The Bible And Evolution..compatible?
Joseki
VoiceOfReason
> Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
>
> http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
Most Christians believe that the two are compatible, regardless of
what creationists would have you believe.
The Clergy Letter Project
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
"...We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different
traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the
discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that
the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that
has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human
knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it
as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific
ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children..."
Essay: Evolution for Christians
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp
God and Evolution
http://ncse.com/religion/god-evolution
Bill M
"Joseki" <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c80648d7-88d9-47a4...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
> Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
It makes no difference. Just like Aesop's Fables the Bibles are nothing more
than ancient books of myths and fables!
> http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
ilbe...@gmail.com
> Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
>
> http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
Depends what TYPE of evolution you are talking about ; if its
Darwinnian (Macro) Evolution where first life started out as a one
celled Pond Protozoa and thru ions of time, chances, and
accidents...worked its way up to a 206 bone human being having over 60
major anatomical systems all working collaboratively and balancing
each other .... then absolutely not. God said how he created man, and
that is in Genesis 2 whereby man was made FULLY formed and FULLY
functioning . Darwinnian Evolution was only a desperate theory so
God could be discounted , of which there is absolutely no evidence. In
fact, it violates known laws of science. If its MICRO
evolution...then yes, God allowed for this to take place which gives
us the variation within a family -- The Bible indicates this and
science has shown this to be true. To get truth, one should consult
The Bible first because sooner or later, modern science has confirmed
it to be true or is in the process of doing so .
haiku jones
> On Nov 3, 12:12 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
>
> >http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
>
> Depends what TYPE of evolution you are talking about ; if its
> Darwinnian (Macro) Evolution where first life started out as a one
> celled Pond Protozoa
This being, of course, something Darwin never said...
> and thru ions of time,
HOLY SHIT! Scientists can ionize time itself now?
Geez, where did they do that? The Large Hadron
Collider, no doubt. Well, I warned them and I warned
them, but would they listen to me? Noooooo.
> chances, and
> accidents...worked its way up to a 206 bone human being
Is that all? Shucks, some snakets have five hundred
vertebrae alone. God must have put more work into
the serpent.
> having over 60
> major anatomical systems
Really? Bet you can't list even half
of that number:
> all working collaboratively and balancing
> each other .... then absolutely not. God said how he created man, and
> that is in Genesis 2 whereby man was made FULLY formed and FULLY
> functioning .
And God liked doing that so much that he did it twice, as is
clear from even a casual reading of the first two chapters.
> Darwinnian Evolution was only a desperate theory so
> God could be discounted , of which there is absolutely no evidence. In
> fact, it violates known laws of science
Which fact is apparently unknown to most known
scientists.
Which "known laws" do you have in mind, by the way?
>. If its MICRO
> evolution...then yes, God allowed for this to take place which gives
> us the variation within a family
Hey, I've got a MICRO evolution question for ya: how did
humans manage to micro it, in just a few thousand years,
starting with eight Semites and ending up with Japanese, Zulus,
Swedes, Pygmies, Ainu, Australian Aborigines, Navajos,
Eskimos, Terra del Fuegans, and the entire rainbow
spectrum of humans we have today?
Oh, and before I forget? You still owe me that
list of "over 250 razor-sharp physical constants"
Haiku Jones
Ken
for 13 years, and you have to be the dumbest, most ignorant person
I've run across in that time"
I've found the Watchtower to be rather handy when lighting campfires
or fireplaces logs
VoiceOfReason
Fortunately, most Christians don't follow this sort of ignorant
nonsense.
Syd M.
>
> > Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
>
> >http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
>
> Depends what TYPE of evolution
There is only ONE 'type' of evolution, Dummy Dave.
PDW
ilbe...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
If youre really interested in your questions particularly a young
earth, the fallacy of Carbon 14 Dating , etc..., Id like to suggest
you visit www.answersingenesis.org which will sufficiently answer
all of them. For the approx. 250 razor edge Physics Constants
whereby some are to the 120th decimal point precision and all are
needed for our Cosmos s0 earth to be here, visit www.reasons.org
and youll be amazed at the DESIGN and ENGINEERING of them. As for all
other quieries on the Christian Faith and especially on the enormous
faith an atheist must force himself to have so he can discount an
intelligent personal Creator (which even Dawkins admitted to there
being) ....thereby delaying moral accountability , visit www.impactapologetics.com
. I could give you the answers to your questions but its going to
have far greater impact on you 'since all you need to believe in and
follow God is the evidence ; if only there were evidence Id bow my
knee to God ' .
Ken
The same stupid creatioNUT crap, just on a different stupid day
VoiceOfReason
> all of them. For the approx. 250 razor edge Physics Constants
> whereby some are to the 120th decimal point precision and all are
> needed for our Cosmos s0 earth to be here, visitwww.reasons.org
> and youll be amazed at the DESIGN and ENGINEERING of them. As for all
> other quieries on the Christian Faith and especially on the enormous
> faith an atheist must force himself to have so he can discount an
> intelligent personal Creator (which even Dawkins admitted to there
> being) ....thereby delaying moral accountability , visitwww.impactapologetics.com
> . I could give you the answers to your questions but its going to
> have far greater impact on you 'since all you need to believe in and
> follow God is the evidence ; if only there were evidence Id bow my
> knee to God ' .
"...To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others”
is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such
ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are
human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully
employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue
that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full
employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit
God, an act of hubris..."
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
haiku jones
The age of the earth is not determined by radiocarbon
dating.
> etc..., Id like to suggest
> you visitwww.answersingenesis.org which will sufficiently answer
> all of them.
I am entirely aware of answersingenesis, and in fact
have consulted it many times over the years.
It's a joke. A bad joke.
> For the approx. 250 razor edge Physics Constants
> whereby some are to the 120th decimal point precision and all are
> needed for our Cosmos s0 earth to be here, visitwww.reasons.org
I did so. The only thing remotely like your "250 constants" is
a reference to arguments by Hugh Ross involving "150 contstants" --
by the time you get to another source, it's been inflated to "200
constants" -
and by the time you find anything by Ross -- very hard, as everyone
refers to it, but no one seems to want to quote it directly, you
will find a handful of quantities of which many are nothing like
fundamental
physical constants (i.e: the fine-structure constant), but are instead
empirical happenstance such as the number of galaxies in
the universe. And when you examine Ross' logic, you find
he's doing nothing more than playing a Drake-equation-style
game, one which many other scientists in the field have
indulged in -- and come up with answers radically different
than the one Ross arrives at. See any good book on SETI.
I recommend Chris Impey's "The Living Cosmos".
Haiku Jones
Christopher A. Lee
<575j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> For the approx. 250 �razor edge Physics Constants
>> whereby some are to the 120th decimal point precision �and all are
>> needed �for our Cosmos s0 earth to be here, �visitwww.reasons.org
>
>I did so. The only thing remotely like your "250 constants" is
>a reference to arguments by Hugh Ross involving "150 contstants" --
>by the time you get to another source, it's been inflated to "200
>constants" -
>and by the time you find anything by Ross -- very hard, as everyone
>refers to it, but no one seems to want to quote it directly, you
>will find a handful of quantities of which many are nothing like
>fundamental
>physical constants (i.e: the fine-structure constant), but are instead
>empirical happenstance such as the number of galaxies in
>the universe. And when you examine Ross' logic, you find
>he's doing nothing more than playing a Drake-equation-style
>game, one which many other scientists in the field have
>indulged in -- and come up with answers radically different
>than the one Ross arrives at. See any good book on SETI.
>I recommend Chris Impey's "The Living Cosmos".
All their BS about this is a rationalisation based on their belief
that the universe was created so we could live in it.
I just wish that for once they would try and think outside their
religion.
>Haiku Jones
Ken
> I just wish that for once they would try and think outside their
> religion.
That's way too much to hope for.
How about if they just try and think..........period
Andy W
> Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
>
> http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
Good for them. Just goes to show not all Christians are braindead
morons like you, Jabbers.
Andy
Jimbo
> Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
>
> http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
So? What has this to do with alt.atheism?
Jimbo
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c80648d7-88d9-47a4...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
>
> It makes no difference. Just like Aesop's Fables the Bibles are nothing more
> than ancient books of myths and fables!
>
Exactly. It's like asking if "Mother Goose" is compatible with
Evolution. Who cares?
Lorentz
organisms that died more than 100 KYA. Time in millions of years is
usually dated by uranium-thorium or uranium-lead measurements of
different types. There are several ratios to check in the decay
sequence of uranium, and they usually agree with each other. The
elements for these aging techniques come from igneous rock. Now a
days, they use individual garnet crystals to obtain the elements for
dating these rocks. Use of individual crystals prevents errors from
happening because of trapped materials. Stenos Laws are used to
extrapolate the dates between volcanic layers.
Each radioactive method of dating establishes a lower limit to
the age of the earth. Carbon 14 dating just shows us that the world is
older than 50 KY. The uranium methods have established that the earth
cooled down from liquid at least 4 BYA. It is the uranium methods
that establish that dinosaurs lived between 65 MYA and 245 MYA. No
dinosaur was ever examined by the carbon 14 method.
I seriously doubt your sources have found any weakness in the
uranium decay series, especially when a single garnet crystal is used.
Most evolution occurs on a time scale that extends far beyond
the capabilities of C14 dating methods.For your information,
scientists know that the C14 method is not useful for dating objects
mixed with petroleum products. This includes any living thing that has
died in the last 500 years, since industrialization started full tilt.
This includes that oyster Creationists love to present as a false
determination. This also includes some of the clothes used by ancient
Egyptians. Many middle east people used petroleum products in their
clothes. C14 does not work in certain specific conditions well known
to scientists. C14 dating is useful for showing that there are
civilizations far older than the 5500-6500 years. Civilization took a
lot longer to develop than 6 KY.
"Macroevolution" of multicellular animals takes place on time
scales greater than 10 KY. On the class level, evolution takes
millions of years. The time it took for birds to develop from their
theropod ancestors took tens of millions of years. This type of time
span was not determined by C14 dating.
Even if it were shown tomorrow that C14 dating had a significant
and formally unknown limitation, educated scientists would still know
that the earth was older than a million years. Igneous rocks that
solidified a billion years ago would still have isotopes that show
that the earth is at least a billion years old. This is verified using
different isotope ratios.
The discrepancy between the 6 KY age of the earth and reality is
independent of evolution and biology. The age of igneous rock is not
determined using fossils. They don't use "trace fossils" to calculate
the age of granite or obsidian. The 4 BY plus origin of the earth
wasn't determined by the requirements for life to evolve. It is a
matter of physics and chemistry. No matter how you think life
developed, real science says that the world is at least 4 billion
years old.
To show people that you aren't a defensive liar, I suggest you
address the issue of uranium-thorium-lead isotopic dating. Explain the
errors in that. After that, present the limitations of carbon-14
dating.
haiku jones
A very nice essay on the topic indeed. Well done.
I find it amusing that a certain type of creationist
always drags radiocarbon dating into any discussion,
whether it's germane to the topic or not. They
appear to feel "Well, I'm not sure what we're talking
about, but since it's been proven that C14 dating
is a hoax, that should shoot down any argument".
Amusing not only because they've got one hammer
for all possible nails, but because they never
seem to realize that the various potential
problems that can complicate radiocarbon dating
have been winkled out, explored, and brought to
the attention of anyone interested by...
divine revelation? careful interpretation of
Scripture? a Papal pronouncement ex cathedra?...
no, BY SCIENTISTS. By scientists who work in
the field, who look for potential problems, and
who then make the necessary corrections.
These same folks seem never to have heard of
cross-checking radiocarbon dating against
other short-range methods, such as tree rings,
varves, and ice cores.
By the way, one of the best, and most
thorough, explanation of various
radiometric (and other) dating techniques --
and one written by a Christian, for other
Christians -- is at:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page
Haiku Jones
Sockie
"haiku jones" <575j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:40497dac-20a8-440b...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 4:36 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 12:12 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
>
> >http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
>
> Depends what TYPE of evolution you are talking about ; if its
> Darwinnian (Macro) Evolution where first life started out as a one
> celled Pond Protozoa
This being, of course, something Darwin never said...
> and thru ions of time,
HOLY SHIT! Scientists can ionize time itself now?
Geez, where did they do that? The Large Hadron
Collider, no doubt. Well, I warned them and I warned
them, but would they listen to me? Noooooo.
> chances, and
> accidents...worked its way up to a 206 bone human being
Is that all? Shucks, some snakets have five hundred
vertebrae alone. God must have put more work into
the serpent.
> having over 60
> major anatomical systems
Really? Bet you can't list even half
of that number:
He's just repeating the BS he reads on Creationist sites. ;-)
Ips-Switch
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53d17046-c422-4c87...@h26g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 12:12 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
>
> http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
Depends what TYPE of evolution you are talking about ; if its
Darwinnian (Macro) Evolution where first life started out as a one
celled Pond Protozoa and thru ions of time, chances, and
accidents...worked its way up to a 206 bone human being having over 60
major anatomical systems all working collaboratively and balancing
each other .... then absolutely not. God said how he created man, and
that is in Genesis 2 whereby man was made FULLY formed and FULLY
functioning .
+ That's not what the fossil record shows. God said nothing. Man wrote
Genesis.
Darwinnian Evolution was only a desperate theory so
God could be discounted , of which there is absolutely no evidence.
+ You know nothing of the early human fossils found in the past 100 years?
In
fact, it violates known laws of science.
+ So does humans and other animals suddenly appearing out of nowhere.
If its MICRO
evolution...then yes, God allowed for this to take place which gives
us the variation within a family -- The Bible indicates this and
science has shown this to be true.
+ Which branch of Science?
To get truth, one should consult
The Bible first because sooner or later, modern science has confirmed
it to be true or is in the process of doing so .
+ Since when? Where? What branch of science?
Ips-Switch
If youre really interested in your questions particularly a young
earth, the fallacy of Carbon 14 Dating , etc..., Id like to suggest
you visit www.answersingenesis.org which will sufficiently answer
all of them.
+ How about a scientific site instead of a supernatural magical religious
site? There are no scientific answers there.
For the approx. 250 razor edge Physics Constants
whereby some are to the 120th decimal point precision and all are
needed for our Cosmos s0 earth to be here, visit www.reasons.org
and youll be amazed at the DESIGN and ENGINEERING of them.
+ Even if they were... what makes you think any of the 10,000 known gods
were behind it?
As for all
other quieries on the Christian Faith and especially on the enormous
faith an atheist must force himself to have so he can discount an
intelligent personal Creator (which even Dawkins admitted to there
being) ....thereby delaying moral accountability ,
+ Moral accountability has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in a
magical god.
visit www.impactapologetics.com
. I could give you the answers to your questions but its going to
have far greater impact on you 'since all you need to believe in and
follow God is the evidence ; if only there were evidence Id bow my
knee to God ' .
+ There is no scientific evidence of any of the gods and goddesses.
Sockie
"Ken" <flak...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:17fe07e1-b93b-4030...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
He's been brain washed as a child and can't break free of the control.
Ken
What branch of science?
Pseudoscience
VoiceOfReason
Good article. Thanks.
Darwin123
> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:afc16044-6f6a-4d5c...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> intelligent personal Creator (which even Dawkins admitted to there
> being) ....thereby delaying moral accountability ,
Ips-Switch
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e81d78ed-b736-447c...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
I didn't post that! You're misquoting me. ;-)
Mike Painter
In some cases. Most comes from real science and as they do with the bible,
they just leave out the parts they don't like.
Using carbon 14 to date the dinosaurs is one such example. The web is filled
with "proof" that shows they were only a few thousand years old (sadly they
start at about 9k years so the YEC crowd is not happy)
The reason why the tests show these values is never mentioned
Mike Painter
> earth, the fallacy of Carbon 14 Dating , etc..., Id like to suggest
> you visit www.answersingenesis.org which will sufficiently answer
> all of them.
If I was to say that to be a Christian you *MUST* deny the existence of
Christ, you would either say I was crazy or try to explain to be that a
belief in Christ is fundamental to being a Christian.
AiG as well as the other major Christian sites absolutely deny a fundamental
tenant of science. Without it is it not science anymore than a non belief in
Christ is Christian.
Science (and all scholarship) MUST ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE.
It may be right, it may be wrong, but you must accept it. Science spends a
lot of time trying to show that a new theory is wrong and never really stops
trying to show that it is wrong.
If they didn't you would not have your computer your cell phone or your GPS
unit among thousands of other things.
AiG says that if the evidence says one thing and the bible says something
else you MUST believe what they tell you the bible says.
That is not science.
In any situation where the two have gone head to head, science has always
won. Just ask the bell ringers that lived.
OB...@aol.com
These are the things anyone should bear in mind when thinking about
God and evolution .
The Bible is the only authoritative source of Truth inspired by God
and it reflects the infinite mind of God.
With this in mind we must be aware that we may not uderstand the Bible
very well as it may be or should be the most complex book of all the
books .This explains why we have so many christian denominations.
What if the evolution is real and yet we can say that God creates all
things ?
It is crystal clear from the Bible ( the Book of Job ) that God
creates clouds and raindrops and how we see this is happening ?
Scientists can explain that sacientifically and yet it is God that
creates raindrops .
The answer to your question is simple . God works through the
evolution and if it took place it is compatible with God and the Bible.
OB...@aol.com
of Jesus many hidden truths of the Bible come into view - Daniel 12.4.
Send to Watchtower this one reference of paramount importance to see
that evolution can be compatible with the Bible.
Job 36.27-28.
The same natural pheonomena can be explained both ways . To those who
don't know who is God it is the law of nature but in actuality
according to the Bible it is God's work through the laws of nature .So
if the theory of evolution is accurate we must see God working behind
it and it is based on the Bible.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Nov 3, 1:12?pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com>
JW's are so silly that other Christians laugh at them.
The Whistle-blower
> Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
>
> http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
I SAY NOPE. THE BIBLE IS NO SCIENCE MANUAL
Free Lunch
<Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Something so obvious that everyone who is still capable of thinking
realizes. Those who do not do that, have only themselves to blame.
Darwin123
>
> news:afc16044-6f6a-4d5c...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> If youre really interested in your questions particularly a young
> earth, the fallacy of Carbon 14 Dating , etc..., Id like to suggest
> all of them.
>
Carbon 14 dating is a nonissue with regards to the ancient
earth. The supposed age of the earth comes from uranium-lead dating of
single garnet crystals in igneous rock. Does AnswersInGenesis Does
discuss this method of dating rock? If it doesn't address this issue,
then what they write on carbon 14 is misleading.
You claim that "macroevolution" requires time on the scale of
millions of years. If so, carbon 14 dating is totally irrelevant to
the issue of "macroevolution." Carbon 14 dating is not useful for time
periods of 100 KY. Therefore, it has absolutely no bearing on the
issue of "macroevolution".
A slab of granite or basalt with garnet crystals can be sufficient
to establish that the earth was made more than a million years ago. No
fossils are needed. The "implausibility" of evolution occurring at a
fast rate is a nonissue.
There are igneous rocks that indicate that they cooled down from
magma more than a million years ago. All that was necessary was a
determination of isotopic ratios with respect to uranium and lead.
Redeposits, layers, and all that other stuff "debunked" by
AnswersInGenesis totally miss the point. The "ancient" earth was not
made up to fit theories of evolution. Rather, the physics of
radioactive decay were used to establish the age of the earth.
If you want to prove that the earth is really less than 6500 years
old, you have to address that point. Try and focus. Just explain how
the uranium-lead isotope ratios, taken from single crystals, can
possibly go wrong.
Free Lunch
<Ips-S...@nospam.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:afc16044-6f6a-4d5c...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>If youre really interested in your questions particularly a young
>earth, the fallacy of Carbon 14 Dating , etc..., Id like to suggest
>you visit www.answersingenesis.org which will sufficiently answer
>all of them.
No, it will not. AIG is a religious organization that is fundamentally
opposed to science. I would be a fool to take their claims about science
at face value, particularly when their claims are contrary to the
physical evidence. If you choose to believe what they tell you, it is
because you are a fool.
>+ How about a scientific site instead of a supernatural magical religious
>site? There are no scientific answers there.
>
> For the approx. 250 razor edge Physics Constants
>whereby some are to the 120th decimal point precision and all are
>needed for our Cosmos s0 earth to be here, visit www.reasons.org
>and youll be amazed at the DESIGN and ENGINEERING of them.
Name the constants and show me exactly how their change would affect the
universe. The folks at reasons are every bit as opposed to science as
the folks at AIG.
>+ Even if they were... what makes you think any of the 10,000 known gods
>were behind it?
>
>As for all
>other quieries on the Christian Faith and especially on the enormous
>faith an atheist must force himself to have so he can discount an
>intelligent personal Creator (which even Dawkins admitted to there
>being) ....thereby delaying moral accountability ,
You misrepresent what Dawkins said, but it is common for religious
zealots to feel that they have the right to lie to protect the doctrines
they teach.
>+ Moral accountability has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in a
>magical god.
>
>visit www.impactapologetics.com
At least they admit that they are just a religious site.
>. I could give you the answers to your questions but its going to
>have far greater impact on you 'since all you need to believe in and
>follow God is the evidence ; if only there were evidence Id bow my
>knee to God ' .
There is no evidence for God, that is why you did not offer any. Don't
make excuses for running away.
>+ There is no scientific evidence of any of the gods and goddesses.
--
Here is what Jesus said would happen to those who are intentionally
ignorant:
"Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Free Lunch
<Ips-S...@nospam.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
let me quote your entire post (if you don't want to have people confuse
your statements with Dave's lies (as I did) please give us a better idea
who wrote what):
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:41:05 -0600, "Ips-Switch"
<Ips-S...@nospam.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:afc16044-6f6a-4d5c...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>If youre really interested in your questions particularly a young
>earth, the fallacy of Carbon 14 Dating , etc..., Id like to suggest
>you visit www.answersingenesis.org which will sufficiently answer
>all of them.
>
>+ How about a scientific site instead of a supernatural magical religious
>site? There are no scientific answers there.
>
> For the approx. 250 razor edge Physics Constants
>whereby some are to the 120th decimal point precision and all are
>needed for our Cosmos s0 earth to be here, visit www.reasons.org
>and youll be amazed at the DESIGN and ENGINEERING of them.
>
>+ Even if they were... what makes you think any of the 10,000 known gods
>were behind it?
>
>As for all
>other quieries on the Christian Faith and especially on the enormous
>faith an atheist must force himself to have so he can discount an
>intelligent personal Creator (which even Dawkins admitted to there
>being) ....thereby delaying moral accountability ,
>
>+ Moral accountability has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in a
>magical god.
>
>visit www.impactapologetics.com
>. I could give you the answers to your questions but its going to
>have far greater impact on you 'since all you need to believe in and
>follow God is the evidence ; if only there were evidence Id bow my
>knee to God ' .
>
>+ There is no scientific evidence of any of the gods and goddesses.
The older post should be indented with the responses separate. Sorry
about confusing you with Dave in the other response.
Joseki
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Yeah, but then again, Carol, you never have an original thought in
your brain since birth. So we all know that you are actually quoting
somebody else. Oxymoronic don't you think?
then again you don't
Joseki
> On Nov 3, 1:12 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com>
> -----------
>
> The answer to your question is simple . God works through the
> evolution and if it took place it is compatible with God and the Bible.
Oh great the resident Nutcase just joined the thread with the resident
nym-shiter of the century.
there goes the thread....flusssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Joseki
And which Christians are those? The one that kill themselves in war?
or Kill Muslims in wars, or.....
Ips-Switch
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:k26bf5dg5e3kuipei...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:05:11 -0600, "Ips-Switch"
> <Ips-S...@nospam.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>
>>"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:e81d78ed-b736-447c...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>>On Nov 4, 7:41 pm, "Ips-Switch" <Ips-Swi...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:afc16044-6f6a-4d5c...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> intelligent personal Creator (which even Dawkins admitted to there
>>> being) ....thereby delaying moral accountability ,
>>??????????????????????????????????????????
>>
>>
>>
>>I didn't post that! You're misquoting me. ;-)
>
>
> let me quote your entire post (if you don't want to have people confuse
> your statements with Dave's lies (as I did) please give us a better idea
> who wrote what):
The below is what I wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:41:05 -0600, "Ips-Switch"
<Ips-S...@nospam.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
+ How about a scientific site instead of a supernatural magical religious
site? There are no scientific answers there.
+ Even if they were... what makes you think any of the 10,000 known gods
were behind it?
+ Moral accountability has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in a
magical god.
Ips-Switch
<OB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:acda81c0-bedb-42a6...@j19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 1:12�pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com>
-----------
These are the things anyone should bear in mind when thinking about
God and evolution .
The Bible is the only authoritative source of Truth inspired by God
and it reflects the infinite mind of God.
+ Talking animals. Pregnant virgins. Sticks that turn into snakes.....
that's the mind of a god?
With this in mind we must be aware that we may not uderstand the Bible
very well as it may be or should be the most complex book of all the
books .
+ Admitting you never read the bible, how can you comment on it complexity?
There's nothing complex about it. Go to page 1 and start reading.
This explains why we have so many christian denominations.
What if the evolution is real and yet we can say that God creates all
things ?
It is crystal clear from the Bible ( the Book of Job ) that God
creates clouds and raindrops and how we see this is happening ?
Scientists can explain that sacientifically and yet it is God that
creates raindrops .
+ That's absurd.
Free Lunch
<Ips-S...@nospam.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
I caught that after I had posted.
Jimbo
> On Nov 3, 12:12 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
>
> >http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
>
> Darwinnian (Macro) Evolution where first life started out as a one
> celled Pond Protozoa
Darwin never stated such.
> and thru ions of time, chances, and
> accidents...
Darwin never said this either. What he did say was the "survival of
the fittest", in the context of survival of the most adaptable.
Meaning that in relation to being able to survive in changing
environments, becoming more efficient food, resource gatherers, and
other such factors, animals adapt. Over time a series of small
adaptations can result in different species. It has nothing to do
with chances, or accidents.
worked its way up to a 206 bone human being having over 60
> major anatomical systems all working collaboratively and balancing
> each other .... then absolutely not. God said how he created man,
Yes, he waved his magic twanger and poof! There we were. Yeah, that
makes so much more sense.
Darwin123
> On Nov 3, 6:36 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 3, 12:12 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
>
> > >http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
>
> > Depends what TYPE of evolution you are talking about ; if its
> > Darwinnian (Macro) Evolution where first life started out as a one
> > celled Pond Protozoa
>
> Darwin never stated such.
evolution. Darwin did say something in "Origins of the Species" about
how maybe life started in a pond full of ammoniac compounds. He
specifically said that he didn't know how life started, and that the
ultimate origin of life was not germaine to the origin of the species.
The origin of the first "simple form of life" was left to later
generations.
Don't get fooled by the "argument from incredibility" argument.
The statement was thrown as "sand in the eyes." However, it was close
enough to correct. Real biologists think all life is descended from a
first simple ancestor, which consisted of one cell or less. By
attacking statement, you implied that you thought there really was
"more than one type of evolution."
Personally, I would rather have "one celled Pond Protozoa"
as ancestors than a Watch Tower editor |:-)
Joseki
>
> Yes, he waved his magic twanger and poof! There we were. Yeah, that
> makes so much more sense.
Magic? Whatever gave you *that* idea?
Jimbo
> On Nov 9, 4:56 am, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 3, 6:36 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 3, 12:12 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
>
> > > >http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
>
> > > Depends what TYPE of evolution you are talking about ; if its
> > > Darwinnian (Macro) Evolution where first life started out as a one
> > > celled Pond Protozoa
>
> > Darwin never stated such.
>
> However, this model is consistent with the biological theory of
> evolution. Darwin did say something in "Origins of the Species" about
> how maybe life started in a pond full of ammoniac compounds.
He was speculating, and made that clear before he said it.
Jimbo
What else would you call it? Magic? Voo-Doo? "Phenonmical Cosmic
Power! Itty-bitty living space...?" Sounds like magic to me,
unless you care to give us an exacting physical/mathematical construct
to explain it..?
Ips-Switch
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 23:11:13 -0600, "Ips-Switch"
> <Ips-S...@nospam.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>site? There are no scientific answers there.
>>+ Even if they were... what makes you think any of the 10,000 known gods
>>were behind it?
>>+ Moral accountability has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in a
>>magical god.
>>+ There is no scientific evidence of any of the gods and goddesses.
>
>
> I caught that after I had posted.
:-)
Joseki
Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been
duplicated in a Lab.
And on the subject, do you think we are the only intelligent species
in this Universe?
Dan Listermann
"Joseki" <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fb88e47-1f22-42ca...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
"Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been
duplicated in a Lab."
Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all over the
place quibbling.
Sulfate
> The answer to your question is simple . God works through the
> evolution and if it took place it is compatible with God and the Bible.
This is really the only route available. Christians have been trying
to force science to fall in line with their various Bronze
Sulfate
> The answer to your question is simple . God works through the
> evolution and if it took place it is compatible with God and the Bible.
Damned enter key snuck up on me.
Christians have been trying to force science to fall in line with
their various Bronze Age theories for hundreds of years. It's never
happened. Unless you take the "God works through science" approach,
you really do have to spend a lot of your time with your fingers in
your ears. At the very least it's slightly more rational than using a
book of caveman scratches to form an opinion on modern biology.
Jimbo
> On Nov 9, 3:36 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 9:32 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 4:56 am, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > God said how he created man,
>
> > > > Yes, he waved his magic twanger and poof! There we were. Yeah, that
> > > > makes so much more sense.
>
> > > Magic? Whatever gave you *that* idea?
>
> > What else would you call it? Magic? Voo-Doo? "Phenonmical Cosmic
> > Power! Itty-bitty living space...?" Sounds like magic to me,
> > unless you care to give us an exacting physical/mathematical construct
> > to explain it..?
>
> Is Abiogenesis...Magic?
Still waiting for that exacting physical/mathematical construct. It
has to operate within some known physical norms, otherwise it has to
be metaphysical, i.e. magic.
Darwin123
Yes. That was my point. Darwin said he was speculating about the
origin of life. He did not provide any evidence that life actually
started in an ammonium laden pond. He was providing one possible
starting point. He was up front that there could be other starting
points. His theory of evolution is invariant to "The origin of life."
Darwin was not speculating about "The Origin of the Species."
He was providing evidence that species arose through natural
selection. Species, and phyla, originated through natural selection.
Jimbo
> On Nov 9, 3:34 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 9:25 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 4:56 am, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 3, 6:36 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 3, 12:12 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
>
> > > > > >http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
>
> > > > > Depends what TYPE of evolution you are talking about ; if its
> > > > > Darwinnian (Macro) Evolution where first life started out as a one
> > > > > celled Pond Protozoa
>
> > > > Darwin never stated such.
>
> > > However, this model is consistent with the biological theory of
> > > evolution. Darwin did say something in "Origins of the Species" about
> > > how maybe life started in a pond full of ammoniac compounds.
>
> > He was speculating, and made that clear before he said it.
>
> Yes. That was my point. Darwin said he was speculating about the
> origin of life. He did not provide any evidence that life actually
> started in an ammonium laden pond.
Yeah... that's pretty common when people say they are speculating...
then speculate... Is there something you don't understand about that?
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of today
no more real than God is.
Would you agree?
Joseki
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you. Abiogensis is magic.
Dan Listermann
Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars religious
"faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith with common
confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
huge
"Abiobenesis" is not even a word,
principle of parsimony notwithstanding.
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Only when a imaginary sky-pixie performs it.
Darwin123
Hey, I'm on your side! Darwin was a great scientist. That's why I
picked the name as one of my user names, Darwin123.
I hope this message is posted under Darwin123, instead of my other
username, Lorentz. Google is randomly choosing from my past users
names when I post. My switching of names is not my fault. In it's
googly wisdom, Google usually decides that I am a Darwin123. Somehow,
the software has decided that I am more a Darwin123 than a Lorentz.
Darwin123 is chosen more often than Lorentz.
In any case, I really admire Darwin. However, he did propose the
ammoniac pond as a speculation.
There so far has been no firm evidence that he was wrong. The
are other origin of life hypotheses that scientists are working on. I
like the deep trench smoking chimney hypotheses. However, I wouldn't
be very surprised if someone puts forth the "ammoniac pond" as a
hypothesis. Darwin has rarely been proven completely wrong, even in
his speculations.
SkyEyes
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Free Lunch
huge <hu...@nomailaddress.com> wrote in
<wZWdnbVuR9EcT2fX...@earthlink.com>:
Jabriol has a long history of not having a clue.
Free Lunch
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in
<687363cc-4208-4729...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
The evidence you are providing here is that you never passed a logic or
critical thinking class.
>Would you agree?
Absolutely not.
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:687363cc-4208-4729...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 10, 11:40 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:3fb88e47-1f22-42ca...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been
> > duplicated in a Lab."
>
> > Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all over the
> > place quibbling.
>
> "So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of today
> no more real than God is.
> Would you agree?"
>
> Is the belief that one day man will walk on the surface of Mars religious
> "faith?" Go ahead and try to conflate religious faith with common
> confidence, it is a common theist ploy.
You describe a future event. I am describing an event scientist
believed happen countless times in the past. Theist believe God was
the origin of man. Scientist believed random chance was. Neither can
be proved.
Joseki
typo.
Joseki
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:34:58 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> <687363cc-4208-4729-a8fe-7cd3c8e1d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Nov 10, 11:40 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:3fb88e47-1f22-42ca...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been
> >> duplicated in a Lab."
>
> >> Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all over the
> >> place quibbling.
>
> >So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of today
> >no more real than God is.
>
> The evidence you are providing here is that you never passed a logic or
> critical thinking class.
>
> >Would you agree?
>
> Absolutely not.
What is important here is abiogenesis doesn't pass the scientific
method.
As for those classes, I have indeed. Not that it matters in your case.
Dan Listermann
Future, past, it does not matter for my point.
Here, can you accept that the probability of one event or another happening
or happened can be different, or since "proof" is rather nebulous, must the
probabilities be equal? You are perusing the old "you atheists are just as
superstitious as we theists" line of reasoning and it is shot full of holes.
Dan Listermann
On Nov 11, 6:24 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:34:58 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <687363cc-4208-4729-a8fe-7cd3c8e1d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
"What is important here is abiogenesis doesn't pass the scientific
method."
Sounds very authoritive, but you might try to explain yourself.
Joseki
No.. and you don't understand the mathematical concept of Probability.
"proof" is also a math concept.
The probability of abiogenesis occurring is zero. And that we all have
"proof" of.
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
SM consists of the collection of data through observation and
experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Abiogenesis has not been observed, nor it can be duplicated, hebce you
can't experiment with it neither, that being the case you can not test
it.
Abiogenesis is a belief, beliefs can alter observations; those with a
particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief,
even if to another observer they would appear not to do so. Even
researchers admit that the first observation may have been a little
imprecise, whereas the second and third were "adjusted to the facts,"
until tradition, education, and familiarity produce a readiness for
new perception
Do wish for to explain more?
I mentioned this in advance because you are going to have a few bozos
throw in the Urey=Miller experiments into the thread. And for the
record I am not a creationist.
Dan Listermann
LOL! OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
Dan Listermann
On Nov 12, 9:55 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:460f3eae-4ea7-47e7...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 11, 6:24 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:34:58 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> > Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > <687363cc-4208-4729-a8fe-7cd3c8e1d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
>
> "What is important here is abiogenesis doesn't pass the scientific
> method."
>
> Sounds very authoritive, but you might try to explain yourself.
"SM consists of the collection of data through observation and
experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Abiogenesis has not been observed, nor it can be duplicated, hebce you
can't experiment with it neither, that being the case you can not test
it."
Asking to observe abiogenesis is a bit much, but why would you think that it
can't be dupicated?
"Abiogenesis is a belief"
Nonsense, creation is a belief. I expect to see, in my lifetime, a
demonstration of how abiogenists happened whereupon I expect fundies to
shout, in unison, "Yea, but, yea but!" till the cows come home.
Joseki
sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go.
Joseki
That is still a belief. Belief is a psychological state in which an
individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. You haven't seen
abiogenesis no one has. no one has seen god neither.
You expect to see abiogenesis one day. Other expect to see god one
day. But as it stands, nobody has seen neither one nor the other.
Dan Listermann
Well by your rules, you can't criticize me for dismissing your deities as
mere "beliefs," can you?
Dan Listermann
On Nov 12, 9:55 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:460f3eae-4ea7-47e7...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 11, 6:24 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:34:58 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> > Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > <687363cc-4208-4729-a8fe-7cd3c8e1d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
>
> "What is important here is abiogenesis doesn't pass the scientific
> method."
>
> Sounds very authoritive, but you might try to explain yourself.
SM consists of the collection of data through observation and
experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
"Abiogenesis has not been observed, nor it can be duplicated, hebce you
can't experiment with it neither, that being the case you can not test
it."
Do you think that on December 16, 1903, somebody some where said that
something to the effect that "man will never fly?"
"Abiogenesis is a belief, beliefs can alter observations; those with a
particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief,
even if to another observer they would appear not to do so. Even
researchers admit that the first observation may have been a little
imprecise, whereas the second and third were "adjusted to the facts,"
until tradition, education, and familiarity produce a readiness for
new perception"
Good, then you can't deny that deities are mere beliefs.
Darwin123
> On Nov 10, 11:40 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:3fb88e47-1f22-42ca...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> no more real than God is.
> Would you agree?
No. Abiogenesis does not violate any known physical law of
physics or chemistry. God is an entity that by definition can violate
any physical law conceivable. If one finds any physical law that an
entity can't violate, the entity is by definition not God. To some
people, this implies that the existence of God will always be a matter
of faith.
If you are going to stick strictly to the model of God as
described in Genesis, there is another difference. Many observations
contradict the sequence of events as described in Genesis. So the
Genesis model has been scientifically disproven.There are some models
for abiogenesis that no on has yet found evidence against.
Some forms of abiogenesis have been reliably reproduced in the
laboratory. There are devices that can no create viruses from
component parts. Scientists can also reproduce parts of metabolic
processes quite reliably. So far, no one has been able to make things
come to life through prayer. So the possibility of abiogenesis still
seems, to some people, to be more real than the God of Genesis.
William Hughes
Nor has anyone duplicated a brontosaurus in a lab. Therefore
the probability of a brontosaurus occurring is zero.
(Unless of course the felt effect of gravity was smaller
then)
- William Hughes
Virgil
> > "proof" of."
>
> > LOL! �OK, show us some of this "proof," any of it if you dare!
>
> sure... No one has duplicated abiogensis in a lab. there you go.
No one has duplicated supernovas in a lab either, so they must be
impossible.
Dan Listermann
On December 16, 1903, somebody somewhere said that "man will never fly."
Don't bet against science.
Dan Listermann
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E02381....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
You have to wonder about a person who does not catch the problems with his
statement.
cacak5
And he hasn't, yet
Dan Listermann
"cacak5" <m...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:d7bd2242-38a6-4503...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Wilber and Orville might debate that.
Joseki
Where did you get the idea I believe in deities? oh... and I gave you
dictionary definition of the secular word "Belief". Take it it up with
those in the dictionary business.
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:da09dbae-e715-4ac5...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 12, 9:55 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:460f3eae-4ea7-47e7...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 11, 6:24 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:34:58 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
> > > Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > <687363cc-4208-4729-a8fe-7cd3c8e1d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > "What is important here is abiogenesis doesn't pass the scientific
> > method."
>
> > Sounds very authoritive, but you might try to explain yourself.
>
> SM consists of the collection of data through observation and
> experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
>
> "Abiogenesis has not been observed, nor it can be duplicated, hebce you
> can't experiment with it neither, that being the case you can not test
> it."
>
> Do you think that on December 16, 1903, somebody some where said that
> something to the effect that "man will never fly?"
>
irrelevant to the thread.
> "Abiogenesis is a belief, beliefs can alter observations; those with a
> particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief,
> even if to another observer they would appear not to do so. Even
> researchers admit that the first observation may have been a little
> imprecise, whereas the second and third were "adjusted to the facts,"
> until tradition, education, and familiarity produce a readiness for
> new perception"
>
> Good, then you can't deny that deities are mere beliefs.
Good, you are learning something.
Joseki
> On Nov 11, 9:34 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 11:40 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:3fb88e47-1f22-42ca...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of today
> > no more real than God is.
> > Would you agree?
>
> No. Abiogenesis does not violate any known physical law of
> physics or chemistry. God is an entity that by definition can violate
> any physical law conceivable.
Abiogenesis not to violate any physical law, it we must observe it.
As for God, when was the last time you saw him break a physical law?
> If one finds any physical law that an
> entity can't violate, the entity is by definition not God. To some
> people, this implies that the existence of God will always be a matter
> of faith.
I think you don't understand the definition of faith.
> If you are going to stick strictly to the model of God as
> described in Genesis, there is another difference. Many observations
> contradict the sequence of events as described in Genesis.
Last I read, Genesis wasn't a science manual.
> So the
> Genesis model has been scientifically disproven
How so?
>There are some models
> for abiogenesis that no on has yet found evidence against.
> Some forms of abiogenesis have been reliably reproduced in the
> laboratory.
Really, can you show me where?
>There are devices that can no create viruses from
> component parts. Scientists can also reproduce parts of metabolic
> processes quite reliably.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has a pig valve in his body, it doesn't make him
a pig now, does it?
> So far, no one has been able to make things
> come to life through prayer. So the possibility of abiogenesis still
> seems, to some people, to be more real than the God of Genesis.
Not really.
Joseki
Yeah those Brontosaurus Fossils were made with Play-Douh.
Joseki
You guys are coming out of the woodworks no? Supernovas can be
observed. Abiogenesis has not been observed ever.
Dan Listermann
Ok, tell us about your attitude regarding deities.
Dan Listermann
irrelevant to the thread.
Great, you don't buy into the superstition of deities!
Darwin123
Scientists have recreated the polio virus and the small pox virus.
They can reliably reproduce these organisms in the laboratory from
basic components. If viruses are living, then abiogenesis has occurred
in the laboratory.
You will now claim that a virus is not "alive."
In any case, your claim can't be that abiogenesis is impossible
since God presumably made abiogenesis come about. So, make a virus
come into existence by breathing on some dirt.
Dan Listermann
On Nov 12, 2:15 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 9:34 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 11:40 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:3fb88e47-1f22-42ca...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of today
> > no more real than God is.
> > Would you agree?
>
> No. Abiogenesis does not violate any known physical law of
> physics or chemistry. God is an entity that by definition can violate
> any physical law conceivable.
"Abiogenesis not to violate any physical law, it we must observe it."
We MIGHT observe it, not MUST.
"As for God, when was the last time you saw him break a physical law?"
I thought you did not buy into derities?
> If one finds any physical law that an
> entity can't violate, the entity is by definition not God. To some
> people, this implies that the existence of God will always be a matter
> of faith.
"I think you don't understand the definition of faith"
Faith ( gullibility) is believing in things that don't show reason or
evidence.
Dan Listermann
Don't you mean "yet?"
Dan Listermann
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba0cc0c2-6531-4ee6...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Happens all the time in the Flintstone Laboratories.
Free Lunch
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in
<da09dbae-e715-4ac5...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 12, 9:55�am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:460f3eae-4ea7-47e7...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 11, 6:24 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:34:58 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
>> > Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> > <687363cc-4208-4729-a8fe-7cd3c8e1d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> "What is important here is abiogenesis doesn't pass the scientific
>> method."
>>
>> Sounds very authoritive, but you might try to explain yourself.
>
>SM consists of the collection of data through observation and
>experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
>
>Abiogenesis has not been observed, nor it can be duplicated, hebce you
>can't experiment with it neither, that being the case you can not test
>it.
That is true, but that comes from a lack of adequate available
information for a decent hypothesis.
>Abiogenesis is a belief, beliefs can alter observations; those with a
>particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief,
>even if to another observer they would appear not to do so. Even
>researchers admit that the first observation may have been a little
>imprecise, whereas the second and third were "adjusted to the facts,"
>until tradition, education, and familiarity produce a readiness for
>new perception
So you say. what alternatives do you recommend?
>
>Do wish for to explain more?
>I mentioned this in advance because you are going to have a few bozos
>throw in the Urey=Miller experiments into the thread. And for the
>record I am not a creationist.
What do you think works?
Free Lunch
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in
<460f3eae-4ea7-47e7...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 11, 6:24�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:34:58 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
>> Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <687363cc-4208-4729-a8fe-7cd3c8e1d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> >> "Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been
>> >> duplicated in a Lab."
>>
>> >> Not yet, but when, not if, it happens, the fundies will be all over the
>> >> place quibbling.
>>
>> >So until then Abiobenesis is a matter of faith. It is then as of today
>> >no more real than God is.
>>
>> critical thinking class.
>>
>> >Would you agree?
>>
>> Absolutely not.
>
>What is important here is abiogenesis doesn't pass the scientific
>method.
How so? What scientific alternatives do you offer?
>
>As for those classes, I have indeed. Not that it matters in your case.
Tim Miller
More importantly, there's NO reason to suspect it CAN'T happen.
It doesn't violate any current understanding of physics or
chemistry... like, oh, say a "world wide flood" would.
Dan Listermann
"Tim Miller" <replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hdi8hf$k7k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
He seems to think that because it has yet to be observed, it can't happen.
What kind of thinking does this sort of thing reflect?