The alternative to "Were your ancestors apes?"
egas moniz
implication that our ancestors were apes is really bad. What's the
alternative? That our ancestor was dirt! Is dirt really better than
apes?
Stephen Andrewartha
The alternative is that all of mankind's ancestors were human, and
that there were some first humans (with no ancestors) that were
created by God. There's no dirt involved.
Stephen.
Terry
"egas moniz" <zino...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d32628c0.03040...@posting.google.com...
Hi
The issue is not bad or good so much as
which view is fact. The fact is that there
is not one piece of evidence for evolution.
Want proof ?
Watch the presentations at this website
if your not afraid of what you might find out.
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video
Terry
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Religious fundamentalists think that the theory of evolution's
>implication that our ancestors were apes is really bad.
Evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact. There are theories about it.
> What's the alternative? That our ancestor was dirt!
According to fundies we were always men. Their god created us this
way. (And did a piss-poor job of it, too.)
--
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
Zymurgist # 2
johac
zino...@hotmail.com (egas moniz) wrote:
> Religious fundamentalists think that the theory of evolution's
> implication that our ancestors were apes is really bad. What's the
> alternative? That our ancestor was dirt!
None of my ancestors were apes. They belonged to a line of primate
species which split off from the one which led to modern apes about
6-7 million yrs. ago.
>Is dirt really better than apes?
The precursors to the first living organism my well have come in part
from minerals, or organic molecules in soils or clays of the early
earth. So what?
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
- Got evidence? -
J.R.
What's wrong with having dirt for an ancestor? I it was good pure
dirt, it would be something to be proud of.
Why, a person could file a claim for everything above sea level, in
the name of his ancestors, dirt.
gOD
So what did god create adam from?
Gregory A Greenman
st...@cts.canberra.edu.au says...
Unless the bible is true, then Adam was made out of dirt,
so dirt was our ancestor. Of course you knew that, right?
You're not being educated on what the bible says by a bunch
of atheists, are you?
Greg the Reprobate
Missionary of Death
-------------------
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Incenjucar
"Stephen Andrewartha" <st...@cts.canberra.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3e90c639$1...@herald.canberra.edu.au...
Doesn't the bible say something about clay?
You know, ashes to ashes, dust to dust?
John Ings
>The issue is not bad or good so much as
>which view is fact. The fact is that there
>is not one piece of evidence for evolution.
There are whole libraries full, and more coming out of the rocks of
the earth every day.
>Want proof ?
>Watch the presentations at this website
>if your not afraid of what you might find out.
>http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video
Hovind??! The fraud with the phony Phd?
There's no proof there, just lies and half-truths.
## Education: How come we have smart bombs and dumb kids?
John Ings
wrote:
>The precursors to the first living organism my well have come in part
>from minerals, or organic molecules in soils or clays of the early
>earth.
Take it back a step from that. The whole solar system is composed of
dust and gas from earlier generations of stars. We ARE made from dust.
Stardust.
## RELIGION: A consciously accepted game of make believe.
georgann
>> that there were some first humans (with no ancestors) that were
>> created by God. There's no dirt involved.
>> Stephen.
"gOD" wrote:
> So what did god create adam from?
georgann:
Adam was "formed" of the "dust of the earth" and Eve was "taken from Adam".
But mankind "created" on the sixth day was "created in God's image - male
and female".
Those two descriptions are worlds apart. (So are the verses.)
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท.ธธ ธธ.ทดจ `ป
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด `'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)
Gregory Gadow
The Koran has humanity being made from clots of blood. Whose blood, I've
always wondered.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
If it is the act of a traitor to speak out against the
unConstitional acts of my government, to excercise my
rights guaranteed by that Constitution -- the right to
publish my opinions and speak my thoughts, the right
to petition for a redress of grievances, the right to
be secure in my person and property against search and
seizure without due process of law -- then I am a traitor.
And God grant us many, many more traitors, for we are in
dire need of them.
MarkA
I always thought He just pulled Adam out of His divine ass. Isn't that in
Genesis somewhere?
--
MarkA
> this space intentionally left blank <
MarkA
I've always been fond of Gary Larson's image (the creator of Far Side):
God is a little old lady pouring a person out of a big bottle labeled
"People". On the shelf behind her are other bottles labeled "bugs",
"snakes", etc.
Note that this theory of origins has as much evidence to support it as the
Genesis account does.
Tukla Ratte
wrote:
< snip >
> Take it back a step from that. The whole solar system is composed of
> dust and gas from earlier generations of stars. We ARE made from dust.
So when my friends call me "gassy", that's a good thing? Woo-hoo!
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
egas moniz
> In article <d32628c0.03040...@posting.google.com>,
> zino...@hotmail.com (egas moniz) wrote:
>
> > Religious fundamentalists think that the theory of evolution's
> > implication that our ancestors were apes is really bad. What's the
> > alternative? That our ancestor was dirt!
>
> None of my ancestors were apes. They belonged to a line of primate
> species which split off from the one which led to modern apes about
> 6-7 million yrs. ago.
Depends how you define "apes". Apes can be taken to mean only chimps,
gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons (but then that group consists of
species some of which are more closely related to us than to each
other), or it can be taken to mean all members of our family, in which
case, not only are our ancestors apes, we are apes. Naked apes.
Traditionally, even evolutionists have regarded human beings as
belonging to their own family (hominidea), whereas apes were regarded
as members of the family pongidea. But there's no rational basis for
that, and nowadays at least some are finally grouping us together
(see, e.g., Ernst Mayr's _What Evolution Is_, p 234)
> >Is dirt really better than apes?
>
> The precursors to the first living organism my well have come in part
> from minerals, or organic molecules in soils or clays of the early
> earth. So what?
I think you're missing my point.
egas moniz
> "egas moniz" <zino...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d32628c0.03040...@posting.google.com...
> > Religious fundamentalists think that the theory of evolution's
> > implication that our ancestors were apes is really bad. What's the
> > alternative? That our ancestor was dirt! Is dirt really better than
> > apes?
>
> Hi
> The issue is not bad or good so much as
> which view is fact.
True. But creationists do use the "was your grandfather an ape?"
argument quite often.
>The fact is that there
> is not one piece of evidence for evolution.
As opposed to all the proof for special creation, right?
The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that only the irrational
or the ignorant can deny it.
Terry
"John Ings" <jings...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
news:o8j29vg8m22v49qfk...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 21:48:50 -0400, "Terry" <no...@duetospam.net> wrote:
>
> >The issue is not bad or good so much as
> >which view is fact. The fact is that there
> >is not one piece of evidence for evolution.
>
> There are whole libraries full, and more coming out of the rocks of
> the earth every day.
>
> >Want proof ?
> >Watch the presentations at this website
> >if your not afraid of what you might find out.
> >http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video
>
> Hovind??! The fraud with the phony Phd?
> There's no proof there, just lies and half-truths.
You didn't watch the presentations did you ?
Afraid ?
> ## Education: How come we have smart bombs and dumb kids?
The public education system is set up to
make kids dumb.
Terry
Such as ?
You snipped the link. Couldn't deal with it
could you ?
John Ings
>> >The issue is not bad or good so much as
>> >which view is fact. The fact is that there
>> >is not one piece of evidence for evolution.
>>
>> There are whole libraries full, and more coming out of the rocks of
>> the earth every day.
>>
>> >Want proof ?
>> >Watch the presentations at this website
>> >if your not afraid of what you might find out.
>> >http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video
>>
>> Hovind??! The fraud with the phony Phd?
>> There's no proof there, just lies and half-truths.
>
>You didn't watch the presentations did you ?
I've been aware of Hovind's bullshit for years. It's the same old
Creationist lies.
>Afraid ?
Yeah. Guys like Hovind are scary. They dupe innocents like you with
their crapola, and you can vote. The next thing we know honest science
will be outlawed in the schools and his bullshit will be given
credance by poor kids who don't have the scientific background to
discern science from pseudo-science.
>> ## Education: How come we have smart bombs and dumb kids?
>
>The public education system is set up to
>make kids dumb.
Partly because of the efforts of Creationists like Hovind. They want
to gut the curriculum of science that disputes their narrow minded
bibliolatry.
## Science has proof without certainty,
## Creationism certainty without proof.
satyr
wrote:
>>> The alternative is that all of mankind's ancestors were human, and
>>> that there were some first humans (with no ancestors) that were
>>> created by God. There's no dirt involved.
>>> Stephen.
>
>"gOD" wrote:
>
>> So what did god create adam from?
>
>georgann:
>
>Adam was "formed" of the "dust of the earth" and Eve was "taken from Adam".
I thought he folded them out of origami paper.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
Stephen Andrewartha
>Unless the bible is true, then Adam was made out of dirt,
>so dirt was our ancestor. Of course you knew that, right?
>
I admit I didn't check the Bible before posting. But, in my defense,
I would say that the word "ancestor" only applies in the situation
where life begets life in a series of generations.
But this whole discussion is pretty silly, IMHO. The basic issue
is not what God's working material was, but whether or not He
is responsible for the creation of human life.
Stephen.
Alex99
Hi,
I like the word evidence. I have a mathematics, physics and computing
background. Where if someone presents an idea it's called a
'postulate' until evidence is shown then it's upgraded to 'theory'
status (which is much more lucrative).
I wanted to apply that same scientific method to macro-evolution but I
haven't been able to find any evidence.
I've spent many hours in book stores, libraries and those evolutionist
type web sites but I must be missing the forest for all the trees?
No problem, it's probably just my ignorance, so could some one please
give me a quick run down on the evidence.
I'm still missing the link.
Thanks in advance
Alex
John Hattan
>>> The alternative is that all of mankind's ancestors were human, and
>>> that there were some first humans (with no ancestors) that were
>>> created by God. There's no dirt involved.
>>> Stephen.
>
>"gOD" wrote:
>
>> So what did god create adam from?
>
>georgann:
>
>Adam was "formed" of the "dust of the earth" and Eve was "taken from Adam".
Why exactly were dirt and bone-removal surgery suddenly necessary? Just
a couple of days earlier, Elohim created a universe a trillion
light-years wide out of nothing, but suddenly he needs pre-existing
material to make a relatively tiny carbon-based being.
>But mankind "created" on the sixth day was "created in God's image - male
>and female".
So God is also made out of dirt?
>Those two descriptions are worlds apart. (So are the verses.)
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Terry
"satyr" <RsEaM...@infidels.org> wrote in message
news:e8249v48q2vrqj92n...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:05:47 GMT, georgann <chen...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>> The alternative is that all of mankind's ancestors were human, and
> >>> that there were some first humans (with no ancestors) that were
> >>> created by God. There's no dirt involved.
> >>> Stephen.
> >
> >"gOD" wrote:
> >
> >> So what did god create adam from?
> >
> >georgann:
> >
> >Adam was "formed" of the "dust of the earth" and Eve was "taken from
Adam".
>
> I thought he folded them out of origami paper.
Thats cool, as long as you know that He (God) did it.
Terry
> >You didn't watch the presentations did you ?
>
> I've been aware of Hovind's bullshit for years. It's the same old
> Creationist lies.
Pick on of Hovid's statements and offer some proof
that it is a lie.
> >Afraid ?
>
> Yeah. Guys like Hovind are scary. They dupe innocents like you with
> their crapola, and you can vote. The next thing we know honest science
> will be outlawed in the schools
Define "honest science".
> and his bullshit will be given
Pick any one of his positions and offer
some sort of proof that it is bullshit.
> credance by poor kids who don't have the scientific background to
> discern science from pseudo-science.
>
> >> ## Education: How come we have smart bombs and dumb kids?
> >
> >The public education system is set up to
> >make kids dumb.
>
> Partly because of the efforts of Creationists like Hovind.
How so ? Right now only evolution is taught in schools
yet right now the students are dumb. How could that
be caused by creationism when creationism is not taught ?
> They want
> to gut the curriculum of science
In what way ?
> that disputes their narrow minded
> bibliolatry.
I think that the possibility that creationists may
be right is terrifying to you because it would
make you responsible for your own actions.
Am I wrong ?
John Hattan
>On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:05:47 GMT, georgann <chen...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>> The alternative is that all of mankind's ancestors were human, and
>>>> that there were some first humans (with no ancestors) that were
>>>> created by God. There's no dirt involved.
>>>> Stephen.
>>
>>"gOD" wrote:
>>
>>> So what did god create adam from?
>>
>>georgann:
>>
>>Adam was "formed" of the "dust of the earth" and Eve was "taken from Adam".
>
>I thought he folded them out of origami paper.
Wrong. Everybody knows that we were banished to Tigeeak (aka Earth) 75
million years ago by the evil Lord Xenu.
Gregory A Greenman
st...@cts.canberra.edu.au says...
> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
>
> >Unless the bible is true, then Adam was made out of dirt,
> >so dirt was our ancestor. Of course you knew that, right?
> >
>
> I admit I didn't check the Bible before posting. But, in my defense,
> I would say that the word "ancestor" only applies in the situation
> where life begets life in a series of generations.
It's true that to consider dirt an ancestor, you need to
use it in a more or less metaphorical sense.
> But this whole discussion is pretty silly, IMHO. The basic issue
> is not what God's working material was, but whether or not He
> is responsible for the creation of human life.
Actually, the original poster's point was that there's no
reason why being descended from apes is any worse than
being descended from a man made from dirt. I agree with him
on that. Of course, it really doesn't matter. The truth is
unaffected by our approval or disapproval of it.
johac
> johac <jha...@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message
> news:<jhachm-62240C....@news-central.giganews.com>...
> > In article <d32628c0.03040...@posting.google.com>,
> > zino...@hotmail.com (egas moniz) wrote:
> >
> > > Religious fundamentalists think that the theory of evolution's
> > > implication that our ancestors were apes is really bad. What's the
> > > alternative? That our ancestor was dirt!
> >
> > None of my ancestors were apes. They belonged to a line of primate
> > species which split off from the one which led to modern apes about
> > 6-7 million yrs. ago.
>
> Depends how you define "apes". Apes can be taken to mean only chimps,
> gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons (but then that group consists of
> species some of which are more closely related to us than to each
> other), or it can be taken to mean all members of our family, in which
> case, not only are our ancestors apes, we are apes. Naked apes.
>
> Traditionally, even evolutionists have regarded human beings as
> belonging to their own family (hominidea), whereas apes were regarded
> as members of the family pongidea. But there's no rational basis for
> that, and nowadays at least some are finally grouping us together
> (see, e.g., Ernst Mayr's _What Evolution Is_, p 234)
Since our DNA is about 98% identical to that of some apes, the
differences are trivial from a biological point of view. 'Apes' in
common usage usually excludes the human species. Fundamentalists often
argue that evolutionists think that humans descended from modern
chimps or gorillas, which of course is a strawman argument.
If apes are not our brothers, they are at least our close cousins.
>
> > >Is dirt really better than apes?
> >
> > The precursors to the first living organism my well have come in part
> > from minerals, or organic molecules in soils or clays of the early
> > earth. So what?
>
> I think you're missing my point.
My point was that 'dirt' may have had a role in the origin of all
life. Since all living things are likely all descended from a single
primitive organism, this would include humans too. The creationists
mau have a point in that man was 'from clay'. The only thing is that
there is no evidence that supernatural beings had anything to do with
it.
gOD
> >> The alternative is that all of mankind's ancestors were human, and
> >> that there were some first humans (with no ancestors) that were
> >> created by God. There's no dirt involved.
> >> Stephen.
>
> "gOD" wrote:
>
> > So what did god create adam from?
>
> georgann:
>
> Adam was "formed" of the "dust of the earth" and Eve was "taken from Adam".
>
> But mankind "created" on the sixth day was "created in God's image - male
> and female".
>
> Those two descriptions are worlds apart. (So are the verses.)
So "dust of the earth" and "dirt" are not the same? Or even similar?
John Ings
>
>> >You didn't watch the presentations did you ?
>>
>> I've been aware of Hovind's bullshit for years. It's the same old
>> Creationist lies.
>
>Pick on of Hovid's statements and offer some proof
>that it is a lie.
From the www.talkorigins.org list of fraudulent Creationist
credentials.
"Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in
education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind,
his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching
evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop
Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is
accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of
Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides
accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to
Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for
$15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course
descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their
credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree
mill".
Here are my comments on Hovind's rationalizations from
http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/FAQmisc13.jsp
>Where did you get your degree?
>
>A: Every once in a while someone will ask me the question, "Where did
>you get your degree?" While I am not the least bit ashamed of my
>education,
But he should be.
> I have learned by experience that they could be asking the
>question because they have come to the point where they cannot attack
>the message I bring against evolution so they wish to attack me
>personally instead.
The assertion that a writer is unqualified to write on the subject he
is publishing tracts about is just barely "ad hominem". Would you have
your doctor consulting a book on brain surgery written by a janitor?
The charge however goes beyond this. It declares "Doctor" Hovind to be
unqualified even in the discipline in which he claims to hold a
doctorate.
>This is called an ad hominem argument.
Ad hominem arguments are weak, but not irellevant. Even the biggest
fool or liar can be right about a given point at issue, so one cannot
claim that his argument is erroneous just because he is making it.
It is legitimate however to point out that someone presenting himself
as an expert by writing a book on a given subject, actually has no
education in the scientific discipline involved.
>They
>mistakenly think that by belittling the man they have answered his
>points and won the debate.
They ALSO answer your points and win the debate, but you count on an
audience of gullible inniocents who don't have the scientific
background to realize it, don't you "Doctor" Hovind?
>When the opponent in a debate begins using ad
>hominem attacks, it is an obvious signal that they are losing the debate
>on facts and must resort to other means to try to save face or divert
>attention. It is also interesting to watch how the evolutionists will
>spend much time and effort scrutinizing a subject like my degree or
>credentials yet won’t spend 2 seconds scrutinizing how ridiculous the
>evolution theory is!
Blather. Pointing out that you claim a doctorate unrecognized by any
legitimate educational intstitution is hardly irrelevant.
>Back to the degree question. I took advanced math and science classes at
>East Peoria High School graduating in 1971. I earned my first 60 (+ or
>-) credit hours majoring in math and science at Illinois Central College
>in East Peoria, Illinois. I then transferred to Midwestern Baptist
>College in Pontiac, Michigan where I double majored in education and the
>Bible and graduated in 1974. (I took 18-20 hours each semester plus
>summer school to graduate in 3 years.) While I taught math and science
>in Christian schools for the next 15 years I took courses at several
>Bible colleges in my spare time. I finished my Masters (1988) and
>Doctorate (1991) degrees in education from Patriot University.
An illegitimate institution.
> At the
>time it was small Christian university in Colorado Springs that offered
>an extension program for people involved in full time ministries. I was
>taking courses from Patriot University (established 1980) while it was a
>ministry of Hilltop Baptist Church and offered a Ph.D. in education.
Which diploma, along with a dollar, would buy you a cup of coffee in
some restaurants. If you presented it at a real university or college
and applied for a teaching job however, they'd laugh at you and show
you the door.
>I spent many years working on my degree and learned a lot -
Your publications show little evidence of this . . .
>as anyone who
>has watched my debates with evolutionists or seminar series will
>testify.
Only if their education is as superficial as yours.
>Some have ridiculed the size of the school. If Harvard offers a Ph.D.
>degree program with only 3 or 4 students (this happens at many schools-
>sometimes with only 1 student),
But they can accomodate 30 or 40 if that many can qualify. What keeps
their classes small is the high standards of their curriculum.
>does the small number automatically mean
>they are not "earning their degree" or that they are attending a
>"diploma mill" school? Of course not!
But the fact that an institution gets its accreditation from the
"American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an
accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge."
does indicate a diploma mill.
> any evolutionist interested in a public
>debate any place they chose is welcome to contact me to arrange a time
>while I am in their area. Since they think I don’t have a degree, they
>can call me Kent, Mr. Hovind or even "hey you," if it will make them
>feel better. Since they don’t think I am "properly educated" it should
>be easy for them to demonstrate how wrong I am and how much evidence
>there is for evolution.
It is, but such debates are usually "won" by the Creationist, since he
is a more charismatic speaker, and the audience doesn't realize that
his "science" is spurious. Creationists have become expert at "walking
the walk" and "talking the talk" so they sound just like real
scientists. The layman in the audience doesn't realize the
Creationist's scientific gabble is illogical and meaningless.
Scientists are always arguing anyway, so the listener concludes he's
hearing an honest difference of scientific opinion. One veteran of
such a debate compared it to trying to prove the theorems of calculus
to an audience that had never studied algebra let alone trigonometry.
>I hope this helps answer your question. If you are looking for someone
>with advanced degrees in science, I do not have them and have never
>claimed that I did.
So why are you presenting yourself as being knowledgable in the
subject?
>If you would like the names of scientists who
>support the young earth creationist position you may want to contact the
>Institute for Creation Research at 619-448-0900 or www.icr.org.
And then you can see how many of them are claiming spurious degrees
like you by checking out
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
>. I only claim to have many years experience in
>studying the subject and the common sense to know that the universe is
>too complex to have happened without an incredibly smart designer (whom
>I happen to know personally as my savior).
And that's your REAL conviction, isn't it "Doctor" Hovind? Never mind
the science, it's your faith that you follow, and if reality differs
from your exegesis, why reality must be rationalized and distorted.
And if reality won't budge it must be lied about, after all the Lord
will forgive a few fibs if it saves a soul, and the Bible can't
possibly be wrong can it?
>By the way, Darwin’s only
>degree was in theology yet he is often called a great scientist in
>textbooks today.
He made himself a great scientist, and unlike yourself, he did his
homework, 20 years of research before publishing a book that made the
preachers yelp because it drove them back into the world of the
supernatural where they huddle still. Biblical biology proved to be as
mythical as Biblical cosmology.
>Who and what determines who gets to be called a "scientist"
Peer review, before which you could not stand for a second.
>and why don’t these scoffers put the same effort into
>correcting textbooks that call "Reverend" Darwin a scientist?
Those texts are correct, and history will never call "Doctor" Kent
Hovind a genius.
************
>> >Afraid ?
>>
>> Yeah. Guys like Hovind are scary. They dupe innocents like you with
>> their crapola, and you can vote. The next thing we know honest science
>> will be outlawed in the schools
>
>Define "honest science".
Science backed by fact and not distorted and deliberately
misinterpreted. e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics does NOT preclude
evolution, but Creation scientists continue to claim it does.
>> and his bullshit will be given
>
>Pick any one of his positions and offer
>some sort of proof that it is bullshit.
"Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests
on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of
carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of
decay has always been constant."
Lie.
C14 is crosschecked with dendrochronology, and errors due to minor
atmospheric variation in C-14 content are compensated for.
"There are scriptural and scientific indications that the pre-flood
world had greater air pressure, higher percentages of oxygen and
carbon dioxide, much more land (above sea level), less water (on the
earth's surface), and a canopy of water to filter out the harmful
effects of the sun."
There might be scriptural indications.
There are no scientific indications of any such thing.
>> credance by poor kids who don't have the scientific background to
>> discern science from pseudo-science.
>>
>> >> ## Education: How come we have smart bombs and dumb kids?
>> >
>> >The public education system is set up to
>> >make kids dumb.
>>
>> Partly because of the efforts of Creationists like Hovind.
>
>How so ?
One US state (Kansas) went so far as to outlaw the teaching of
evolution in their schools for a while a few years back. The
fundamentalist right has been angling to get its members on school
board with the same aim in a number of states.
>Right now only evolution is taught in schools
Because evolution is science.
>yet right now the students are dumb. How could that
>be caused by creationism when creationism is not taught ?
Creationists have so frightened the text book publishers that what
evolution is taught is mentioned briefly, and ends up being taught
superficially, making the student ripe for Creationist propaganda.
>> They want to gut the curriculum of science
>
>In what way ?
Read Hovind's bullshit. That's what way.
>> that disputes their narrow minded
>> bibliolatry.
>
>I think that the possibility that creationists may
>be right is terrifying to you because it would
>make you responsible for your own actions.
>Am I wrong ?
Very. You seek to prove that God is an unjust monster who holds his
own creations responsible for their performance.
Here is Einstein on that subject:
"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every
human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and
aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding
men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty
Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain
extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with
the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?" [Albert Einstein, Out
of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.]
Even if you succeed in proving God created all, what a conceit it is
for you to assume God is anything like the Bronze Age deity the Bible
portrays, relating to his creations with reward and punishment, like a
farmer training a mule!
## Did God make man what he is, and then damned him for being so?
georgann
>>>> there were some first humans (with no ancestors) that were created by God.
>>>> There's no dirt involved. Stephen.
>> "gOD" wrote:
>>> So what did god create adam from?
>> georgann:
>> Adam was "formed" of the "dust of the earth" and Eve was "taken from Adam".
>> But mankind "created" on the sixth day was "created in God's image - male and
>> female".
>> Those two descriptions are worlds apart. (So are the verses.)
"gOD" wrote:
> So "dust of the earth" and "dirt" are not the same? Or even similar?
georgann:
Of course dust of the earth and dirt are the same. But the man "created in
the image of God, male and female" is not the "man" that was formed of the
dust of the earth.
Two very distinct descriptions of two distinctly different beings from
separated verses segments.
gOD
> >>>> The alternative is that all of mankind's ancestors were human, and that
> >>>> there were some first humans (with no ancestors) that were created by God.
> >>>> There's no dirt involved. Stephen.
>
> >> "gOD" wrote:
>
> >>> So what did god create adam from?
>
> >> georgann:
>
> >> Adam was "formed" of the "dust of the earth" and Eve was "taken from Adam".
> >> But mankind "created" on the sixth day was "created in God's image - male and
> >> female".
>
> >> Those two descriptions are worlds apart. (So are the verses.)
>
> "gOD" wrote:
>
> > So "dust of the earth" and "dirt" are not the same? Or even similar?
>
> georgann:
>
> Of course dust of the earth and dirt are the same. But the man "created in
> the image of God, male and female" is not the "man" that was formed of the
> dust of the earth.
>
> Two very distinct descriptions of two distinctly different beings from
> separated verses segments.
Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
being
Are we both reading the bible, or are you talking about a different
sky-pixie?
egas moniz
> "egas moniz" <zino...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d32628c0.0304...@posting.google.com...
> > "Terry" <no...@duetospam.net> wrote in message
> news:<v91lign...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > "egas moniz" <zino...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:d32628c0.03040...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Religious fundamentalists think that the theory of evolution's
> > > > implication that our ancestors were apes is really bad. What's the
> > > > alternative? That our ancestor was dirt! Is dirt really better than
> > > > apes?
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > The issue is not bad or good so much as
> > > which view is fact.
> >
> > True. But creationists do use the "was your grandfather an ape?"
> > argument quite often.
> >
> > >The fact is that there
> > > is not one piece of evidence for evolution.
> >
> > As opposed to all the proof for special creation, right?
> >
> > The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that only the irrational
> > or the ignorant can deny it.
>
> Such as ?
How about all of the fossil evidence? How about the fact that
evolution coheres with our other scientific knowledge, including that
from geology and physics? I'm not going to write a 20 page post on
this (and even that would not be enough). (Nor do I expect you to do
the same on your side.) I can recommend some readings, but on the
other hand, I'm sure that you are already aware of the fact that such
books exist.
> You snipped the link. Couldn't deal with it could you ?
Your implication that evolutionists are afraid of reading idiotic
nonsense such as the one you're referring to is offensive.
And btw, on another one of your posts on this thread (in reply to
someone else), you suggested that evolutionists are afraid of
creationism because it implies that one is responsible for one's own
actions. This is strange. Why do you think that evolution implies that
one is *not* responsible for one's own actions? What does the
evolution/creationism debate even have to do with that?
Terry
> ~
> Don't loose any sleep over it -- creationists are wrong.
Lets see some sort of proof of that statement.
> And, nobody is
> terrified except folk like you.
Am i terrified? So why am I calm and you upset ?
>Otherwise, why would you post such an
> unfounded attack?
Attack ? I offered to look at any evidence John
cared to provide. How is that an attack ?
> Tremble at the truth if you will!
What truth do you mean ?
georgann
>>>> Adam was "formed" of the "dust of the earth" and Eve was "taken from Adam".
>>>> But mankind "created" on the sixth day was "created in God's image - male
>>>> and female".
>>>> Those two descriptions are worlds apart. (So are the verses.)
>> "gOD" wrote:
>>> So "dust of the earth" and "dirt" are not the same? Or even similar?
>> georgann:
>> Of course dust of the earth and dirt are the same. But the man "created in
>> the image of God, male and female" is not the "man" that was formed of the
>> dust of the earth.
>> Two very distinct descriptions of two distinctly different beings from
>> separated verses segments.
"gOD" wrote:
> Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed
> into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being
> Are we both reading the bible, or are you talking about a different sky-pixie?
georgann:
That's only ONE of the verses that describes the "formation" or "creation"
of man. The man "created in the image of God" is not in that verse.
We're both reading the Bible, only you don't yet get it.
John Hattan
>>>>> georgann:
>
>>>>> Adam was "formed" of the "dust of the earth" and Eve was "taken from Adam".
>>>>> But mankind "created" on the sixth day was "created in God's image - male
>>>>> and female".
>
>>>>> Those two descriptions are worlds apart. (So are the verses.)
>
>>> "gOD" wrote:
>
>>>> So "dust of the earth" and "dirt" are not the same? Or even similar?
>
>>> georgann:
>
>>> Of course dust of the earth and dirt are the same. But the man "created in
>>> the image of God, male and female" is not the "man" that was formed of the
>>> dust of the earth.
>
>>> Two very distinct descriptions of two distinctly different beings from
>>> separated verses segments.
>
>"gOD" wrote:
>
>> Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed
>> into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being
>
>> Are we both reading the bible, or are you talking about a different sky-pixie?
>
>georgann:
>
>That's only ONE of the verses that describes the "formation" or "creation"
>of man. The man "created in the image of God" is not in that verse.
>
>We're both reading the Bible, only you don't yet get it.
Or, to use the former president's vernacular, it all depends on what
your meaning of "is" is :)
Stephen Andrewartha
>Or, to use the former president's vernacular, it all depends on what
>your meaning of "is" is :)
>
Georgann seems to be making more sense than you at the
moment, John. Permit me to offer an interpretation that may
reconcile your differences.
Perhaps the verse referring to making mankind in God's image
was a reference to the design or blueprint (as it were) for mankind,
while the first instance of a man to be constructed from that blueprint
was Adam, and the material used in the construction was the "dust
of the earth" referred to in the other verse.
Stephen.
gOD
> >>>> georgann:
>
> >>>> Adam was "formed" of the "dust of the earth" and Eve was "taken from Adam".
> >>>> But mankind "created" on the sixth day was "created in God's image - male
> >>>> and female".
>
> >>>> Those two descriptions are worlds apart. (So are the verses.)
>
> >> "gOD" wrote:
>
> >>> So "dust of the earth" and "dirt" are not the same? Or even similar?
>
> >> georgann:
>
> >> Of course dust of the earth and dirt are the same. But the man "created in
> >> the image of God, male and female" is not the "man" that was formed of the
> >> dust of the earth.
>
> >> Two very distinct descriptions of two distinctly different beings from
> >> separated verses segments.
>
> "gOD" wrote:
>
> > Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed
> > into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being
>
> > Are we both reading the bible, or are you talking about a different sky-pixie?
>
> georgann:
>
> That's only ONE of the verses that describes the "formation" or "creation"
> of man. The man "created in the image of God" is not in that verse.
>
> We're both reading the Bible, only you don't yet get it.
So Genesis 2:7 says man was formed of dust from the ground.
You really have two very simple choices:
1) yes, the verse is correct and he was formed from dust.
2) The verse is not correct and genesis 2:7 is wrong.
Which one is it?
georgann
> Perhaps the verse referring to making mankind in God's image was a reference
> to the design or blueprint (as it were) for mankind, while the first instance
> of a man to be constructed from that blueprint was Adam, and the material used
> in the construction was the "dust of the earth" referred to in the other
> verse.
>
georgann:
Close.
Very close, sir.
georgann
>>
>>> Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and
>>> breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being
>>>
>>> Are we both reading the bible, or are you talking about a different
>>> sky-pixie?
>>>
>> georgann:
>>
>> That's only ONE of the verses that describes the "formation" or "creation" of
>> man. The man "created in the image of God" is not in that verse.
>>
>> We're both reading the Bible, only you don't yet get it.
"gOD" wrote:
> So Genesis 2:7 says man was formed of dust from the ground.
> You really have two very simple choices:
> 1) yes, the verse is correct and he was formed from dust. 2) The verse is not
> correct and genesis 2:7 is wrong.
> Which one is it?
georgann:
The ONLY choice at this juncture is that you didn't read the two separate
verses and or that you can't understand that there are two distinctly
different verse sections regarding the "formation" or the "creation" of man.
Clue: "formed out of the dust ground" and "created in the image of God" are
NOT the same thing and not the same verses.
georgann
>>> sky-pixie?
>>>
>> georgann:
>>
>> That's only ONE of the verses that describes the "formation" or "creation" of
>> man. The man "created in the image of God" is not in that verse.
>>
>> We're both reading the Bible, only you don't yet get it.
"John Hattan" wrote:
> Or, to use the former president's vernacular, it all depends on what your
> meaning of "is" is :)
georgann:
That wasn't _my_ former president.
Elroy Willis
> "gOD" wrote:
>> Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
>> and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
>> being
>> Are we both reading the bible, or are you talking about a different sky-pixie?
> georgann:
> That's only ONE of the verses that describes the "formation" or "creation"
> of man. The man "created in the image of God" is not in that verse.
> We're both reading the Bible, only you don't yet get it.
What are you yapping about now?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Elroy Willis
>>> "gOD" wrote:
>>>> So what did god create adam from?
>>> georgann:
>>> Adam was "formed" of the "dust of the earth" and Eve was "taken from Adam".
>>> But mankind "created" on the sixth day was "created in God's image - male and
>>> female".
>>> Those two descriptions are worlds apart. (So are the verses.)
> "gOD" wrote:
>> So "dust of the earth" and "dirt" are not the same? Or even similar?
> georgann:
> Of course dust of the earth and dirt are the same. But the man "created in
> the image of God, male and female" is not the "man" that was formed of the
> dust of the earth.
> Two very distinct descriptions of two distinctly different beings from
> separated verses segments.
What's your opinion of this page?
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=853&letter=C&search=creation
Robibnikoff
>
>>>> Are we both reading the bible, or are you talking about a different
>>>> sky-pixie?
>>>>
>>> georgann:
>>>
>>> That's only ONE of the verses that describes the "formation" or "creation" of
>>> man. The man "created in the image of God" is not in that verse.
>>>
>>> We're both reading the Bible, only you don't yet get it.
>
>"John Hattan" wrote:
>
>> Or, to use the former president's vernacular, it all depends on what your
>> meaning of "is" is :)
>
>georgann:
>
>That wasn't _my_ former president.
You weren't an American citizen a couple of years back?
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
John Hattan
I love Christian apologetics. Using Christian apologetic dodges, I can
prove that "The Cat In The Hat" is an inerrent chronicle of history.
georgann
>
>> That's only ONE of the verses that describes the "formation" or "creation"
>> of man. The man "created in the image of God" is not in that verse.
>
>> We're both reading the Bible, only you don't yet get it.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
> What are you yapping about now?
georgann:
One place talks of man being "formed of the dust of the earth" and that from
him woman was taken. He was Adam (man in Hebrew Aramaic - a name that has a
very specific meaning).
The "man created in the image of God, male and female" is not spoken of in
that same verse.
They are distinctly different points about "man" that most everyone assumes
is the same man. They are not the same.
John Hattan
>>>> Are we both reading the bible, or are you talking about a different
>>>> sky-pixie?
>>>>
>>> georgann:
>>>
>>> That's only ONE of the verses that describes the "formation" or "creation" of
>>> man. The man "created in the image of God" is not in that verse.
>>>
>>> We're both reading the Bible, only you don't yet get it.
>
>"John Hattan" wrote:
>
>> Or, to use the former president's vernacular, it all depends on what your
>> meaning of "is" is :)
>
>georgann:
>
>That wasn't _my_ former president.
Liar.
georgann
>>>>
>>>> Adam was "formed" of the "dust of the earth" and Eve was "taken from Adam".
>>>> But mankind "created" on the sixth day was "created in God's image - male
>>>> and female".
>>>>
>>>> Those two descriptions are worlds apart. (So are the verses.)
>>>>
>> "gOD" wrote:
>>
>>> So "dust of the earth" and "dirt" are not the same? Or even similar?
>>>
>> georgann:
>>
>> Of course dust of the earth and dirt are the same. But the man "created in
>> the image of God, male and female" is not the "man" that was formed of the
>> dust of the earth.
>>
>> Two very distinct descriptions of two distinctly different beings from
>> separated verses segments.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
> What's your opinion of this page?
> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=853&letter=C&search=creation
georgann:
I haven't taken time yet to read it through. But my first impression is that
it will be off kilter because of its early emphasis on the Talmud.
John Hattan
>>> georgann:
>>
>>> That's only ONE of the verses that describes the "formation" or "creation"
>>> of man. The man "created in the image of God" is not in that verse.
>>
>>> We're both reading the Bible, only you don't yet get it.
>
>"Elroy Willis" wrote:
>
>> What are you yapping about now?
>
>georgann:
>
>One place talks of man being "formed of the dust of the earth" and that from
>him woman was taken. He was Adam (man in Hebrew Aramaic - a name that has a
>very specific meaning).
>
>The "man created in the image of God, male and female" is not spoken of in
>that same verse.
>
>They are distinctly different points about "man" that most everyone assumes
>is the same man. They are not the same.
Yeah, it was obviously referring to some of those "other" men that
existed when there were no other men :)
John Hattan
>>>>> georgann:
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam was "formed" of the "dust of the earth" and Eve was "taken from Adam".
>>>>> But mankind "created" on the sixth day was "created in God's image - male
>>>>> and female".
>>>>>
>>>>> Those two descriptions are worlds apart. (So are the verses.)
>>>>>
>>> "gOD" wrote:
>>>
>>>> So "dust of the earth" and "dirt" are not the same? Or even similar?
>>>>
>>> georgann:
>>>
>>> Of course dust of the earth and dirt are the same. But the man "created in
>>> the image of God, male and female" is not the "man" that was formed of the
>>> dust of the earth.
>>>
>>> Two very distinct descriptions of two distinctly different beings from
>>> separated verses segments.
>
>"Elroy Willis" wrote:
>
>> What's your opinion of this page?
>> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=853&letter=C&search=creation
>
>georgann:
>
>I haven't taken time yet to read it through. But my first impression is that
>it will be off kilter because of its early emphasis on the Talmud.
I agree with Georgann. After all, she's the one who proved that infinite
sequences are not really infinite :)
Elroy Willis
>>> georgann:
>>> That's only ONE of the verses that describes the "formation" or "creation"
>>> of man. The man "created in the image of God" is not in that verse.
>>> We're both reading the Bible, only you don't yet get it.
> "Elroy Willis" wrote:
>> What are you yapping about now?
> georgann:
> One place talks of man being "formed of the dust of the earth" and that from
> him woman was taken. He was Adam (man in Hebrew Aramaic - a name that has a
> very specific meaning).
> The "man created in the image of God, male and female" is not spoken of in
> that same verse.
> They are distinctly different points about "man" that most everyone assumes
> is the same man. They are not the same.
Does your idea support evolution?
Elroy Willis
>>> georgann:
>>> Of course dust of the earth and dirt are the same. But the man "created in
>>> the image of God, male and female" is not the "man" that was formed of the
>>> dust of the earth.
>>> Two very distinct descriptions of two distinctly different beings from
>>> separated verses segments.
> "Elroy Willis" wrote:
>> What's your opinion of this page?
>> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=853&letter=C&search=creation
> georgann:
> I haven't taken time yet to read it through. But my first impression is that
> it will be off kilter because of its early emphasis on the Talmud.
It actually supports one or two of your ideas, but not all of them. I
guess you know the Bible and Jewish understanding better than those
who wrote the encyclopedia.
gOD
> >> "gOD" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and
> >>> breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being
> >>>
> >>> Are we both reading the bible, or are you talking about a different
> >>> sky-pixie?
> >>>
> >> georgann:
> >>
> >> That's only ONE of the verses that describes the "formation" or "creation" of
> >> man. The man "created in the image of God" is not in that verse.
> >>
> >> We're both reading the Bible, only you don't yet get it.
>
> "gOD" wrote:
>
> > So Genesis 2:7 says man was formed of dust from the ground.
>
> > You really have two very simple choices:
> > 1) yes, the verse is correct and he was formed from dust. 2) The verse is not
> > correct and genesis 2:7 is wrong.
>
> > Which one is it?
>
> georgann:
>
> The ONLY choice at this juncture is that you didn't read the two separate
> verses and or that you can't understand that there are two distinctly
> different verse sections regarding the "formation" or the "creation" of man.
>
> Clue: "formed out of the dust ground" and "created in the image of God" are
> NOT the same thing and not the same verses.
I never said they were the same. Genesis 2:7 says that man was created
from dust right? Yes or no?
So what is right? You or the bible?
georgann
>>
>> The ONLY choice at this juncture is that you didn't read the two separate
>> verses and or that you can't understand that there are two distinctly
>> different verse sections regarding the "formation" or the "creation" of man.
>>
>> Clue: "formed out of the dust ground" and "created in the image of God" are
>> NOT the same thing and not the same verses.
"gOD" wrote:
> I never said they were the same. Genesis 2:7 says that man was created
> from dust right? Yes or no?
> So what is right? You or the bible?
georgann:
You are totally off. I am right and the Bible is right because Genesis 2:7
says "formed from the dust" _NOT_ "created" ..... and definitely not created
in the image of God.
You're fussing over an extinct being.
georgann
>
>> One place talks of man being "formed of the dust of the earth" and that from
>> him woman was taken. He was Adam (man in Hebrew Aramaic - a name that has a
>> very specific meaning).
>
>> The "man created in the image of God, male and female" is not spoken of in
>> that same verse.
>
>> They are distinctly different points about "man" that most everyone assumes
>> is the same man. They are not the same.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
> Does your idea support evolution?
georgann:
Its not "my" idea. But what I'm saying does support the evidence that
Cro-Magnon man shares no DNA with earlier man-beings. They are distinctly
different.
Stephen Andrewartha
>>Perhaps the verse referring to making mankind in God's image
>>was a reference to the design or blueprint (as it were) for mankind,
>>while the first instance of a man to be constructed from that blueprint
>>was Adam, and the material used in the construction was the "dust
>>of the earth" referred to in the other verse.
>>
>>
>
>I love Christian apologetics. Using Christian apologetic dodges, I can
>prove that "The Cat In The Hat" is an inerrent chronicle of history.
>
I'm only a part-time Christian apologetic, more usually arguing
on the atheist side. My main concern is finding the strongest
arguments on both sides.
Is your post supposed to contain a point relevent to the issue
under discussion?
Stephen.
Christopher A. Lee
The problem is that it isn't "both sides" of anything. Just Christians
who in-our-face their beliefs in a most stupid manner, and neither put
up nor shut up.
Calling what they do stupid, isn't an ad hominem but an observation:
do you have a better word for somebody who knows we don't share his
most cherished beliefs, yet talks at us (not with us) as though his
doctrinal premises were universally granted? Especially when they trot
out their amateur psychologised "reasons" why we "really" hold the
strawman position they assign to us?
>Stephen.
Stephen Andrewartha
>The problem is that it isn't "both sides" of anything. Just Christians
>who in-our-face their beliefs in a most stupid manner, and neither put
>up nor shut up.
>
I think this misrepresents the current thread. Or at least,
my contribution to it. As I saw it, no-one was trying to
convert anyone to Christian belief. The point of the thread
(for me at least) was to find a consistent interpretation of
the Bible verses addressing the creation of Man.
It's all fiction, as far as I'm concerned. But if this particular
part can be argued to be a *consistent* fiction, then that's
an achievement from my perspective.
Do you have a problem with that?
Stephen.
gOD
> >> georgann:
> >>
> >> The ONLY choice at this juncture is that you didn't read the two separate
> >> verses and or that you can't understand that there are two distinctly
> >> different verse sections regarding the "formation" or the "creation" of man.
> >>
> >> Clue: "formed out of the dust ground" and "created in the image of God" are
> >> NOT the same thing and not the same verses.
>
> "gOD" wrote:
>
> > I never said they were the same. Genesis 2:7 says that man was created
> > from dust right? Yes or no?
>
> > So what is right? You or the bible?
>
> georgann:
>
> You are totally off. I am right and the Bible is right because Genesis 2:7
> says "formed from the dust" _NOT_ "created" ..... and definitely not created
> in the image of God.
>
> You're fussing over an extinct being.
No, I am fussing over your understanding of the bible.
Even if you substitute the word "formed" and "created" (even though I
have just checked a few bibles and they say "created"), it doesn't
change it.
Was Adam "formed" from dust as G2:7 states? Yes or No?
georgann
>> You are totally off. I am right and the Bible is right because Genesis 2:7
>> says "formed from the dust" _NOT_ "created" ..... and definitely not created
>> in the image of God.
>> You're fussing over an extinct being.
"gOD" wrote:
> No, I am fussing over your understanding of the bible. Even if you substitute
> the word "formed" and "created" (even though I have just checked a few bibles
> and they say "created"), it doesn't change it.
georgann:
You cannot "substitute" formed (lit. fashioned) for created. That's the
problem. You are blending two separate descriptions.
"gOD" wrote:
> Was Adam "formed" from dust as G2:7 states? Yes or No?
georgann:
Adam was "formed" / "fashioned" of the dust of the earth BUT man "created in
the image of God" was not.
John Hattan
>John Hattan wrote:
>
>>>Perhaps the verse referring to making mankind in God's image
>>>was a reference to the design or blueprint (as it were) for mankind,
>>>while the first instance of a man to be constructed from that blueprint
>>>was Adam, and the material used in the construction was the "dust
>>>of the earth" referred to in the other verse.
>>
>>I love Christian apologetics. Using Christian apologetic dodges, I can
>>prove that "The Cat In The Hat" is an inerrent chronicle of history.
>
>I'm only a part-time Christian apologetic, more usually arguing
>on the atheist side. My main concern is finding the strongest
>arguments on both sides.
But you didn't find a "strongest argument" or even a strong one. You
found a "maybe it meant this" and moved on.
Point: _The Cat in the Hat_ shows a 6 foot-tall cat that walks on
two feet. This is clearly absurd.
Apologetic: Well, perhaps it was just the angle at which the cat
was drawn that makes him appear to be unusually tall and walking.
"maybe it meant this" is not a "strongest argument". It's just an
attempt to change the subject
>Is your post supposed to contain a point relevent to the issue
>under discussion?
Yep.
John Hattan
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>The problem is that it isn't "both sides" of anything. Just Christians
>>who in-our-face their beliefs in a most stupid manner, and neither put
>>up nor shut up.
>
>I think this misrepresents the current thread. Or at least,
>my contribution to it. As I saw it, no-one was trying to
>convert anyone to Christian belief. The point of the thread
>(for me at least) was to find a consistent interpretation of
>the Bible verses addressing the creation of Man.
Why do you assume that there must be "a consistent interpretation of
the Bible verses addressing the creation of Man"?
Therion Ware
-0500, John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> brought the total lines of
text written about "Re: The alternative to "Were your ancestors
apes?"" to 37. I decided to observe the following about them:
>Stephen Andrewartha <st...@cts.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>John Hattan wrote:
>>
>>>>Perhaps the verse referring to making mankind in God's image
>>>>was a reference to the design or blueprint (as it were) for mankind,
>>>>while the first instance of a man to be constructed from that blueprint
>>>>was Adam, and the material used in the construction was the "dust
>>>>of the earth" referred to in the other verse.
>>>
>>>I love Christian apologetics. Using Christian apologetic dodges, I can
>>>prove that "The Cat In The Hat" is an inerrent chronicle of history.
>>
>>I'm only a part-time Christian apologetic, more usually arguing
>>on the atheist side. My main concern is finding the strongest
>>arguments on both sides.
>
>But you didn't find a "strongest argument" or even a strong one. You
>found a "maybe it meant this" and moved on.
>
> Point: _The Cat in the Hat_ shows a 6 foot-tall cat that walks on
> two feet. This is clearly absurd.
You should come to my house.
> Apologetic: Well, perhaps it was just the angle at which the cat
> was drawn that makes him appear to be unusually tall and walking.
>
>"maybe it meant this" is not a "strongest argument". It's just an
>attempt to change the subject
>
>>Is your post supposed to contain a point relevent to the issue
>>under discussion?
>
>Yep.
>
>---
>John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
>jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts the this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
Therion Ware
-0500, John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> brought the total lines of
text written about "Re: The alternative to "Were your ancestors
>Stephen Andrewartha <st...@cts.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>>The problem is that it isn't "both sides" of anything. Just Christians
>>>who in-our-face their beliefs in a most stupid manner, and neither put
>>>up nor shut up.
>>
>>I think this misrepresents the current thread. Or at least,
>>my contribution to it. As I saw it, no-one was trying to
>>convert anyone to Christian belief. The point of the thread
>>(for me at least) was to find a consistent interpretation of
>>the Bible verses addressing the creation of Man.
>
>Why do you assume that there must be "a consistent interpretation of
>the Bible verses addressing the creation of Man"?
Because in this instance at least Christianity resembles Marxism. For
Stephen, Christianity is a way of looking at the world, not so much a
religion but what I would call an ideology.
This is to say that I posit that Stephen has a worldview which he
feels must of its nature explain everything - if something new comes
along it *must* be explained in terms of the existing (in this
instance Christian) premise base.
Ideologies can be quite useful, *but* the problem with religious
premise bases are that its impossible to disregard them no matter the
amount of evidence that contradicts them.
And that, IMO, is rather a shame.
John Hattan
>>> georgann:
>
>>> You are totally off. I am right and the Bible is right because Genesis 2:7
>>> says "formed from the dust" _NOT_ "created" ..... and definitely not created
>>> in the image of God.
>
>>> You're fussing over an extinct being.
>
>"gOD" wrote:
>
>> No, I am fussing over your understanding of the bible. Even if you substitute
>> the word "formed" and "created" (even though I have just checked a few bibles
>> and they say "created"), it doesn't change it.
>
>georgann:
>
>You cannot "substitute" formed (lit. fashioned) for created. That's the
>problem. You are blending two separate descriptions.
Or, to use the former president's vernacular, it all depends on what
your meaning of "is" is :)
---
John Hattan
But in another post (maybe this one and it was snipped, I don't recall),
he said that he doesn't buy into the creation myth, and that's what I
don't understand --why defend the internal consistency of something in
which you do not believe?
For example, it doesn't bother me at all that there are conflicting
versions of "Little Red Riding Hood" because I don't state that the
story must have happened exactly as written.
gOD
> >> georgann:
>
> >> You are totally off. I am right and the Bible is right because Genesis 2:7
> >> says "formed from the dust" _NOT_ "created" ..... and definitely not created
> >> in the image of God.
>
> >> You're fussing over an extinct being.
>
> "gOD" wrote:
>
> > No, I am fussing over your understanding of the bible. Even if you substitute
> > the word "formed" and "created" (even though I have just checked a few bibles
> > and they say "created"), it doesn't change it.
>
> georgann:
>
> You cannot "substitute" formed (lit. fashioned) for created. That's the
> problem. You are blending two separate descriptions.
>
> "gOD" wrote:
>
> > Was Adam "formed" from dust as G2:7 states? Yes or No?
>
> georgann:
>
> Adam was "formed" / "fashioned" of the dust of the earth BUT man "created in
> the image of God" was not.
So was adam created at a different time from "man"?
It really is a simple question:
******************************************************************************
Was adam made/formed/fashioned/created (whatever the hell you like) from dust?
******************************************************************************
It is a yes or no question. Do you think you can give a proper answer?
Elroy Willis
>>> georgann:
>>> You are totally off. I am right and the Bible is right because Genesis 2:7
>>> says "formed from the dust" _NOT_ "created" ..... and definitely not created
>>> in the image of God.
>>> You're fussing over an extinct being.
> "gOD" wrote:
>> No, I am fussing over your understanding of the bible. Even if you substitute
>> the word "formed" and "created" (even though I have just checked a few
>> bibles and they say "created"), it doesn't change it.
> georgann:
> You cannot "substitute" formed (lit. fashioned) for created.
Why not? You substituted "capstone" for "cornerstone" several
times that I can remember. It's okay for you to play with and
substitute words, but not okay if anyone else does it? I think
there's a word for such things, don't you?
> That's the problem. You are blending two separate descriptions.
Just like you blended a side view of the Khufu pyramid on top of a
cross and claimed that it was proof of Jesus being some missing
capcornerstone and creator of the universe. Wow!
> "gOD" wrote:
>> Was Adam "formed" from dust as G2:7 states? Yes or No?
> georgann:
> Adam was "formed" / "fashioned" of the dust of the earth BUT man
> "created in the image of God" was not.
What exactly are you trying to prove here anyway? Is it just some
disagreement over the definition of a word or phrase? Also, what does
it have to do with evolution? I notice the thread title mentions
apes, so where do they fit into your little story that you've been
making up as you go along? Surely you're not willing to admit that
man is just an evolved ape with a few differences which make us
unique, are you?
georgann
>> You cannot "substitute" formed (lit. fashioned) for created. That's the
>> problem. You are blending two separate descriptions.
>> "gOD" wrote:
>>> Was Adam "formed" from dust as G2:7 states? Yes or No?
>> georgann:
>> Adam was "formed" / "fashioned" of the dust of the earth BUT man "created in
>> the image of God" was not.
"gOD" wrote:
> So was adam created at a different time from "man"?
georgann:
Adam was "formed / fashioned" from the dust of the earth at a different time
than the man created in the image of God, yes.
Stephen Andrewartha
>>Because in this instance at least Christianity resembles Marxism. For
>>Stephen, Christianity is a way of looking at the world, not so much a
>>religion but what I would call an ideology.
>>
>>This is to say that I posit that Stephen has a worldview which he
>>feels must of its nature explain everything - if something new comes
>>along it *must* be explained in terms of the existing (in this
>>instance Christian) premise base.
>>
>>Ideologies can be quite useful, *but* the problem with religious
>>premise bases are that its impossible to disregard them no matter the
>>amount of evidence that contradicts them.
>>
>>And that, IMO, is rather a shame.
>>
>>
>
>But in another post (maybe this one and it was snipped, I don't recall),
>he said that he doesn't buy into the creation myth, and that's what I
>don't understand --why defend the internal consistency of something in
>which you do not believe?
>
Perhaps I should speak for myself :-)
For me, the philosophy of religion is an academic exercise quite
separate from my personal beliefs. It's true, I don't buy into the
Creation story personally. But the for the purpose of undertaking
the entertaining (for me) exercise of academic discussion, I suspend
my disbelief and accept the basic premises of the religion in question.
Stephen.
Stephen Andrewartha
>But you didn't find a "strongest argument" or even a strong one. You
>found a "maybe it meant this" and moved on.
>
By finding a plausible interpretation, one can remove the accusation
that a particular pair of verses in the Bible contradict each other.
You don't necessarily prove that your interpretation is *correct* -
that's not the point of the exercise - the idea is simply to show that
a non-contradictory interpretation exists.
>
> Point: _The Cat in the Hat_ shows a 6 foot-tall cat that walks on
> two feet. This is clearly absurd.
>
> Apologetic: Well, perhaps it was just the angle at which the cat
> was drawn that makes him appear to be unusually tall and walking.
>
>"maybe it meant this" is not a "strongest argument". It's just an
>attempt to change the subject
>
I think talking about cats in hats is an attempt to change the subject.
See also my response in another part of this thread that explains more
clearly, I hope, where I'm coming from in all this.
Stephen.
John Hattan
>John Hattan wrote:
>
>>But you didn't find a "strongest argument" or even a strong one. You
>>found a "maybe it meant this" and moved on.
>
>By finding a plausible interpretation, one can remove the accusation
>that a particular pair of verses in the Bible contradict each other.
>You don't necessarily prove that your interpretation is *correct* -
>that's not the point of the exercise - the idea is simply to show that
>a non-contradictory interpretation exists.
But such handwaving could be used to "remove the accusation" that
ANYTHING contradicts!
Try it now. Post anything you want that contradicts or is absurd --it
doesn't even have to be from the Bible. In return, I'll give you a
"maybe it means this" that will handwave away the apparent
contradiction. It's not even that difficult to do.
All that "maybe it means this" does is render the original text
meaningless. Black can mean white. One can mean three. Air can mean
mustard.
>> Point: _The Cat in the Hat_ shows a 6 foot-tall cat that walks on
>> two feet. This is clearly absurd.
>>
>> Apologetic: Well, perhaps it was just the angle at which the cat
>> was drawn that makes him appear to be unusually tall and walking.
>>
>>"maybe it meant this" is not a "strongest argument". It's just an
>>attempt to change the subject
>
>I think talking about cats in hats is an attempt to change the subject.
Nope. "The Cat in the Hat" is a book that most would consider to be too
absurd to be fact, but using a stream of "maybe it means this" claims, I
can indeed show that the book is 100% factual and historic following
your own "remove the accusation" logic.
>See also my response in another part of this thread that explains more
>clearly, I hope, where I'm coming from in all this.
Seems like you're coming from an angle where words don't have meaning.
John Hattan
What you're engaged in is not "academic discussion", though. It's just
fifth-grade sophistry.
gOD
> >> georgann:
>
> >> You cannot "substitute" formed (lit. fashioned) for created. That's the
> >> problem. You are blending two separate descriptions.
>
> >> "gOD" wrote:
>
> >>> Was Adam "formed" from dust as G2:7 states? Yes or No?
>
> >> georgann:
>
> >> Adam was "formed" / "fashioned" of the dust of the earth BUT man "created in
> >> the image of God" was not.
>
> "gOD" wrote:
>
> > So was adam created at a different time from "man"?
>
> georgann:
>
> Adam was "formed / fashioned" from the dust of the earth at a different time
> than the man created in the image of God, yes.
So who is the man that was created in the image of god? Or was adam created twice?
socode
"georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Adam was "formed / fashioned" from the dust of the earth at
> a different time than the man created in the image of God, yes.
Two Earths were obviously made too: the one you inhabit, and the
one normal people inhabit.
socode
Richard Smol
> egas moniz wrote:
>
> >Religious fundamentalists think that the theory of evolution's
> >implication that our ancestors were apes is really bad. What's the
> >alternative? That our ancestor was dirt! Is dirt really better than
> >apes?
> >
>
> The alternative is that all of mankind's ancestors were human, and
> that there were some first humans (with no ancestors) that were
> created by God. There's no dirt involved.
Alas, there is no evidence for this. There is truckloads of evidence
that human beings and modern apes share a common ancestor though.
RS
georgann
>>> So was adam created at a different time from "man"?
>> georgann:
>> Adam was "formed / fashioned" from the dust of the earth at a different time
>> than the man created in the image of God, yes.
"gOD" wrote:
> So who is the man that was created in the image of god? Or was adam created
> twice?
georgann:
Man was "created" once. Adam, however, was not described as "created" but as
formed. But the distinction that the verses make between the two are
significant and somewhat detailed (to those who care about what it really
says).
Man CREATED in the image of God, [distinctly] male and female and not where
the woman was "taken" from the man, was created on the Sixth Day of the
restoration of the "formless and void earth" of Genesis 1:2.
Adam, i.e. the man FORMED of the dust of the earth, became a "living being"
when God breathed the breath of life into him. From this man the woman was
taken. However, being a
Genesis 7:3 On the very same day Noah and Shem and Ham and Japheth, the
sons of Noah, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them,
entered the ark, 14 they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle
after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after
its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds. 15 So they
went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of
life.
[note the animals by twos, male and female, are "flesh in which was the
breath of life"]
and
Genesis 7:21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle
and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all
mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the
breath of the spirit of life, died.
[note the "breath of the spirit of life" is used to describe the man formed
of the dust and NOT the man created on the Sixth Day.
Evidently the single most important distinction between extinction and
preservation has something to do with those animals including man into whom
the "breath of the spirit of life" was given - i.e. those formed of the dust
of the earth.
I make of this distinction that within the line of Noah, who was considered
by God to be "perfect in his generations", the beginning of the man "created
in the image of God" was begun.
I do not think that means a wholly different creation or formation of man,
but rather a completed "adaptation" of the raw materials He made available
to Himself in the original creation process of Genesis 1:1.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
georgann
> There is truckloads of evidence that human beings and modern apes share a
> common ancestor though.
georgann:
With "truckloads of evidence" it should be simple for you to provide time,
tested facts and irrefutable cites. You should put 'em up for all here to
see.
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท.ธธ ธธ.ทดจ `ป
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด `'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)
socode
> >> "gOD" wrote:
>
> >>> So was adam created at a different time from "man"?
>
> >> georgann:
>
> >> Adam was "formed / fashioned" from the dust of the earth at a different
time
> >> than the man created in the image of God, yes.
>
> "gOD" wrote:
>
> > So who is the man that was created in the image of god? Or was adam
created
> > twice?
>
> georgann:
>
> Man was "created" once. Adam, however, was not described as "created" but
as
> formed. But the distinction that the verses make between the two are
> significant and somewhat detailed (to those who care about what it really
> says).
socode
Elroy Willis
> Richard Smol wrote:
>> There is truckloads of evidence that human beings and modern apes share a
>> common ancestor though.
> georgann:
> With "truckloads of evidence" it should be simple for you to provide time,
> tested facts and irrefutable cites. You should put 'em up for all here to
> see.
Look at other ape's eyes, ears, hands, tongues, etc. How can you not
see that we're related to each other?
J.R.
No, that must have been Eve. Adam was too ugly.
gOD
So adam was created (or formed if you prefer) from dust, but man was
created "in the image of god", and even though all men descended from
adam, "man" was created seperately? Can you see why that sounds a
little confusing?
Richard Smol
> "Richard Smol" wrote:
>
> > There is truckloads of evidence that human beings and modern apes share a
> > common ancestor though.
>
> georgann:
>
> With "truckloads of evidence" it should be simple for you to provide time,
> tested facts and irrefutable cites. You should put 'em up for all here to
> see.
A simple visit to http://www.talkorigins.org or a public
library would suffice.
RS
Elroy Willis
>>> "gOD" wrote:
>>> georgann:
> "gOD" wrote:
> georgann:
Breath and spirit were the same thing to people back then from what
I can tell. The "breath of life" just means being alive and
breathing. I don't suppose you can explain how people can perform
CPR and bring a person back to life by breathing into their lungs,
can you? Does it make them gods?
> Evidently the single most important distinction between extinction and
> preservation has something to do with those animals including man into whom
> the "breath of the spirit of life" was given - i.e. those formed of the dust
> of the earth.
> I make of this distinction that within the line of Noah, who was considered
> by God to be "perfect in his generations", the beginning of the man "created
> in the image of God" was begun.
> I do not think that means a wholly different creation or formation of man,
> but rather a completed "adaptation" of the raw materials He made available
> to Himself in the original creation process of Genesis 1:1.
Sheesh. What are you trying to prove here, anyway? Are you trying
to shoehorn evolution into the Bible somehow or what?
Terry
Snipped for being opinion only
**********************
> >> >Afraid ?
> >>
> >> Yeah. Guys like Hovind are scary. They dupe innocents like you with
> >> their crapola, and you can vote. The next thing we know honest science
> >> will be outlawed in the schools
> >
> >Define "honest science".
>
> Science backed by fact and not distorted and deliberately
> misinterpreted.
Is that right? Like the Lucy skeleton, the one with the
human like knee. Evolutionists don't bother to say that
the knee was found a mile away from the rest of the
skeleton and then added in to make fake missing link.
Not misinterpreted ? yeah right.
>
> >> and his bullshit will be given
> >
> >Pick any one of his positions and offer
> >some sort of proof that it is bullshit.
>
> "Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests
> on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of
> carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of
> decay has always been constant."
>
> Lie.
>
> C14 is crosschecked with dendrochronology, and errors due to minor
> atmospheric variation in C-14 content are compensated for.
Is that right ? The fact remains that when the age of an item is
known, carbon 14 test results never match the known age, thats
right NEVER!
> "There are scriptural and scientific indications that the pre-flood
> world had greater air pressure, higher percentages of oxygen and
> carbon dioxide, much more land (above sea level), less water (on the
> earth's surface), and a canopy of water to filter out the harmful
> effects of the sun."
>
> There might be scriptural indications.
> There are no scientific indications of any such thing.
Actually there are.
> >> >The public education system is set up to
> >> >make kids dumb.
> >>
> >> Partly because of the efforts of Creationists like Hovind.
> >
> >How so ?
>
> One US state (Kansas) went so far as to outlaw the teaching of
> evolution in their schools for a while a few years back. The
> fundamentalist right has been angling to get its members on school
> board with the same aim in a number of states.
Actually Kansas never outlawed the teaching of evolution
as a theory. What was outlawed was the teaching of
evolution as a fact, which has not proven to be.
Get your facts straight, oh I forgot evolutionists
don't operate on facts but rather on faith.
> >Right now only evolution is taught in schools
>
> Because evolution is science.
Name one piece of proof.
> >yet right now the students are dumb. How could that
> >be caused by creationism when creationism is not taught ?
>
> Creationists have so frightened the text book publishers that what
> evolution is taught is mentioned briefly, and ends up being taught
> superficially,
That would be the proper way to teach an unproven thoery.
Still your statement is false. I have kids in school. Evolution is
spouted in schools as it had been proven, which it has not.
> >> They want to gut the curriculum of science
> >
> >In what way ?
>
> Read Hovind's bullshit. That's what way.
I have read it. It was great. The man a blessing.
Watch one of his debates with a university professor.
The evolutionists always end up throwing tantrums
like babies because they cannot prove
thier point (because there is no evidence for evolution)
> >I think that the possibility that creationists may
> >be right is terrifying to you because it would
> >make you responsible for your own actions.
> >Am I wrong ?
>
> Very. You seek to prove that God is an unjust monster who holds his
> own creations responsible for their performance.
That was a nonsensical statement.
Do you hold your kids responsible when they do something
that they know is wrong ?
Does that make you a monster ?
> Here is Einstein on that subject:
>
----------------------------------
snipped for being drivel
---------------------------------
If we are not responsible for our own actions
why do we even have laws ?
You kill someone and its ok because you
are not responsible for it ?
Spare me.
Terry
> > > The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that only the irrational
> > > or the ignorant can deny it.
> >
> > Such as ?
>
> How about all of the fossil evidence?
There is no fossil evidence. If you believe that
there is name it.
> How about the fact that
> evolution coheres with our other scientific knowledge, including that
> from geology and physics?
Not so. Geology specifically indicates a flood.
> I'm not going to write a 20 page post on
> this
Pick one item and describe it.
> (and even that would not be enough). (Nor do I expect you to do
> the same on your side.) I can recommend some readings, but on the
> other hand, I'm sure that you are already aware of the fact that such
> books exist.
>
> > You snipped the link. Couldn't deal with it could you ?
>
> Your implication that evolutionists are afraid of reading idiotic
> nonsense such as the one you're referring to is offensive.
Your breaking my heart. The fact remains that evolutionists
will not face facts. Hovind's or any other.
> And btw, on another one of your posts on this thread (in reply to
> someone else), you suggested that evolutionists are afraid of
> creationism because it implies that one is responsible for one's own
> actions. This is strange.
Whats strange about it ?
> Why do you think that evolution implies that
> one is *not* responsible for one's own actions?
It's really quite simple. If there is no God and you
are here by a random chance then there is no one to
answer to.
However if you were created and your creator
has certain requirments of you, then you have a
responsibility that you cannot dodge.
> What does the
> evolution/creationism debate even have to do with that?
It exposes the some of the reasons why the theory
of evolution was made up in the first place.
Elroy Willis
"Andrewartha." Never seen that name before. Where are you from?
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> The problem is that it isn't "both sides" of anything. Just Christians
>> who in-our-face their beliefs in a most stupid manner, and neither put
>> up nor shut up.
> I think this misrepresents the current thread. Or at least,
> my contribution to it. As I saw it, no-one was trying to
> convert anyone to Christian belief. The point of the thread
> (for me at least) was to find a consistent interpretation of
> the Bible verses addressing the creation of Man.
I thought it might've had something to do with evolution since the
thread subject mentions apes. I jumped into this thread a little late
myself, so I don't know exactly what's going on for sure. I've been
trying to figure out how god-believers explain evolution and all the
diversity we see around us if everything on earth was reborn from
the contents of a single ancient mythical wooden boat/ark, but haven't
heard any reasonable explanations. I quit believing in the ark story
when I was around 11 or 12, and never have seen any sort of proof
for either the ark or a worldwide flood since then, which was 30 years
ago, and I've been paying attention to all the pro/con arguments on
both sides since then. Haven't seen anything to persuade me to
believe in either some magical ark, or a worldwide flood in all those
years. Same thing for the creation story and some pair of people
being magicked up from a ball of clay or dust and given CPR by the
creator of the universe.
> It's all fiction, as far as I'm concerned.
What is, the Genesis story? Myth isn't always the same thing as
outright fiction, but it's pretty close to it sometimes, and they can
even be intermixed which makes it even more difficult to decipher.
People did the best they could to explain things by making up stories
about life, animals, nature, and things going on around them,
including things going on up in the sky/stars/heaven.
Many times, poetry and songs about some heavenly object can be
misinterpreted to mean something about a make-believe character
which exists in some invisible heaven that nobody can see. When
ancient people wrote poetry and songs about the planet Venus,
and how bright it is, and how it appears to have been "cast out of
the high heavens," many people can't see the imagery through
the cloud of theistic drivel about some imaginary heaven and some
battle going on there.
Same thing for the verses about the sun riding across the sky,
using clouds as its chariots. I suppose there are still some people
who think the creator of the universe actually mounted a cherubim
and flew across the sky, like magic or something.
> But if this particular part can be argued to be a *consistent* fiction,
> then that's an achievement from my perspective.
Consistent fiction?
Elroy Willis
> But the for the purpose of undertaking the entertaining (for me)
> exercise of academic discussion, I suspend my disbelief and accept
> the basic premises of the religion in question.
You don't toss out anything at all when it comes to accepting the
"premises" of another religion? What if that religion included
supernatural claims of some kind?
georgann
>> With "truckloads of evidence" it should be simple for you to provide time,
>> tested facts and irrefutable cites. You should put 'em up for all here to
>> see.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
> Look at other ape's eyes, ears, hands, tongues, etc. How can you not see that
> we're related to each other?
georgann:
Elroy, do you think you're offering evidence here?
georgann
>> but rather a completed "adaptation" of the raw materials He made available
>> to Himself in the original creation process of Genesis 1:1.
"gOD" wrote:
> So adam was created (or formed if you prefer) from dust, but man was
> created "in the image of god", and even though all men descended from
> adam, "man" was created seperately? Can you see why that sounds a
> little confusing?
georgann:
No. I don't think its confusing. And "all men" are not descended from "adam,
man" if that man's line is the one that became extinct.
I think the Bible's separate accounts makes more sense of what we do know of
"man's" most ancient past than anything else out there.
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท.ธธ ธธ.ทดจ `ป
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด `'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)
georgann
>>> There is truckloads of evidence that human beings and modern apes share a
>>> common ancestor though.
>> georgann:
>> With "truckloads of evidence" it should be simple for you to provide time,
>> tested facts and irrefutable cites. You should put 'em up for all here to
>> see.
"Richard Smol" wrote:
> A simple visit to http://www.talkorigins.org or a public library would
> suffice.
georgann:
Honey, that's not a cite.
That's a dodge.
georgann
> Sheesh. What are you trying to prove here, anyway? Are you trying
> to shoehorn evolution into the Bible somehow or what?
georgann:
No. I'm allowing for the facts that we do know about man's supposed lineages
and suggesting that the Bible is spot on.
--
(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ(`'ท.ธ ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)ธ.ท'ด)
ซดจ`ท.ธธ ธธ.ทดจ `ป
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด(ธ.ท'ด `'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)`'ท.ธ)
egas moniz
> > > > The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that only the irrational
> > > > or the ignorant can deny it.
> > >
> > > Such as ?
> >
> > How about all of the fossil evidence?
>
> There is no fossil evidence. If you believe that
> there is name it.
Name it? I wasn't aware that fossil evidence had a name. Or do you
mean name one of the fossils? O.K., how about Australopithecus
afarensis?
> > How about the fact that
> > evolution coheres with our other scientific knowledge, including that
> > from geology and physics?
>
> Not so. Geology specifically indicates a flood.
If you mean a worldwide flood, as I'm sure you do, then that is both
sad and funny. But seriously, are you even aware that much of the
story about Noah was stolen right out of the Epic of Gilgamesh? Read
it for yourself if you don't believe me.
> > I'm not going to write a 20 page post on
> > this
>
> Pick one item and describe it.
There are thousands of fossils. One is named above. Most of these
fossils are of creatures that are intermediate stages in the evolution
toward the species we see in the world today. Furthermore, the "story"
they tell coheres with what is known in other fields (e.g., with plate
tectonics). And so on.
Now, can you give me one piece of evidence in favor of creationism?
> > (and even that would not be enough). (Nor do I expect you to do
> > the same on your side.) I can recommend some readings, but on the
> > other hand, I'm sure that you are already aware of the fact that such
> > books exist.
> >
> > > You snipped the link. Couldn't deal with it could you ?
> >
> > Your implication that evolutionists are afraid of reading idiotic
> > nonsense such as the one you're referring to is offensive.
>
> Your breaking my heart. The fact remains that evolutionists
> will not face facts. Hovind's or any other.
I'm sorry if I'm breaking "you're" heart. The fact remains that you
believe in fairy tales for which you have absolutely no evidence, and
which anyone who is rational and has half a brain can see are absurd.
Do you really believe that snakes can talk?
> > And btw, on another one of your posts on this thread (in reply to
> > someone else), you suggested that evolutionists are afraid of
> > creationism because it implies that one is responsible for one's own
> > actions. This is strange.
>
> Whats strange about it ?
>
> > Why do you think that evolution implies that
> > one is *not* responsible for one's own actions?
>
> It's really quite simple. If there is no God and you
> are here by a random chance then there is no one to
> answer to.
You are confusing "being responsible for one's own actions" with
"having no one to answer to". Those two are not at all the same thing.
I consider myself responsible for my actions. Are you going to deny
that I do?
> However if you were created and your creator
> has certain requirments of you, then you have a
> responsibility that you cannot dodge.
Unless you plan on being forgiven later. Then you can do anything at
all, right?
> > What does the
> > evolution/creationism debate even have to do with that?
>
> It exposes the some of the reasons why the theory
> of evolution was made up in the first place.
Oh yeah. I'm sure THAT'S what Darwin had in mind! This is incredible!
Elroy Willis
> "Elroy Willis" wrote:
>> Sheesh. What are you trying to prove here, anyway? Are you trying
>> to shoehorn evolution into the Bible somehow or what?
> georgann:
> No. I'm allowing for the facts that we do know about man's supposed lineages
> and suggesting that the Bible is spot on.
Yeah, right. Is that with or without the flood story?
Elroy Willis
>>> georgann:
>>> With "truckloads of evidence" it should be simple for you to provide time,
>>> tested facts and irrefutable cites. You should put 'em up for all here to
>>> see.
> "Elroy Willis" wrote:
>> Look at other ape's eyes, ears, hands, tongues, etc. How can you not see that
>> we're related to each other?
> georgann:
> Elroy, do you think you're offering evidence here?
Sure. You can look at their DNA for more evidence. You can also read
some books that describe chimp behaviour to see how much they're like
us, or visit a zoo.
Now then, what evidence do you have that man was made from dust
and some invisible pixie breathed life into him?
<crickets chirping>
georgann
>>> Sheesh. What are you trying to prove here, anyway? Are you trying to
>>> shoehorn evolution into the Bible somehow or what?
>> georgann:
>> No. I'm allowing for the facts that we do know about man's supposed lineages
>> and suggesting that the Bible is spot on.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
> Yeah, right. Is that with or without the flood story?
georgann:
A qualified* "with".
* Qualified as in that flood was prolly millions of years ago
John Hattan
I think I can settle this whole ("man from apes" versus "man from dirt"
debate). Let's first compare human DNA to ape DNA and see how similar
they are. Then we'll compare human DNA to dirt DNA and see how similar
they are. Whichever one is closest wins.
How's that sound?
John Hattan
>>> "Elroy Willis" wrote:
>
>>>> Sheesh. What are you trying to prove here, anyway? Are you trying to
>>>> shoehorn evolution into the Bible somehow or what?
>
>>> georgann:
>
>>> No. I'm allowing for the facts that we do know about man's supposed lineages
>>> and suggesting that the Bible is spot on.
>
>"Elroy Willis" wrote:
>
>> Yeah, right. Is that with or without the flood story?
>
>georgann:
>
>A qualified* "with".
>
>* Qualified as in that flood was prolly millions of years ago
Even though the lineages in the OT would place it at about 4,000 years
ago?