote it could have derived from simple
observation. (Washing wounds, and so on.)
> >>
[snippage]
>
> Your representation of Scripture relating to a big man in the sky making
> peple out of clay is seriously lacking in understanding of the Scripture.
> Or do you advocate that flesh is not made up of the same earthly compounds
> found commonly throughout the planet? Hello, my name is Michael.
It's in the Book. Genesis clearly states that God
made Adam out of clay. And hello, man has more in
common with sea water than with clay. Much
more. Besides, if man were made out of clay,
we'd be a silicone based life form, not carbon
based, which is only found in clay as a
contaminant.
> >>
> >> There were no creditable scientists who denied that, in general,
> >leeching was not a valuable medical
> >> principle a century ago either.
> >
> >How do you know?
>
> If there were, they would have not done it so long.
>
> There had to be at least one, because the process
> >originally stopped. Get it?
>
> Not until after centuries of worthless blood letting.
>
> That's how science works. First a theory
> >is revolutionary (or even considered dangerous), then it is radical,
> >then it is tested, then it (if supported) is tolerated, then accepted,
> >thenÖ eventuallyÖ it becomes the standard model. This process allows
> >for error, true: but it also allows for a great deal of TRIAL and
> >error. That trial is the trial of testing, experimentation and
> >analysis. Someone, at some point, instead of blindly adhering to the
> >suppositions of his peers and forefathers, suspected and asserted that
> >leeching was not the efficacious practice it was assumed to be. You
> >support the scientific method, whether you realize it or not.
>
> There we both agree again, and I am fully cognizant of my support of the
> scientific method, it is a method built upon Christian capital.
And what does that last assertion mean? Does it
mean that every scientific theory must pay homage
to Christianity or something? Include God for
some reason? Start with "Our Father, we present
the theory of "X", and end with an "Amen"? What
relevance is the origin of the scientific method?
> >
> >> Einstien denied the possibility of black holes predicted by his own
> >theories.
> >
> >Yes. He is an individual. He is human. He made a mistake.
>
> Are you saying that black holes do not exist? I do not think that you
> would find a lot of company in the scientific community that would be so
> authoritative. You are right, he is human, as are all scientists.
Did the fellow say that black holes did not exist?
>
> He has made
> >others and, as I've pointed out, he admitted it when he was "called"
> >on it. He never claimed to know "The Truth".
>
> He did know God, however.
Evidence? Not that his religious beliefs have
anything to do with anything.
>
> The only people who ever
> >do are you and yours.
>
> Not so, Einstien was not a Christian, but he is a brother in Isreal to me,
> I believe by blood, others believe by adoption. It makes little
> difference either way.
Then why bring it up, or drag it out?
>
> The process of scientific exploration is an
> >ongoing process. Mistakes will be made.
>
> Hopefully, some day they will be fixed.
I doubt that they will "roll back the clock" to
ancient catastrophism or creationism.
>
> However, the further and more
> >completely and minutely a subject or area is explored, and the more
> >securely the basic aspects of a given theory are corroborated, the
> >more "robust" the theory is considered to be. Such is the case with
> >evolution. You can not seriously believe that the fossil record
> >supports the theory of creation. It does no such thing.
>
> Here we disagree, completely.
That again, depends upon your use of the word
"creationism". The fossil record and both
historical geology and physical geology refute any
sort of YEC creationism, as does Astronomy.
Historical and physical geology also rule out most
forms of "new age" catastrophism too, or Biblical
catastrophism too.
[snip]
> >
> >A variety of fossils supporting the basic ideas of evolution have been
> >found in the century following the publication of Darwin's work. It
> >would surely be the find of the century - perhaps even the greatest
> >find of all time - if a fossil or other evidence were found that
> >dramatically altered the perception of the origin of man. It would
> >certainly make a man's career - far more than finding evidence to
> >support a theory already in existence. How surprising, then, that
> >scientist after scientist, around the world, continue to find fossil
> >evidence of the evolution of species. Just recently, a fossil dubbed
> >"ambulocetus natans" was discovered that appears to be a transitional
> >form related to the whale. What a bore: more evidence of evolution!
>
> One of few that would be required to substantiate such a grand theory, and
> inconclusive at best.
There are many more example of transitional
fossils. The transition between reptile and
mammal are so finely divided that the distinction
is blurred to the point that the terms "mammal
like reptiles" and "reptile like mammals" is used
to describe them. Read about more "transitionals"
at :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Boikat
-"It is a capital offense to theorize
before one has data. Insensibly
one begins to twist facts to suit
theories, instead of theories to
suit facts."
Sherlock Holmes, "A Scandal in Bohemia", A. C.
Doyle-
Boikat
>
> >>has produced Piltdown man-an equally bad product of blind faith not
> >unlike what you have charged
> >>Christianity alone with.
> >
> >You insult my and your own intelligence by making such a patently
> >phony attack. You can not expect me to believe that you actually think
> >that Piltdown Man was the result of "blind faith in evolution"?!? The
> >Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax.
>
> Why would someone attempt a hoax other than to prove a belief? One needs
> to think rationally about why one promotes hoaxes. What purpose would it
> serve--evidence of scientific method? Fame for one to proove evolution?
> Personal gain? More likely evidence of wanting to proove what can not be
> proved for political purposes.
>
So, you claim to know the motives of the
perpetrator? What is your evidence that it was
not a practical joke that got out of hand? Or
inspired by nationalism?
> So are the countless scraps of the
> >Shroud of Turin and the splinters of the True Cross and the Spear of
> >Destiny.
>
> Testing of the Shroud of
> Turin is also inconclusive as are some splinters of the cross. That does
> not either proove nor disproove the actual event which is well docuemnted.
Documented well after the fact. That doesn't
count for much either.
>
> Do they refute, in your mind, the knowledge that such items
> >exist or existed? Evolution is not a religion.
>
> Do not be so sure. Religion is defined as any system of beliefs under
> defination 3 of my dictionary. Nothing more, nothing less.
What about definition 1 and two? What about
context. Definition 3 probably includes football
fandom too, and that context of "religion" is not
the context that is implied in these forums about
creationism/catastrophism and evolution/mainstream
science.
>
> > It is not even a dogma.
>
> Really. A dogma is an assertion a priori without proof. I admit my
> religion and dogma, others should be as honest. Neither hypothesis is
> proven by the fossil record, my mind is open, is yours?
The fossil record is evidence, the better evidence
is genetics and morphology.
>
> >There is spirited and welcome debate within the scientific community
> >(and outside it) on many aspects of the process by which evolution
> >took place. What is generally accepted, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, is that
> >evolution is the process by which different species occurred and
> >developed.
>
> You keep talking about evidence, but to what are you referring to?
> Tattersail, a reputable evolutionalists states that łEventually I pluched
> up the courage to ask a distinguished scholar the crucial question: how
> does on study fossils? The answer? You look at them long enough, and they
> speak to you....When youąre out there selling such complicagted
> narratives, normal scientiific testability just innąt an issue: how many
> of your colleagues or others buy your story depends principally on how
> convincing or forceful a storyteller you are-and on how willing your
> audience is to believe the kind of thing you are saying˛
So, the guy didn't get a very good answer.
Besides, the fossil record is not the main what
evolution is based upon.
>
> The above quote is from 165 and 169 of the Fossil Trail.
And what year was that written out of curiosity?
And who wrote it?
>
> Is this the evidentuary conslusions to which you refer? How willing are
> evolutionalists to believe the kind of convincing storytelling that is
> being said? This is hardly sceintific method at its best.
There is more to it than "story telling". This
may be good catch phrases for the gullible, but
doesn't fly very far with those that have an
understanding of the subject.
>
> If there were a better theory, we would probably already be
> >using it. The fact that one does not exist is one of the strongest
> >indicators that the theory is relatively close to what actually
> >occurred. But, of course, we can never know, just as we can never KNOW
> >that the sun will come up tomorrow. But billions of days in a row is a
> >pretty good body of evidence in favor of a sunrise tomorrow, isn't it?
>
> Interesting that you use the word sunrise? Do you believe that the earth
> is still and the sun is moving as your statement clearly states?
Playing the semantics game are we?
> Can you
> be sure that your dismissal of Scriptural statements are not also
> dependent upon a misunderstanding of solid planar references (in the
> Einstien sense) and figures of speech, rather than studying what they
> actually meant to the writers? If the Hebrews used the phrase, Judah
> painted the town red, and it was literally translated into English, would
> you ask what size paint brust he used or would you laugh at his stupidity?
Both.
> >
> >How many times do I have to tell you? Science, unlike Christianity,
> >evolves.
>
> Evolves no, you could never tell me enough times that would be
> convincing. Social sciences nor sceintific method evolves. That is a mis
> application of the term. Advancing theories and testing them is the
> scientific method. In your example of Edison inventing the light bulb, it
> did not evolve. Each test was carefully documented, failures were
> discredited until a reliable solution was achieved. The final light bulb
> did not evolve from the first. It has no relation to the failures.
Your misunderstanding of the previous posters word
is understandable. you apparently missed his
point.
>
> More recent data indicate that what we thought was fossilized
> >bacteria in that famous Mars rock may simply turn out to be
> >crystallization. Is this disappointing? Yes. But such is science. Cold
> >fusion is now considered a joke. Why? Because scientists were unable
> >to reproduce the supposed results of an experiment. The story
> >illustrates the strength of the scientific method and the ongoing
> >process of scientific exploration. We take nothing for granted.
>
> Nor do I, certainly evolution included.
Unlike the above mentioned examples, evolution has
been observed. :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> No one
> >thinks the Piltdown Man is a legitimate fossil. Not anymore.
>
> But thy did once as a convenient winning argument that was widely held for
> a while.
Not universally, not by a long shot. Piltdown was
controversial within the scientific community from
the very start, and also, was exposed by
scientists.
>
> Past
> >failures are not illustrations of weakness in the scientific method.
>
> You are quite right, Piltdown was a disgrace to the scientific method, as
> any preconceived notions without any basis are.
Like creationism or catastrophism.
Ah, and that's why you take *his* word. Because
it's easily rebuked as being "subjective". Try
pulling that with Dawkins or Gould.
>
> >Remember what I said: it doesn't matter who says it. Judge the theory
> >on its own merit.
>
> I am, are you?
From what you have written so far, you have not.
[snip]
> .. But a great many Christians believe that creation was achieved through
> evolution, I believe that they are wrong regarding both their timing and
> mechanisms based upon what the Hebreew says rather than what most believe
> that it says without study , but not in their basic belief of creation.
You keep saying "according to what the "original
Hebrew says". What does the original Hebrew say?
> >
> >>> Besides... the whole point of the scientific method is that ideas
> >and theories
> >>> and hypotheses are constantly created and refuted or supported.
> >That's what's
> >>> _supposed_ to happen! Lamarck had an idea about passing traits on
> >to the next
> >>> generation. He was wrong and he was proven wrong. That's how
> >science works! Do
> >>> you not understand that, or are you just trying to be difficult!
>
> I am not trying to be difficult. I do not find the proofs that support
> evolution credible. And you are not presenting any.
What would you accept? Assuming your mind is as
open as you claim?
[snip]
[more snippage about Biblical translations. Hey,
translations from the original were Divinely
inspired, and without error. All of the separate
versions.]
>
> What scientific explanation
> >could there possibly be for the anecdote in the Bible where the sun
> >stops in the sky for a while?
>
> I do not have a definative answer for this, but I do offer the possibility
> of Einstien reference planes which could provide a possible answer to that
> which we both seek.
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle
them with BS".
>
> What could have caused such an event? Is
> >it more likely that such an event actually occurred, which would have
> >likely resulted in the destruction of all life on the planet, or is it
> >more likely that the composers of that part of the Bible were simply
> >relating an exaggerating, epic tale of the sort often told in olden
> >days - where miraculous and magical events were mingled into a story
> >simply to make it more interesting?
>
> Certainly a possible explanation. The answer may be in the lost book of
> Jasher, which is not part of Scripture and an interruption in this passage
> to include reference to another event.
So, the answer is in a lost book that nobody's
read since it got lost several centuries ago.
Talk about leaps of faith.
> The thing requested by the Hebrew
> is additional daylight at the time of the meridian based upon the
> seclection of Gideon and the Valley of Ajlon referenced for the time of
> eventual sunset. A possible explanation is possible using reflection and
> refraction, there is the possibility of refraction making the sun appear
> above the horizon when its actual location is below due to some sort of
> atmospheric volcanic dust, etc. Keil and Bush have done some possible
> explanations using the laws of refraction as possible scientific
> explanations. This passage is frequently used to state that the Scripture
> says that the sun is the center of the universe, it clearly does not say
> this.
No, it is cited as evidence that the sun orbits
the Earth. And no amount of atmospheric
refraction is going to make the sun appear to
stand still for 24 hours.
> >
> >And if you're going to say that all those amazing things happened
> >because God made them possible, then I'm afraid we can discuss it no
> >longer, because you then leave the area of rational discussion and
> >enter the realm of religious mania.
>
> I never claimed to have all the answers, not even on creation. only that
> the fossil record in no way discredits what Scripture says nor that it
> prooves evolution. Referring to me as a manic depressive physochosis
> which is a specific defination of mania in my dictionary is not very
> tolerant to my viewpoint, irrespective of yours, however.
Psychosis aside, if evolution does not conflict
with scripture, the scripture should not conflict
with evolution, and since there is verifiable
evidence that evolution as a phenomena, is a fact,
then what's your problem?
>
[snip]
> >However, the fact remains that, again, if you explore the subject
> >rationally, Occam's Razor applies: if the two choices are that the
> >Biblical account of Genesis is a perfectly accurate account of events
> >leading to the relative present, or a series of stories developed by
> >our ancestors to provide answers to then-unanswerable questionsÖ I'm
> >afraid I'm going to have to go with the story theory.
>
> It would seem that you conclusions are based upon a rather brief, and I
> might add, rather light study of the Scripture. At one time, I would have
> agreed with you and woudl have been cheered on by my college professors
> who were largely ignorant of Scripture. I didnąt have blind faith in
> their opinion either, but sought my own research which completely
> discredited their view in my opinion. I did not expect nor plan to reach
> the conclusions I have reached, but God in His grace has provided me with
> more that I had bargained for.
Terribly happy for you old chap, but what does
your personal religious beliefs have to do with
anything other than your personal beliefs? Not
that your personal religious convictions has
anything to do with science, however.
[snip]
> >Nonsense. How many ways can you use the term "creation"?
>
> Sudden evolution. Gradual change. How many ways can you use the term
> evolution?
Both. There is no set rate of change. Much
depends upon stability of the environment. If the
environment is stable, evolution usually
progresses at a slow rate, if the is a relative
rapid change, the rate of evolutionary change
increases. There are several other factors as
well, number of offspring pr mated pair, for
example.
> These are two markedly different timing and mechanisms. Tattersail
> confirms that there is no generally accepted concept of the timing nor
> mechanisms of evolution. He further refutes that there is any real idea
> on how the process could begin.
Again, you seem to hang of Tattersail because he's
wishy-washy.
>
> Gould merely
> >postulates that the process of development from a simpler creature to
> >a more complex one took fewer steps and less time than do some other
> >people. At no point does he concede the possibility that a god had any
> >hand in it. Read his work. Hell, write him a letter. Get the facts
> >from the man himself. You'll find out just how supportive he is of
> >creation and creationists.
>
> I would love to read his work--and write him a letter. I am not familiar
> with him, what work would you recommend. Please send by e-mail if
> possible. By the time I get done with this, I suspect that the intolerant
> humanists evolutionalists will have well plastered me with their mean
> spirited cat calls of ignorant fundie--and I do not wish to read through
> all of the dribble. I have far better things to do with my time.
Like write 1500 or so lines of text and post them
in three parts?
Go to Amazon dot Com and look for books by Gould,
and Dawkins also.
[snip]
> >You had me up until the last part. You must be crazy. You must be.
> >"Conclusive proofs"?!? I just explained to you that, at this point,
> >and given the wealth of corroborative evidence we have, evolution is
> >far and away the best and most comprehensive explanation we have for
> >the origin of species.
>
> Explanation yes, you have been emphatic regarding your belief, but absent
> in proofs.
You haven't been paying attention. There is no
"proof" in science, gust "Evidence", and the
evidence support evolution.
> The Scripture suggests men created on day 6, Adam and Eve
> formed on day 8, the Nephilim born in Chapter 6, the descendants of Cain
> whose father may not have been Adam, and a possible pre-Adamic race before
> verse 2 of Chapter 1.
And this is refuted by the physical evidence. Get
over it.
>
> Your parrot-like chanting that there is no
> >"proof" of the "truth" of evolution does not make it so.
>
> Your parrot like chanting that Scripture says man was created 6000 years
> ago as a single event does not make it so.
You have to remember, you are quoting the YEC
line. Is it any wonder that the pervious posted
equates you with YECism?
>
> There is no
> >evidence against the theory of evolution. If there were, maybe you'd
> >have an argument. But you don't. BesidesÖ as I've said, I don't
> >imagine that there would any proof anyone COULD find that would
> >convince you. So why bother?
>
> There is no evidence against the theory of creation. If there were, maybe you'd
> have an argument. But you don't. Besides, as I've said, I don't
> imagine that there would any proof anyone COULD find that would
> convince you. So why bother?
There is plenty of evidence against YECism. The
only reason YECisnm persists is because it is a
religious dogma. That mans the adherents *must*
ignore contrary evidence. I see the parallel with
your views.
>
> >
> >>How is the Bible the Word of God? There are many proofs, none of
> >which you would probably find
> >>conclusive. The one that is absolutely conclusive to me is what is
> >in my heart. This followed an
> >>extensive study of Scripture questioning everything as you have also.
> > There is no prohibition against
> >>questioning, God calls us to do this for He wants my love by choice,
> >not by force.
> >
> >Exactly. You have faith that you are right. You neither need nor would
> >respond to evidence. Since you "KNOW" that you are right, you would
> >not be in any way open or even cognizant of evidence disproving or
> >discrediting your Book of TRUTH. How the hell am I supposed to talk to
> >someone like that?
>
> Exactly. You have faith that you are right. You neither need nor would
> respond to a possibility which disagrees with your faith. Since you "KNOW"
> that you are right, you would not be in any way open or even cognizant of
> evidence disproving or
> discrediting your łtruth˛ of evolution. How the heck am I supposed to talk to
> someone like that?
I see you have fallen on a tactic of someone who
is at a loss for words. You simply are repeating
what the other person said and transposed you
slant, which comes out sounding idiotic, given the
subject. So, I suppose we can dismiss the rest of
this too, along with "Part III", since you have
much better things to do.
Chao baby!
>
Boikat
-"Ignorance more frequently begets
confidence than does knowledge: it
is those who know little, and not those
who know much, who positively assert
that this or that problem will never be
solved by science"-
Charles Darwin, Introduction: "Decent of Man"-
J. Michael Phillips
***snip***
>
>and it hardly establishes atheism as state religion. thats another
>paranoid delusion of religious fanatics stated without proof.
Actually, Secular Humanism is a lot closer to being the "state
religion" in the United States. Atheism is still a minority.
***snip***
J. Michael Phillips
I plan to live forever . . .
. . . so far so good! :)
Kevin R. Henke
Pim van Meurs wrote in message <36868127...@eskimo.com>...
"Kevin R. Henke" wrote:
>
> I am not aware of Duane Gish, but I am aware that in most public schools,
> creation is forbidden to be discussed.
Which creation account are you talking about ? And what class would you have
it
be discussed ?
> That hardly qualifies as honest debate, and forces the religious beliefs
of
> athiesm as a de facto state
> religion and limits free speech and denying God in a nation that places
its
> trust in God.
>
On the contrary it applies the laws of this country. Or would you now allow
any
crackpot theory to have equal time in schools ?
KRH: WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS. THESE ARE MICHAEL BURT'S
WORDS. Please see my original post, Pim. Please be careful of how you cut
and paste. Ok? Kevin
wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
>On 27 Dec 1998 09:57:01 -0500, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>***snip***
>>
>>and it hardly establishes atheism as state religion. thats another
>>paranoid delusion of religious fanatics stated without proof.
>
>Actually, Secular Humanism is a lot closer to being the "state
>religion" in the United States. Atheism is still a minority.
>
>***sni
actually its not. the US is a secular state. it is not a secular
humanist state.
Pim van Meurs
"Kevin R. Henke" wrote:
> Pim van Meurs wrote in message <36868127...@eskimo.com>...
>
> "Kevin R. Henke" wrote:
>
> >
> > I am not aware of Duane Gish, but I am aware that in most public schools,
> > creation is forbidden to be discussed.
>
> Which creation account are you talking about ? And what class would you have
> it
> be discussed ?
>
> > That hardly qualifies as honest debate, and forces the religious beliefs
> of
> > athiesm as a de facto state
> > religion and limits free speech and denying God in a nation that places
> its
> > trust in God.
> >
>
> On the contrary it applies the laws of this country. Or would you now allow
> any
> crackpot theory to have equal time in schools ?
>
> KRH: WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS. THESE ARE MICHAEL BURT'S
> WORDS. Please see my original post, Pim. Please be careful of how you cut
> and paste. Ok? Kevin
I apologize, the attributions are correct but I believe it is related to your
quoting style. You do not appear to be adding ">" characters to what you quote
and insert KRH: to your own comment. This confuses the software.
Matt Silberstein
(michael burt):
[snip]
>
>The sun shines every day. If that were a sufficient source of energy,
>would not new species be forming every day? Would they not be forming
>before our very eyes?
>
Biologist do, even if you don't. These pages have a few references for
you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq%2Dspeciation.html and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
[snip]
>It may be more significant than you may think. The source of life will
>more likely be found in cosmological study rather than biology.
Can you support this claim? I see lots of work on this in biology,
none in cosmology. But if you know of other research I am interested.
> The
>Hebrew Scripture is the only ancient writing that affirms the current
>findings in cosmology. That would not be a surprise to me.
>
Funny, Capra has the same view about Taoism.
[snip]
>
>Genesis is not a Christian document, it is Godšs Word in my belief. All
>of the options you provide are still creation events. Why would you
>restrict me to agrue in the framework established by you? My study of
>Genesis suggests a much different timing and mechanism from that which you
>want to restrict it to.
What do you do if your interpretation of the document conflicts with
observations of the world? Which has more authority? If the document,
then I ask you how you know about the document except via observation
of the world. If you say the world, then you consign the document to
filling the as yet unfilled gaps left by observation of the world. Or
you can accept that the document is just not a description of actual
events, whether or not it is God's Word.
[snip]
>
>Sorry, the laws of thermodynamics, not necessarily restricted to the
>second, suggest a burst of created species through an energy input, and
>then a gradual decline of species into extinction.
Please provide the calculations that lead to this conclusion.
Personally, I can see no way to go from any of the laws of
thermodynamics to anything about speciation. Thermo is not path
dependent, biology is.
> This is the fossil
>record of both the first and second earth ages. The Genesis account in
>the second age records a progression of creative bursts from lower to
>higher forms of life as well, which is why some intrepret it as creation
>by evolution.
But we do not see two sets of "bursts", we see continuous change. Not
continuous change in a single lineage, but for any time we see change,
not stasis.
[snip]
>Actually, it simply allows for the gradual increase of entropy which would
>best be characterized by extinction rather than evolution.
Why? Anyway, the Earth is far from equilibrium and so you can't use
equilibrium calculations.
>The Biblical record is how man fell from the image of God to his present
>state, and what he must do to regain eternal life. The evolutionalists
>beleives that man is a chance happening with no purpose and that anything
>new is better than anything old having evolved into a superior state.
No, but thanks for trying. Evolution, like all of science, does not
presuppose any purpose. But not pre-supposing purpose does not mean
denying purpose. Nor does evolution speak of better or superior. It
speaks of relative fitness related to the environment.
>Dinosaurs were first earth age, current man from the second earth age.
>
What about trilobites?
[snip]
>Let me explain something else to you. Evolutionalists love to take
>individual pieces of evidence and find ways to refute them (in your
>response alone, we have counter-experts, discrediting of experts,
>alternate interpretation of evidence, blanket statements, unsupported
>assertions, changing the subject, mis-quoting of Scripture (!),
>misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the theory of creation,
>misrepresentation of creationalists and the extension of past
>"mistakes" of religion). However, what you can not refute is that the
>evidence overwhelmingly and cumulatively points to creation (as
>opposed to happless error) as the origin of species.
>
Then please point to observations of a single creation event.
[snip]
>\You believe in evolution because it is your religion as it was in ancient
>Babel.
Funny, I accept evolution because it is the best explanation for our
observations. It has nothing at all to do with my religious beliefs.
This
>is your dogma. You have no intention or willingness to change your
>opinion because you believe you are RIGHT. That is not science. That
>is religion.
>
Just like I won't change my opinion about gravity. Must be a religion
as well.
[snip]
>The definition of religion does not require a Bible, nor a god. What I
>see is first evolutionalists had the idea. Then they intrepreted the
>evidence to fit their beliefs.
That is a rather serious accusation. I hope you have sufficient
support. If not, you are bearing false witness. Lots of people
consider that a sin.
[snip]
>
>I doubt that it was an evolutionalists, but I donšt know. Do you know any
>more specifics? Smith Woodward, Grafton Smith, Arthur Kieth, Theilhard de
>Chardin, and Alex Hrdlicka were principle actors. The fraud was
>perpertrated in 1912 and not fully discovered until 1953. Dawson
>undoubteldy had a hand in the deception.
Undoubtedly? Surely you have support for this.
>Tnose involved certainly knew
>what to fake so as to be accepted by the establishment relatively
>uncritically. It was the fradulent esistence of Piltdown man as THE
>MISSING LINK
I strongly suggest that you read about the science of the time, not
just the name of the people. Piltdown Man, which was an anomaly from
the start, and not accepted much outside England, was not a major
"missing link", it was a piece in the puzzle of what aspect evolved
first. We have, since then, found scores of more useful human
ancestors.
> SCIENTIFICALLY :PROVEN that changes the public perception
>against evolution to evolution since it was though to be conclusively
>proven for over 40 years, two entire generations. Piltdown is still the
>main reason many believe that evolution has been scientifically proven,
>even though it was a purposeful hoax intended to mislead the public.
>
And you have evidence for the claims here as well: that it the main
reason and that it was intended to mislead the public.
[snip]
>I do not ask you to believe anything I say, but I do ask you to give it
>consideration. Trust no man whether religious or scientist. We must not
>leave our theology nor our education completely in the hands of others.
Better yet, supply references to information, not just claims.
[snip]
>
>Your credit to me is well placed. I can not tell you the exact timing and
>mechanisms, but I can tell you that the fossil record still supports
>creation over evolution.
A creation that lasted billions of years, that saw stepwise changes of
organisms, that saw a branching nested hierarchy? Odd creation that.
> It is being added back into the cirricula at one
>of our local school systems after being banned for over 40 years to be
>taught along with evolution.
Where is that?
> The reason given by the school system,
>evolution is just a theory that is not convincingly supportable at this
>time.
>
Too bad, but they are wrong. How many issues of _The Journal of
Evolutionary Biology_ have you read? Can you point to a problem with
any of the articles?
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season;
the Christians called it "Christmas" and went to church;
the Jews called it "Hanukka" and went to synagogue;
the atheists went to parties and drank.
People passing each other on the street would say
"Merry Christmas!" or "Happy Hanukka!"
or (to the atheists) "Look out for the wall!"
[Dave Barry, "Christmas Shopping: A Survivor's Guide"]
J. Michael Phillips
In theory, and constitutionally, I would agree, but secular humanism
is becoming the de facto religion of *at least* the school systems. I
was merely pointing out that atheism is nowhere near becoming a "state
religion."
Kevin R. Henke
Pim van Meurs wrote in message <3686CD93...@eskimo.com>...
"Kevin R. Henke" wrote:
> Pim van Meurs wrote in message <36868127...@eskimo.com>...
>
> "Kevin R. Henke" wrote:
>
> >
> > I am not aware of Duane Gish, but I am aware that in most public
schools,
> > creation is forbidden to be discussed.
>
> Which creation account are you talking about ? And what class would you
have
> it
> be discussed ?
>
> > That hardly qualifies as honest debate, and forces the religious beliefs
> of
> > athiesm as a de facto state
> > religion and limits free speech and denying God in a nation that places
> its
> > trust in God.
> >
>
> On the contrary it applies the laws of this country. Or would you now
allow
> any
> crackpot theory to have equal time in schools ?
>
> KRH: WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS. THESE ARE MICHAEL
BURT'S
> WORDS. Please see my original post, Pim. Please be careful of how you
cut
> and paste. Ok? Kevin
I apologize, the attributions are correct but I believe it is related to
your
quoting style. You do not appear to be adding ">" characters to what you
quote
and insert KRH: to your own comment. This confuses the software.
KRH: That's okay and understandable. The old software would automatically
add >, but my wife has changed things. That's why I add my initials. I'm
not very computer literate, so I don't know how to tell the new system to
automatically add >.
wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
no its not. christianity is the official US religion and its taught in
the public schools exclusively.
my proof? why, the same proof you offered for your contention.
Steve Henderson
}
}***snip***
}>
}>and it hardly establishes atheism as state religion. thats another
}>paranoid delusion of religious fanatics stated without proof.
}
}Actually, Secular Humanism is a lot closer to being the "state
}religion" in the United States. Atheism is still a minority.
Actually, I haven't seen any churches of secular humanism. Come
to think of it, I haven't even seen any churches of atheism. I
wonder why you think they are religions?
Enslaved, illogical, elate,
He greets the embarrassed Gods, nor fears,
To shake the iron hand of Fate
Or match with Destiny for beers.
An American (Rudyard Kipling)
Use ashland at ccnet dot com to email me.
J. Michael Phillips
wrote:
>In article <3686a2cf...@eskinews.eskimo.com>,
> wiz...@eskimo.com (J. Michael Phillips) wrote:
>}On 27 Dec 1998 09:57:01 -0500, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>}
>}***snip***
>}>
>}>and it hardly establishes atheism as state religion. thats another
>}>paranoid delusion of religious fanatics stated without proof.
>}
>}Actually, Secular Humanism is a lot closer to being the "state
>}religion" in the United States. Atheism is still a minority.
>
>Actually, I haven't seen any churches of secular humanism. Come
>to think of it, I haven't even seen any churches of atheism. I
>wonder why you think they are religions?
I don't typically call atheism a "religion," although it is a belief
system. The original poser called atheism the official religion of
America. I was pointing out that he was wrong.
I call Secular Humanism a religion because both the 1st and 2nd
Humanist Manifestos describe it as such. The second Humanist
Manifesto declares outright that one of their principle goals is to
"infiltrate" (if that's the right word) the school systems, and
indoctrinate America's youth. They have been quite successful in
doing so.
Dick C.
>I call Secular Humanism a religion because both the 1st and 2nd
>Humanist Manifestos describe it as such. The second Humanist
>Manifesto declares outright that one of their principle goals is to
>"infiltrate" (if that's the right word) the school systems, and
>indoctrinate America's youth. They have been quite successful in
>doing so.
Could you please tell us where it says that? I just went through the second
Manifesto and didn't see where it called itself a religion. As a matter of fact
the authors seemed to have gone to at least some lengths to deny it as a
religion.
Ergo:
Those who sign Humanist Manifesto II disclaim that they are setting forth a
binding credo; their individual views would be stated in widely varying
ways. This statement is, however, reaching for vision in a time that needs
direction. It is social analysis in an effort at consensus. New statements
should be developed to supersede this, but for today it is our conviction
that humanism offers an alternative that can serve present-day needs and
guide humankind toward the future.
I have also seen calls for all people to sign it.
Was it you that brought this up in alt.atheism? Someone did, and listed the
viewpoints of a Secular Humanist in an effort to show how bad it was, I guess.
I liked it so well that I decided that I was a humanist. :-).
However, neither my agreement with the points it makes, nor the docurment it
self makes it a religion. Please provide evidence of your claim.
Dick, Atheist #1349
Number 1 boob for 1st 1/2 December 98 awarded by Ed Conrad
email: dic...@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
>I call Secular Humanism a religion because both the 1st and 2nd
>Humanist Manifestos describe it as such. The second Humanist
>Manifesto declares outright that one of their principle goals is to
>"infiltrate" (if that's the right word) the school systems, and
>indoctrinate America's youth. They have been quite successful in
>doing so.
>
>
actually they havent. fascism has.
proof? the same proof you offer....none
dic...@drizzle.com
"Kevin R. Henke" <yvoa...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> Pim van Meurs wrote in message <3686CD93...@eskimo.com>...
> I apologize, the attributions are correct but I believe it is related to
> your
> quoting style. You do not appear to be adding ">" characters to what you
> quote
> and insert KRH: to your own comment. This confuses the software.
>
> KRH: That's okay and understandable. The old software would automatically
> add >, but my wife has changed things. That's why I add my initials. I'm
> not very computer literate, so I don't know how to tell the new system to
> automatically add >.
I see that you are using outlook express for your newsreader. May I suggest
using one of the several freely available newsreaders on the net? Ones such as
Forte's FreeAgent or News Express. (My favorite).
You should be able to find several at http://tucows.holler.net/news95.html
You can download NewsXpress here: http://www.malch.com/nxfaq.html
And best of all, they are free!.
--
Dick, Atheist #1349
Number 1 boob for 1st 1/2 December 98 awarded by Ed Conrad
email: dic...@drizzle.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ONEstar
Boikat
>The public school system is not a debate forum
>between religion and mainstream science.
No, but it would prove a better and more balanced system of teaching if it
were.
>If the fossil record in no way discredits the
>original Hebrew, what's the problem? And from the
>opening paragraph, why would that mean that
>Biblical Creationism should be taught in school?
>The Purpose of school is to educate, not to
>indoctrinate children into a particular religious
>belief. And no, science is not a religion, and
>creationism is not science. Claims to the
>contrary are the straw man arguments of religious
>fanatics.
The purpose of schooling is indeed to educate. History is taught as fact
and the fact is that much of history is built upon religious rather than
scientific concepts. I find that the best approach would be to teach it all
such that the student may form, from the presentations, what is most
applicable (right) for himself. Science is great, and wonderful, but not
all there is to life.
>Damn clever them Babylonians. But what does the
>ancient Babylonian belief have to do with modern
>biology? Just because the Babylonians
>incorporated observed relationships (if that's
>what their "tree of life" was based upon) into
>their religious beliefs, doesn't mean that it has
>anything to do with modern taxonomy or cladistics.
It also does not mean that it does not. While our current accuracy level of
data and measurement is far greater than in Babylonian times, I feel the
application of the available data is severely curtailed.
>So? Most Christians accept evolution based upon
>the evidence, and are offended when religious
>fundamentalist fanatics claim that, "evolution is
>a religion" and that Creationism of the YEC kind
>should be taught in *public* school along with, or
>instead of, mainstream biology or science. Even
>more insidious is their claim that since
>Creationism has been declared a religious dogma,
>and not religion, they shifted to claiming that
>evolution, and therefore, mainstream biology, at
>least, but science in general, is therefore a
>religion, and should not be taught in *public*
>school. The desire to dumb down american
>children is most telling to the goals of the
>Creationists. It's easier to indoctrinate
>ignorant people than it is to indoctrinate the
>educated. What it boils down to is the
>*religious* aims of those that endorse
>creationism, is to convert as many people to
>drooling followers as possible. News flash: It Is
>Not Going To Happen!
It appears that what is insidious the more is the attitude some people adopt
when thier own views are threatened. Things are not as nice and neatly
segmented as you suggest and the indoctrination of either view without
balance, is just as insidious.
>Proof is for math and Philosophy. Evolution rests
>upon the evidence. So far, it's rested quite
>well, despite the overt ignorant rantings of
>religious fanatics.
As I understand evolution, it merely means change and possibly adaption. It
would seem quite a safe haven as we watch our world change daily despite
those wicked demons who say it is not so.
>The you accept evolution, even if the fossil
>record is not the best evidence. That would be
>DNA and the "Nested Hierarchy" of morphology.
We can accept the obvious, ...that being that things change and adapt.
Mankind in general and science in particular tends to place things in the
order he expects them to be, however even eggs are sorted before you buy
them and that -order-does not indicate which chicken laid which egg.
Likewise, hierarchies seem less than a sterling indication of ancient
transition to the speciation we observe today.
>Calling evolution a religion is also "fighting
>words", and the word of a fanatic that is ignorant
>of the meaning of "science" and religion. If the
>word "slavish" is offensive to you, how about
>"Blind faith", or Unquestioning adherence"?
Science has no shortage of those who fall in the latter category, nor does
religion. Why do we not allow the other to observe what is observable?
>Nobody understands God. Anyone that claims they
>do is a charlatan, and a quack. Get your money
>back, because next in line is a sweet deal on a
>Bridge in San Francisco.
More, that no one knows the absolute. Understanding is relative thus your
point can be found in debate.
>Yes, damn evil of them scientists, always
>theorizing on why this or that happens. Evil to
>the core! Especially when they come up with a
>theory that goes against the religious dogma of a
>small group of religions that adhere to Biblical
>literalism. Shocking. And like the creation
>"scientist" don't have an agenda? Actually, they,
>like the supposed scientists you referred to (if
>it's a true statement) would have been guilty of
>the same thing: Starting out with a prior
>conclusion. The scientists that set out to
>demonstrate that second hand smoke caused health
>problem found evidence to support their views,
>politically motivated ones at that. The point is,
>and one of the reason real science works, is that
>it is open to scientific review, otherwise, their
>findings would have gone unchallenged. This is
>the same with creation science. It proceeds with
>the Genesis account as being actual, literal
>history, and therefore, by excluding contrary
>evidence (Not to be confused with excluding
>contrary theories) find evidence for a 6000 year
>old earth. You can prove *anything* by excluding
>contrary evidence.
Almost all -science- begins with an observation and speculates a prediction.
Perhaps the two are more related than you think.
>
>No matter where the 6000 year figure came from,
>6-10 thousand years old is what the Creationist
>are trying to assert as the the age of the Earth
>and Universe. And if you are willing to toss that
>out, then why not also accept evolution based upon
>the evidence? There is a lot of evidence to
>support evolution, and it's not "made up" to fit
>the theory either.
I think the 6k figure is more a measurement of mankinds appearance on the
earth. Even the dreaded fanatics should know better than to say the earth
is only 6k years of age.
ONE
Steve Henderson
}wrote:
}
}>In article <3686a2cf...@eskinews.eskimo.com>,
}>}
}>}***snip***
}>}>
}>}>and it hardly establishes atheism as state religion. thats another
}>}>paranoid delusion of religious fanatics stated without proof.
}>}
}>}Actually, Secular Humanism is a lot closer to being the "state
}>}religion" in the United States. Atheism is still a minority.
}>
}>Actually, I haven't seen any churches of secular humanism. Come
}>to think of it, I haven't even seen any churches of atheism. I
}>wonder why you think they are religions?
}
}I don't typically call atheism a "religion," although it is a belief
}system. The original poser called atheism the official religion of
}America. I was pointing out that he was wrong.
I tend to think of it as a lack-of-belief system.
}I call Secular Humanism a religion because both the 1st and 2nd
}Humanist Manifestos describe it as such. The second Humanist
}Manifesto declares outright that one of their principle goals is to
}"infiltrate" (if that's the right word) the school systems, and
}indoctrinate America's youth. They have been quite successful in
}doing so.
Truth told, I'm not nearly as much interested in what people say
about themselves as in what they act like. I tend to think that your
belief in the infiltration of the school systems by secular humanism
says more about you than about secular humanism as a group.
Kevin R. Henke
dic...@drizzle.com wrote in message
[snip]
:I see that you are using outlook express for your newsreader. May I suggest
:using one of the several freely available newsreaders on the net? Ones such
as
:Forte's FreeAgent or News Express. (My favorite).
:You should be able to find several at http://tucows.holler.net/news95.html
:You can download NewsXpress here: http://www.malch.com/nxfaq.html
:And best of all, they are free!.
:
:--
:Dick, Atheist #1349
:
KRH: Thanks for the offer, Dick. However, my wife forbids me to change the
software on her computer.
Kevin
Elmer Bataitis
> Boikat
> >The public school system is not a debate forum
> >between religion and mainstream science.
> No, but it would prove a better and more balanced system of teaching if it
> were.
Really? Do you think that the voodoo belief that evil spirits or evil
thoughts directed by someone against you can cause disease should also
be taught in schools? How about the evidences of a flat earth, or a
geocentric solar system? Should they also be taught in the interests of
"balance"?
> The purpose of schooling is indeed to educate. History is taught as fact
> and the fact is that much of history is built upon religious rather than
> scientific concepts.
Good Lord! Please deliniate for our edification and enjoyment what
historical "facts" are founded upon religious rather than scientific
concepts!?! How does a religious concept enable one to determine what is
or is not historical fact??
> Science is great, and wonderful, but not
> all there is to life.
Science is simply logical thinking. Notg all there is to life, but a
very large component of it ;-)
> As I understand evolution, it merely means change and possibly adaption.
Well, no wonder you're confused. Why not pick up a biology book and
study what science means by "evolution".
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
Boikat
>
> Boikat
>
> >The public school system is not a debate forum
> >between religion and mainstream science.
>
> No, but it would prove a better and more balanced system of teaching if it
> were.
Good. And right after the sermon at your local
church, we will have a seminar on biological
evolution, Big Bang cosmology, and physical and
historical geology. All denominations, of
course. Wouldn't want anyone to be left out.
>
> >If the fossil record in no way discredits the
> >original Hebrew, what's the problem? And from the
> >opening paragraph, why would that mean that
> >Biblical Creationism should be taught in school?
> >The Purpose of school is to educate, not to
> >indoctrinate children into a particular religious
> >belief. And no, science is not a religion, and
> >creationism is not science. Claims to the
> >contrary are the straw man arguments of religious
> >fanatics.
>
> The purpose of schooling is indeed to educate. History is taught as fact
> and the fact is that much of history is built upon religious rather than
> scientific concepts. I find that the best approach would be to teach it all
> such that the student may form, from the presentations, what is most
> applicable (right) for himself. Science is great, and wonderful, but not
> all there is to life.
Who said it is. By the way, which religion do we
indoctrinate all the children into? Southern
Baptist? Roman Catholic? How about Wicca? No?
Lutheran? Islam? Hindi? Which one should the
public school, i.e., the Federal Government,
endorse?
>
> >Damn clever them Babylonians. But what does the
> >ancient Babylonian belief have to do with modern
> >biology? Just because the Babylonians
> >incorporated observed relationships (if that's
> >what their "tree of life" was based upon) into
> >their religious beliefs, doesn't mean that it has
> >anything to do with modern taxonomy or cladistics.
>
> It also does not mean that it does not. While our current accuracy level of
> data and measurement is far greater than in Babylonian times, I feel the
> application of the available data is severely curtailed.
Yes, by school districts that have dummied down
science classes so that they can mollycoddle or
not offend certain religious fanaticals.
It is not the place of public schools to grant a
outlet for indoctrination efforts by religious
groups. Not Roman Catholic, Judaism, or
Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist Fanatics.
>
> >Proof is for math and Philosophy. Evolution rests
> >upon the evidence. So far, it's rested quite
> >well, despite the overt ignorant rantings of
> >religious fanatics.
>
> As I understand evolution, it merely means change and possibly adaption. It
> would seem quite a safe haven as we watch our world change daily despite
> those wicked demons who say it is not so.
The only "wicked Demons" are of your own making.
That has nothing to do with evolution.
>
> >The you accept evolution, even if the fossil
> >record is not the best evidence. That would be
> >DNA and the "Nested Hierarchy" of morphology.
>
> We can accept the obvious, ...that being that things change and adapt.
> Mankind in general and science in particular tends to place things in the
> order he expects them to be, however even eggs are sorted before you buy
> them and that -order-does not indicate which chicken laid which egg.
> Likewise, hierarchies seem less than a sterling indication of ancient
> transition to the speciation we observe today.
Then you do not know what you are talking about.
Go find a good book on biology.
>
> >Calling evolution a religion is also "fighting
> >words", and the word of a fanatic that is ignorant
> >of the meaning of "science" and religion. If the
> >word "slavish" is offensive to you, how about
> >"Blind faith", or Unquestioning adherence"?
>
> Science has no shortage of those who fall in the latter category, nor does
> religion. Why do we not allow the other to observe what is observable?
Anyone is free to observe anything. But it still
is not the responsibility of the *public* school
system to indoctrinate children into any religious
belief.
>
> >Nobody understands God. Anyone that claims they
> >do is a charlatan, and a quack. Get your money
> >back, because next in line is a sweet deal on a
> >Bridge in San Francisco.
>
> More, that no one knows the absolute. Understanding is relative thus your
> point can be found in debate.
And yours.
Perhaps you do not know what you are talking
about. Creationism proceeds from what they assume
is the answer. If the data does not support the
answer, they toss it out. True science proceeds
with an observation, forms an hypothesis, tests
the hypothesis, and if necessary, modifies the
hypothesis, and repeats the tests. Big freaking
difference.
>
> >
> >No matter where the 6000 year figure came from,
> >6-10 thousand years old is what the Creationist
> >are trying to assert as the the age of the Earth
> >and Universe. And if you are willing to toss that
> >out, then why not also accept evolution based upon
> >the evidence? There is a lot of evidence to
> >support evolution, and it's not "made up" to fit
> >the theory either.
>
> I think the 6k figure is more a measurement of mankinds appearance on the
> earth. Even the dreaded fanatics should know better than to say the earth
> is only 6k years of age.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
Hoo Hooo! Heeeee Heeeee!
You haven't been reading too much of Talk.Origins,
have you?
Aaaaah hahahahaahahahah!!!
Boikat
>
> ONE
J. Michael Phillips
>In article <36872b41...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, wiz...@eskimo.com (J. Michael Phillips) wrote:
>
>>I call Secular Humanism a religion because both the 1st and 2nd
>>Humanist Manifestos describe it as such. The second Humanist
>>Manifesto declares outright that one of their principle goals is to
>>"infiltrate" (if that's the right word) the school systems, and
>>indoctrinate America's youth. They have been quite successful in
>>doing so.
>
>Could you please tell us where it says that? I just went through the second
>Manifesto and didn't see where it called itself a religion. As a matter of fact
>the authors seemed to have gone to at least some lengths to deny it as a
>religion.
HM1 - calls the signitories "religious Humanists" on a number of
occasions. It also goes on to say:
Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which
are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. . .
. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be
maintained. . . .
, , , Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the
scientific spirit and method. . . .
. . . Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in
living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to
encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life. . . .
firmly establishing that the signitories considered themselves to be
part of a "religion," though not a theistic religion.
HM2 states:
. . . As we approach the twenty-first century, however, an
affirmative and hopeful vision is needed.Faith, commensurate with
advancing knowledge, is also necessary . ..
*it goes on to say that the TYPE of religion they are does ***NOT***
believe in a personal, prayer-hearing God, and that the signitories
consider that kind of religion "dangerous."*
They avow that they are *not* promoting any creed per se, but later on
say that:
We affirm a set of common principles that can serve as a basis for
united action -- positive principles relevant to the present human
condition.
They go on to say:
In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest
ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative
imagination is an expression of genuine "spiritual" experience and
aspiration.
They further disavow directly afterwards belief in any God, creed, or
whatever that places itself above man . . . so it could not be
considered a traditional "God-fearing" religion, but it clearly calls
itself a religion, albeit a radically different one than what people
had been used to.
>
>I have also seen calls for all people to sign it.
So have I.
>Was it you that brought this up in alt.atheism?
No.
>Someone did, and listed the
>viewpoints of a Secular Humanist in an effort to show how bad it was, I guess.
>I liked it so well that I decided that I was a humanist. :-).
LOL! Sometimes stuff like that happens . . . :)
>However, neither my agreement with the points it makes, nor the docurment it
>self makes it a religion. Please provide evidence of your claim.
Please see above . . .
>
>
>Dick, Atheist #1349
>Number 1 boob for 1st 1/2 December 98 awarded by Ed Conrad
>email: dic...@drizzle.com
>Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
J. Michael Phillips
>ONEstar wrote:
>>
>> Boikat
>>
>> >The public school system is not a debate forum
>> >between religion and mainstream science.
>>
>> No, but it would prove a better and more balanced system of teaching if it
>> were.
>
>Good. And right after the sermon at your local
>church, we will have a seminar on biological
>evolution, Big Bang cosmology, and physical and
>historical geology. All denominations, of
>course. Wouldn't want anyone to be left out.
Personally, I would LOVE it, but you have to remember that a Church is
*NOT* a public place. It is a private club, with membership
requirements. If you violate those requirements, you are not welcome
there.
***snip***
>Who said it is. By the way, which religion do we
>indoctrinate all the children into?
Indoctrinate them into? None. Expose them to (by the recognized
experts from the various disciplines), all those you mentioned below,
and then some . . .
>Southern
>Baptist? Roman Catholic? How about Wicca? No?
>Lutheran? Islam? Hindi?
>Which one should the
>public school, i.e., the Federal Government,
>endorse?
I have 2 problems with this question:
1. the Federal Gov't should get the hell out of the local schools
2. the *public* schools should "endorse" none of them
***snip***
>> balance, is just as insidious.
What??? Didn't you watch "The Karate Kid?" LOL
>
>It is not the place of public schools to grant a[n]
>outlet for indoctrination efforts by religious
>groups. Not Roman Catholic, Judaism, or
>Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist Fanatics.
Is there any reason that school children shouldn't know what those
people teach?
***snip***
>> Science has no shortage of those who fall in the latter category, nor does
>> religion. Why do we not allow the other to observe what is observable?
>
>Anyone is free to observe anything. But it still
>is not the responsibility of the *public* school
>system to indoctrinate children into any religious
>belief.
Indoctrinate? I would agree. Expose to? Why not? It happened in my
HS (to the protestation of some parents), and University, and I don't
know of anyone who was hurt by it.
***snip***
J. Michael Phillips
>}>}***snip***
>}>}>
>}>}>and it hardly establishes atheism as state religion. thats another
>}>}>paranoid delusion of religious fanatics stated without proof.
>}>}
>}>}Actually, Secular Humanism is a lot closer to being the "state
>}>}religion" in the United States. Atheism is still a minority.
>}>
>}>Actually, I haven't seen any churches of secular humanism. Come
>}>to think of it, I haven't even seen any churches of atheism. I
>}>wonder why you think they are religions?
>}
>}I don't typically call atheism a "religion," although it is a belief
>}system. The original poser called atheism the official religion of
>}America. I was pointing out that he was wrong.
>
>I tend to think of it as a lack-of-belief system.
That's one way of saying it . . .
>
>}I call Secular Humanism a religion because both the 1st and 2nd
>}Humanist Manifestos describe it as such. The second Humanist
>}Manifesto declares outright that one of their principle goals is to
>}"infiltrate" (if that's the right word) the school systems, and
>}indoctrinate America's youth. They have been quite successful in
>}doing so.
>
>Truth told, I'm not nearly as much interested in what people say
>about themselves as in what they act like.
I would agree with that . . .
>I tend to think that your
>belief in the infiltration of the school systems by secular humanism
>says more about you than about secular humanism as a group.
I have 2 boys in HS right now. I go over their homework with them.
You could lift 3/4 of the social statements from their books, and draw
direct parallels with HM 1 & 2.
What was disturbing was a book on poetry being used. "The Cremation
of Sam McGee" was in the book, and the author had changed:
"Oh, God, how I loathed the thing" into
"Oh, Man, how I loathed the thing"
We had to go to the preface to find out why this change was made.
Ostensibly, it was made in order to not "push" another's religious
beliefs on the "impressionable minds" reading the book.
However, 2 poems later, was a Wiccan Prayer, which called several
demons by name in an invocation, and the next prayer was an Amerind
Prayer - enlisting the services of the "Great Spirit."
I have no problem with my boys reading any of these 3 poems. I am
annoyed that if it's representative of anything coming fro the
Judeo-Christian origins, it's taboo, but nothing else is.
We pulled out a copy of the "Cremation" that I had that was about 30
years old, showed the boys what it really said, and corrected the text
in his schoolbook *in pen*.
Bud
<36885228....@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
> On 28 Dec 1998 18:38:38 -0500, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >Anyone is free to observe anything. But it still
> >is not the responsibility of the *public* school
> >system to indoctrinate children into any religious
> >belief.
>
> Indoctrinate? I would agree. Expose to? Why not? It happened in my
> HS (to the protestation of some parents), and University, and I don't
> know of anyone who was hurt by it.
>
Most schools have been faced with cutting subjects or whole departments
like art and music. What do you suggest the schools cut to make room for
religious indoctrination classes?
Science classes, math classes?
J. Michael Phillips
>J. Michael Phillips <wiz...@eskimo.com> wrote in article
><36885228....@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
>> On 28 Dec 1998 18:38:38 -0500, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Anyone is free to observe anything. But it still
>> >is not the responsibility of the *public* school
>> >system to indoctrinate children into any religious
>> >belief.
>>
>> Indoctrinate? I would agree. Expose to? Why not? It happened in my
>> HS (to the protestation of some parents), and University, and I don't
>> know of anyone who was hurt by it.
>>
>Most schools have been faced with cutting subjects or whole departments
>like art and music.
"Most?" Define "most," please . . . exact numbers and percentages,
please . ..
>What do you suggest the schools cut to make room for
>religious indoctrination classes?
Do you know how to read? I stated several times that in *public*
schools the children should not be "indoctrinated." However,
comparative religions shouldn't be cut for "advanced basketweaving,"
or "woodshop 101 for seniors who want to skate . . ."
>Science classes, math classes?
Based on your response to my post, science and math might need to be
cut down a little and a little more emphasis placed on understanding
written English . . .
Steve Henderson
For instance?
}What was disturbing was a book on poetry being used. "The Cremation
}of Sam McGee" was in the book, and the author had changed:
}"Oh, God, how I loathed the thing" into
}"Oh, Man, how I loathed the thing"
}
}We had to go to the preface to find out why this change was made.
}Ostensibly, it was made in order to not "push" another's religious
}beliefs on the "impressionable minds" reading the book.
Annoying and obnoxious, certainly, but it doesn't strike me as
any sort of proof that secular humanists are around.
}However, 2 poems later, was a Wiccan Prayer, which called several
}demons by name in an invocation, and the next prayer was an Amerind
}Prayer - enlisting the services of the "Great Spirit."
}
}I have no problem with my boys reading any of these 3 poems. I am
}annoyed that if it's representative of anything coming fro the
}Judeo-Christian origins, it's taboo, but nothing else is.
}
}We pulled out a copy of the "Cremation" that I had that was about 30
}years old, showed the boys what it really said, and corrected the text
}in his schoolbook *in pen*.
If the book belonged to you then do what you want to it. If the book
didn't belong to you then you have committed a minor crime.
Steve Henderson
}>>
}>> Boikat
}>>
}>> >The public school system is not a debate forum
}>> >between religion and mainstream science.
}>>
}>> No, but it would prove a better and more balanced system of teaching if it
}>> were.
}>
}>Good. And right after the sermon at your local
}>church, we will have a seminar on biological
}>evolution, Big Bang cosmology, and physical and
}>historical geology. All denominations, of
}>course. Wouldn't want anyone to be left out.
}
}*NOT* a public place. It is a private club, with membership
}requirements. If you violate those requirements, you are not welcome
}there.
I see the logic. Schools are public because taxes support them.
Churches are private because not paying taxes helps support them.
Real churches, of course, mostly aren't private clubs and can be
attended by anyone. You may not feel welcome, but you generally
aren't asked to leave.
}***snip***
}
}>Who said it is. By the way, which religion do we
}>indoctrinate all the children into?
}
}Indoctrinate them into? None. Expose them to (by the recognized
}experts from the various disciplines), all those you mentioned below,
}and then some . . .
I doubt that it's workable at the high school level. There are
plenty of courses in college in things like comparative religion.
}>Southern
}>Baptist? Roman Catholic? How about Wicca? No?
}>Lutheran? Islam? Hindi?
}
}>Which one should the
}>public school, i.e., the Federal Government,
}>endorse?
}
}I have 2 problems with this question:
}1. the Federal Gov't should get the hell out of the local schools
}2. the *public* schools should "endorse" none of them
Well, I disagree strongly with #1. To call for the Feds to get out
of local schools is, in parts of the country, to turn them over to
the most vocal locals who tend to be the least tolerant of anything
that disagrees with their beliefs, including teaching of other
religions. Basically, if you don't have #1, you will definately have
the schools endorsing whatever local religion is the strongest and
most vocal.
}***snip***
}
}>> balance, is just as insidious.
}
}What??? Didn't you watch "The Karate Kid?" LOL
}>
}>It is not the place of public schools to grant a[n]
}>outlet for indoctrination efforts by religious
}>groups. Not Roman Catholic, Judaism, or
}>Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist Fanatics.
}
}Is there any reason that school children shouldn't know what those
}people teach?
}
}***snip***
}
}>> Science has no shortage of those who fall in the latter category, nor does
}>> religion. Why do we not allow the other to observe what is observable?
}>
}>Anyone is free to observe anything. But it still
}>is not the responsibility of the *public* school
}>system to indoctrinate children into any religious
}>belief.
}
}Indoctrinate? I would agree. Expose to? Why not? It happened in my
}HS (to the protestation of some parents), and University, and I don't
}know of anyone who was hurt by it.
}
}***snip***
}
}
}J. Michael Phillips
} I plan to live forever . . .
} . . . so far so good! :)
}
Enslaved, illogical, elate,
Boikat
> >>
> >> Boikat
> >>
> >> >The public school system is not a debate forum
> >> >between religion and mainstream science.
> >>
> >> No, but it would prove a better and more balanced system of teaching if it
> >> were.
> >
> >Good. And right after the sermon at your local
> >church, we will have a seminar on biological
> >evolution, Big Bang cosmology, and physical and
> >historical geology. All denominations, of
> >course. Wouldn't want anyone to be left out.
>
> *NOT* a public place. It is a private club, with membership
> requirements. If you violate those requirements, you are not welcome
> there.
Hey, public school is *public* only in the sense
it's an function of the federal government. Look
up "Separation of Church and State" It is not the
business of the federal government to serve up a
smorgas board of religions for students to pick
and choose from. That's the responsibility of the
parents.
>
> ***snip***
>
> >Who said it is. By the way, which religion do we
> >indoctrinate all the children into?
>
> Indoctrinate them into? None. Expose them to (by the recognized
> experts from the various disciplines), all those you mentioned below,
> and then some . . .
See above. The federal government is not charged
with providing religious suggestions even. It's
completely hands off.
>
> >Southern
> >Baptist? Roman Catholic? How about Wicca? No?
> >Lutheran? Islam? Hindi?
>
> >Which one should the
> >public school, i.e., the Federal Government,
> >endorse?
>
> I have 2 problems with this question:
> 1. the Federal Gov't should get the hell out of the local schools
Write you congressman. You want regional
ignorance and mediocrity fine. Hope you enjoy
property tax increases too, if you have to pay
any.
> 2. the *public* schools should "endorse" none of them
That's right, it doesn't, it shouldn't and that
has nothing in the world to do with evolution,
which is a branch of biological *SCIENCE*, which
is the point. I could care less if a school
district has a "Comparative Religion" class. But
that's not the target of the Fundamentalists, now
is it? The prospects of a "Comparative Religion"
class probably scares the snot out of them more
than science does.
>
> ***snip***
>
> >> balance, is just as insidious.
>
> What??? Didn't you watch "The Karate Kid?" LOL
> >
> >It is not the place of public schools to grant a[n]
> >outlet for indoctrination efforts by religious
> >groups. Not Roman Catholic, Judaism, or
> >Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist Fanatics.
>
> Is there any reason that school children shouldn't know what those
> people teach?
In comparative religion class, but that's not the
point, now is it? Besides, as I said before, that
would be the parents decision, wouldn't it?
>
> ***snip***
>
> >> Science has no shortage of those who fall in the latter category, nor does
> >> religion. Why do we not allow the other to observe what is observable?
> >
> >Anyone is free to observe anything. But it still
> >is not the responsibility of the *public* school
> >system to indoctrinate children into any religious
> >belief.
>
> Indoctrinate? I would agree. Expose to? Why not? It happened in my
> HS (to the protestation of some parents), and University, and I don't
> know of anyone who was hurt by it.
Again, in a comparative religion class, that's one
thing, but as I will again point out, not in
science, which is the point you may have missed.
The problem is that the Christian Fundamentalists
do not want a "Comparative Religion Class". There
is only one reason, and one reason only, that the
fundies want their religious dogma taught in
school; to give unequal time in the *science*
classes of their religious dogma, and that's an
attempt to indoctrinate the students. They do not
want a "Pro VS Con" class, they do not want a
classroom debate. They want straw man science
compared to Creationist dogma with no critical
analysis.
And do not confuse mainstream Christianity with
"Creationism" We are talking Young Earth
Creationism pseudo science here.
Boikat
wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
>I have 2 problems with this question:
>1. the Federal Gov't should get the hell out of the local schools
why? since the feds integrated racist segregations schools OVER LOCAL
OBJECTIONS you arguing for a return to segregation?
Boikat
>
> In article <36885567....@eskinews.eskimo.com>,
> wiz...@eskimo.com (J. Michael Phillips) wrote:
[snip]
>
> }What was disturbing was a book on poetry being used. "The Cremation
> }of Sam McGee" was in the book, and the author had changed:
> }"Oh, God, how I loathed the thing" into
> }"Oh, Man, how I loathed the thing"
> }
> }We had to go to the preface to find out why this change was made.
> }Ostensibly, it was made in order to not "push" another's religious
> }beliefs on the "impressionable minds" reading the book.
>
> Annoying and obnoxious, certainly, but it doesn't strike me as
> any sort of proof that secular humanists are around.
>
> }However, 2 poems later, was a Wiccan Prayer, which called several
> }demons by name in an invocation, and the next prayer was an Amerind
> }Prayer - enlisting the services of the "Great Spirit."
> }
> }I have no problem with my boys reading any of these 3 poems. I am
> }annoyed that if it's representative of anything coming fro the
> }Judeo-Christian origins, it's taboo, but nothing else is.
> }
> }We pulled out a copy of the "Cremation" that I had that was about 30
> }years old, showed the boys what it really said, and corrected the text
> }in his schoolbook *in pen*.
>
> If the book belonged to you then do what you want to it. If the book
> didn't belong to you then you have committed a minor crime.
Yup, if it's like my high school, we turned in our
books for next years students to use. Now, Mr.
Phillips has inscribed, in ink, his personal
religious views into a public document. Like you
said, if it's his personal property, he can
scribble whatever he wants in it. If it's school
property......
I'd get the white-out (TM).
Boikat
wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
>
>I have 2 boys in HS right now. I go over their homework with them.
>You could lift 3/4 of the social statements from their books, and draw
>direct parallels with HM 1 & 2.
nope, you could, however, find much xtian religion there.
proof? the same you offer.
>We had to go to the preface to find out why this change was made.
>Ostensibly, it was made in order to not "push" another's religious
>beliefs on the "impressionable minds" reading the book.
>
>However, 2 poems later, was a Wiccan Prayer, which called several
>demons by name in an invocation, and the next prayer was an Amerind
>Prayer - enlisting the services of the "Great Spirit."
>
>I have no problem with my boys reading any of these 3 poems. I am
>annoyed that if it's representative of anything coming fro the
>Judeo-Christian origins, it's taboo, but nothing else is.
hardly proof of 'secular humanism'. i dont recall you saying secular
humanists believe in witches.
Bud
> On 28 Dec 1998 23:16:34 -0500, "Bud" <nos...@nospamxxx.net> wrote:
>
> >J. Michael Phillips <wiz...@eskimo.com> wrote in article
> ><36885228....@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
> >> >is not the responsibility of the *public* school
> >> >system to indoctrinate children into any religious
> >> >belief.
> >>
> >> HS (to the protestation of some parents), and University, and I don't
> >> know of anyone who was hurt by it.
> >>
> >like art and music.
>
> "Most?" Define "most," please . . . exact numbers and percentages,
> please . ..
Sorry, but you're not worth the time and effort to gather those numbers.
>
> >What do you suggest the schools cut to make room for
> >religious indoctrination classes?
>
> Do you know how to read? I stated several times that in *public*
> schools the children should not be "indoctrinated." However,
> comparative religions shouldn't be cut for "advanced basketweaving,"
> or "woodshop 101 for seniors who want to skate . . ."
And who suggested "skate" classes? You're taking to change the subject.
>
> >Science classes, math classes?
>
> Based on your response to my post, science and math might need to be
> cut down a little and a little more emphasis placed on understanding
> written English . . .
> >
Angry because I saw behind your smoke screen?
J. Michael Phillips
wrote:
***snip Cremation of Sam McGee***
>
>Annoying and obnoxious, certainly, but it doesn't strike me as
>any sort of proof that secular humanists are around.
Proof, you're right. Really really *minor* indication that they might
be, yes . . .
***snip***
>}We pulled out a copy of the "Cremation" that I had that was about 30
>}years old, showed the boys what it really said, and corrected the text
>}in his schoolbook *in pen*.
>
>If the book belonged to you then do what you want to it. If the book
>didn't belong to you then you have committed a minor crime.
Yup - the crime of Civil Disobedience, similar that that described in
Walden Pond . ..
J. Michael Phillips
***snip***
>> }
>> }We pulled out a copy of the "Cremation" that I had that was about 30
>> }years old, showed the boys what it really said, and corrected the text
>> }in his schoolbook *in pen*.
>>
>> If the book belonged to you then do what you want to it. If the book
>> didn't belong to you then you have committed a minor crime.
>
>Yup, if it's like my high school, we turned in our
>books for next years students to use.
As did my boys . . .
>Now, Mr.
>Phillips has inscribed, in ink, his personal
>religious views into a public document.
Nope - wrong . . . . BZZTTTT
But thanks for playing . . .
I corrected a typographical error that the editor obviously missed.
The poem was corrected to the original that Rob't W Service intended .
. .
>Like you
>said, if it's his personal property, he can
>scribble whatever he wants in it. If it's school
>property......
BTW - went the next day to school with my son, and showed the teacher
the correction, and practically dared her to fine me for the book.
She was actually relieved that I had corrected it. The butcher job
done on the poem had bothered her for the several years she had been
using the text.
>
>I'd get the white-out (TM).
DANG! Wish I had thought of that!
J. Michael Phillips
wrote:
***snip***
>}>Good. And right after the sermon at your local
>}>church, we will have a seminar on biological
>}>evolution, Big Bang cosmology, and physical and
>}>historical geology. All denominations, of
>}>course. Wouldn't want anyone to be left out.
>}
>}Personally, I would LOVE it, but you have to remember that a Church is
>}*NOT* a public place. It is a private club, with membership
>}requirements. If you violate those requirements, you are not welcome
>}there.
>
>I see the logic. Schools are public because taxes support them.
>Churches are private because not paying taxes helps support them.
You seem to miss the point: Schools are public because it's a child's
*right* to have an education, and that is paid for by our taxes. A
Church is private because it is *completely* seperated from the state,
even to the point that even the SS . . . er . . . Gestapo . . . er . .
. IRS can't mess with them.
>Real churches, of course, mostly aren't private clubs and can be
>attended by anyone. You may not feel welcome, but you generally
>aren't asked to leave.
Oh, most certainly you are. If you violate fundamental rules of
inclusion, you *will* be asked (politely at first) to leave.
>
>}***snip***
>}
>}>Who said it is. By the way, which religion do we
>}>indoctrinate all the children into?
>}
>}Indoctrinate them into? None. Expose them to (by the recognized
>}experts from the various disciplines), all those you mentioned below,
>}and then some . . .
>
>I doubt that it's workable at the high school level. There are
>plenty of courses in college in things like comparative religion.
We had some Comp Rel classes incorporated into our Psych classes in
HS, and it generated so much interest, that some of us took it upon
ourselves to start a "religion club" after school. We invited church
leaders to come and talk. Then we would have some very lively
discussions . . .
. . . at the time, I generally argued the atheist position, because
it made the most sense to me. I've done a 180 since then . .
>
>}>Southern
>}>Baptist? Roman Catholic? How about Wicca? No?
>}>Lutheran? Islam? Hindi?
>}
>}>Which one should the
>}>public school, i.e., the Federal Government,
>}>endorse?
>}
>}I have 2 problems with this question:
>}1. the Federal Gov't should get the hell out of the local schools
>}2. the *public* schools should "endorse" none of them
>
>Well, I disagree strongly with #1. To call for the Feds to get out
>of local schools is, in parts of the country, to turn them over to
>the most vocal locals who tend to be the least tolerant of anything
>that disagrees with their beliefs, including teaching of other
>religions. Basically, if you don't have #1, you will definately have
>the schools endorsing whatever local religion is the strongest and
>most vocal.
Sorry, I don't see it happening . . . In Idaho (which has the highest
per capita Mormon population in the nation) it was the locals that got
the missionaries out of the schools, not the feds. Your comment
sounds paranoid to me, but just because your paranoid doesn't mean
they're *not* out to get you! LOL
***snip***
J. Michael Phillips
>On 28 Dec 1998 23:01:37 -0500, wiz...@eskimo.com (J. Michael Phillips)
>wrote:
>
>>I have 2 problems with this question:
>>1. the Federal Gov't should get the hell out of the local schools
>
>why? since the feds integrated racist segregations schools OVER LOCAL
>OBJECTIONS you arguing for a return to segregation?
Nope. I think that the feds should get the hell out of schools, and
they should issue vouchers, so your kids can go to the ***best***
school in the city - and not be forced to go to the one that is
closest. I don't even believe in segregation based on where you live
- do you?
J. Michael Phillips
***snip***
>>We had to go to the preface to find out why this change was made.
>>Ostensibly, it was made in order to not "push" another's religious
>>beliefs on the "impressionable minds" reading the book.
>>
>>However, 2 poems later, was a Wiccan Prayer, which called several
>>demons by name in an invocation, and the next prayer was an Amerind
>>Prayer - enlisting the services of the "Great Spirit."
>>
>>I have no problem with my boys reading any of these 3 poems. I am
>>annoyed that if it's representative of anything coming fro the
>>Judeo-Christian origins, it's taboo, but nothing else is.
>
>hardly proof of 'secular humanism'. i dont recall you saying secular
>humanists believe in witches.
I didn't - and to the best of my knowledge, they don't . . .
It's better proof of bigotry and stupidity than secular humanism, but
even bigotry and stupidity are annoying . . .
J. Michael Phillips
***snip headers***
>> >Most schools have been faced with cutting subjects or whole departments
>> >like art and music.
>>
>> "Most?" Define "most," please . . . exact numbers and percentages,
>> please . ..
>
>Sorry, but you're not worth the time and effort to gather those numbers.
Translation: "most" was a fictitious comparative (bordering on
superlative) that I can't substatiate . . .
>>
>> >What do you suggest the schools cut to make room for
>> >religious indoctrination classes?
>>
>> Do you know how to read? I stated several times that in *public*
>> schools the children should not be "indoctrinated." However,
>> comparative religions shouldn't be cut for "advanced basketweaving,"
>> or "woodshop 101 for seniors who want to skate . . ."
>
>And who suggested "skate" classes? You're taking to change the subject.
I changed the subject? I stated *several times* that in public
schools, the students should *not* be indoctrinated in *any* religion,
and then you come back and ask what classes should be dropped so we
can indoctrinate?
Do you have any idea how disingenuous you sound?
>
>>
>> >Science classes, math classes?
>>
>> Based on your response to my post, science and math might need to be
>> cut down a little and a little more emphasis placed on understanding
>> written English . . .
>> >
>Angry because I saw behind your smoke screen?
Not so much angry as annoyed that a suppossed adult either can't
understand the simplest of concepts, or is intentionally lying and
trying to twist my words . . . either way, it's getting old real fast
. . .
When you have something besides ignoring what's posted, so you can ask
the same question over and over, ad nauseum, then come on back . . .
. . . until then, do't bother posting false allegations . . . it's
really annoying after the third time . . .
Boikat
>
> On 29 Dec 1998 00:15:23 -0500, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> ***snip***
> >> }
> >> }We pulled out a copy of the "Cremation" that I had that was about 30
> >> }years old, showed the boys what it really said, and corrected the text
> >> }in his schoolbook *in pen*.
> >>
> >> If the book belonged to you then do what you want to it. If the book
> >> didn't belong to you then you have committed a minor crime.
> >
> >Yup, if it's like my high school, we turned in our
> >books for next years students to use.
>
> As did my boys . . .
>
> >Now, Mr.
> >Phillips has inscribed, in ink, his personal
> >religious views into a public document.
>
> Nope - wrong . . . . BZZTTTT
>
> But thanks for playing . . .
>
> I corrected a typographical error that the editor obviously missed.
> The poem was corrected to the original that Rob't W Service intended .
> . .
No, you alterd a public document. As you said, the
front of the book explained why there was a
change.
>
> >Like you
> >said, if it's his personal property, he can
> >scribble whatever he wants in it. If it's school
> >property......
>
> BTW - went the next day to school with my son, and showed the teacher
> the correction, and practically dared her to fine me for the book.
> She was actually relieved that I had corrected it. The butcher job
> done on the poem had bothered her for the several years she had been
> using the text.
I'm not saying one way or the other, but you
"corrected" a public document that was not your
personal property.
> >
> >I'd get the white-out (TM).
>
> DANG! Wish I had thought of that!
Ah well.
Boikat
>
> On 29 Dec 1998 00:15:23 -0500, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> ***snip***
> >> }
> >> }We pulled out a copy of the "Cremation" that I had that was about 30
> >> }years old, showed the boys what it really said, and corrected the text
> >> }in his schoolbook *in pen*.
> >>
> >> If the book belonged to you then do what you want to it. If the book
> >> didn't belong to you then you have committed a minor crime.
> >
> >Yup, if it's like my high school, we turned in our
> >books for next years students to use.
>
> As did my boys . . .
>
> >Now, Mr.
> >Phillips has inscribed, in ink, his personal
> >religious views into a public document.
>
> Nope - wrong . . . . BZZTTTT
>
> But thanks for playing . . .
>
> I corrected a typographical error that the editor obviously missed.
> The poem was corrected to the original that Rob't W Service intended .
Also, the thought occurs, can you honestly state
that you would have done the same thing, and gone
to the same lengths expressed the same
indignation, if instead of "God", the name of the
deity changed had been "Zeus"?
> . .
>
> >Like you
> >said, if it's his personal property, he can
> >scribble whatever he wants in it. If it's school
> >property......
>
> BTW - went the next day to school with my son, and showed the teacher
> the correction, and practically dared her to fine me for the book.
> She was actually relieved that I had corrected it. The butcher job
> done on the poem had bothered her for the several years she had been
> using the text.
> >
> >I'd get the white-out (TM).
>
> DANG! Wish I had thought of that!
>
Dick C.
>On 28 Dec 1998 13:45:28 -0500, ju...@trash.garbage (Steve Henderson)
>
>I have 2 boys in HS right now. I go over their homework with them.
>You could lift 3/4 of the social statements from their books, and draw
>direct parallels with HM 1 & 2.
That's nice. What are the statements? And how are they any different from
the general ideas of society should operate rather than Secular Humanist's
ideas?
>
>What was disturbing was a book on poetry being used. "The Cremation
>of Sam McGee" was in the book, and the author had changed:
>"Oh, God, how I loathed the thing" into
>"Oh, Man, how I loathed the thing"
The author or the publisher? It it was the author (Robert Service) then
you have no beef.
>
>We had to go to the preface to find out why this change was made.
>Ostensibly, it was made in order to not "push" another's religious
>beliefs on the "impressionable minds" reading the book.
Really? Now, since most censorship is done by the Chrisitian Right and
the line "Oh, God, how I loathed that thing" is taking the Lord's name in vain,
it seems to me more like it was the fundies at it again. If it wasn't, why
don't you post the part of the introduction where they say different?
>
>However, 2 poems later, was a Wiccan Prayer, which called several
>demons by name in an invocation, and the next prayer was an Amerind
>Prayer - enlisting the services of the "Great Spirit."
Calling demons is usually not considered "bad", not like using the word "god"
is, unless of course you are praying to the god.
>
>I have no problem with my boys reading any of these 3 poems. I am
>annoyed that if it's representative of anything coming fro the
>Judeo-Christian origins, it's taboo, but nothing else is.
No, it sounds to me like it was the typical censoring done to avoid taking the
lords name in vain. Or do you think when the FCC banned the use of the word
God along with many other commonly used words, it was the work of S. H.'s
rather than the Christians?
>
>We pulled out a copy of the "Cremation" that I had that was about 30
>years old, showed the boys what it really said, and corrected the text
>in his schoolbook *in pen*.
How nice, you could have gone to a library and got the proper wording too.
The fundies haven't had much luck in censoring the public libraries.
Dick C.
>On 28 Dec 1998 09:41:19 -0500, foo.d...@drizzle.com (Dick C.) wrote:
>
>>Could you please tell us where it says that? I just went through the second
>>Manifesto and didn't see where it called itself a religion. As a matter of
> fact
>>the authors seemed to have gone to at least some lengths to deny it as a
>>religion.
>
>HM1 - calls the signitories "religious Humanists" on a number of
>occasions. It also goes on to say:
Minor correction, HM! uses Religious Humanists without reference to the
signers.
I just read the first manifesto, and see many references to religious humanist,
so I will concede that the first one does claim to be religious.
But the second one does not explicitly so claim, and it seems to over ride the
first, and the 2nd manifesto says:
Those who sign Humanist Manifesto II disclaim that they are setting forth a
binding credo; their individual views would be stated in widely varying ways.
snip the rest of the first manifesto.
>HM2 states:
> . . . As we approach the twenty-first century, however, an
>affirmative and hopeful vision is needed.Faith, commensurate with
>advancing knowledge, is also necessary . ..
>
>*it goes on to say that the TYPE of religion they are does ***NOT***
>believe in a personal, prayer-hearing God, and that the signitories
>consider that kind of religion "dangerous."*
Yep, so do I, in many ways. And I am not religious.
>
>They avow that they are *not* promoting any creed per se, but later on
>say that:
See what I quoted above, It says that they are not setting forth a
binding credo. Something a religion does absolutely. A religion must
have a binding credo.
>We affirm a set of common principles that can serve as a basis for
>united action -- positive principles relevant to the present human
>condition.
And what is wrong with that? As a matter of fact, isn't that what the
fundies say are lacking?
>
>They go on to say:
>In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest
>ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative
>imagination is an expression of genuine "spiritual" experience and
>aspiration.
And of course, that does not make it religious.
>
>They further disavow directly afterwards belief in any God, creed, or
>whatever that places itself above man . . . so it could not be
>considered a traditional "God-fearing" religion, but it clearly calls
>itself a religion, albeit a radically different one than what people
>had been used to.
Funny, I didn't see them call themselves a religion. As I said, the second
overrides the first. And there are some humanists who want it to be a religion
and some who don't.
Whether it is or not, I see nothing wrong with the principles in it.
And you still haven't linked (I know I haven't asked) the humanist manifesto
to the public schools. Which is really what your claim is.
Michael J. Tobias
>On 29 Dec 1998 00:14:40 -0500, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>>On 28 Dec 1998 23:01:37 -0500, wiz...@eskimo.com (J. Michael Phillips)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I have 2 problems with this question:
>>>1. the Federal Gov't should get the hell out of the local schools
>>
>>why? since the feds integrated racist segregations schools OVER LOCAL
>>OBJECTIONS you arguing for a return to segregation?
>
>Nope. I think that the feds should get the hell out of schools, and
>they should issue vouchers, so your kids can go to the ***best***
>school in the city - and not be forced to go to the one that is
>closest. I don't even believe in segregation based on where you live
>- do you?
>>
I completely disagree with vouchers. I'm not paying my tax money for
some goofball to send their child to a Satanist school. What? Don't
think they exist? Issue vouchers and watch em spring to life.
>
>
>J. Michael Phillips
> I plan to live forever . . .
> . . . so far so good! :)
>
Jef
An open mind is fertile soil
A closed mind is asphalt
Michael J. Tobias
While many Christians may agree that saying "God" in such a manner is
taking the Lord's name in vain, they, like you, would be completely
incorrect. "God" is not the name of the Lord. Furthermore, the
commandment about taking the Lord's name in vain has nothing to do
whatsoever with speaking a proper name. It has to do with vainly
claiming allegiance to God when one is not sincere.
>>
>>We pulled out a copy of the "Cremation" that I had that was about 30
>>years old, showed the boys what it really said, and corrected the text
>>in his schoolbook *in pen*.
>
>How nice, you could have gone to a library and got the proper wording too.
>The fundies haven't had much luck in censoring the public libraries.
>
>Dick, Atheist #1349
>Number 1 boob for 1st 1/2 December 98 awarded by Ed Conrad
>email: dic...@drizzle.com
>Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
>
Sounds like paranoid #1349 to me.
Michael J. Tobias
wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
so, there is no proof that 'secular humanism' is being taught in
schools..
yes, we already know that. thank you.
wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
>On 29 Dec 1998 00:14:40 -0500, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>>On 28 Dec 1998 23:01:37 -0500, wiz...@eskimo.com (J. Michael Phillips)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I have 2 problems with this question:
>>>1. the Federal Gov't should get the hell out of the local schools
>>
>>why? since the feds integrated racist segregations schools OVER LOCAL
>>OBJECTIONS you arguing for a return to segregation?
>
>Nope. I think that the feds should get the hell out of schools, and
>they should issue vouchers, so your kids can go to the ***best***
>school in the city - and not be forced to go to the one that is
>closest. I don't even believe in segregation based on where you live
>- do you?
you didnt answer the question
if it werent for the intervention of the federal govt, schools would
not have been desgregated. it took federal intervention. as to
vouchers, if you're gonna use MY tax money to support private schools,
they must then
1. hire teachers REGARDLESS of sexual orientation
2. teach ONLY science, not 'creation'
etc etc. otherwise give me my tax money. i have no kids.
dic...@drizzle.com
> wrote:
>
> ***snip Cremation of Sam McGee***
> >
> >Annoying and obnoxious, certainly, but it doesn't strike me as
> >any sort of proof that secular humanists are around.
>
> Proof, you're right. Really really *minor* indication that they might
> be, yes . . .
Or as is the most likely case, that the publishers were afraid of what the
Christians would say, so had it changed. Using the term "By God" is taking the
lord's name in vain.
>
> ***snip***
>
> >}We pulled out a copy of the "Cremation" that I had that was about 30
> >}years old, showed the boys what it really said, and corrected the text
> >}in his schoolbook *in pen*.
> >
> >If the book belonged to you then do what you want to it. If the book
> >didn't belong to you then you have committed a minor crime.
>
> Yup - the crime of Civil Disobedience, similar that that described in
> Walden Pond . ..
Uh, no, what you did was damage property, which is not civil disobedience.
And it was pointless. What you should have done is written the publisher and
insisted that he put the original wording back in, and asked the teacher to
indicate that the poem was modified. All you did was damage public property.
--
Dick, Atheist #1349
Number 1 boob for 1st 1/2 December 98 awarded by Ed Conrad
email: dic...@drizzle.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
dic...@drizzle.com
jt5...@mindspring.com wrote:
> foo.d...@drizzle.com (Dick C.) wrote:
>
> >
> >No, it sounds to me like it was the typical censoring done to avoid taking
the
> >lords name in vain. Or do you think when the FCC banned the use of the word
> >God along with many other commonly used words, it was the work of S. H.'s
> >rather than the Christians?
> >
> While many Christians may agree that saying "God" in such a manner is
> taking the Lord's name in vain, they, like you, would be completely
> incorrect. "God" is not the name of the Lord. Furthermore, the
> commandment about taking the Lord's name in vain has nothing to do
> whatsoever with speaking a proper name. It has to do with vainly
> claiming allegiance to God when one is not sincere.
Whatever you think god's real name is, is irrelevant. What is relevant is
that there are many people who think that using the word God is profanity,
and should not be allowed in books that are used by school kids of any age.
Michael J. Tobias
>In article <3688f5b6...@news.mindspring.com>,
> jt5...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> foo.d...@drizzle.com (Dick C.) wrote:
>>
>
>> >
>> >No, it sounds to me like it was the typical censoring done to avoid taking
>the
>> >lords name in vain. Or do you think when the FCC banned the use of the word
>> >God along with many other commonly used words, it was the work of S. H.'s
>> >rather than the Christians?
>> >
>> While many Christians may agree that saying "God" in such a manner is
>> taking the Lord's name in vain, they, like you, would be completely
>> incorrect. "God" is not the name of the Lord. Furthermore, the
>> commandment about taking the Lord's name in vain has nothing to do
>> whatsoever with speaking a proper name. It has to do with vainly
>> claiming allegiance to God when one is not sincere.
>
>Whatever you think god's real name is, is irrelevant. What is relevant is
>that there are many people who think that using the word God is profanity,
>and should not be allowed in books that are used by school kids of any age.
>
Well, they are wrong
>--
>Dick, Atheist #1349
>Number 1 boob for 1st 1/2 December 98 awarded by Ed Conrad
>email: dic...@drizzle.com
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
Jef
Steve Henderson
}>> }
}>> }We pulled out a copy of the "Cremation" that I had that was about 30
}>> }years old, showed the boys what it really said, and corrected the text
}>> }in his schoolbook *in pen*.
}>>
}>> If the book belonged to you then do what you want to it. If the book
}>> didn't belong to you then you have committed a minor crime.
}>
}>books for next years students to use.
}
}As did my boys . . .
}
}>Now, Mr.
}>Phillips has inscribed, in ink, his personal
}>religious views into a public document.
}
}Nope - wrong . . . . BZZTTTT
}
}But thanks for playing . . .
}
}I corrected a typographical error that the editor obviously missed.
}The poem was corrected to the original that Rob't W Service intended .
What nonsense. The correct response would be a letter to the school
board and another to the publisher complaining about the alterations.
In addition, a letter to Service's estate might be worthwhile. I
do believe he is out of copyright by now, but the estate might still
be able to exert some preassure.
Since, however, the error was not a typographical one but a deliberate
alteration, your weaseling above shows a lack of strong moral
standards and a willingness to commit minor crimes when you think
you can get away with it. Not an uncommon flaw, but one you should
keep hidden if you are attempting to push some sort of religious
agenda.
}>Like you
}>said, if it's his personal property, he can
}>scribble whatever he wants in it. If it's school
}>property......
}
}BTW - went the next day to school with my son, and showed the teacher
}the correction, and practically dared her to fine me for the book.
}She was actually relieved that I had corrected it. The butcher job
}done on the poem had bothered her for the several years she had been
}using the text.
Who cares what the teacher thought. She is not the owner of the book
and has no legal standing. In not reporting your alteration she is
probably also guilty of a minor crime.
}>
}>I'd get the white-out (TM).
}
}DANG! Wish I had thought of that!
}
}
}J. Michael Phillips
} I plan to live forever . . .
} . . . so far so good! :)
}
Enslaved, illogical, elate,
Steve Henderson
}wrote:
}
}***snip***
}
}>}>Good. And right after the sermon at your local
}>}>church, we will have a seminar on biological
}>}>evolution, Big Bang cosmology, and physical and
}>}>historical geology. All denominations, of
}>}>course. Wouldn't want anyone to be left out.
}>}
}>}Personally, I would LOVE it, but you have to remember that a Church is
}>}*NOT* a public place. It is a private club, with membership
}>}requirements. If you violate those requirements, you are not welcome
}>}there.
}>
}>I see the logic. Schools are public because taxes support them.
}>Churches are private because not paying taxes helps support them.
}
}You seem to miss the point: Schools are public because it's a child's
}*right* to have an education, and that is paid for by our taxes. A
}Church is private because it is *completely* seperated from the state,
}even to the point that even the SS . . . er . . . Gestapo . . . er . .
Indeed, churches are seperated from the state. This works to the
benefit of the churches in several ways. The obvious one is that
they don't have to pay taxes. They are also not under federal control
as the schools, in part, are. The obverse of this, however, is that
they are free of this control and taxes at the expense of those who
have no say in what they do. It's a free ride for them and a pretty
good deal for the church. I'm not at all sure that it's a good deal
for anyone else.
}>Real churches, of course, mostly aren't private clubs and can be
}>attended by anyone. You may not feel welcome, but you generally
}>aren't asked to leave.
}
}Oh, most certainly you are. If you violate fundamental rules of
}inclusion, you *will* be asked (politely at first) to leave.
You are having reading comprehension problems. Possibly your church
is more restrictive than most. If you violate fundamental rules
of public behavior and politeness, you will most likely be asked
to leave. If you come to a service and sit quietly and listen, real
churches will be happy to have you. Cult types of churches may get
rid of you.
}>}***snip***
}>}
}>}>Who said it is. By the way, which religion do we
}>}>indoctrinate all the children into?
}>}
}>}Indoctrinate them into? None. Expose them to (by the recognized
}>}experts from the various disciplines), all those you mentioned below,
}>}and then some . . .
}>
}>I doubt that it's workable at the high school level. There are
}>plenty of courses in college in things like comparative religion.
}
}We had some Comp Rel classes incorporated into our Psych classes in
}HS, and it generated so much interest, that some of us took it upon
}ourselves to start a "religion club" after school. We invited church
}leaders to come and talk. Then we would have some very lively
}discussions . . .
} . . . at the time, I generally argued the atheist position, because
}it made the most sense to me. I've done a 180 since then . .
Ah well, so have I.
}>}>Southern
}>}>Baptist? Roman Catholic? How about Wicca? No?
}>}>Lutheran? Islam? Hindi?
}>}
}>}>Which one should the
}>}>public school, i.e., the Federal Government,
}>}>endorse?
}>}
}>}I have 2 problems with this question:
}>}1. the Federal Gov't should get the hell out of the local schools
}>}2. the *public* schools should "endorse" none of them
}>
}>Well, I disagree strongly with #1. To call for the Feds to get out
}>of local schools is, in parts of the country, to turn them over to
}>the most vocal locals who tend to be the least tolerant of anything
}>that disagrees with their beliefs, including teaching of other
}>religions. Basically, if you don't have #1, you will definately have
}>the schools endorsing whatever local religion is the strongest and
}>most vocal.
}
}Sorry, I don't see it happening . . . In Idaho (which has the highest
}per capita Mormon population in the nation) it was the locals that got
}the missionaries out of the schools, not the feds. Your comment
}sounds paranoid to me, but just because your paranoid doesn't mean
}they're *not* out to get you! LOL
Curious. Your comments also sound paranoid to me.
michael burt
<mpai...@inreach.com> wrote:
> >>The Scripture does not say that the Earth is only 6000 years old. That
> belief
> >went out with Elizabethian times. The Scripture says that the forming of
> Adam
> >and Eve was 6000 years ago. Many things happened before that, according to
> >Scripture including another entire earth age including, perhaps a
> pre-Adamic
> >race, and for which time frame is not specified by Scripture.
>
> This was cross posted to T.O at a fairly late stage of the conversation I
> suspect.
> Nothing new, nothing that has not been discussed many times. Usually by
> YEC's (Young Earth Creationists) that hit and run.
>
> I would dearly love to see somebody come up with something original.
Sorry, truth doesn't change often. You have apparently misread the
posting. I said that Adam and Eve were formed 6000 years ago. The
earth's creation date is not identified. Based upon Scripture, there is
no time identified. I am not a YEC. I believe that the universe was
formed 4.5 billion years ago in Gn 1:1 based upon extrabiblical study for
the timeframe. But the first earth age ended and the earth BECAME
destroyed in Gn 1:2. the balance of Chapter 1 is the re-creation of the
earth, or the second earth age. there is some indication that a pre-Adamic
race existed in the first earth age from Scripture.
>
> Why don't some of you YEC's examine core samples taken in the deep ocean to
> prove there is no continuity in the fossil record?
I have studied the fossil record. Nothing there disagrees with creation,
as I understand it, and I believe that my understanding is consistent with
the Hebrew.
>
> "That belief went out with Elizabethian (sic) times. " is somewhat amusing.
> The vast number of people defending creation here argue for a 6000 year old
> universe. When the bible says a day it means a 24 hour day. Period.
> A small number admit to a longer span.
You are right, the Hebrew is very specific regarding the day used in
Genesis as one day (with other modifiers, it may be longer). However, I
believe that we are talking about re-creation not the original creation
which occurred before Gn 1:2. Also, as this chapter was written by God by
defination as men and women were not created until day 6 and Adam and Eve
were formed on day 8, God's reference plane of time using Einstien's
theory may not be the same as we commonly think of, even if the Hebrew is
specific from the reference plane of earth. I don't have the answer, just
the possibility.
>
> There have also been a few flat earthers here. A search of the web will show
> that the belief in a flat earth in a geocentric universe is still held by
> most.
> All of them will tell you that their view is truth and that anyone who does
> not agree is wrong and will probably be condemned to hell.
> All will tell you it is obvious if you just read the bible.
The Bible describes the earth as an orb suspended in space. I read the
Bible, and would be happy to talk to them.
>
> My view and that of many others on T.O. is that they have made the bible
> their god to the exclusion of all else.
You are correct. I believe that the Bible is correct, although not always
in the way in which we want it to be. Biblical knowledge can be an idol,
but well worth the time spent because the understanding of God gained is
worth the risk and temptation of knowledge becoming an idol. But if it
becomes an idol, it is time to have a long talk with the Creator.
--
May God Bless You,
Michael
Character Counts. It is not hypocritical to set a high goal and occasionally fail. It is hypocritical to set a low goal and occasionally succeed.
dic...@drizzle.com
"Kevin R. Henke" <yvoa...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> dic...@drizzle.com wrote in message
>
> [snip]
>
> :I see that you are using outlook express for your newsreader. May I suggest
> :using one of the several freely available newsreaders on the net? Ones such
> as
> :Forte's FreeAgent or News Express. (My favorite).
> :You should be able to find several at http://tucows.holler.net/news95.html
> :You can download NewsXpress here: http://www.malch.com/nxfaq.html
> :And best of all, they are free!.
> :
> :--
> :Dick, Atheist #1349
> :
>
> KRH: Thanks for the offer, Dick. However, my wife forbids me to change the
> software on her computer.
Ouch, oh well. I have gotten somewhat used to the lack of quotations, but I
see you added a colon in front of the quoted lines. That works.
>
> Kevin
J. Michael Phillips
>J. Michael Phillips wrote:
>>
>> On 29 Dec 1998 00:15:23 -0500, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> ***snip***
>> >> }
>> >> }We pulled out a copy of the "Cremation" that I had that was about 30
>> >> }years old, showed the boys what it really said, and corrected the text
>> >> }in his schoolbook *in pen*.
>> >>
>> >> If the book belonged to you then do what you want to it. If the book
>> >> didn't belong to you then you have committed a minor crime.
>> >
>> >Yup, if it's like my high school, we turned in our
>> >books for next years students to use.
>>
>> As did my boys . . .
>>
>> >Now, Mr.
>> >Phillips has inscribed, in ink, his personal
>> >religious views into a public document.
>>
>> Nope - wrong . . . . BZZTTTT
>>
>> But thanks for playing . . .
>>
>> I corrected a typographical error that the editor obviously missed.
>> The poem was corrected to the original that Rob't W Service intended .
>
>Also, the thought occurs, can you honestly state
>that you would have done the same thing, and gone
>to the same lengths expressed the same
>indignation, if instead of "God", the name of the
>deity changed had been "Zeus"?
I believe I would have.
***snip***
Herb Huston
michael burt <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
} I believe that the Bible is correct, although not always
}in the way in which we want it to be.
Do leporids really redigest their food in the manner described in Leviticus
11:6?
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@radix.net
-- http://www.radix.net/~huston
J. Michael Phillips
***snip***
>>What was disturbing was a book on poetry being used. "The Cremation
>>of Sam McGee" was in the book, and the author had changed:
>>"Oh, God, how I loathed the thing" into
>>"Oh, Man, how I loathed the thing"
>
>The author or the publisher? It it was the author (Robert Service) then
>you have no beef.
Not sure which it was, but since the book was published in (if memory
serves . . . it's been about 2 years) 1992. It was RWS who changed
RWS's work . . .
>
>>
>>We had to go to the preface to find out why this change was made.
>>Ostensibly, it was made in order to not "push" another's religious
>>beliefs on the "impressionable minds" reading the book.
>
>Really? Now, since most censorship is done by the Chrisitian Right
Caveat: In America . . .
>and
>the line "Oh, God, how I loathed that thing" is taking the Lord's name in vain,
Is it? I'm sure are some who would say it was, but I also know some
who wouldn't . . .
>it seems to me more like it was the fundies at it again. If it wasn't, why
>don't you post the part of the introduction where they say different?
I haven't seen the book in about 3 years, and don't have a copy.
Apologies. We may have ta agree to disagree on who perpetrated this
abonimation . . . :)
>
>>
>>However, 2 poems later, was a Wiccan Prayer, which called several
>>demons by name in an invocation, and the next prayer was an Amerind
>>Prayer - enlisting the services of the "Great Spirit."
>
>Calling demons is usually not considered "bad",
According to whom? Most of the Christians I know would have been more
offended by invocation of demons than RWS's poem . . .
>not like using the word "god"
>is, unless of course you are praying to the god.
>
>>
>>I have no problem with my boys reading any of these 3 poems. I am
>>annoyed that if it's representative of anything coming fro the
>>Judeo-Christian origins, it's taboo, but nothing else is.
>
>No, it sounds to me like it was the typical censoring done to avoid taking the
>lords name in vain.
It didn't to me because there were plenty of other instances in the
book where "God" was used at least as irreverently . . . but again, we
may have to agree to disagree on this one. We see different
conspirators lurking behind the potted plant at the Astoria . . . :)
>Or do you think when the FCC banned the use of the word
>God along with many other commonly used words, it was the work of S. H.'s
>rather than the Christians?
To this day, I haven't understood why some were banned . . . God is a
good example . . . (go figure)
>
>>
>>We pulled out a copy of the "Cremation" that I had that was about 30
>>years old, showed the boys what it really said, and corrected the text
>>in his schoolbook *in pen*.
>
>How nice, you could have gone to a library and got the proper wording too.
>The fundies haven't had much luck in censoring the public libraries.
NO ONE has much luck censoring in MY library!
Boikat
> >
> >Also, the thought occurs, can you honestly state
> >that you would have done the same thing, and gone
> >to the same lengths expressed the same
> >indignation, if instead of "God", the name of the
> >deity changed had been "Zeus"?
>
> I believe I would have.
>
Then I assume that you double checked the other
poems, and writings to verify that they were also
not altered?
Boikat
J. Michael Phillips
>In article <36884b0b....@eskinews.eskimo.com>, wiz...@eskimo.com (J. Michael Phillips) wrote:
>>On 28 Dec 1998 09:41:19 -0500, foo.d...@drizzle.com (Dick C.) wrote:
>>
>
>>>Could you please tell us where it says that? I just went through the second
>>>Manifesto and didn't see where it called itself a religion. As a matter of
>> fact
>>>the authors seemed to have gone to at least some lengths to deny it as a
>>>religion.
>>
>>HM1 - calls the signitories "religious Humanists" on a number of
>>occasions. It also goes on to say:
>
>Minor correction, HM! uses Religious Humanists without reference to the
>signers.
I sit corrected - because it's too hard to type while standing
corrected . . .
>I just read the first manifesto, and see many references to religious humanist,
>so I will concede that the first one does claim to be religious.
Agreed . . .
>
>But the second one does not explicitly so claim, and it seems to over ride the
>first, and the 2nd manifesto says:
You're right, not nearly so explicitly. But the second must be taken
in the light of the first . . .
>
>Those who sign Humanist Manifesto II disclaim that they are setting forth a
>binding credo; their individual views would be stated in widely varying ways.
>
***snip***
>>*it goes on to say that the TYPE of religion they are does ***NOT***
>>believe in a personal, prayer-hearing God, and that the signitories
>>consider that kind of religion "dangerous."*
>
>Yep, so do I, in many ways. And I am not religious.
Oh, I am, and I disagree . . . no surprise there, eh?
>
>>They avow that they are *not* promoting any creed per se, but later on
>>say that:
>
>See what I quoted above, It says that they are not setting forth a
>binding credo. Something a religion does absolutely. A religion must
>have a binding credo.
Ummmm . . . no, it doesn't . . .
For most branches of Wicca, the closest thing they have to a "binding
creed" is the Rede. Beyond that, pretty much everything is up to the
individual . . .
>
>>We affirm a set of common principles that can serve as a basis for
>>united action -- positive principles relevant to the present human
>>condition.
>And what is wrong with that? As a matter of fact, isn't that what the
>fundies say are lacking?
What's wrong with having "positive principles relevant to the present
human condition" to serve as a basis for united action? Nothing if
the "positive principles" really are positive, and the action is good.
Unfortunately, these "positive principles" and "united action" were
precisely what the Nazis had in WWII.
>
>>
>>They go on to say:
>>In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest
>>ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative
>>imagination is an expression of genuine "spiritual" experience and
>>aspiration.
>
>And of course, that does not make it religious.
Taken as a whole, it seems perfectly obvious that they thought that it
was . . . we may have to agree to disagree on this point - but I
truely do think the preponderance of evidence is on my side.
>
>>
>>They further disavow directly afterwards belief in any God, creed, or
>>whatever that places itself above man . . . so it could not be
>>considered a traditional "God-fearing" religion, but it clearly calls
>>itself a religion, albeit a radically different one than what people
>>had been used to.
>
>Funny, I didn't see them call themselves a religion. As I said, the second
>overrides the first. And there are some humanists who want it to be a religion
>and some who don't.
Just like Christians who say that Christianity isn't a religion, it's
ONLY a relationship . . .
>Whether it is or not, I see nothing wrong with the principles in it.
Neither do a lot of people - you're in good company
>And you still haven't linked (I know I haven't asked) the humanist manifesto
>to the public schools. Which is really what your claim is.
It's not really all that important. The point I was trying to make
was that kids coming out of school look a LOT more like Secular
Humanists on the whole than atheists.
J. Michael Phillips
Tobias) wrote:
***snipped headers***
>>>>I have 2 problems with this question:
>>>>1. the Federal Gov't should get the hell out of the local schools
>>>
>>>why? since the feds integrated racist segregations schools OVER LOCAL
>>>OBJECTIONS you arguing for a return to segregation?
>>
>>Nope. I think that the feds should get the hell out of schools, and
>>they should issue vouchers, so your kids can go to the ***best***
>>school in the city - and not be forced to go to the one that is
>>closest. I don't even believe in segregation based on where you live
>>- do you?
>>>
>I completely disagree with vouchers. I'm not paying my tax money for
>some goofball to send their child to a Satanist school.
Why not? If it's the best school, wouldn't you want your kids to have
that advantage?
>What? Don't
>think they exist?
Actually, I know they do exist . . . of course not as big, or as
publicized as other schools - but so what?
>Issue vouchers and watch em spring to life.
I think you're being paranoid. One may rear its ugly head every once
in a while, but unless they're furnishing superior **education,** they
won't last.
J. Michael Phillips
***snip***
>
>so, there is no proof that 'secular humanism' is being taught in
>schools..
I didn't say there was "proof" of any such thing. I said that Secular
Humanism was serious about getting into the schools to indoctrinate
children. I said that I thought they were pretty successful at it. I
don't honestly recall ever saying that I had "proof" of it.
As a matter of fact, there's very little on this planet I do have
"proof" of (depending on how you use the word "proof")
If you use it as in "the proof of the pudding is in the eating," then
there is *plenty* of proof that SH has been doing a very good job of
infiltrating the school systems in this country. Look at what's
coming out the other end . . .
There's also slightly more concrete "proof," such as signitories like
Isaac Asimov spending a huge proportion of their lives teaching.
But the bottom line is this:
So what? Why do you care one way or the other?
SH's Manifesto calls SH a religion
They have some lofty goals, and very good ideals they wish to
promulgate, such as making people better citizens and they hope to do
so from within the Schools
They do that - and do a pretty good job of it.
Why are you coughing up a furrball about it?
>
>yes, we already know that. thank you.
Well, you thought you knew a lot of stuff . . . *sigh*
J. Michael Phillips
>>>>I have 2 problems with this question:
>>>>1. the Federal Gov't should get the hell out of the local schools
>>>
>>>why? since the feds integrated racist segregations schools OVER LOCAL
>>>OBJECTIONS you arguing for a return to segregation?
>>
>>Nope. I think that the feds should get the hell out of schools, and
>>they should issue vouchers, so your kids can go to the ***best***
>>school in the city - and not be forced to go to the one that is
>>closest. I don't even believe in segregation based on where you live
>>- do you?
>
>you didnt answer the question
I did answer the question. Your *question* was "you arguing for a
return to segregation?" I answered no, I am not advocating that.
Re-read it, I'm sure you'll comprehend on the second, third, or fourth
reading . . .
>
>if it werent for the intervention of the federal govt, schools would
>not have been desgregated.
Caveat: at the time it actually happened. You cannot say one way or
the other that it *would not* have happened, unless you're also
claiming to be a prophet - is that what you're claiming?
>it took federal intervention. as to
>vouchers, if you're gonna use MY tax money to support private schools,
>they must then>
>1. hire teachers REGARDLESS of sexual orientation
>2. teach ONLY science, not 'creation'
>etc etc. otherwise give me my tax money. i have no kids.
Why should YOU get special treatment? I can't tell the Fed how to
spend my money. Neither can anyone else. What makes YOU so special?
J. Michael Phillips
wrote:
***snip***
>Since, however, the error was not a typographical one but a deliberate
>alteration, your weaseling above shows a lack of strong moral
>standards and a willingness to commit minor crimes when you think
>you can get away with it. Not an uncommon flaw, but one you should
>keep hidden if you are attempting to push some sort of religious
>agenda.
This is, I believe the third time I've been told I have a "religious
agenda" I'm pushing because I don't want a distinguished author's work
arbitrarily changed with no notification. What religious agend was I
pushing?
***snip***
>Who cares what the teacher thought. She is not the owner of the book
>and has no legal standing. In not reporting your alteration she is
>probably also guilty of a minor crime.
I would guess not as guilty as I was, but that's neither here nor
there. Yes, I was wrong. This afternoon, I caught myself going 40MPH
in a 35 zone, too . . . was I pressing some religious agenda again?
Michael J. Tobias
>On 29 Dec 1998 10:11:46 -0500, jt5...@mindspring.com (Michael J.
>Tobias) wrote:
>
>***snipped headers***
>
>>>>>I have 2 problems with this question:
>>>>>1. the Federal Gov't should get the hell out of the local schools
>>>>
>>>>why? since the feds integrated racist segregations schools OVER LOCAL
>>>>OBJECTIONS you arguing for a return to segregation?
>>>
>>>Nope. I think that the feds should get the hell out of schools, and
>>>they should issue vouchers, so your kids can go to the ***best***
>>>school in the city - and not be forced to go to the one that is
>>>closest. I don't even believe in segregation based on where you live
>>>- do you?
>>>>
>>I completely disagree with vouchers. I'm not paying my tax money for
>>some goofball to send their child to a Satanist school.
>
>Why not? If it's the best school, wouldn't you want your kids to have
>that advantage?
>
>>What? Don't
>>think they exist?
>
>Actually, I know they do exist . . . of course not as big, or as
>publicized as other schools - but so what?
>
>>Issue vouchers and watch em spring to life.
>
>I think you're being paranoid. One may rear its ugly head every once
>in a while, but unless they're furnishing superior **education,** they
>won't last.
>
Well I don't want my tax dollars to pay for it.
>
>J. Michael Phillips
> I plan to live forever . . .
> . . . so far so good! :)
>
Jef
wf...@enter.netxx
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Path: 192.204.98.214
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.204.98.214
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.204.98.214
X-Trace: 29 Dec 1998 22:27:02 +0500, 192.204.98.214
Organization: Enter.Net
Lines: 44
On 29 Dec 1998 21:33:31 -0500, wiz...@eskimo.com (J. Michael Phillips)
wrote:
>On 29 Dec 1998 12:30:48 -0500, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>***snip***
>>
>>so, there is no proof that 'secular humanism' is being taught in
>>schools..
>
>I didn't say there was "proof" of any such thing. I said that Secular
>Humanism was serious about getting into the schools to indoctrinate
>children. I said that I thought they were pretty successful at it. I
>don't honestly recall ever saying that I had "proof" of it.
oh. so you 'think' something is happening, but its entirely in your
imagination
which is what we told you...
>If you use it as in "the proof of the pudding is in the eating," then
>there is *plenty* of proof that SH has been doing a very good job of
>infiltrating the school systems in this country. Look at what's
>coming out the other end . . .
more of your overactive imagination
>
>There's also slightly more concrete "proof," such as signitories like
>Isaac Asimov spending a huge proportion of their lives teaching.
of course he's been dead for 20 yrs..
>
>But the bottom line is this:
>So what? Why do you care one way or the other?
because fundies like strawmen to push their agenda
>
>Why are you coughing up a furrball about it?
i didnt. you're the one who said its being taught in school...sounds
like you need the malt medicine
wf...@enter.netxx
wrote:
>On 29 Dec 1998 12:32:34 -0500, wf...@enter.netxx wrote:
>
>>>>>I have 2 problems with this question:
>>>>>1. the Federal Gov't should get the hell out of the local schools
>>>>
>>>>why? since the feds integrated racist segregations schools OVER LOCAL
>>>>OBJECTIONS you arguing for a return to segregation?
>>>
>>>Nope. I think that the feds should get the hell out of schools, and
>>>they should issue vouchers, so your kids can go to the ***best***
>>>school in the city - and not be forced to go to the one that is
>>>closest. I don't even believe in segregation based on where you live
>>>- do you?
>>
>>you didnt answer the question
>
>I did answer the question. Your *question* was "you arguing for a
>return to segregation?" I answered no, I am not advocating that.
>Re-read it, I'm sure you'll comprehend on the second, third, or fourth
>reading . . .
and, on the 3rd reading you still dodge the question. since the feds
stopped segregation, you simply refuse to address how such problems
would have been solved w/o the feds
>>
>>if it werent for the intervention of the federal govt, schools would
>>not have been desgregated.
>
>Caveat: at the time it actually happened. You cannot say one way or
>the other that it *would not* have happened, unless you're also
>claiming to be a prophet - is that what you're claiming?
yeah. because in 'brown vs board of ed', the local school boards
fought integration.
>
>>it took federal intervention. as to
>>vouchers, if you're gonna use MY tax money to support private schools,
>>they must then>
>>1. hire teachers REGARDLESS of sexual orientation
>>2. teach ONLY science, not 'creation'
>>etc etc. otherwise give me my tax money. i have no kids.
>
>Why should YOU get special treatment? I can't tell the Fed how to
>spend my money. Neither can anyone else. What makes YOU so special?
wrong. ever hear of taxation w/o representation? every school that
gets federal money has to obey federal rules in personnel, hiring,
firing etc.
you think you should have special privileges?
Steve Henderson
}wrote:
}
}***snip***
}
}>Since, however, the error was not a typographical one but a deliberate
}>alteration, your weaseling above shows a lack of strong moral
}>standards and a willingness to commit minor crimes when you think
}>you can get away with it. Not an uncommon flaw, but one you should
}>keep hidden if you are attempting to push some sort of religious
}>agenda.
}
}This is, I believe the third time I've been told I have a "religious
}agenda" I'm pushing because I don't want a distinguished author's work
}arbitrarily changed with no notification. What religious agend was I
}pushing?
Didn't you chide someone recently on their reading comprehension. I
said "if". Actually, the tone of your postings tends to make me
believe you have a religious agenda, but I have no real proof of
it. Which is why I said "if".
}>Who cares what the teacher thought. She is not the owner of the book
}>and has no legal standing. In not reporting your alteration she is
}>probably also guilty of a minor crime.
}
}I would guess not as guilty as I was, but that's neither here nor
}there. Yes, I was wrong. This afternoon, I caught myself going 40MPH
}in a 35 zone, too . . . was I pressing some religious agenda again?
Nope. You were speeding.
Dan Abbott
>
> On 27 Dec 1998 02:33:29 -0500, mike...@ix.netcom.com (michael burt)
> wrote:
[snip]
> Piltdown Man
> It took over 40 years to realize that Piltdown man, represented by
> hominid-like fossil specimens found in Britain, was a fraud. Why did
> it take so long to discover the hoax, who was the hoaxer, and what
> does this episode say about evolution?
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
Or read the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas
Kuhn.
[snip]
> Nope. If it was well documented then there would be no need for
> apologetics.
Yeah, right... :-) "If documents record an event, there is no need to
advocate it"? Whatever.
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html
>
> >
> >Do they refute, in your mind, the knowledge that such items
> >>exist or existed? Evolution is not a religion.
> >
> >Do not be so sure. Religion is defined as any system of beliefs under
> >defination 3 of my dictionary. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Why don't stop lying
Ad hominum.
> and provide the dictionary definition?
>
> >
> >It is not even a dogma.
> >
> >Really. A dogma is an assertion a priori without proof. I admit my
> >religion and dogma, others should be as honest. Neither hypothesis is
> >proven by the fossil record, my mind is open, is yours?
>
> The evidence for evolution doesn't depend on fossils alone.
Agreed.
[snip]
> Isn't bearing false witness a sin in your religion?
> <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195061012/qid=914746749/sr=1-1/002-5644889-4602234>
Ad hominum.
[snip]
> Do you understand the scientific method?
> http://www.scientificmethod.com/chapters.htm
Ad hominum.
[snip]
> The scientific and business world doesn't think so.
How can a world (society, your probably mean) "think"? Also, since when
is there only one "scientific and business" world? Or even just one
"scientific" world and just one "business" world?
> Only
> fundamentalist cretins think so.
Fallacy of False Alternatives / Overgeneralization.
[snip]
> >Past
> >>failures are not illustrations of weakness in the scientific method.
> >
> >You are quite right, Piltdown was a disgrace to the scientific method, as
> >any preconceived notions without any basis are.
>
> The fraud of one person doesn't tarnish science.
Agreed.
> Even after pointing
> out the countless frauds of creationists, they continue to lie.
Huh? So?
[snip]
> A global flood cannot explain the sorting of fossils observed in the
> geological record.
Agreed.
[snip]
> >I am, are you?
>
> Yep. Development of new medicines and other products and services
> depend upon the theory of evolution.
So? Valuable work on electricity "depended" on some scientific theories
to be right. They weren't. Your argument there provides little support
for evolution.
[snip]
> Majority of the Christians don't even consider fundamentalists to be
> Christians.
Reference?
> That's why the need for civil war, emancipation
> proclamation, 14th amendment and de-segregation.
What are you talking about? My only guess is that only
"fundementalists" supported the CSA (as if the civil war were about
slavery!), but I guess you don't consider John Brown to be a
fundementalist...
[snip]
> You're nothing but a liar.
Ad hominum.
> You have been posted enough evidence. But
> you haven't even replied to them.
[snip]
> >What scientific explanation
> >>could there possibly be for the anecdote in the Bible where the sun
> >>stops in the sky for a while?
> >
> >I do not have a definative answer for this, but I do offer the possibility
> >of Einstien reference planes which could provide a possible answer to that
> >which we both seek.
>
> Nope. That won't do. If that were so it'll be head line news.
Agreed that it's prety inexplicably scientifically. Of course, saying
"God did it" is closer to the point anyway.
[snip]
> >Who is they? Those I study Hebrew with have a markedly different viewpoint.
>
> People who are much more knowledgeable than you in alt.bible.errancy.
Ad hominum.
[snip]
> Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
Ad hominum.
[snip]
> >There is no evidence against the theory of creation. If there were, maybe you'd
> >have an argument. But you don't. Besides, as I've said, I don't
> >imagine that there would any proof anyone COULD find that would
> >convince you. So why bother?
>
> There is no evidence for creation. Try
> http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=372243992
> http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=372683542
sarcasm("Well, if it's said on usenet it has to be true!")
[snip]
> When you have evidence, you don't need faith.
That's the view of an empiricist, which I don't think you are. Evidence
alone doesn't tell you anything. (If you hear evidence speaking, it's
because you're insane.)
[snip]
fallacious-logic-o-meter: 8
Cheers,
-Dan Abbott
abb...@khanate.com
----------------------------------------------------------
e: Exponentiation, or Natural Log?
- The Signaturés of The Khanate (http://www.khanate.com)
Dick C.
>On 29 Dec 1998 09:08:50 -0500, foo.d...@drizzle.com (Dick C.) wrote:
>
>***snip***
>
>>>What was disturbing was a book on poetry being used. "The Cremation
>>>of Sam McGee" was in the book, and the author had changed:
>>>"Oh, God, how I loathed the thing" into
>>>"Oh, Man, how I loathed the thing"
>>
>>The author or the publisher? It it was the author (Robert Service) then
>>you have no beef.
>
>Not sure which it was, but since the book was published in (if memory
>serves . . . it's been about 2 years) 1992. It was RWS who changed
>RWS's work . . .
Neat trick, Robert W. Service lived 1874 to 1958. And I grew up with his poems.
My father had a book of his that was published in the mid 30's.
>>Really? Now, since most censorship is done by the Chrisitian Right
>
>Caveat: In America . . .
And you are not talking about America? I could have sworn your ISP is in
Seattle.
>
>>and
>>the line "Oh, God, how I loathed that thing" is taking the Lord's name in
> vain,
>
>Is it? I'm sure are some who would say it was, but I also know some
>who wouldn't . . .
When I was a child to even use the word God got me in trouble, unless I was
praying. Ask any number of religious people if saying Oh God is alright. You
may or may not be aware that in the 1950's and 60's our nation's sensiblities
could not stand the idea of a husband and wife being portrayed as sleeping in
the same bed on tv. It wasn't the Buddhists or the humanists who were doing
that. It was the conservative Christians who were afraid of that idea.
>
>>it seems to me more like it was the fundies at it again. If it wasn't, why
>>don't you post the part of the introduction where they say different?
>
>I haven't seen the book in about 3 years, and don't have a copy.
>Apologies. We may have ta agree to disagree on who perpetrated this
>abonimation . . . :)
True, but I have seen many times our fine nation's Christian sensibilities
being offended by using the Lords name in the wrong way.
>>
>>Calling demons is usually not considered "bad",
>
>According to whom? Most of the Christians I know would have been more
>offended by invocation of demons than RWS's poem . . .
Perhaps I should rephrase, I was in a hurry when I typed that. Demons are not
about to be called by a mere poem, and the usage of the word demon is quite
acceptable, and have been all along. We can use words like witch, demon, devil,
and satan with noone raising an eyebrow. A simple God damnit will get you
censured in a hurry, in many places.
>>No, it sounds to me like it was the typical censoring done to avoid taking the
>>lords name in vain.
>
>It didn't to me because there were plenty of other instances in the
>book where "God" was used at least as irreverently . . . but again, we
>may have to agree to disagree on this one. We see different
>conspirators lurking behind the potted plant at the Astoria . . . :)
Are you referring to the Christian god? Or a pagan god.
>
>>Or do you think when the FCC banned the use of the word
>>God along with many other commonly used words, it was the work of S. H.'s
>>rather than the Christians?
>
>To this day, I haven't understood why some were banned . . . God is a
>good example . . . (go figure)
Our Christian sensiblities were offended by such usage, or at least that
was the way it was seen. I remember a song that is quite nice by our today's
standards, but was a little bit of a ground breaker. It was the first song that
KJR (when it was a rock station) played that contained a cuss word. The song
was "GreenBack Dollar" and it was played for quite a while with the word damn
beeped out, then they finally played it and the chorus goes " I don't give a
damn about a green back dollar,". That was in late '68 or early 69. But at the
same time there were church services broadcast every Sunday. Jeez, I was
glad when I could turn on the TV or Radio and not get all the religious crap.
However, to this day, Broadcasters seem to think Sunday is the day to put
on crap programming. :-(.
>>How nice, you could have gone to a library and got the proper wording too.
>>The fundies haven't had much luck in censoring the public libraries.
>
>NO ONE has much luck censoring in MY library!
Good, but there are apparently two groups interested in censoring books,
some of the politically correct people want works like Huck Finn banned because
of the use of the word nigger, and Christians will from time to time attmept
it. I suspect that the ones who do try are fundies, but I can't say for sure.
Dick, Atheist #1349
Number 1 boob for 1st 1/2 December 98 awarded by Ed Conrad
email: dic...@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr