Another evolutionism claim falsified yet again - the appendix: A biological 'remnant' no more
gabriel
Believers of evolutionism have often touted the "fact" of the
appendix being a useless, hence vestigial remnant of human
being's supposed evolutionary past. Yet again, their claims get
falsified. Over and over evidence contradicts and falsifies their
beliefs and claims of evolutionism - will it get them to abandon
their beliefs? Of course not. It's a religion, not science, a
world-view that there is no God and/or that all creatures evolved
from a common ancestor, not science, as their beliefs are also
not observable, not testable and not verifiable - ergo not
science. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
(Romans) - hence they insist populations of tiny fish evolved
over generations into giraffes, hippos, eagles and human beings,
along with every animal known to man.
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/29/news-to-note-08292009#one
"Creationists will have a field day with this one," writes one
blogger on the news. Bingo.
Actually, that's a bit of an exaggeration, even if simply because
scientists have known about the appendix's function for some time
now. Creationists-whose research was not clouded by evolutionary
presuppositions-had an easier time documenting the appendix's
importance, such as in a paper from 1988. News to Note reported
on determinations of the appendix's function as well, in October
2007 and June 2008. (We touched on the topic two weeks ago when
reporting on discoveries of the spleen's functions.)
The latest news is of further research by some of the same
scientists who had previously cast light on the appendix's
function. In a twist, those scientists have used evolution-based
approaches to show that the appendix isn't a vestigial by-product
of evolution.
Specifically, the scientists examined existing beliefs about
evolutionary relationships to determine that the appendix "has
been around for at least 80 million years, much longer than we
would estimate if Darwin's ideas about the appendix were
correct." Those are the words of the study's senior author
William Parker, an assistant professor of surgical sciences at
Duke University.
Charles Darwin first suggested that the appendix was an
evolutionary dead-end that lingered, unused, in humans. Yet as
Parker explained, "We find that more than seventy percent of all
primate and rodent groups contain species with an
appendix"-contrary to Darwin's idea that only a few creatures had
appendices.
Furthermore, according to the new study, the appendix has evolved
"at least twice"-separately in Australian marsupials, rodents,
and some primates (and humans). This again counters Darwin's idea
of the appendix as a useless dead-end. And as we've pointed out
before, such "convergent evolution"-similar organs and anatomical
features in otherwise isolated biological groups-makes much more
sense as evidence of a common designer.
"Darwin simply didn't have access to the information we have,"
Parker said, adding, "Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks.
Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a
'vestigial organ.'" To that, we can heartily agree. For decades
scientists have started understanding the functions of the
appendix, functions that should immediately put to rest
"vestigial" claims. And while both creationists and evolutionists
maintain their explanations for the origin of organs, each
biological function discovered adds to the design evolutionists
must explain and subtracts from the shrinking list of "vestigial
evidence" evolutionists like to tout.
(As for the blogger mentioned above, he defends Darwin on his
appendix mistake, writing, "[S]omehow, his theory that animals
evolved from common ancestors is stronger and more confirmed than
ever," then he refers to us as "the same brain trust that
advocates the laughable idea that all animals-including
dinosaurs-were created by their god 6,000 years ago." So much for
substantive discussion.)
==========
www.physorg.com/news170010855.html
The lowly appendix, long-regarded as a useless evolutionary
artifact, won newfound respect two years ago when researchers at
Duke University Medical Center proposed that it actually serves a
critical function. The appendix, they said, is a safe haven where
good bacteria could hang out until they were needed to repopulate
the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea, for example.
Now, some of those same researchers are back, reporting on the
first-ever study of the appendix through the ages. Writing in the
Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Duke scientists and
collaborators from the University of Arizona and Arizona State
University conclude that Charles Darwin was wrong: The appendix
is a whole lot more than an evolutionary remnant. Not only does
it appear in nature much more frequently than previously
acknowledged, but it has been around much longer than anyone had
suspected.
"Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks," says William Parker,
Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke and the
senior author of the study. "Many biology texts today still refer
to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'"
Using a modern approach to evolutionary biology called
cladistics, which utilizes genetic information in combination
with a variety of other data to evaluate biological relationships
that emerge over the ages, Parker and colleagues found that the
appendix has evolved at least twice, once among Australian
marsupials and another time among rats, lemmings and other
rodents, selected primates and humans. "We also figure that the
appendix has been around for at least 80 million years, much
longer than we would estimate if Darwin's ideas about the
appendix were correct."
Darwin theorized that the appendix in humans and other primates
was the evolutionary remains of a larger structure, called a
cecum, which was used by now- extinct ancestors for digesting
food. The latest study demonstrates two major problems with that
idea. First, several living species, including certain lemurs,
several rodents and a type of flying squirrel, still have an
appendix attached to a large cecum which is used in digestion.
Second, Parker says the appendix is actually quite widespread in
nature. "For example, when species are divided into groups called
'families', we find that more than 70 percent of all primate and
rodent groups contain species with an appendix." Darwin had
thought that appendices appeared in only a small handful of
animals.
"Darwin simply didn't have access to the information we have,"
explains Parker. "If Darwin had been aware of the species that
have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known
about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would
not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution."
He also was not aware that appendicitis, or inflammation of the
appendix, is not due to a faulty appendix, but rather due to
cultural changes associated with industrialized society and
improved sanitation. "Those changes left our immune systems with
too little work and too much time their hands - a recipe for
trouble," says Parker.
That notion wasn't proposed until the early 1900's, and "we
didn't really have a good understanding of that principle until
the mid 1980's," Parker said. "Even more importantly, Darwin had
no way of knowing that the function of the appendix could be
rendered obsolete by cultural changes that included widespread
use of sewer systems and clean drinking water."
Parker says now that we understand the normal function of the
appendix, a critical question to ask is whether we can do
anything to prevent appendicitis. He thinks the answer may lie in
devising ways to challenge our immune systems today in much the
same manner that they were challenged back in the Stone Age. "If
modern medicine could figure out a way to do that, we would see
far fewer cases of allergies, autoimmune disease, and
appendicitis."
Source: Duke University Medical Center
ken
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>www.physorg.com/news170010855.html
>
>Believers of evolutionism have often touted the "fact" of the
>appendix being a useless, hence vestigial remnant of human
>being's supposed evolutionary past. Yet again, their claims get
>falsified. Over and over evidence contradicts and falsifies their
>beliefs and claims of evolutionism - will it get them to abandon
>their beliefs? Of course not. It's a religion, not science, a
>world-view that there is no God and/or that all creatures evolved
>from a common ancestor, not science, as their beliefs are also
>not observable, not testable and not verifiable - ergo not
>science. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
>(Romans) - hence they insist populations of tiny fish evolved
>over generations into giraffes, hippos, eagles and human beings,
>along with every animal known to man.
>
>www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/29/news-to-note-08292009#one
Once again, a fake believer trots out the lies of Ken Ham and his
fraudsters. Too bad that real Christians are conned into donating their
own money to help Mr. Ham lie to more people.
Shame on Ken Ham and shame on everyone who acts as if Answers in Genesis
is honest.
...
Dave Oldridge
news:h3pi955jbq8kdttvj...@4ax.com:
Whether th appendix is vestigial or not has no real bearing on the FACT
that humans and chimps bear the same genetic scars. Either your false
god copied these to fool modern science, or humans and chimps share a
physical common acestor.
But then, being a creationst (not a Christian), you probably feel that
lying to children is a "good thing."
Christian creationism is not latter-day young-earth "lying for Jesus."
It is the fundamental creationism of the ancient creeds. "We believe in
God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth and all things,
visible and invisible." One thing we DO NOT believe in is lying about
science to children.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
Actually it does when they claim that
[1] they were vestigial and,
[2] because they were, that's more evidence that they evolved
from non-human animals that had use for such organs once upon a
time, but no longer have any use for them
: on the FACT
: that humans and chimps bear the same genetic scars.
Please cite scientific research that shows an observation or
test/verification that "similar genetic scars" happens when, for
example, populations of [fruit flies] evolved, over generations,
into animals that are no longer [fruit flies] at all. Or you can
show such a thing when replacing [fruit flies] with any animal
you wish.
Not just the unobservable, untestable and unverifiable *belief*
that "same genetic scars" (whatever that happens to mean to you
in particular) is proof that animals evolved from each other.
: Either your false
: god copied these to fool modern science, or humans and chimps share a
: physical common acestor.
Or maybe the real problems is people who reject God were foolish
enough to believe that populations of tiny fish evolved, over
generations eventually into not only human beings, but also
giraffes, hippos, eagles, and almost every other animal alive.
More bizarre than most mythology ever written.
:
: But then, being a creationst (not a Christian), you probably feel that
: lying to children is a "good thing."
:
: Christian creationism is not latter-day young-earth "lying for Jesus."
Let's look at what Jesus said,
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto
him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he
which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
- Matthew 19:3-4 KJVR
Jesus Christ himself points to Adam and Eve being created by God
in the beginning. You're going to call Jesus Christ a liar now?
Who are you going to believe? God and Jesus Christ? Or men that
claim human beings, giraffes, hippos, eagles, and every other air
breathing land animal evolved from populations of tiny fish?
People that are saved by God drawing them to faith in what Jesus
Christ did for us are going to believe God over such nonsense
science fiction tales. Those who are not saved will be ashamed of
the words of Christ.
And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples
also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him
deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever
will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his
life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. For
what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and
lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his
soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words
in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the
Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father
with the holy angels.
- Mark 8:34-38 KJVR
The inner workings of the cell itself are logical (not
scientific, mind you, as no origin theory can qualify as
scientific) proof that we were created by something - creation
itself is also such logical proof. Evidence abounds to back up
God doing exactly what he said he did.
: It is the fundamental creationism of the ancient creeds. "We believe in
: God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth and all things,
: visible and invisible." One thing we DO NOT believe in is lying about
: science to children.
Unfortunately, the belief that populations of tiny fish evolved
over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings
does not even remotely qualify as being science - not observable,
and not testable/verifiable - one can only believe in it.
But meanwhile, the science of viruses adapting but remaining
viruses remains perfectly intact without needing to believe
eagles and human beings evolved from populations of tiny fish
over generations once upon a time.
Dave Oldridge
news:1hj0a5dof3e6dr5vd...@4ax.com:
>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:55:19 GMT, Dave Oldridge
><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>: news:h3pi955jbq8kdttvj...@4ax.com:
>:
>: >www.physorg.com/news170010855.html
>: >
>: >Believers of evolutionism have often touted the "fact" of the
>: >appendix being a useless, hence vestigial remnant of human
>: >being's supposed evolutionary past. Yet again, their claims get
>: >falsified. Over and over evidence contradicts and falsifies their
>: >beliefs and claims of evolutionism - will it get them to abandon
>: >their beliefs? Of course not. It's a religion, not science, a
>: >world-view that there is no God and/or that all creatures evolved
>: >from a common ancestor, not science, as their beliefs are also
>: >not observable, not testable and not verifiable - ergo not
>: >science. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
>: >(Romans) - hence they insist populations of tiny fish evolved
>: >over generations into giraffes, hippos, eagles and human beings,
>: >along with every animal known to man.
>: >
>: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/29/news-to-note-08292009#on
>: >e
How did chimps and humans get the same genetic scars? Scientists say it
is because we share a common ancestor. Your theory seems to entail
deliberate action by a stupid, malicious deity. I don't believe in your
stupid malicious deity. I'm an actual Christian, you see.
>Not just the unobservable, untestable and unverifiable *belief*
>that "same genetic scars" (whatever that happens to mean to you
>in particular) is proof that animals evolved from each other.
Them genomes of humans and chimps have been sequenced. We can SEE the
scars. You can lie about them until you wake up in hell, but you will
still be just another lying creationist antichrist!
>: Either your false
>: god copied these to fool modern science, or humans and chimps share a
>: physical common acestor.
>
>Or maybe the real problems is people who reject God were foolish
>enough to believe that populations of tiny fish evolved, over
>generations eventually into not only human beings, but also
>giraffes, hippos, eagles, and almost every other animal alive.
>More bizarre than most mythology ever written.
But actually butressed by a lot of physical evidence. Of course there
isn't a shred of evidence for YOUR malidious, stupid deity. It is
certainly not the entity Jesus called 'father.'
>: But then, being a creationst (not a Christian), you probably feel
>: that lying to children is a "good thing."
>:
>: Christian creationism is not latter-day young-earth "lying for
>: Jesus."
>
>Let's look at what Jesus said,
>
>The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto
>him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
>And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he
>which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
> - Matthew 19:3-4 KJVR
You really do NOT understand the distinction between ontogeny and
phylogeny, do you.
>
>Jesus Christ himself points to Adam and Eve being created by God
>in the beginning. You're going to call Jesus Christ a liar now?
Jesus uses these stories to make His moral points. He does NOT, as you
make out, try to insist that they are LITERAL histories, something not
even insisted upon by rabbis in that day. And, unless you wish to deny
His kenosis, then there is no reason He should have given correct science
in His parables and sermons.
>Who are you going to believe? God and Jesus Christ? Or men that
>claim human beings, giraffes, hippos, eagles, and every other air
>breathing land animal evolved from populations of tiny fish?
>People that are saved by God drawing them to faith in what Jesus
>Christ did for us are going to believe God over such nonsense
>science fiction tales. Those who are not saved will be ashamed of
>the words of Christ.
As you are every time you LIE about science in God's name. He DID
distinctly reiterate the commandment against false witness and YOU (and
your creationist cronies) systematically and deliberately violate it as a
matter of policy.
>
>And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples
>also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him
>deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever
>will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his
>life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. For
>what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and
>lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his
>soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words
>in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the
>Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father
>with the holy angels.
So you would rather LOSE your own soul than actyally follow Him. Instead
you put your own words in His mouth so that you can excuse to yourself
the fact that you are a member of a dspicable cult of lies--a follower of
the demon Belial.
>The inner workings of the cell itself are logical (not
>scientific, mind you, as no origin theory can qualify as
>scientific) proof that we were created by something - creation
>itself is also such logical proof. Evidence abounds to back up
>God doing exactly what he said he did.
There is not one shred of physical evidence supporting special creation,
a young earth, or a young universe. Nor is there a shred of physical
evidence supporting a global flood any time between 3000BC and 2000BC.
In short your entire set of dogmas is riddled with scientific claims that
are in conflict with the physical evidence. And your attempt to invoke
Jesus as being in agreement with your puerile interpretations is actually
something a more traditional Christian might interpret as blasphemy.
>: It is the fundamental creationism of the ancient creeds. "We believe
>: in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth and all
>: things, visible and invisible." One thing we DO NOT believe in is
>: lying about science to children.
>
>Unfortunately, the belief that populations of tiny fish evolved
>over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings
>does not even remotely qualify as being science - not observable,
>and not testable/verifiable - one can only believe in it.
This is a lie that you keep telling. Your master, Belial, WANTS you to
keep telling it, as that puts you ever more in his power.
>But meanwhile, the science of viruses adapting but remaining
>viruses remains perfectly intact without needing to believe
>eagles and human beings evolved from populations of tiny fish
>over generations once upon a time.
You are, of course, entitled to believe anything you like. You have no
right, God-given or otherwise conferred, however, to impose that belief
on school science classes as a set of lies to tell the children.
But then you are a creationist, a servant of Belial, who wants you te
practice lying in God's name all you can. You may actually have to be
constrined by the law to follow the law, as you, your cult and its
infernal master are all both secular and spiritual scofflaws.
But how do you propose to account for the lies to God? He will not
listen to your denials, and He will surely not listen to the excuse that
you were simply ignorant. Not after all the warnings you have received!
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: news:1hj0a5dof3e6dr5vd...@4ax.com:
Notice you didn't cite a scientific test to back up your claim.
You instead plead your case of "well how did this or that happen
then?" (How about God did what He said He did?!) and "well they
*said* so it must be true!" (you call that science?!)
Again,
please cite scientific research that shows an observation or
test/verification that "similar genetic scars" happens when, for
example, populations of [fruit flies] evolved, over generations,
into animals that are no longer [fruit flies] at all. Or you can
show such a thing when replacing [fruit flies] with any animal
you wish.
Notice to everyone else: he won't because there is no such
science to back it up.
Amazing how you not only can't back up what you believe with
scientific tests that prove it, and in spite of that still can't
consider God as being the answer, and God's Word as telling you
how.
Jesus Christ Himself pointed to the fact God created Adam and
Eve:
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he
which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
-Matthew 19:4 KJVR
Again, was Jesus Christ lying? Do you hold your own opinion
higher than that of God and Jesus Christ? Are you ashamed that
Jesus Christ was a "creationist" in that He believed God His
Father created in six days, along with Adam and Eve?
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him
deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For
whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will
lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a
man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or
be cast away? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my
words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come
in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
- Luke 9:23-26
If I believed that populations of fish evolved over generations
into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings, I'd be just as
guilty as you are of being ashamed of the Words of Jesus Christ
and God.
It seems quite clear you've made science your god where origins
is concerned (idolatry to say the least), yet science is impotent
to deal with any origin theory, as none of them are repeatable or
testable or verifiable. I would think twice and pray deeply to
God before holding the words of lost, infallible men (that tell
you populations of tiny fish evolved over generations into
giraffes, eagles and human beings) as higher authority than that
which God and Jesus Christ have said.
Dave Oldridge
news:qu2ea5pgajp892lfd...@4ax.com:
>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 04:17:45 GMT, Dave Oldridge
><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>: news:1hj0a5dof3e6dr5vd...@4ax.com:
>:
>: >On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:55:19 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>: ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>: >
>: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>: >: news:h3pi955jbq8kdttvj...@4ax.com:
>: >:
>: >: >www.physorg.com/news170010855.html
>: >: >
>: >: >Believers of evolutionism have often touted the "fact" of the
>: >: >appendix being a useless, hence vestigial remnant of human
>: >: >being's supposed evolutionary past. Yet again, their claims get
>: >: >falsified. Over and over evidence contradicts and falsifies their
>: >: >beliefs and claims of evolutionism - will it get them to abandon
>: >: >their beliefs? Of course not. It's a religion, not science, a
>: >: >world-view that there is no God and/or that all creatures evolved
>: >: >from a common ancestor, not science, as their beliefs are also
>: >: >not observable, not testable and not verifiable - ergo not
>: >: >science. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
>: >: >(Romans) - hence they insist populations of tiny fish evolved
>: >: >over generations into giraffes, hippos, eagles and human beings,
>: >: >along with every animal known to man.
>: >: >
>: >: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/29/news-to-note-08292009
>: >: >#on e
The scientific test was the act of sequencing the human and chimp
genomes.
>
>Again,
>please cite scientific research that shows an observation or
>test/verification that "similar genetic scars" happens when, for
>example, populations of [fruit flies] evolved, over generations,
>into animals that are no longer [fruit flies] at all. Or you can
>show such a thing when replacing [fruit flies] with any animal
>you wish.
Every time a random mutation is observed in fruit flies, it gets passed
to the descendants of the fly where it first occurred and not to others.
Only on extremely rare occasions does the same mutation affect two flies
independently. Similarly, when viral insertions occur, they happen at
sites chosen more or less randomly, so that it is very rare for the same
virus to insert twice in the same spot. The human and chimp genomes
share a number of mutations to genes that do not any longer even
function.
Your task, if you choose to accept it, is to explain why YOUR deity
(YOURS, not mine) put the same broken vitamin C gene in chimps and
humans? Was it to deceive? Is your deity incompetent? Or does it just
hate primates?
>Notice to everyone else: he won't because there is no such
>science to back it up.
Notice to everyone else: Gabrial is a lying imposter, pretending to be a
Christian while recruiting for the legions of his real master, the father
of lies!
>Amazing how you not only can't back up what you believe with
>scientific tests that prove it, and in spite of that still can't
>consider God as being the answer, and God's Word as telling you
>how.
Amazing how you can show yourself to be an utter fool, inspired only by
your demonic masters!
>Jesus Christ Himself pointed to the fact God created Adam and
>Eve:
>And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he
>which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
> -Matthew 19:4 KJVR
Again, where did Jesus EVER cite this stuff as science? And, for the
record, since I believe God possesses universal sovereignty, I do believe
that all things were created by Him, no matter what method science shows
us was used. YOU, on the other hand, wish to dictate to God HOW to
create and you also intend to violate the 9th commandment at virtually
every opportunity in staking your claim.
>Again, was Jesus Christ lying? Do you hold your own opinion
No, but YOU are lying about how He intended His words to be taken. In
fact, your materialism and disbelief in Jesus are showing. YOU think He
was lying when He reiterated the 9th commandment. Clearly, you do, since
you violate it with every post.
>higher than that of God and Jesus Christ? Are you ashamed that
>Jesus Christ was a "creationist" in that He believed God His
>Father created in six days, along with Adam and Eve?
Naw, I leave that higher than God stuff to you creationist devil-
worshippers. I just try to stay honest.
>And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him
>deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For
>whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will
>lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a
>man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or
>be cast away? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my
>words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come
>in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
> - Luke 9:23-26
So when are you going to give over following Satan?
>If I believed that populations of fish evolved over generations
>into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings, I'd be just as
>guilty as you are of being ashamed of the Words of Jesus Christ
>and God.
Bullshit! If God wanted to make fish evolve into hippos, etc. who are
YOU to say He can't?
>It seems quite clear you've made science your god where origins
>is concerned (idolatry to say the least), yet science is impotent
>to deal with any origin theory, as none of them are repeatable or
>testable or verifiable. I would think twice and pray deeply to
It is quite clear that YOU have made the father of lies your god.
>God before holding the words of lost, infallible men (that tell
>you populations of tiny fish evolved over generations into
>giraffes, eagles and human beings) as higher authority than that
>which God and Jesus Christ have said.
Men wrote the Bible. God created a universe. If we read what God did
instead of reading what MEN SAID, shouldn't we learn more about HIm?
You are a bibliolater--one who has made his own private interpretation of
scripture into his false god and who bows at the feet of the father of
lies in order to protect the contradictions inherent in your heresy.
Repent, you have only a few years left!
Oh, and learn to actually UNDERSTAND the scriptures you cite instead of
just pompously making noises as if YOUR understanding was the only
possible one.
The Bible is a bit like a phone book. It tells you how to contact God.
But YOU just keep reading the phone book into the phone, not realiing
that God hung up on you long ago for the simple reason that you won't
listen to one thing He is telling you!
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: news:qu2ea5pgajp892lfd...@4ax.com:
Wrong. This is only a test of "what do you believe what you see
in the sequencing means to you" - not a test of the belief
itself.
If you're seriously after truth, and seriously following God, ask
yourself why you are willing to believe what is not observable,
not testable and not verifiable over God's Word.
And not being risen from death after three days is considered a
repeatable *scientific* fact, and IS observable, IS testable and
IS verifiable - yet I assume you discard that scientific fact to
have faith God did what He said He did - raised Jesus Christ from
death after three days, defeating death and proving He was God?
If so, why the hypocrisy of now believing that which is *not*
observable, and not testable/verifiable over what God said?
That's nothing more than the idolatry of selective belief -
following a version of god that exists only in your mind, not the
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob we know from the Word of God.
: >
: >Again,
Dave Oldridge
news:id4hc5hclvf6a9pv7...@4ax.com:
>: >: >: >009 #on e
Maybe YOUR god wants you to scrap observation and reason. MINE does not.
And MINE is the REAL God found in scriptures. Yours is a construct of
the imaginations of men--men who think they know better than God how to
construct a unoiverse and the worlds in it.
>If you're seriously after truth, and seriously following God, ask
>yourself why you are willing to believe what is not observable,
>not testable and not verifiable over God's Word.
I know God's Word--even to the point of hearing it directly sometimes. I
don't see any evidence that you know it at all. Instead, you seem to
have replaced it with a kind of literalist dogma set that places you in
direct opposition to reality and truth.
>And not being risen from death after three days is considered a
>repeatable *scientific* fact, and IS observable, IS testable and
>IS verifiable - yet I assume you discard that scientific fact to
By a demonolater like yourself, maybe. Not by me. I have no problem
with real miracles. I just have a HUGE problem when people invent them
in order to take an ancient compilation of myth and legend and try to
turn it into a literal history its authors never really intended (or were
capable of writing).
>have faith God did what He said He did - raised Jesus Christ from
>death after three days, defeating death and proving He was God?
Actually, I have the advantage of most doubters on that score.
>If so, why the hypocrisy of now believing that which is *not*
>observable, and not testable/verifiable over what God said?
Because evolution is VERY observable. We see it everywhere in nature.
>That's nothing more than the idolatry of selective belief -
>following a version of god that exists only in your mind, not the
>God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob we know from the Word of God.
No, it's sim ply a refusal to sign on with your campaign of lies against
honest science. Modern creationism was spawned as a lie--to try to claim
that there was scientific evidence favoring a literal interpretation of
Genesis. That lie is the rotten root of the tree of modern creationism
and the fruit remains as rotten as its sinful root.
>: >Again,
>: >please cite scientific research that shows an observation or
>: >test/verification that "similar genetic scars" happens when, for
>: >example, populations of [fruit flies] evolved, over generations,
>: >into animals that are no longer [fruit flies] at all. Or you can
>: >show such a thing when replacing [fruit flies] with any animal
>: >you wish.
Actually, we observe that mutations persist mainly in the offspring of
those who first possess them, though some mutations are not that
uncommon.
>: Every time a random mutation is observed in fruit flies, it gets
>: passed to the descendants of the fly where it first occurred and not
>: to others. Only on extremely rare occasions does the same mutation
>: affect two flies independently. Similarly, when viral insertions
>: occur, they happen at sites chosen more or less randomly, so that it
>: is very rare for the same virus to insert twice in the same spot.
>: The human and chimp genomes share a number of mutations to genes that
>: do not any longer even function.
>:
>: Your task, if you choose to accept it, is to explain why YOUR deity
>: (YOURS, not mine) put the same broken vitamin C gene in chimps and
>: humans? Was it to deceive? Is your deity incompetent? Or does it
>: just hate primates?
>:
>: >Notice to everyone else: he won't because there is no such
>: >science to back it up.
>:
>: Notice to everyone else: Gabrial is a lying imposter, pretending to
>: be a Christian while recruiting for the legions of his real master,
>: the father of lies!
>:
>: >Amazing how you not only can't back up what you believe with
>: >scientific tests that prove it, and in spite of that still can't
>: >consider God as being the answer, and God's Word as telling you
>: >how.
You have been SHOWN the scientific tests. Now explain the evidence of
them or admit that you're just a liar and servant of Satan!
>: Amazing how you can show yourself to be an utter fool, inspired only
>: by your demonic masters!
>:
>: >Jesus Christ Himself pointed to the fact God created Adam and
>: >Eve:
>: >And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he
>: >which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
>: > -Matthew 19:4 KJVR
Yes, and if you actually understood Jesus, you would be less anxious to
put the words of yourm lying mentors in HIS mouth. As Christians we DO
believe that God is sovereign over all events, including those you call
random. And, as Christians, we believe that He is ultimately the
responsible creator. He created ALL things, visible and invisible.
Evolutionis visible to most of us and does exist. Therefore God created
it. If you don't like that, take it up with HIM.
And THAT bears repeating.
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: news:id4hc5hclvf6a9pv7...@4ax.com:
No - science can repeatedly show that it's impossible for a
person to be risen from death after being dead for three days.
But of course I discard that science and instead have faith that
God did what He said He did.
Jesus rose others from the dead - and I discard science in that
regard yet again to have faith that Jesus did exactly what He
said He did.
Do you?
If so, why be a hypocrite and now make science your god when it
comes to what happened supposedly in the unobservable, untestable
and unverifiable past? That's hypocrisy, nothing more.
: Not by me. I have no problem
: with real miracles. I just have a HUGE problem when people invent them
: in order to take an ancient compilation of myth and legend and try to
: turn it into a literal history its authors never really intended (or were
: capable of writing).
:
: >have faith God did what He said He did - raised Jesus Christ from
: >death after three days, defeating death and proving He was God?
:
: Actually, I have the advantage of most doubters on that score.
:
:
: >If so, why the hypocrisy of now believing that which is *not*
: >observable, and not testable/verifiable over what God said?
:
: Because evolution is VERY observable. We see it everywhere in nature.
Not the fish to man version of evolution. Please show a single
observation of populations of [flies] producing, over
generations, animals that are no longer [flies] at all. This
version of evolution that you believe in has *never* been
observed. You are not being honest on this topic, and are
contradicting yourself on your selective faith.
:
: >That's nothing more than the idolatry of selective belief -
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 06:27:53 GMT, Dave Oldridge
><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
...
>: Maybe YOUR god wants you to scrap observation and reason. MINE does not.
>: And MINE is the REAL God found in scriptures. Yours is a construct of
>: the imaginations of men--men who think they know better than God how to
>: construct a unoiverse and the worlds in it.
>:
>: >If you're seriously after truth, and seriously following God, ask
>: >yourself why you are willing to believe what is not observable,
>: >not testable and not verifiable over God's Word.
>:
>: I know God's Word--even to the point of hearing it directly sometimes. I
>: don't see any evidence that you know it at all. Instead, you seem to
>: have replaced it with a kind of literalist dogma set that places you in
>: direct opposition to reality and truth.
>:
>: >And not being risen from death after three days is considered a
>: >repeatable *scientific* fact, and IS observable, IS testable and
>: >IS verifiable - yet I assume you discard that scientific fact to
>:
>: By a demonolater like yourself, maybe.
>
>No - science can repeatedly show that it's impossible for a
>person to be risen from death after being dead for three days.
>But of course I discard that science and instead have faith that
>God did what He said He did.
Where does God say He did this?
>Jesus rose others from the dead - and I discard science in that
>regard yet again to have faith that Jesus did exactly what He
>said He did.
That claim is there, but no evidence supports it.
>Do you?
>
>If so, why be a hypocrite and now make science your god when it
>comes to what happened supposedly in the unobservable, untestable
>and unverifiable past? That's hypocrisy, nothing more.
Of course even if the special miracles happened, they are hardly a valid
excuse to reject the scientific discoveries about the history of the
universe, the earth and life on earth.
>: Not by me. I have no problem
>: with real miracles. I just have a HUGE problem when people invent them
>: in order to take an ancient compilation of myth and legend and try to
>: turn it into a literal history its authors never really intended (or were
>: capable of writing).
>:
>: >have faith God did what He said He did - raised Jesus Christ from
>: >death after three days, defeating death and proving He was God?
>:
>: Actually, I have the advantage of most doubters on that score.
>:
>:
>: >If so, why the hypocrisy of now believing that which is *not*
>: >observable, and not testable/verifiable over what God said?
>:
>: Because evolution is VERY observable. We see it everywhere in nature.
>
>Not the fish to man version of evolution. Please show a single
>observation of populations of [flies] producing, over
>generations, animals that are no longer [flies] at all. This
>version of evolution that you believe in has *never* been
>observed. You are not being honest on this topic, and are
>contradicting yourself on your selective faith.
We do not see your fake version of evolution. Fine. Who cares. The
reality is that your doctrines about life on earth are shown to be false
by evidence. These are your doctrines, not God's. You make them up. You
defend them with lies,
>: >That's nothing more than the idolatry of selective belief -
>: >following a version of god that exists only in your mind, not the
>: >God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob we know from the Word of God.
>:
>: No, it's sim ply a refusal to sign on with your campaign of lies against
>: honest science. Modern creationism was spawned as a lie--to try to claim
>: that there was scientific evidence favoring a literal interpretation of
>: Genesis. That lie is the rotten root of the tree of modern creationism
>: and the fruit remains as rotten as its sinful root.
You have the problem that the lies are all yours and that science has
evidence to back itself up. You have nothing to support your lies.
...
Dave Oldridge
news:klf1d59v5ublo30no...@4ax.com:
>: >: >: >: >292 009 #on e
Nope. All science can do is tell us that it has not been observed under
scientific conditions.
>
>Jesus rose others from the dead - and I discard science in that
>regard yet again to have faith that Jesus did exactly what He
>said He did.
Actually, HE didn't write anything, so you are reading what others say He
did. I happen to believe they got the story substantially correct. But
I also have the advantage onf you in that I have direct evidence of some
of it.
If someone tells you that science precludes such miracles, then that
person doesn't know science much better than you do. Science cannot
preclude miracles. It can only either report whether some particular
event was observed and whether or not it is in accord with known laws of
physics (which are a good deal mor strange than you might have thought).
>Do you?
>
>If so, why be a hypocrite and now make science your god when it
>comes to what happened supposedly in the unobservable, untestable
>and unverifiable past? That's hypocrisy, nothing more.
The past is neither unobservable, untestable or unverifiable. YOUR
problem is that the observations, tests and verifications do not fit your
preconceived idea of how God should have created a universe, based on
your false assumption of correctly understanding the purpose and nature
of the book of Genesis.
Moreover, I have repeatedly warned you that using your bad interpretation
of Genesis as a pretext for false witness about science and about
scientists is a SIN, against God and against the people you libel. You
are hereby notified that your baptism is temporarily revoked, pending
actual repentance.
And it doesn't matter to me if you believe this or not. It's just a fact
like a lot of other facts you prefer to ignore.
And, for the record, it is your opposition to God's commandments that got
you here, not your opposition to evolution, which is really irrelevant
except for being the pretext for your sins.
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: news:klf1d59v5ublo30no...@4ax.com:
Now you're not being truthful. Medical science tell us that we
have tried to revive people mere minutes dead and it's always
impossible once they're dead even an hour, hence we pronounce
them dead with no further attempts at revival, ready to be buried
forever.
:
: >
: >Jesus rose others from the dead - and I discard science in that
: >regard yet again to have faith that Jesus did exactly what He
: >said He did.
:
: Actually, HE didn't write anything, so you are reading what others say He
: did.
Well that explains much - you don't believe the Word of God - not
surprising that this leads you to believing populations of tiny
fish can evolve over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles
and human beings.
: I happen to believe they got the story substantially correct. But
: I also have the advantage onf you in that I have direct evidence of some
: of it.
What direct evidence might this be?
:
: If someone tells you that science precludes such miracles, then that
: person doesn't know science much better than you do. Science cannot
: preclude miracles. It can only either report whether some particular
: event was observed and whether or not it is in accord with known laws of
: physics (which are a good deal mor strange than you might have thought).
Medical science shows us it's impossible for a person to be
brought back from life after being dead even an hour. You're not
being truthful if you claim otherwise.
:
:
: >Do you?
: >
: >If so, why be a hypocrite and now make science your god when it
: >comes to what happened supposedly in the unobservable, untestable
: >and unverifiable past? That's hypocrisy, nothing more.
:
: The past is neither unobservable, untestable or unverifiable.
So you can travel in time to observe the past first hand? Of
course not. Seeing what's left from the past is not the same
thing as observing the past in action.
: YOUR
: problem is that the observations, tests and verifications do not fit your
: preconceived idea of how God should have created a universe, based on
: your false assumption of correctly understanding the purpose and nature
: of the book of Genesis.
Not true. The problem is it's their beliefs about what we find in
the present means to them, and what they want it to mean to
everyone else.
Meanwhile you didn't answer the question:
Jesus rose others from the dead - and I discard science in that
regard (that it's impossible for a person to be risen from death
after three days) yet again to have faith that Jesus did exactly
what He said He did. Do you?
If so, why be a hypocrite and now make science your god when it
comes to what happened supposedly in the unobservable, untestable
and unverifiable past? That's hypocrisy, nothing more.
Also, you didn't answer this:
Please show a single observation of populations of [flies]
producing, over generations, animals that are no longer [flies]
at all. This version of evolution that you believe in has *never*
been observed. You are not being honest on this topic, and are
contradicting yourself on your selective faith.
:
: Moreover, I have repeatedly warned you that using your bad interpretation
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:15:59 GMT, Dave Oldridge
><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>: news:klf1d59v5ublo30no...@4ax.com:
...
>: >No - science can repeatedly show that it's impossible for a
>: >person to be risen from death after being dead for three days.
>: >But of course I discard that science and instead have faith that
>: >God did what He said He did.
>:
>: Nope. All science can do is tell us that it has not been observed under
>: scientific conditions.
>
>Now you're not being truthful. Medical science tell us that we
>have tried to revive people mere minutes dead and it's always
>impossible once they're dead even an hour, hence we pronounce
>them dead with no further attempts at revival, ready to be buried
>forever.
Do you understand that you have just argued that God does not exist?
Science does not prove things. It can disprove things, but the best it
can do otherwise is show that it seems to work that way.
>: >Jesus rose others from the dead - and I discard science in that
>: >regard yet again to have faith that Jesus did exactly what He
>: >said He did.
>:
>: Actually, HE didn't write anything, so you are reading what others say He
>: did.
>
>Well that explains much - you don't believe the Word of God - not
>surprising that this leads you to believing populations of tiny
>fish can evolve over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles
>and human beings.
He does. He just doesn't believe your doctrines about it. You teach
doctrines about the Bible that are rejected by the church bodies that
the vast majority of Christians go to.
>: I happen to believe they got the story substantially correct. But
>: I also have the advantage onf you in that I have direct evidence of some
>: of it.
>
>What direct evidence might this be?
>
>:
>: If someone tells you that science precludes such miracles, then that
>: person doesn't know science much better than you do. Science cannot
>: preclude miracles. It can only either report whether some particular
>: event was observed and whether or not it is in accord with known laws of
>: physics (which are a good deal mor strange than you might have thought).
>
>Medical science shows us it's impossible for a person to be
>brought back from life after being dead even an hour. You're not
>being truthful if you claim otherwise.
Show me how they have proven that it is impossible.
>: >Do you?
>: >
>: >If so, why be a hypocrite and now make science your god when it
>: >comes to what happened supposedly in the unobservable, untestable
>: >and unverifiable past? That's hypocrisy, nothing more.
>:
>: The past is neither unobservable, untestable or unverifiable.
>
>So you can travel in time to observe the past first hand? Of
>course not. Seeing what's left from the past is not the same
>thing as observing the past in action.
Observation of the sort that you restrict knowledge to is only a very
small part of what we are able to learn with a great degree of
confidence. We know from experience and experiment that humans offering
eyewitness testimony are highly unreliable, even when they are doing
their best to offer an honest recollection.
>: YOUR
>: problem is that the observations, tests and verifications do not fit your
>: preconceived idea of how God should have created a universe, based on
>: your false assumption of correctly understanding the purpose and nature
>: of the book of Genesis.
>
>Not true. The problem is it's their beliefs about what we find in
>the present means to them, and what they want it to mean to
>everyone else.
No, that is not what is happening. You don't get to redefine things just
because the way things really work does not fit with your religious
prejudices.
>Meanwhile you didn't answer the question:
>
>Jesus rose others from the dead - and I discard science in that
>regard (that it's impossible for a person to be risen from death
>after three days) yet again to have faith that Jesus did exactly
>what He said He did. Do you?
If Jesus had been dead and rose again, it would have been because it was
a miracle. If it were possible to rise again, it would not be a miracle.
>If so, why be a hypocrite and now make science your god when it
>comes to what happened supposedly in the unobservable, untestable
>and unverifiable past? That's hypocrisy, nothing more.
Your comment doesn't answer this, though. The problems of testability
are well-known and well-dealt-with by scientists. They know what is
observable, testable and verifiable. You seem unwilling to make the
effort to understand what we can know about the past and what we cannot.
Why are you so lazy?
>Also, you didn't answer this:
>
>Please show a single observation of populations of [flies]
>producing, over generations, animals that are no longer [flies]
>at all. This version of evolution that you believe in has *never*
>been observed. You are not being honest on this topic, and are
>contradicting yourself on your selective faith.
Your silly taunt has been shown for the foolishness that it is. When you
learn what the theory of evolution says, you will apologize for being
such an ignorant git repeatedly asking this misleading question.
Dave Oldridge
news:9dtme5l1743jceu9n...@4ax.com:
>: >: >: >: >: >-08 292 009 #on e
So what? Science can only tell us if there is evidence (or not) of a
miracle. When the evidence that was reported is no lionger available,
science has no oar to row with. Invoking science in favour of your
atheist materialism is just as silly as you trying to insist that science
supports creationist dogma when it flatly contradicts it.
>: >Jesus rose others from the dead - and I discard science in that
>: >regard yet again to have faith that Jesus did exactly what He
>: >said He did.
>:
>: Actually, HE didn't write anything, so you are reading what others
>: say He did.
>
>Well that explains much - you don't believe the Word of God - not
>surprising that this leads you to believing populations of tiny
>fish can evolve over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles
>and human beings.
I believe GODs word. Yours is very, very suspect, though. And it is YOUR
word that the Bible is a literally inerrant oracle written by God. God
never said that.
>: I happen to believe they got the story substantially correct. But
>: I also have the advantage onf you in that I have direct evidence of
>: some of it.
>
>What direct evidence might this be?
Nothing I can SHOW you. Get your own.
>: If someone tells you that science precludes such miracles, then that
>: person doesn't know science much better than you do. Science cannot
>: preclude miracles. It can only either report whether some particular
>: event was observed and whether or not it is in accord with known laws
>: of physics (which are a good deal mor strange than you might have
>: thought).
>
>Medical science shows us it's impossible for a person to be
>brought back from life after being dead even an hour. You're not
>being truthful if you claim otherwise.
Medical science shows us no such thing. It does tell us that such events
are not usual and do seem to defy the more commonly operative laws of
physics. For a resurrection to be counted as scientifically verified,
both the death and the living condition of the dead person would have to
be observed under scientific conditions.
>: >Do you?
>: >
>: >If so, why be a hypocrite and now make science your god when it
>: >comes to what happened supposedly in the unobservable, untestable
>: >and unverifiable past? That's hypocrisy, nothing more.
>:
>: The past is neither unobservable, untestable or unverifiable.
>
>So you can travel in time to observe the past first hand? Of
>course not. Seeing what's left from the past is not the same
>thing as observing the past in action.
Don't need to travel in time. The 2nd law of thermodynamics ensures that
it won't be necessary, however nice it would be. It's true that one must
apply logic to the oberved effects of past events.
>
>: YOUR
>: problem is that the observations, tests and verifications do not fit
>: your preconceived idea of how God should have created a universe,
>: based on your false assumption of correctly understanding the purpose
>: and nature of the book of Genesis.
>
>Not true. The problem is it's their beliefs about what we find in
>the present means to them, and what they want it to mean to
>everyone else.
Nonsense! Libellous nonsense, in fact.
>
>
>Meanwhile you didn't answer the question:
>
>Jesus rose others from the dead - and I discard science in that
>regard (that it's impossible for a person to be risen from death
>after three days) yet again to have faith that Jesus did exactly
>what He said He did. Do you?
>
>If so, why be a hypocrite and now make science your god when it
>comes to what happened supposedly in the unobservable, untestable
>and unverifiable past? That's hypocrisy, nothing more.
>
>Also, you didn't answer this:
>
>Please show a single observation of populations of [flies]
>producing, over generations, animals that are no longer [flies]
>at all. This version of evolution that you believe in has *never*
>been observed. You are not being honest on this topic, and are
>contradicting yourself on your selective faith.
Since humans are still apes, why is this relevant. Insects do not give
rise to new phyla. At least, if they are doing so at present, we do not
see the species as a new phylum. Perhaps in 100 million years,
though....
Again, with typical creationist dishonesty, you claim not to see
evolution in the past while demanding that it occur with breakneck speed
in the present before you will accept it.
>
>:
>: Moreover, I have repeatedly warned you that using your bad
>: interpretation of Genesis as a pretext for false witness about
>: science and about scientists is a SIN, against God and against the
>: people you libel. You are hereby notified that your baptism is
>: temporarily revoked, pending actual repentance.
>:
>: And it doesn't matter to me if you believe this or not. It's just a
>: fact like a lot of other facts you prefer to ignore.
>:
>: And, for the record, it is your opposition to God's commandments that
>: got you here, not your opposition to evolution, which is really
>: irrelevant except for being the pretext for your sins.
See above.
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: news:9dtme5l1743jceu9n...@4ax.com:
:
: >On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:15:59 GMT, Dave Oldridge
: ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: >
:[ snip ]
: gabriel said:
: >: >No - science can repeatedly show that it's impossible for a
: >: >person to be risen from death after being dead for three days.
: >: >But of course I discard that science and instead have faith that
: >: >God did what He said He did.
: >:
: >: Nope. All science can do is tell us that it has not been observed
: >: under scientific conditions.
: >
: >Now you're not being truthful. Medical science tell us that we
: >have tried to revive people mere minutes dead and it's always
: >impossible once they're dead even an hour, hence we pronounce
: >them dead with no further attempts at revival, ready to be buried
: >forever.
:
: So what? Science can only tell us if there is evidence (or not) of a
: miracle. When the evidence that was reported is no lionger available,
: science has no oar to row with. Invoking science in favour of your
: atheist materialism is just as silly as you trying to insist that science
: supports creationist dogma when it flatly contradicts it.
No, medical science is telling us what IS observable and IS
testable and IS verifiable: that a person who's been dead for
days cannot come back to life. It would be a supernatural event
for a person dead for days to come back to life.
But we rightly disregard what medical science can repeatedly show
us to instead have faith that Christ did what He said He did, and
that Christ was risen from death as well.
But contrast this with the fish to man version of evolution: it
is NOT observable, NOT testable and NOT verifiable - one can only
believe in it. And here you are casting aside faith in God doing
what He said He did and teaching others to do the same. Selective
faith - Jesus warns us that if we are ashamed of His Word that He
will, in turn, be ashamed of us when He comes in judgment.
Mark 8:34-38 KJV
34: And when he had called the people unto him with his
disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me,
let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35: For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but
whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the
same shall save it.
36: For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole
world, and lose his own soul?
37: Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
38: Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words
in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the
Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father
with the holy angels.
:
: >: >Jesus rose others from the dead - and I discard science in that
: >: >regard yet again to have faith that Jesus did exactly what He
: >: >said He did.
: >:
: >: Actually, HE didn't write anything, so you are reading what others
: >: say He did.
: >
: >Well that explains much - you don't believe the Word of God - not
: >surprising that this leads you to believing populations of tiny
: >fish can evolve over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles
: >and human beings.
:
: I believe GODs word. Yours is very, very suspect, though. And it is YOUR
: word that the Bible is a literally inerrant oracle written by God. God
: never said that.
Actually He did:
John 10:34-35 KJV
34: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said,
Ye are gods?
35: If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and
**the scripture cannot be broken**;
2 Peter 1:18-21 KJV
18: And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were
with him in the holy mount.
19: We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do
well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark
place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of
any private interpretation.
21: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
but **holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost.**
But for a person who does not believe God's Word, then they're
going to say God never said that.
:
: >: I happen to believe they got the story substantially correct. But
: >: I also have the advantage onf you in that I have direct evidence of
: >: some of it.
: >
: >What direct evidence might this be?
:
: Nothing I can SHOW you. Get your own.
Nothing anyone can show anyone.
:
:
: >: If someone tells you that science precludes such miracles, then that
: >: person doesn't know science much better than you do. Science cannot
: >: preclude miracles. It can only either report whether some particular
: >: event was observed and whether or not it is in accord with known laws
: >: of physics (which are a good deal mor strange than you might have
: >: thought).
: >
: >Medical science shows us it's impossible for a person to be
: >brought back from life after being dead even an hour. You're not
: >being truthful if you claim otherwise.
:
: Medical science shows us no such thing. It does tell us that such events
: are not usual
A person brought back from life after being dead an hour is not
usual?! So you're claiming there have been cases where a person
was dead for an hour, but then came back to life? Please cite the
case. Because the fact is such a thing has NEVER been
recorded/reported, and even today when trying to bring someone
back to life that's been dead mere minutes, it becomes a fact
that no one can be brought back to life once dead far less than
even an hour.
: and do seem to defy the more commonly operative laws of
: physics. For a resurrection to be counted as scientifically verified,
: both the death and the living condition of the dead person would have to
: be observed under scientific conditions.
:
: >: >Do you?
: >: >
: >: >If so, why be a hypocrite and now make science your god when it
: >: >comes to what happened supposedly in the unobservable, untestable
: >: >and unverifiable past? That's hypocrisy, nothing more.
: >:
: >: The past is neither unobservable, untestable or unverifiable.
: >
: >So you can travel in time to observe the past first hand? Of
: >course not. Seeing what's left from the past is not the same
: >thing as observing the past in action.
:
: Don't need to travel in time. The 2nd law of thermodynamics ensures that
: it won't be necessary, however nice it would be. It's true that one must
: apply logic to the oberved effects of past events.
Sorry but applying the belief that "populations of fish evolved
into human beings" to what dead bones and fossils means to you is
applying science fiction beliefs to effects, not logic. For a
child of God, logic would be to notice how much better the same
evidence of past events fits God doing exactly what He said He
did.
:
: >
: >: YOUR
: >: problem is that the observations, tests and verifications do not fit
: >: your preconceived idea of how God should have created a universe,
: >: based on your false assumption of correctly understanding the purpose
: >: and nature of the book of Genesis.
: >
: >Not true. The problem is it's their beliefs about what we find in
: >the present means to them, and what they want it to mean to
: >everyone else.
:
: Nonsense! Libellous nonsense, in fact.
You can claim it all you wish - but the fact is what they believe
is impossible to observe in action - one can only take their word
for it.
:
:
: >
: >
: >Meanwhile you didn't answer the question:
: >
: >Jesus rose others from the dead - and I discard science in that
: >regard (that it's impossible for a person to be risen from death
: >after three days) yet again to have faith that Jesus did exactly
: >what He said He did. Do you?
: >
: >If so, why be a hypocrite and now make science your god when it
: >comes to what happened supposedly in the unobservable, untestable
: >and unverifiable past? That's hypocrisy, nothing more.
: >
: >Also, you didn't answer this:
: >
: >Please show a single observation of populations of [flies]
: >producing, over generations, animals that are no longer [flies]
: >at all. This version of evolution that you believe in has *never*
: >been observed. You are not being honest on this topic, and are
: >contradicting yourself on your selective faith.
:
: Since humans are still apes, why is this relevant.
Only because you want to say they are. Have you observed
populations of ape-like creatures evolving over generations into
human beings? No one has.
: Insects do not give
: rise to new phyla.
No animals do no matter how many generations pass - which shows
how science itself has disproved the fish to man version of
evolution.
: At least, if they are doing so at present, we do not
: see the species as a new phylum. Perhaps in 100 million years,
: though....
Well there you go again, claiming they DO give rise to new phyla.
So again, if you're going to continue presenting this belief
about something happening, then please show a single observation
of populations of [flies] producing, over generations, animals
that are no longer [flies] at all. This version of evolution that
you believe in has *never* been observed. You are not being
honest on this topic, and are contradicting yourself on your
selective faith.
But meanwhile you are dismissing God's Word and the words of
Christ as a lie to instead cling to what is not observable unless
we hang around for "100 million years." Selective faith, which
only shows you don't have faith in God, what He did, what He said
He did, and what Jesus Christ said He did.
:
: Again, with typical creationist dishonesty, you claim not to see
: evolution in the past
No one can see it. We can only see dead bones and fossils along
with the demand that we believe they evolved from each other
because God-haters say they did. Meanwhile not a single
observation nor test/verification to back this up as actually
happening.
: while demanding that it occur with breakneck speed
: in the present before you will accept it.
Now you're being less than truthful again. I don't demand
anything of the kind - I'm pointing out what you seem to be aware
of: that your belief that populations of fish once upon a time
evolved into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings are
IMPOSSIBLE to observe and are IMPOSSIBLE to test/verify. That
being the case, that disqualifies it as science.
You know everything you need to know. You seem ashamed that God
did what He said He did, that even Jesus Christ backed up and
said as well: creating us in His image, and creating the heavens
and the earth in mere days.
:
:
: >
: >:
Cory Albrecht
> But we rightly disregard what medical science can repeatedly show
> us to instead have faith that Christ did what He said He did, and
> that Christ was risen from death as well.
Thank you, Gabriel, for admitting that you ignore the evidence whenever
it suits your prejudices, Gabriel.
Dave Oldridge
news:q1h3g5tm4j8pl839i...@4ax.com:
You are missing the point. Resurrections are miracles. Science cannot
and does not try to explain them. Science can, however, verify that a
corpse is actually a corpse and not just someone in a coma. Science can,
later, verify that the person is living again. Science does not NEED to
explain it to verify this much. Now whether the miracle is the result of
action by your god or mine is something science cannot really rule on.
Perhaps your god, the father of lies, can sometimes at least make it SEEM
as though a resurrection has occurred. He can certainly make a devout,
obdurate sinner SEEM (to a certain target audiebnce) to be an honest
Christian, even when just about every sentence the person utters is a
lie! YOU are living proof of that much!
Do you notice that resurrections actually DO produce scientiic evidence
when/if they occur? You have a dead body, then you have a live person.
Science can verify both these conditions and can make tests to ensure
that it is the same body--IF scientists have access to the data.
A global flood would leave a HUGE amount of physical evidence--physical
evidence that simply does not exist. Creationists seem to need to lie
about what physical evidence DOES exist to justify their contention that
the flood was a literal, global event. You even distort Jesus' use of
the story into a presumed ratification of YOUR literal interpretation
when He evinces no such ratification. But then blasphemy was always the
final line of creationist defence. When the scientific evidence cannot
be dismissed with lies and distortions, then make God out to be a
deceiver. Of course I can understand that tendency. After all, YOUR god
IS a deceiver--the father of lies!
>: and do seem to defy the more commonly operative laws of
>: physics. For a resurrection to be counted as scientifically
>: verified, both the death and the living condition of the dead person
>: would have to be observed under scientific conditions.
>:
>: >: >Do you?
>: >: >
>: >: >If so, why be a hypocrite and now make science your god when it
>: >: >comes to what happened supposedly in the unobservable, untestable
>: >: >and unverifiable past? That's hypocrisy, nothing more.
>: >:
>: >: The past is neither unobservable, untestable or unverifiable.
>: >
>: >So you can travel in time to observe the past first hand? Of
>: >course not. Seeing what's left from the past is not the same
>: >thing as observing the past in action.
>:
>: Don't need to travel in time. The 2nd law of thermodynamics ensures
>: that it won't be necessary, however nice it would be. It's true that
>: one must apply logic to the oberved effects of past events.
>
>Sorry but applying the belief that "populations of fish evolved
>into human beings" to what dead bones and fossils means to you is
>applying science fiction beliefs to effects, not logic. For a
>child of God, logic would be to notice how much better the same
>evidence of past events fits God doing exactly what He said He
>did.
There you go again, lying about logical inference. Perhaps YOUR god
hates logic. Mine INVENTED IT!
>
>:
>: >
>: >: YOUR
>: >: problem is that the observations, tests and verifications do not
>: >: fit your preconceived idea of how God should have created a
>: >: universe, based on your false assumption of correctly
>: >: understanding the purpose and nature of the book of Genesis.
>: >
>: >Not true. The problem is it's their beliefs about what we find in
>: >the present means to them, and what they want it to mean to
>: >everyone else.
>:
>: Nonsense! Libellous nonsense, in fact.
>
>You can claim it all you wish - but the fact is what they believe
>is impossible to observe in action - one can only take their word
>for it.
Or use logical inference applied to the actual data.
>: >Meanwhile you didn't answer the question:
>: >
>: >Jesus rose others from the dead - and I discard science in that
>: >regard (that it's impossible for a person to be risen from death
>: >after three days) yet again to have faith that Jesus did exactly
>: >what He said He did. Do you?
>: >
>: >If so, why be a hypocrite and now make science your god when it
>: >comes to what happened supposedly in the unobservable, untestable
>: >and unverifiable past? That's hypocrisy, nothing more.
>: >
>: >Also, you didn't answer this:
>: >
>: >Please show a single observation of populations of [flies]
>: >producing, over generations, animals that are no longer [flies]
>: >at all. This version of evolution that you believe in has *never*
>: >been observed. You are not being honest on this topic, and are
>: >contradicting yourself on your selective faith.
>:
>: Since humans are still apes, why is this relevant.
>
>Only because you want to say they are. Have you observed
>populations of ape-like creatures evolving over generations into
>human beings? No one has.
Uh, actually, that is EXACTLY what the fossil record actually portrays.
>
>
>: Insects do not give
>: rise to new phyla.
>
>No animals do no matter how many generations pass - which shows
>how science itself has disproved the fish to man version of
>evolution.
Wrong again. When they first occur, new phyla are not recognizable as
such. It takes many millions of years for species to diverge enough so
that WE deem them separate phyla.
>: At least, if they are doing so at present, we do not
>: see the species as a new phylum. Perhaps in 100 million years,
>: though....
>
>Well there you go again, claiming they DO give rise to new phyla.
Yep, both the genetic and fossil evidence support that idea.
Have you ever SEEN an electron?
>So again, if you're going to continue presenting this belief
>about something happening, then please show a single observation
>of populations of [flies] producing, over generations, animals
>that are no longer [flies] at all. This version of evolution that
>you believe in has *never* been observed. You are not being
>honest on this topic, and are contradicting yourself on your
>selective faith.
Why? 'Fly' is not a very distinct taxon, being a non-scientific term,
applied to insects of various families.
>
>But meanwhile you are dismissing God's Word and the words of
>Christ as a lie to instead cling to what is not observable unless
>we hang around for "100 million years." Selective faith, which
>only shows you don't have faith in God, what He did, what He said
>He did, and what Jesus Christ said He did.
I never claimed Christ lied. I leave that kind of blasphemy to you. And
you have proven yourself well up to the task--putting your spin on much
of what He said while ignoring the simple stuff like, "do not bear false
witness."
Your 'Word of God' is your private interpretation of the Luther-Calvin
canon of scripture, taken deliberately and especially in a manner that
conflicts with physical evidence. Then you put your private
interpretation in Jesus' mouth by misconstruing what HE said and try to
put YOUR SIN on anyone who disagrees.
>:
>: Again, with typical creationist dishonesty, you claim not to see
>: evolution in the past
>
>No one can see it. We can only see dead bones and fossils along
>with the demand that we believe they evolved from each other
>because God-haters say they did. Meanwhile not a single
>observation nor test/verification to back this up as actually
>happening.
YOU cannot see it because you will not permit yourself to look. So
instead of looking you tell lies about what other people, far more
qualified than you are, see.
>
>: while demanding that it occur with breakneck speed
>: in the present before you will accept it.
>
>Now you're being less than truthful again. I don't demand
>anything of the kind - I'm pointing out what you seem to be aware
Actually, you do. Now you lie about what you do. But that is actually
what creationism is all about. You lie to the public about having
SCIENTIFIC objections to evolution when all you can produce is your
religious dogma (heretical by my lights) and pseudoscientific lies.
>of: that your belief that populations of fish once upon a time
>evolved into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings are
>IMPOSSIBLE to observe and are IMPOSSIBLE to test/verify. That
>being the case, that disqualifies it as science.
>
>You know everything you need to know. You seem ashamed that God
>did what He said He did, that even Jesus Christ backed up and
>said as well: creating us in His image, and creating the heavens
>and the earth in mere days.
I'm not ashamed of God. YOU ARE!
>: >: Moreover, I have repeatedly warned you that using your bad
>: >: interpretation of Genesis as a pretext for false witness about
>: >: science and about scientists is a SIN, against God and against the
>: >: people you libel. You are hereby notified that your baptism is
>: >: temporarily revoked, pending actual repentance.
>: >:
>: >: And it doesn't matter to me if you believe this or not. It's just
>: >: a fact like a lot of other facts you prefer to ignore.
>: >:
>: >: And, for the record, it is your opposition to God's commandments
>: >: that got you here, not your opposition to evolution, which is
>: >: really irrelevant except for being the pretext for your sins.
>:
>: See above.
Let's see if we can deconstruct your false reality one step at a time.
How old do you think the universe is?
Why do you think that? Is your thinking scientific, or is it simply a
religious belief based on what MEN have told you about scripture, its
place in Christian worship and its meaning?
--
Dave Oldridge+
gabriel
<coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote, on 09-11-16 04:54 PM:
Actually the evidence is God did such a thing, so I'm not
ignoring the evidence.
This was a reply to someone else who believes the evidence that
God did one thing, while ignoring what is observable (i.e.,
science) that would contradict that evidence, but then
hypocritically ignores the evidence that God did something else
to instead believe something that's NOT observable - not science.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:34:24 -0500, Cory Albrecht
><coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>: gabriel wrote, on 09-11-16 04:54 PM:
>: > But we rightly disregard what medical science can repeatedly show
>: > us to instead have faith that Christ did what He said He did, and
>: > that Christ was risen from death as well.
>:
>: Thank you, Gabriel, for admitting that you ignore the evidence whenever
>: it suits your prejudices, Gabriel.
>
>Actually the evidence is God did such a thing, so I'm not
>ignoring the evidence.
So you claim. We need more than your unsubstantiated assertions however.
Show us where God did such a thing.
>This was a reply to someone else who believes the evidence that
>God did one thing, while ignoring what is observable (i.e.,
>science) that would contradict that evidence, but then
>hypocritically ignores the evidence that God did something else
>to instead believe something that's NOT observable - not science.
You have to show us that there is such evidence. Your word is not good
enough.
AusShane
>is concerned (idolatry to say the least), yet science is impotent
>to deal with any origin theory, as none of them are repeatable or
>testable or verifiable. I would think twice and pray deeply to "
You use this mantra time and time again. Its still as vague as the
time you first trolled it out.
Please feel free to cite any of the multiple examples of the evidence
that has been presented to you as support for the theory of evolution
that has not been observable/testable/repeatable??
You have been given numerous examples from a wide field of
disciplines.
Again feel free to cite any of the physical evidence presented that
has not been either observable/testable/repeatable.
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: news:q1h3g5tm4j8pl839i...@4ax.com:
Science denies them, Dave. Please show where science backs up the
miracle of a person being "verified a corpse", where their heart
has stopped beating, being brought back from being dead for days.
: Science can, however, verify that a
: corpse is actually a corpse and not just someone in a coma.
In other words, that a person is dead and will never come back to
life. Medical, scientific fact for each such case that a person
is verified to be a corpse.
So again, do you now make science your god and dismiss that in
spite of it being "verified" a person is only a corpse, that
Jesus Christ can still perform a miracle in contradiction to
medical science saying it's a corpse and will not come back to
life?
: Science can,
: later, verify that the person is living again.
Science has never shown a person who was "verified a corpse"
being brought back to life, Dave. But God wrote about such things
happening anyway. So again, it's medical scientific fact that
what God told us happened to Jesus and what Jesus did when he
raised others from being a corpse for days defies actual science.
Do you place faith in science in that regard, what is observable,
testable and verifiable: that a "verified corpse" dead for days
cannot be brought back to life? Or do you instead have faith in
the Word of God in what Jesus did to others and what happened to
Jesus Himself?
: Science does not NEED to
: explain it to verify this much. Now whether the miracle is the result of
: action by your god or mine is something science cannot really rule on.
: Perhaps your god, the father of lies, can sometimes at least make it SEEM
: as though a resurrection has occurred. He can certainly make a devout,
: obdurate sinner SEEM (to a certain target audiebnce) to be an honest
: Christian, even when just about every sentence the person utters is a
: lie! YOU are living proof of that much!
:
: Do you notice that resurrections actually DO produce scientiic evidence
: when/if they occur?
Dave, science has never had a "verified corpse" come back from
death three days later. To science, such a thing is impossible.
: You have a dead body, then you have a live person.
: Science can verify both these conditions and can make tests to ensure
: that it is the same body--IF scientists have access to the data.
:
: A global flood would leave a HUGE amount of physical evidence--physical
: evidence
Yes, like for starters an abundance of fossils of sea creatures
high above sea level? Like a huge canyon? Like a huge amount of
varied fossils all being buried in the same geological strata
(the Cambrian Explosion)? And there's more.
www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/worldwide-flood-evidence
- Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean
waters having flooded over the continents
- Rapid burial of plants and animals
- Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
- Sediment transported long distances
- Rapid or no erosion between strata
- Many strata laid down in rapid succession
One has to have faith in what God says is true to actually see
the evidence of it happening, otherwise they are blinded to the
obvious truth and start making up bizarre stories instead like,
for example, fish once upon a time evolving over generations
eventually into people.
Luke 10:21-22 KJV
21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, "I thank
thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid
these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them
unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man
knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is,
but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him."
People that are wise and prudent in their own eyes remain blind.
: that simply does not exist. Creationists seem to need to lie
: about what physical evidence DOES exist to justify their contention that
: the flood was a literal, global event.
You're not being truthful that there's no evidence, Dave. See
above. You just refuse to see it because you refuse to believe
God did what He said He did. Huge difference. =(
: You even distort Jesus' use of
: the story into a presumed ratification of YOUR literal interpretation
: when He evinces no such ratification.
Well then using your logic, Jesus might very well not have
literally existed or did what He said, either. Nor any of the
prophets. Nor the disciples. All just as easily allegories using
your logic of "dismiss what is clearly written literally as just
being an allegory so that we can just ignore it." More of what
Satan would love for people to believe.
But there is evidence to back up God doing exactly what He said
He did. But since people don't want it to be true, they dismiss
the evidence.
Please read over Genesis again and take another look at the
evidence and pray to God for the truth.
Take care.
: But then blasphemy was always the
Lorentz
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:34:24 -0500, Cory Albrecht
>
>
> : gabriel wrote, on 09-11-16 04:54 PM:
> : > But we rightly disregard what medical science can repeatedly show
> : > us to instead have faith that Christ did what He said He did, and
> : > that Christ was risen from death as well.
> This was a reply to someone else who believes the evidence that
> God did one thing, while ignoring what is observable (i.e.,
> science) that would contradict that evidence, but then
> hypocritically ignores the evidence that God did something else
> to instead believe something that's NOT observable - not science.
You are the one who is ignoring what is observable. You have made
many statements in the course of this thread which were observably
false. However, I have waited until you made a firm statement about
ignoring facts.
You have been ignoring facts about the appendix, and making up
stories that were demonstrably false. Since you have now made the
statement that only hypocrites ignore the facts, I will get back to
some facts on the appendix you ignored and misrepresented. If anyone
including you wants verification of your statements as I describe
them, let him look back at the posts starting in August.
You said that Darwin did not take into account the fact that
other animals use the appendix in digestion. This of course is false.
Darwin used the example of the human appendix because it is not used
in digestion.
You made some statements about how the appendix may be used in
human beings. Even if these statements were true, Darwin's point is
still valid. We have a structure very similar to that in other
organisms which is used for something for something different.
Darwin's point was that a small difference in structure can make a
large difference in function.
However, I have serious doubts that the appendix had any use in
human beings comparable to the risks entailed in having it. The
appendix has, since the human species evolved, been more of a risk
than a benefit.
2) You quoted some doctor that said that the risks associated with the
human appendix was brought about by the industrial way of life. This
doctor, and you, have no evidence of this. Before the invention of
antibiotics, many died of infection.
The reason people stopped having so many appendices was because
of antibiotics. Previous to the 1930's, when an appendix got infected,
there was no treatment. The doctor had to remove the appendix or the
patient died. So the appendix was a greater risk before science came
up with medicine. Look up some medical history. Appedecitus is treated
with antibiotics.
With the evolution of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria,
the number of appendectomies has gone up. If a person is infected with
an MDR bacteria, the doctor still has to remove the appendix.
You have not provided any proof, or even any mechanism, by which
an industrial civilization can increase the number of infections of an
appendix. This doctor and you have just pulled a little factoid out of
prejudices.
3) The appendix could not have served much of a use before industrial
civilization. Ironically, it may have one now. Look back on your own
post in August.
That doctor of yours claims that the appendix is needed to stored
"good bacteria" after the good bacteria has been removed. He gave the
example of a person who has had a serious case of diaria. However,
people who had serious diaria in the old days died. Dysentary, typhoid
fever and other diseases that clear the digestive tract are fatal.
There is no real need of a creator to make an organ that replenishes
"good" bacteria if the disease kill the person anyway.
However, the appendix ironically now has a use. Currently, the
most common way people lose their "good" bacteria is to take
antibiotics. When a person takes antibiotics, it kells both good
bacteria and bad bacteria. Maybe now the appendix is a good haven for
good bacteria after the person has taken a dose of antibiotics. Some
medicines work in the digestive tract rather than the blood stream.
For those medicines, the appendix may help restore the balance.
However, this has not been useful for the 5500 years since the
world was created :-) This is a use for what was formally a vestigial
organ.
Check it out. Antibiotics are the treatment for appendicitus. The
appendix has been a risk rather than an asset until very recently. It
is no longer used for digestion in human beings. It's just an example
of a vestigial organ that has somehow found a use as something else.
Recently.
AusShane
">It seems quite clear you've made science your god where origins
>is concerned (idolatry to say the least), yet science is impotent
>to deal with any origin theory, as none of them are repeatable or
>testable or verifiable. I would think twice and pray deeply to "
You use this mantra time and time again. Its still as vague as the
gabriel
<drose...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: On Nov 26, 1:29�pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:34:24 -0500, Cory Albrecht
: >
: > <coryalbre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : gabriel wrote, on 09-11-16 04:54 PM:
: > : > But we rightly disregard what medical science can repeatedly show
: > : > us to instead have faith that Christ did what He said He did, and
: > : > that Christ was risen from death as well.
:
: > This was a reply to someone else who believes the evidence that
: > God did one thing, while ignoring what is observable (i.e.,
: > science) that would contradict that evidence, but then
: > hypocritically ignores the evidence that God did something else
: > to instead believe something that's NOT observable - not science.
: You are the one who is ignoring what is observable. You have made
: many statements in the course of this thread which were observably
: false. However, I have waited until you made a firm statement about
: ignoring facts.
: You have been ignoring facts about the appendix, and making up
: stories that were demonstrably false. Since you have now made the
: statement that only hypocrites ignore the facts, I will get back to
: some facts on the appendix you ignored and misrepresented. If anyone
: including you wants verification of your statements as I describe
: them, let him look back at the posts starting in August.
: You said that Darwin did not take into account the fact that
: other animals use the appendix in digestion.
I think you have me confused with someone else and their
discussion about Darwin.
Please quote the exact post where I said Darwin did not take into
account the fact that other animals use the appendix in
digestion. Otherwise, I guess you want to take up your discussion
with who actually said it.
Thanks.
: This of course is false.
Bear
This person seems to have a habitual problem with deciphering who
wrote what who they are responding to, he/she did the same with my
post.
Bear
Dave Oldridge
news:f3itg51ud6o0836cn...@4ax.com:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:34:24 -0500, Cory Albrecht
><coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>: gabriel wrote, on 09-11-16 04:54 PM:
>: > But we rightly disregard what medical science can repeatedly show
>: > us to instead have faith that Christ did what He said He did, and
>: > that Christ was risen from death as well.
>:
>: Thank you, Gabriel, for admitting that you ignore the evidence
whenever
>: it suits your prejudices, Gabriel.
>
>Actually the evidence is God did such a thing, so I'm not
>ignoring the evidence.
Actually, you are and are just lying about ignoring it. That's the
subtle dviltry of creationism. It seduces you into lying.
>
>This was a reply to someone else who believes the evidence that
>God did one thing, while ignoring what is observable (i.e.,
>science) that would contradict that evidence, but then
>hypocritically ignores the evidence that God did something else
>to instead believe something that's NOT observable - not science.
You're the one being a hypocrite. You know that God said to not bear
false witness, yet you belong to a cult that makes it a policy.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
news:ia40h5hvgpj7f445a...@4ax.com:
Science doesn't deny miracles. Science just demands evidence for them.
The next time you have evidence of a resurrection, feel free to submit it
to the medical journals.
>
>: Science can, however, verify that a
>: corpse is actually a corpse and not just someone in a coma.
>
>In other words, that a person is dead and will never come back to
>life. Medical, scientific fact for each such case that a person
>is verified to be a corpse.
Scientific fact would include evidence of a resurrection should one
occur. Past resurrections are interesting but the evidence is gone.
>
>So again, do you now make science your god and dismiss that in
>spite of it being "verified" a person is only a corpse, that
>Jesus Christ can still perform a miracle in contradiction to
>medical science saying it's a corpse and will not come back to
>life?
No, I don't dismiss ACTUAL miracles, just those that people try to foist
on me without a shred of evidence. There is no evidence one way or the
other about the resurrections reported in the Bible. Not any more. But
a universal global flood just 4500 years ago REQUIRES a great deal of
positive physical evidence unless you wish to invoke miracles performed
by the father of lies to conceal the fact.
>: Science can,
>: later, verify that the person is living again.
>
>Science has never shown a person who was "verified a corpse"
>being brought back to life, Dave. But God wrote about such things
Have you or your cult done so? I don't think so!
>happening anyway. So again, it's medical scientific fact that
>what God told us happened to Jesus and what Jesus did when he
>raised others from being a corpse for days defies actual science.
>Do you place faith in science in that regard, what is observable,
>testable and verifiable: that a "verified corpse" dead for days
>cannot be brought back to life? Or do you instead have faith in
>the Word of God in what Jesus did to others and what happened to
>Jesus Himself?
>
>
>: Science does not NEED to
>: explain it to verify this much. Now whether the miracle is the
>: result of action by your god or mine is something science cannot
>: really rule on. Perhaps your god, the father of lies, can sometimes
>: at least make it SEEM as though a resurrection has occurred. He can
>: certainly make a devout, obdurate sinner SEEM (to a certain target
>: audiebnce) to be an honest Christian, even when just about every
>: sentence the person utters is a lie! YOU are living proof of that
>: much!
>:
>: Do you notice that resurrections actually DO produce scientiic
>: evidence when/if they occur?
>
>Dave, science has never had a "verified corpse" come back from
>death three days later. To science, such a thing is impossible.
No, to science such a thing is UNKNOWN.
>
>
>: You have a dead body, then you have a live person.
>: Science can verify both these conditions and can make tests to ensure
>: that it is the same body--IF scientists have access to the data.
>:
>: A global flood would leave a HUGE amount of physical
>: evidence--physical evidence
>
>Yes, like for starters an abundance of fossils of sea creatures
>high above sea level? Like a huge canyon? Like a huge amount of
Actually, yes. A global flood should have buried fossils of ALL types in
a single flood layer. Your people have yet to designate a coherent flood
stratigraphy.
>varied fossils all being buried in the same geological strata
>(the Cambrian Explosion)? And there's more.
Name one mammal species found in the Cambrian.
>
>www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/worldwide-flood-evidence
>
>- Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean
>waters having flooded over the continents
What we find, though is raised seabeds, often tilted, not fossils
deposited on mountains that were already there.
>- Rapid burial of plants and animals
Not so much. We find a variety of burial scenarios, though we do not
expect many fossils that were not buried soon after death.
>- Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
Not as much of this as you might think.
>
>- Sediment transported long distances
Rivers are still doing it.
>
>- Rapid or no erosion between strata
Huh? There is either erosion or deposition.
>
>- Many strata laid down in rapid succession
So, the 15,000 alternating turbidite and shale layers in a certain US
location were all deposited in a single year?
>One has to have faith in what God says is true to actually see
>the evidence of it happening, otherwise they are blinded to the
>obvious truth and start making up bizarre stories instead like,
>for example, fish once upon a time evolving over generations
>eventually into people.
I don't have any problem with what GOD says is true. I have a huge
problem with what PEOPLE say God say when it is clear that they are
simply trying to impose THEIR opinions on reality. You are a bibliolater
who lets his religious beliefs suborn sin. Until you repent the sin,
your noises are just that--noises.
>Luke 10:21-22 KJV
>21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, "I thank
>thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid
>these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them
>unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
>22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man
>knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is,
>but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him."
>
>People that are wise and prudent in their own eyes remain blind.
As do you.
>
>: that simply does not exist. Creationists seem to need to lie
>: about what physical evidence DOES exist to justify their contention
>: that the flood was a literal, global event.
>
>You're not being truthful that there's no evidence, Dave. See
>above. You just refuse to see it because you refuse to believe
>God did what He said He did. Huge difference. =(
Actually YOU are not being truthful when you misrepresent what evidence
there is and fabricate what you don't have.
>: You even distort Jesus' use of
>: the story into a presumed ratification of YOUR literal interpretation
>: when He evinces no such ratification.
>
>Well then using your logic, Jesus might very well not have
>literally existed or did what He said, either. Nor any of the
That's not my logic, that is more of your ILLOGIC.
You are playing at fancy sophistry rather than dealing with your sins.
>prophets. Nor the disciples. All just as easily allegories using
>your logic of "dismiss what is clearly written literally as just
>being an allegory so that we can just ignore it." More of what
>Satan would love for people to believe.
>
>But there is evidence to back up God doing exactly what He said
>He did. But since people don't want it to be true, they dismiss
>the evidence.
God never said He did things the way you creationists say they were done.
>
>Please read over Genesis again and take another look at the
>evidence and pray to God for the truth.
I pray without ceasing. But YOUR god has no truth in him. He is the
father of lies.
>Take care.
I do
[snip...]
>:
>: Let's see if we can deconstruct your false reality one step at a
>: time.
>:
>: How old do you think the universe is?
>:
>: Why do you think that? Is your thinking scientific, or is it simply
>: a religious belief based on what MEN have told you about scripture,
>: its place in Christian worship and its meaning?
Why don't you answer direct questions?
--
Dave Oldridge+
gabriel
<qua...@live.com> wrote:
: ">It seems quite clear you've made science your god where origins
They only thing anyone's been given is what someone ~believes~
about what they observe - but then the belief itself is not
observable, not testable and not verifiable.
Please feel free to offer an observation of the fish to man
version of evolution. For example: populations of [flies]
evolving, over generations, into animas that are no longer
[flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal you
wish.
Evolutionists can only offer reasons they believe such a thing
happened and can happen in the future. But the belief itself is
impossible to observe in action - not science. Feel free to show
that it is science by providing such a observable test-case.
Devils Advocaat
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:52:17 -0800 (PST), AusShane
>
>
> : ">It seems quite clear you've made science your god where origins
> : >is concerned (idolatry to say the least), yet science is impotent
> : >to deal with any origin theory, as none of them are repeatable or
> : >testable or verifiable. I would think twice and pray deeply to "
> :
> : You use this mantra time and time again. Its still as vague as the
> : time you first trolled it out.
> :
> : Please feel free to cite any of the multiple examples of the evidence
> : that has been presented to you as support for the theory of evolution
> : that has not been observable/testable/repeatable??
> :
> : You have been given numerous examples from a wide field of
> : disciplines.
> :
> : Again feel free to cite any of the physical evidence presented that
> : has not been either observable/testable/repeatable.
>
> They only thing anyone's been given is what someone ~believes~
> about what they observe - but then the belief itself is not
> observable, not testable and not verifiable.
Okay lets run with your line of reasoning.
I have three photographs, showing a person on one side of the street,
in the middle of the road, and then on the opposite side of the
street.
I use these as evidence that the person has actually crossed the
street.
But you can come along and say "No, you only believe that this is the
case", and then proceed to give your interpretation of the
photographs.
Can you see where your reasoning is flawed now?
>
> Please feel free to offer an observation of the fish to man
> version of evolution. For example: populations of [flies]
> evolving, over generations, into animas that are no longer
> [flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal you
> wish.
You have been given the evidence over and over again, but given your
line of thought as expressed above, you will never believe what people
tell you about such things, so why do you bother to ask?
>
> Evolutionists can only offer reasons they believe such a thing
> happened and can happen in the future. But the belief itself is
> impossible to observe in action - not science. Feel free to show
> that it is science by providing such a observable test-case.
Numerous predictions have been made and confirmed that support the
theory of evolution.
One example is that of the finding of the fossils of a creature named
"Tiktaalik", the account of how these fossils were found is written in
a book called "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin.
I suggest you read it at the earliest opportunity.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:52:17 -0800 (PST), AusShane
><qua...@live.com> wrote:
>
>: ">It seems quite clear you've made science your god where origins
>: >is concerned (idolatry to say the least), yet science is impotent
>: >to deal with any origin theory, as none of them are repeatable or
>: >testable or verifiable. I would think twice and pray deeply to "
>:
>: You use this mantra time and time again. Its still as vague as the
>: time you first trolled it out.
>:
>: Please feel free to cite any of the multiple examples of the evidence
>: that has been presented to you as support for the theory of evolution
>: that has not been observable/testable/repeatable??
>:
>: You have been given numerous examples from a wide field of
>: disciplines.
>:
>: Again feel free to cite any of the physical evidence presented that
>: has not been either observable/testable/repeatable.
>
>They only thing anyone's been given is what someone ~believes~
>about what they observe - but then the belief itself is not
>observable, not testable and not verifiable.
Thanks for running to the foxhole of epistemological nihilism. If you
look down, you will notice that the grenade you tried to throw at
science has fallen at your feet and is blowing up your religious
doctrines. You have fallen for your own foolishness.
>Please feel free to offer an observation of the fish to man
>version of evolution. For example: populations of [flies]
>evolving, over generations, into animas that are no longer
>[flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal you
>wish.
We still share some of the same characteristics with fish that the
ancestors of mammals and fish had. We still share some of the same
characteristics with cats and dogs that the earliest mammals had. We
still share some of the same characteristics with the other great apes
that the earliest great apes had. This has been repeatedly pointed out
to you, but you keep denying that. You would rather put your hands over
your ears and say "No, no, no, no, I can't hear you." than admit that
you have nothing at all to rely on. As mentioned above, your argument
tells us that you are saying that you cannot trust the religion you are
selling.
>Evolutionists can only offer reasons they believe such a thing
>happened and can happen in the future. But the belief itself is
>impossible to observe in action - not science. Feel free to show
>that it is science by providing such a observable test-case.
There is evidence. You ignore the evidence. You insist on a standard of
evidence that is dishonest on your part instead of accepting the real
evidence that shows that evolution happens.
You, in short, are a liar. You don't believe in the God you claim to
believe in. You call Him a liar, too, with your arguments. Why would
anyone listen to your arguments? Why would a believer ever think that
you are one?
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: news:ia40h5hvgpj7f445a...@4ax.com:
So in other words you agree that a verified corpse being
resurrected three days later is a scientific medical
impossibility - observable, testable AND verifiable that such a
thing ~never happens~. My point exactly, Dave. They find that out
every time they try to start someone's heart that's just died -
most of the time they can't - and they realize they certainly can
~never~ do such a thing on a person who's heart has stopped for
three days, Dave.
So why do you dismiss what science says on that account to
instead have faith that God did what He said He did and rose
Christ from death three days later?
That's right - the just shall live by faith, Dave.
And therefore why do you then throw out what God says he did to
instead have more faith in what is NOT observable, NOT testable,
and NOT verifiable? (That populations of fish evolved over
generations into people). You have selected faith, Dave. You are
ashamed of the Words of God and even Jesus Christ, afraid to
stand up for the truth because others who are denying God will
mock you, perhaps.
Jesus said,
Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read,
that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
flesh?
Mark 8:34-38 KJV
34 And when he had called the people unto him with his
disciples also, he (Jesus) said unto them, Whosoever will come
after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow
me.
35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but
whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the
same shall save it.
36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the
whole world, and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
38 ~Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my
words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall
the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his
Father with the holy angels.~
: >
: >: Science can, however, verify that a
: >: corpse is actually a corpse and not just someone in a coma.
: >
: >In other words, that a person is dead and will never come back to
: >life. Medical, scientific fact for each such case that a person
: >is verified to be a corpse.
:
: Scientific fact would include evidence of a resurrection should one
: occur. Past resurrections are interesting but the evidence is gone.
:
: >
: >So again, do you now make science your god and dismiss that in
: >spite of it being "verified" a person is only a corpse, that
: >Jesus Christ can still perform a miracle in contradiction to
: >medical science saying it's a corpse and will not come back to
: >life?
:
: No, I don't dismiss ACTUAL miracles, just those that people try to foist
: on me without a shred of evidence.
Where's the evidence that Christ was risen from death, Dave?
: There is no evidence one way or the
: other about the resurrections reported in the Bible.
So you don't believe those happened, then, Dave?
: Not any more. But
: a universal global flood just 4500 years ago REQUIRES a great deal of
: positive physical evidence unless you wish to invoke miracles performed
: by the father of lies to conceal the fact.
I showed you all the evidence, Dave. You dismissed it all because
you don't have faith in God. To personally dismiss it does not
make the evidence go away.
:
:
: >: Science can,
: >: later, verify that the person is living again.
: >
: >Science has never shown a person who was "verified a corpse"
: >being brought back to life, Dave. But God wrote about such things
:
: Have you or your cult done so? I don't think so!
So God didn't write about it, Dave? It's not in the Bible? To
believe Christ rose from death by God is now to be a cult, Dave?
You don't seem to be a Christian if that's what you believe.
:
: >happening anyway. So again, it's medical scientific fact that
: >what God told us happened to Jesus and what Jesus did when he
: >raised others from being a corpse for days defies actual science.
: >Do you place faith in science in that regard, what is observable,
: >testable and verifiable: that a "verified corpse" dead for days
: >cannot be brought back to life? Or do you instead have faith in
: >the Word of God in what Jesus did to others and what happened to
: >Jesus Himself?
: >
: >
: >: Science does not NEED to
: >: explain it to verify this much. Now whether the miracle is the
: >: result of action by your god or mine is something science cannot
: >: really rule on. Perhaps your god, the father of lies, can sometimes
: >: at least make it SEEM as though a resurrection has occurred. He can
: >: certainly make a devout, obdurate sinner SEEM (to a certain target
: >: audiebnce) to be an honest Christian, even when just about every
: >: sentence the person utters is a lie! YOU are living proof of that
: >: much!
: >:
: >: Do you notice that resurrections actually DO produce scientiic
: >: evidence when/if they occur?
: >
: >Dave, science has never had a "verified corpse" come back from
: >death three days later. To science, such a thing is impossible.
:
: No, to science such a thing is UNKNOWN.
Yes, to science such a thing is impossible. Science tries to find
a way to get people's hearts beating again after they've stopped,
Dave - they realize such a thing cannot be done, especially after
being dead for three days.
: >
: >
: >: You have a dead body, then you have a live person.
: >: Science can verify both these conditions and can make tests to ensure
: >: that it is the same body--IF scientists have access to the data.
: >:
: >: A global flood would leave a HUGE amount of physical
: >: evidence--physical evidence
: >
: >Yes, like for starters an abundance of fossils of sea creatures
: >high above sea level? Like a huge canyon? Like a huge amount of
:
: Actually, yes. A global flood should have buried fossils of ALL types in
: a single flood layer. Your people have yet to designate a coherent flood
: stratigraphy.
Actually they have, Dave. It's all in the articles you continue
to ignore answer all the questions you pretend remain unanswered.
If you want more answers, read the articles. You know everything
you need to know, including that which you don't want to know,
Dave. Good luck.
:
:
:
: >varied fossils all being buried in the same geological strata
Dave Oldridge
news:593hh5p1uomrkuqs6...@4ax.com:
>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:52:17 -0800 (PST), AusShane
><qua...@live.com> wrote:
>
>: ">It seems quite clear you've made science your god where origins
>: >is concerned (idolatry to say the least), yet science is impotent
>: >to deal with any origin theory, as none of them are repeatable or
>: >testable or verifiable. I would think twice and pray deeply to "
>:
>: You use this mantra time and time again. Its still as vague as the
>: time you first trolled it out.
>:
>: Please feel free to cite any of the multiple examples of the evidence
>: that has been presented to you as support for the theory of evolution
>: that has not been observable/testable/repeatable??
>:
>: You have been given numerous examples from a wide field of
>: disciplines.
>:
>: Again feel free to cite any of the physical evidence presented that
>: has not been either observable/testable/repeatable.
>
>They only thing anyone's been given is what someone ~believes~
>about what they observe - but then the belief itself is not
>observable, not testable and not verifiable.
>
>Please feel free to offer an observation of the fish to man
>version of evolution. For example: populations of [flies]
>evolving, over generations, into animas that are no longer
>[flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal you
>wish.
University libraries are full of the observations that support this. You
are lying when you imply there is no evidence for it. Lying your way
into hell where your master, the father of lies will torture you forever.
You must be some kind of masochist!
Universal gravitation is just as impossible to observe in action.
But I don't see you idiots attacking the "godless gravitationalists."
The REAL problem here is that you just cannot accept the fact that you're
a mammal.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
news:28nkh5p4gmfbpkqth...@4ax.com:
>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:25:25 GMT, Dave Oldridge
><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
[spooge deleted]
>: Science doesn't deny miracles.
>: Science just demands evidence for them.
>: The next time you have evidence of a resurrection, feel free to
>: submit it to the medical journals.
>
>So in other words you agree that a verified corpse being
>resurrected three days later is a scientific medical
>impossibility - observable, testable AND verifiable that such a
>thing ~never happens~. My point exactly, Dave. They find that out
>every time they try to start someone's heart that's just died -
>most of the time they can't - and they realize they certainly can
>~never~ do such a thing on a person who's heart has stopped for
>three days, Dave.
Apparently, reading for meaning is not a skill you acquired in your Bible
school of lies. Either that or you are simply repeating this bit of
puerile sophistry as an attempt to excuse your lies.
>So why do you dismiss what science says on that account to
>instead have faith that God did what He said He did and rose
>Christ from death three days later?
Science does not say that Christ did not rise from the dead. Only that,
if He did, it was a miracle by the standards of science.
>That's right - the just shall live by faith, Dave.
YOU are neither just nor faithful and hence have never tested this claim!
>And therefore why do you then throw out what God says he did to
>instead have more faith in what is NOT observable, NOT testable,
>and NOT verifiable? (That populations of fish evolved over
>generations into people). You have selected faith, Dave. You are
>ashamed of the Words of God and even Jesus Christ, afraid to
>stand up for the truth because others who are denying God will
>mock you, perhaps.
The Bible is not God. YOU are not God. Your private interpretation of
scripture is not God. By deliberately and repeatedly violating God's
commandment against false witness, you have demonstrated that you HATE
God and have more faith in your disobedience and lies than you have in
anything else.
>Jesus said,
>Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
> 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read,
>that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
>female,
> 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
>mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
>flesh?
OK, but you are confusing ontology with phylogeny.
In short you don't understand one word of what you are quoting because
you see it only in the light of your flawed interpretations.
>
>Mark 8:34-38 KJV
> 34 And when he had called the people unto him with his
>disciples also, he (Jesus) said unto them, Whosoever will come
>after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow
>me.
> 35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but
>whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the
>same shall save it.
> 36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the
>whole world, and lose his own soul?
> 37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
> 38 ~Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my
>words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall
>the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his
>Father with the holy angels.~
But you ARE ashamed of Him. You continually put YOUR lies in His mouth.
Apparently you are still trying to gain the whole world by telling lies
about science in order to further your religious dominance over other
souls--potentially at the cost of your own.
>: >: Science can, however, verify that a
>: >: corpse is actually a corpse and not just someone in a coma.
>: >
>: >In other words, that a person is dead and will never come back to
>: >life. Medical, scientific fact for each such case that a person
>: >is verified to be a corpse.
>:
>: Scientific fact would include evidence of a resurrection should one
>: occur. Past resurrections are interesting but the evidence is gone.
>:
>: >
>: >So again, do you now make science your god and dismiss that in
>: >spite of it being "verified" a person is only a corpse, that
>: >Jesus Christ can still perform a miracle in contradiction to
>: >medical science saying it's a corpse and will not come back to
>: >life?
>:
>: No, I don't dismiss ACTUAL miracles, just those that people try to
>: foist on me without a shred of evidence.
>
>Where's the evidence that Christ was risen from death, Dave?
There's the rub. I have some; all YOU have is your blind belief.
>
>: There is no evidence one way or the
>: other about the resurrections reported in the Bible.
>
>So you don't believe those happened, then, Dave?
You say you do, but you weren't there. Why do you demand that science
provide evidence but let your religion have a pass because you CLAIM you
have "faith?"
>: a universal global flood just 4500 years ago REQUIRES a great deal of
>: positive physical evidence unless you wish to invoke miracles
>: performed by the father of lies to conceal the fact.
>
>I showed you all the evidence, Dave. You dismissed it all because
>you don't have faith in God. To personally dismiss it does not
>make the evidence go away.
You showed me lies and misrepresentations, not evidence.
Neither you nor any professional creationist has ever produced a
plausible stratigraphy or physics for a global flood 4500 years ago.
Lying about it isn't providing evidence.
>: >: Science can,
>: >: later, verify that the person is living again.
>: >
>: >Science has never shown a person who was "verified a corpse"
>: >being brought back to life, Dave. But God wrote about such things
God has not written anything except some words on stone tablets that you
MANIFESTLY do not believe and some words in the dust of Palestine, long
erased by wind and rain. Men have written words about God. Jesus'
disciples reported seeing Him alive after He was crucified. You either
believe the miracle or you don't.
Cretion science so-called claims there was a global flood and claims
FALSELY to have scientific evidence of it. A global flood caused by
miracles with the evidence then being erased by further miracles is
beyond the scope of science, but creationists claim to have SCIENTIFIC
evidence. They have yet to provide any. If they merely stated that they
believe it a divine miracle, then they would be thwarted in their
endeavour to wedge it inot school science curricula. In short,
creationism has been about lying about the science from the get-go. It
was a sin to begin with and as a movement rooted in sin it is a rotten
tree. Its proponents manifestly do NOT believe the teachings of their
Bible but only in their "right" to impose their false teachings about it
on everyone around them.
>:
>: Have you or your cult done so? I don't think so!
>
>So God didn't write about it, Dave? It's not in the Bible? To
God id not write the Bible. Who told you that He did?
>believe Christ rose from death by God is now to be a cult, Dave?
>You don't seem to be a Christian if that's what you believe.
No, to be a cult is to believe that lying about science in God's name is
an actual Christian witness and to believe that you MUST engage in such
lying to be "saved!" Saved from what? Intellectual honesty?
You need to learn more quantum physics and stop messing around in
pseudobiology.
>
>: >
>: >
>: >: You have a dead body, then you have a live person.
>: >: Science can verify both these conditions and can make tests to
>: >: ensure that it is the same body--IF scientists have access to the
>: >: data.
>: >:
>: >: A global flood would leave a HUGE amount of physical
>: >: evidence--physical evidence
>: >
>: >Yes, like for starters an abundance of fossils of sea creatures
>: >high above sea level? Like a huge canyon? Like a huge amount of
>:
>: Actually, yes. A global flood should have buried fossils of ALL
>: types in a single flood layer. Your people have yet to designate a
>: coherent flood stratigraphy.
>
>Actually they have, Dave. It's all in the articles you continue
THIS IS A FLAT LIE!!! I have tried for years to get creatio0nists to
come up with a coherent stratigraphy. Which layers are preflood? Which
are intraflood (i.e. laid down BY the flood) and which are postflood.
Can YOU tell me? You can't even point me to a web site that can!
>to ignore answer all the questions you pretend remain unanswered.
>If you want more answers, read the articles. You know everything
>you need to know, including that which you don't want to know,
>Dave. Good luck.
Lying about having answered questions you can't answer seems to be a
standard creationist tactic. Who teaches you to lie like that? Do you
honestly think that such a person (or spirit) is interested in your
spiritual welfare? If so, I have a couple of nice bridges in Halifa, NS.
Interested?
>:
>: >varied fossils all being buried in the same geological strata
>: >(the Cambrian Explosion)? And there's more.
>:
>: Name one mammal species found in the Cambrian.
The sound of crickets chirping...
You don't know of one.
>:
>:
>: >
>: >www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/worldwide-flood-evidenc
>: >e
Your are a bombastic, arrogant little fool of a liar who is going to keep
on sinning because you get a pat on the back from some bigger sinner even
than you and you will trade your immortal soul for that praise. What a
sucker you are!
You must have been the one born in your minute!
--
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
news:ia40h5hvgpj7f445a...@4ax.com:
>: You are missing the point. Resurrections are miracles. Science
>: cannot and does not try to explain them.
>
>Science denies them, Dave. Please show where science backs up the
>miracle of a person being "verified a corpse", where their heart
>has stopped beating, being brought back from being dead for days.
Science dosn't deny them. They are beyond the scope of science.
>
>: Science can, however, verify that a
>: corpse is actually a corpse and not just someone in a coma.
>
>In other words, that a person is dead and will never come back to
>life. Medical, scientific fact for each such case that a person
>is verified to be a corpse.
Science has no way of knowing if a corpse will come back to life as a
result of a miracle.
>So again, do you now make science your god and dismiss that in
>spite of it being "verified" a person is only a corpse, that
>Jesus Christ can still perform a miracle in contradiction to
>medical science saying it's a corpse and will not come back to
>life?
So you admit that "creation science" so-called is NOT science, even
though you have claimed that it is. You are hereby admitting that you
deliberately lied about that!
>
>
>: Science can,
>: later, verify that the person is living again.
>
>Science has never shown a person who was "verified a corpse"
>being brought back to life, Dave. But God wrote about such things
Well golly!
>happening anyway. So again, it's medical scientific fact that
Again with the "God wrote." Where is your evidence that God wrote
anything? Were you there? Did you see Him put pen to papyrus or
whatever? Or did you just take some PERSON'S word for it?
>what God told us happened to Jesus and what Jesus did when he
>raised others from being a corpse for days defies actual science.
Well, it seems you think God wrote the Bible. That idea is not found IN
the Bible, so where did you get it?
>Do you place faith in science in that regard, what is observable,
>testable and verifiable: that a "verified corpse" dead for days
>cannot be brought back to life? Or do you instead have faith in
>the Word of God in what Jesus did to others and what happened to
>Jesus Himself?
I know Jesus and I know what He did. That, in fact, is part of your
problem with me. I don't have to take your word for anything spiritual.
I have my own very good sources of information. Much better, apparently
than the ones you are following. Which is not a surprise because the
movement you are caught up in started as a lie devised to bypass the US
constitution's ban on heresies like yours being promulgated under
government auspices. And the tree is as rotten as its root.
You are not ann heretic because you don't accept the evidence for
evolution. You are an heretic because you teach people that they have to
join your campaign of lies about that evidence to be saved.
I won't join your campaign. I will see you in hell first. And I mean
that quite literally becasue that's the only place you can end up without
repenting the SIN of false witness.
>: Science does not NEED to
>: explain it to verify this much. Now whether the miracle is the
>: result of action by your god or mine is something science cannot
>: really rule on. Perhaps your god, the father of lies, can sometimes
>: at least make it SEEM as though a resurrection has occurred. He can
>: certainly make a devout, obdurate sinner SEEM (to a certain target
>: audiebnce) to be an honest Christian, even when just about every
>: sentence the person utters is a lie! YOU are living proof of that
>: much!
>:
>: Do you notice that resurrections actually DO produce scientiic
>: evidence when/if they occur?
>
>Dave, science has never had a "verified corpse" come back from
>death three days later. To science, such a thing is impossible.
Nope. Science couldn't explain it IF confronted with the evidence, but
neither could science deny the evidence. What you are saying is that
scientists have never been SHOWN evidence of such a miracle. YOU are
therefore claiming to believe it without any evidence whatever other than
what some people have told you. You really need to change your spiritual
priorities, son. Try actually learning how to pray effectively, THEN
tell other people about religion.
>
>
>: You have a dead body, then you have a live person.
>: Science can verify both these conditions and can make tests to ensure
>: that it is the same body--IF scientists have access to the data.
>:
>: A global flood would leave a HUGE amount of physical
>: evidence--physical evidence
>
>Yes, like for starters an abundance of fossils of sea creatures
>high above sea level? Like a huge canyon? Like a huge amount of
The sea creature we find are often extinct. The Grand Canyon is fairly
young (maybe 5 million years) but it cuts deep into older strata, bedded
on the eroded roots of mountains a half-billion years old.
>varied fossils all being buried in the same geological strata
>(the Cambrian Explosion)? And there's more.
Name one mammal found in the Cambrian.
>
>www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/worldwide-flood-evidence
>
>- Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean
>waters having flooded over the continents
Nope, even Leonardo da Vinci figured out that this was uplift, not
inundation.
>
>- Rapid burial of plants and animals
>
>- Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
>
>- Sediment transported long distances
>
>- Rapid or no erosion between strata
>
>- Many strata laid down in rapid succession
But the whole geological column is NOT laid down in rapid succession.
How do you get 15,000 alternating layers of turbidite and shale in rapid
succession? HOW rapid?
>One has to have faith in what God says is true to actually see
>the evidence of it happening, otherwise they are blinded to the
>obvious truth and start making up bizarre stories instead like,
>for example, fish once upon a time evolving over generations
>eventually into people.
I hage faith in what GOD says is true. What I don't have faith in is
your cult's private interpretation of scripture and their propensity to
lie and lie and lie about the physical evidence just to gain converts to
what is obviously a damned (literally) heresy!
Why should I have fai9th in Belial? When has he ever told the truth?
>
>Luke 10:21-22 KJV
>21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, "I thank
>thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid
>these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them
>unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
Apparently He has chosen to hide any trace of intellectual honesty from
you. At least YOU have chosen to have nothing to do with the idea.
>22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man
>knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is,
>but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him."
That was Jesus. YOU are not Jesus. YOU are not even His disciple.
>
>People that are wise and prudent in their own eyes remain blind.
Ahhh, so that is why you remain blind!
>
>: that simply does not exist. Creationists seem to need to lie
>: about what physical evidence DOES exist to justify their contention
>: that the flood was a literal, global event.
>
>You're not being truthful that there's no evidence, Dave. See
I am. You are not. You have NEVER BEEN TRUTHFUL i DOUBT IF IT'S
POSSIBLE TO BE TRUTHFUL AND NOT BE EXCOMMUNICATED FROM YOUR CULT!
>above. You just refuse to see it because you refuse to believe
>God did what He said He did. Huge difference. =(
I know what GOD did. I just don't believe you do.
>: You even distort Jesus' use of
>: the story into a presumed ratification of YOUR literal interpretation
>: when He evinces no such ratification.
>
>Well then using your logic, Jesus might very well not have
>literally existed or did what He said, either. Nor any of the
Whoa! I suppose that might be possible to a doubting heretic like YOU.
I KNOW JESUS. Apparently, for you, He is merely an excuse for your
unrepented sins.
>prophets. Nor the disciples. All just as easily allegories using
>your logic of "dismiss what is clearly written literally as just
>being an allegory so that we can just ignore it." More of what
>Satan would love for people to believe.
SATAN loves people to believe that they can cast God's express
commandments aside as mere suggestions. He ESPECIALLY loves people who
teach others that they MUST do this to be saved.
>But there is evidence to back up God doing exactly what He said
>He did. But since people don't want it to be true, they dismiss
>the evidence.
>
>Please read over Genesis again and take another look at the
>evidence and pray to God for the truth.
Genesis is Ezra's mythic title-deed to the Holy land. I know how to pray
for truth, but I have never got it by taking ancient myth and allegory
literally in defiance of direct physical evidence. Nor have I ever
gotten it by adopting doctrines that imply that God is a liar. I know
that liar-god. He is a FALSE GOD.
>
>Take care.
>
>: But then blasphemy was always the
>: final line of creationist defence. When the scientific evidence
>: cannot be dismissed with lies and distortions, then make God out to
>: be a deceiver. Of course I can understand that tendency. After all,
>: YOUR god IS a deceiver--the father of lies!
So do you wish to continue in your God-is-a-liar heresy or do you wish to
be a Christian? You cannot really do both.
The sound of crickets chirping!
You are a devout follower of hyour god, the father of lies. It is to him
that you will go in the end. Unless you repent.
--
Dave Oldridge+
gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
No, the analogy is what is flawed.
We know by repeatable observations and by test cases (i.e,
scientific fact) that a person can cross a street. So seeing a
picture of person on one side of the street and one of the person
on the other side of the street is accepted as evidence that a
person did in all likelihood walk across that street in that
case, because it has already been established as scientific by
observations and test cases that people cross streets!
A correct analogy to the fish to man version of evolution: a
picture of a wagon, a tricycle and a bicycle, then claiming one
evolved from the other (when no such thing has ever been
observed, and is impossible to show a test case of, for obvious
reasons). The rational response? "Show me a single observation or
test case of any wagons evolving into bicycles - until you do, it
remains a belief, and certainly not science" and hence the ~false
belief attached to those pictures~ are exposed as not being
science, but rather only something someone believes in.
: >
: > Please feel free to offer an observation of the fish to man
: > version of evolution. For example: populations of [flies]
: > evolving, over generations, into animas that are no longer
: > [flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal you
: > wish.
:
: You have been given the evidence over and over again,
No, I've been given beliefs on what evidence ~means to them~. But
the belief itself remains unobservable, and unable to be shown in
a test case - hence just a belief.
: but given your
: line of thought as expressed above, you will never believe what people
: tell you about such things, so why do you bother to ask?
To show that the beliefs they attach to said "evidence" remain
just beliefs - not only not fact, but not even science.
: >
: > Evolutionists can only offer reasons they believe such a thing
: > happened and can happen in the future. But the belief itself is
: > impossible to observe in action - not science. Feel free to show
: > that it is science by providing such a observable test-case.
:
: Numerous predictions have been made and confirmed that support the
: theory of evolution.
If predictions make something science, then you've just elevated
creation by God as science, as that belief predicts many things -
the Cambrian Explosion - sea life fossils on mountain tops - DNA
- homology (common designer) - to name a few. Not to mention it
was "predicted" that Israel would rise again as a nation, which
it did 1,900 years later.
But of course predictions mean nothing where science is
concerned. What means something where science is concered is what
is observation and/or a test case showing it happening.
Evolutionists have no trouble remembering this when God is
mentioned "show a single observation or test case of God creating
anything". Bingo. But suddenly the rules of what is science gets
changed to slip the fish to man version of evolution in. Just
more evidence to those who are open minded to think about it to
see how dishonest the religion of evolutionism can be.
:
: One example is that of the finding of the fossils of a creature named
: "Tiktaalik", the account of how these fossils were found is written in
: a book called "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin.
Beliefs on what fossils mean to them. Meanwhile those beliefs are
not observable as ever actually happening, and no test case can
be shown with such a thing happening - only their belief that it
happened by what they want those bones to mean to them, and what
they want it to mean to everyone else.
Not to mention even their beliefs have been refuted - but of
course they reject the refutation, merely attacking the
reputation of any that refute it.
:
: I suggest you read it at the earliest opportunity.
Devils Advocaat
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 01:44:41 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
>
Actually I mentioned three photographs, if there were only two you
really could not say that the person had crossed the street at that
particular location, as it could be that they had done other things,
such as walking away from the roadside to cross several other streets
to arrive on the other side of the photographed street, and so they
would not have crossed that particular street to get to the other
side.
>
> A correct analogy to the fish to man version of evolution: a
> picture of a wagon, a tricycle and a bicycle, then claiming one
> evolved from the other (when no such thing has ever been
> observed, and is impossible to show a test case of, for obvious
> reasons). The rational response? "Show me a single observation or
> test case of any wagons evolving into bicycles - until you do, it
> remains a belief, and certainly not science" and hence the ~false
> belief attached to those pictures~ are exposed as not being
> science, but rather only something someone believes in.
My analogy has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and
everything to do with your claim regarding what people believe
evidence means, after all if it is so easy to dismiss the evidence of
evolution, because according to you people who support that theory are
only expressing a belief as to what that evidence means, then anyone
could criticize any collection of evidence in any situation by using
the same flawed reasoning you have presented here.
And what would that do to our legislative systems, the scientific
method, and all other systems and processes in which evidence has to
be examined and conclusions have to be drawn?
>
> : >
> : > Please feel free to offer an observation of the fish to man
> : > version of evolution. For example: populations of [flies]
> : > evolving, over generations, into animas that are no longer
> : > [flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal you
> : > wish.
> :
> : You have been given the evidence over and over again,
>
> No, I've been given beliefs on what evidence ~means to them~. But
> the belief itself remains unobservable, and unable to be shown in
> a test case - hence just a belief.
Okay then, what is your interpretation of the series of fossils that
show animals that have different arrangements of bones in the lower
jaw and in the middle ear, that according to experts in the field
clearly show a progression in the evolution of pelycosaurs to
therapsids to mammals?
>
> : but given your
> : line of thought as expressed above, you will never believe what people
> : tell you about such things, so why do you bother to ask?
>
> To show that the beliefs they attach to said "evidence" remain
> just beliefs - not only not fact, but not even science.
Can you actually say without fear of contradiction that this is truly
the case, or is it what you want it to be because it appears to
threaten your personal religious position?
>
> : >
> : > Evolutionists can only offer reasons they believe such a thing
> : > happened and can happen in the future. But the belief itself is
> : > impossible to observe in action - not science. Feel free to show
> : > that it is science by providing such a observable test-case.
> :
> : Numerous predictions have been made and confirmed that support the
> : theory of evolution.
>
> If predictions make something science, then you've just elevated
> creation by God as science, as that belief predicts many things -
> the Cambrian Explosion - sea life fossils on mountain tops - DNA
> - homology (common designer) - to name a few. Not to mention it
> was "predicted" that Israel would rise again as a nation, which
> it did 1,900 years later.
I suggest you examine this introduction to the scientific method as
you clearly misunderstood what I meant by the word prediction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_scientific_method
Or perhaps you knew exactly what I meant, but have chosen to try and
twist my words to suit your personal world view.
>
> But of course predictions mean nothing where science is
> concerned. What means something where science is concered is what
> is observation and/or a test case showing it happening.
> Evolutionists have no trouble remembering this when God is
> mentioned "show a single observation or test case of God creating
> anything". Bingo. But suddenly the rules of what is science gets
> changed to slip the fish to man version of evolution in. Just
> more evidence to those who are open minded to think about it to
> see how dishonest the religion of evolutionism can be.
See above.
>
> :
> : One example is that of the finding of the fossils of a creature named
> : "Tiktaalik", the account of how these fossils were found is written in
> : a book called "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin.
>
> Beliefs on what fossils mean to them. Meanwhile those beliefs are
> not observable as ever actually happening, and no test case can
> be shown with such a thing happening - only their belief that it
> happened by what they want those bones to mean to them, and what
> they want it to mean to everyone else.
Why are you ignoring what I posted there?
I wasn't referring to what the fossils meant, I was referring to the
process by which the fossils were found, which is a completely
different thing.
And it seems to me you are desperate to avoid what I am trying to show
you.
Why is that?
>
> Not to mention even their beliefs have been refuted - but of
> course they reject the refutation, merely attacking the
> reputation of any that refute it.
Is this just your opinion, evasion, whatever?
As far as I know no beliefs have been refuted, and nor has Neil Shubin
attacked anyone in the way you claim.
Tread carefully, as such comments could land you in serious trouble if
that person ever became aware of them.
>
> :
> : I suggest you read it at the earliest opportunity.
I still suggest you read this book at your earliest opportunity and
take note of the processes by which they determined where such fossils
would most likely be found.
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
For libraries being "full of observations that support this,"
funny how you can never supply a single one - or that no one can
every time they are asked.
Please feel free to offer an observation of the fish to man
version of evolution. For example: populations of [flies]
evolving, over generations, into animas that are no longer
[flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal you
wish.
: You are lying
Dave Oldridge
news:ta73i5hlpnavo6crl...@4ax.com:
Funny how you HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED with such observations on numerous
occasions and have simply ignored the evidence and repeated your
deliberate lies. At least it would be funny if you weren't part of a
large conspiracy to turn your lies into illegal political action.
>
>Please feel free to offer an observation of the fish to man
>version of evolution. For example: populations of [flies]
>evolving, over generations, into animas that are no longer
>[flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal you
>wish.
Tiktaalik (step one in the process). Amphibia (fish in the larval stage
but tetrapods when adult). Seymouria (intermediate between amphibia and
reptiles). Therapsids (intermdiate between reptiles and mammals with a
record so cluttered the distinction between reptile and mammal is
arbitrary). Mammals of all types, including a phylogenetic series
connecting humans and chimps to an as-yet unidentified (in the fossil
record) common ancestor.
>: You are lying
>: when you imply there is no evidence for it. Lying your way
>: into hell where your master, the father of lies will torture you
>: forever.
>:
>: You must be some kind of masochist!
>:
>: Universal gravitation is just as impossible to observe in action.
>:
>: But I don't see you idiots attacking the "godless gravitationalists."
>:
>: The REAL problem here is that you just cannot accept the fact that
>: you're a mammal.
And cannot accept God's injunction to forbear from lying for political
advantage...
Like most every creationist I meet, you think you know better than God.
--
Dave Oldridge+
gabriel
Correct but doesn't change the fact that it's been observed and
test cases can be shown that people can cross the street. Whether
they are right or not in this case is irrelevant - such a feat
has been observed and test cases can be shown. The point.
> >
> > A correct analogy to the fish to man version of evolution: a
> > picture of a wagon, a tricycle and a bicycle, then claiming one
> > evolved from the other (when no such thing has ever been
> > observed, and is impossible to show a test case of, for obvious
> > reasons). The rational response? "Show me a single observation or
> > test case of any wagons evolving into bicycles - until you do, it
> > remains a belief, and certainly not science" and hence the ~false
> > belief attached to those pictures~ are exposed as not being
> > science, but rather only something someone believes in.
>
> My analogy has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and
> everything to do with your claim regarding what people believe
> evidence means, after all if it is so easy to dismiss the evidence of
> evolution, because according to you people who support that theory are
> only expressing a belief as to what that evidence means, then anyone
> could criticize any collection of evidence in any situation by using
> the same flawed reasoning you have presented here.
>
Sorry but it's not flawed to point out the ~fact~ that when what
someone believes evidence means is something that has never been
observed as actually happening in the entire recorded history of
the human race, and is impossible to show in any test case as
actually happening, such a belief does not qualify as science.
That's a case of a person being a free thinker.
>
> And what would that do to our legislative systems, the scientific
> method, and all other systems and processes in which evidence has to
> be examined and conclusions have to be drawn?
>
Not at all. The conclusions are of events that have been observed
in the past and test cases can be shown of: murders, houses
burning down, crimes being committed, and so on. So it makes
sense to look at evidence to see if ~another~ such event has
taken place again in a specific situation, even if we haven't
witnessed that particular occurrence - we've still witnessed
identical occurrences, and can show test cases of such
occurrences as being possible, so the investigation makes sense.
Contrast that with the fish to man version of evolution: never
once observed, and not possible to show a test case of it
happening. Hence it's not science to claim it happened because
you want to believe it did. Being observable and/or showing test
cases of it happening is what makes it science.
> >
> > : >
> > : > Please feel free to offer an observation of the fish to man
> > : > version of evolution. For example: populations of [flies]
> > : > evolving, over generations, into animas that are no longer
> > : > [flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal you
> > : > wish.
> > :
> > : You have been given the evidence over and over again,
> >
> > No, I've been given beliefs on what evidence ~means to them~. But
> > the belief itself remains unobservable, and unable to be shown in
> > a test case - hence just a belief.
>
> Okay then, what is your interpretation of the series of fossils that
> show animals that have different arrangements of bones in the lower
> jaw and in the middle ear, that according to experts in the field
> clearly show a progression in the evolution of pelycosaurs to
> therapsids to mammals?
>
It's their belief that it shows a progression, and it's their
belief that this progression means they evolved from each other.
Meanwhile, the obvious question that exposes it for not being
science or fact: ever observe that happening? No. Can they show a
test case of that happening? No. Not science. We can only believe
what they want us to believe. They can only offer reasons they
have faith in their beliefs. Welcome to religion. But of course
they are free to believe whatever they wish. Just calling them on
the dishonest statement that such a belief passes for scientific
fact, when it's truthfully neither.
> >
> > : but given your
> > : line of thought as expressed above, you will never believe what people
> > : tell you about such things, so why do you bother to ask?
> >
> > To show that the beliefs they attach to said "evidence" remain
> > just beliefs - not only not fact, but not even science.
>
> Can you actually say without fear of contradiction that this is truly
> the case, or is it what you want it to be because it appears to
> threaten your personal religious position?
>
I can say it without fear of contradiction because they cannot
back up their claim by showing actual observations of such a
thing happening, or a test case showing it happening. Science is
a useful thing. Such beliefs as the fish to man version of
evolution are not even remotely scientific.
Can you actually say without fear of condemnation that there
truly is no intelligent designer, that there truly is no God, or
is it that you don't want there to be One because it would
threaten your lifestyle of no accountability and do whatever you
wish and that you might actually be accountable to an intelligent
designer?
Psalms 53:1 KJV
1 To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of
David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt
are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that
doeth good.
Romans 1:17-25 KJV
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from
faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in
them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not
as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an
image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted
beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through
the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies
between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped
and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for
ever. Amen.
> >
> > : >
> > : > Evolutionists can only offer reasons they believe such a thing
> > : > happened and can happen in the future. But the belief itself is
> > : > impossible to observe in action - not science. Feel free to show
> > : > that it is science by providing such a observable test-case.
> > :
> > : Numerous predictions have been made and confirmed that support the
> > : theory of evolution.
> >
> > If predictions make something science, then you've just elevated
> > creation by God as science, as that belief predicts many things -
> > the Cambrian Explosion - sea life fossils on mountain tops - DNA
> > - homology (common designer) - to name a few. Not to mention it
> > was "predicted" that Israel would rise again as a nation, which
> > it did 1,900 years later.
>
> I suggest you examine this introduction to the scientific method as
> you clearly misunderstood what I meant by the word prediction:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_scientific_method
>
> Or perhaps you knew exactly what I meant, but have chosen to try and
> twist my words to suit your personal world view.
>
I understand it fine. It seems you don't seem to understand what
it means that science is only that which is observable and/or
what can be shown in test cases as actually happening - not just
beliefs about what you imagine happened without ever showing it
or showing test cases of it happening for us to verify it.
> >
> > But of course predictions mean nothing where science is
> > concerned. What means something where science is concered is what
> > is observation and/or a test case showing it happening.
> > Evolutionists have no trouble remembering this when God is
> > mentioned "show a single observation or test case of God creating
> > anything". Bingo. But suddenly the rules of what is science gets
> > changed to slip the fish to man version of evolution in. Just
> > more evidence to those who are open minded to think about it to
> > see how dishonest the religion of evolutionism can be.
>
> See above.
>
Same.
> >
> > :
> > : One example is that of the finding of the fossils of a creature named
> > : "Tiktaalik", the account of how these fossils were found is written in
> > : a book called "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin.
> >
> > Beliefs on what fossils mean to them. Meanwhile those beliefs are
> > not observable as ever actually happening, and no test case can
> > be shown with such a thing happening - only their belief that it
> > happened by what they want those bones to mean to them, and what
> > they want it to mean to everyone else.
>
> Why are you ignoring what I posted there?
>
> I wasn't referring to what the fossils meant, I was referring to the
> process by which the fossils were found, which is a completely
> different thing.
>
More reasons why you have faith in your beliefs. Doesn't change
the fact that the beliefs themselves remain unobservable, and
unable to be shown in test cases, which you continue to ignore.
=(
>
> And it seems to me you are desperate to avoid what I am trying to show
> you.
>
> Why is that?
>
What's to avoid? It was already addressed, even if you want to
pretend it was not.
And you have yet to show a single observation or test case of
your fish to man version of evolution in action, as I said no one
has. Why is it you continue to avoid that truth? =(
> >
> > Not to mention even their beliefs have been refuted - but of
> > course they reject the refutation, merely attacking the
> > reputation of any that refute it.
>
> Is this just your opinion, evasion, whatever?
>
> As far as I know no beliefs have been refuted, and nor has Neil Shubin
> attacked anyone in the way you claim.
>
None? You sure?
And no, I mean they "evolutionists" (not all of them, of course,
but many) attack the reputation of those who refute their claims,
let alone dare even admit they don't agree with them without even
refuting them. Scientists have lost their jobs that had nothing
to do with the fish to man version of evolution for merely
pointing out they don't believe in it like evolutionists do.
Fact.
See "expelled" for some of those examples. Simple google searches
show others.
>
> Tread carefully, as such comments could land you in serious trouble if
> that person ever became aware of them.
> >
> > :
> > : I suggest you read it at the earliest opportunity.
>
> I still suggest you read this book at your earliest opportunity and
> take note of the processes by which they determined where such fossils
> would most likely be found.
>
Please take note that what they believe still cannot be observed
and still cannot be shown in actual test cases. This alone
completely exposes it for not being science, and for being
nothing more than a belief (and for actually being a lie when a
person claims it's scientific or fact, let alone both).
If you can provide an observation or a test case of your fish to
man version of evolution actually happening, please post it. The
fact is there's not one such case. In the end you are following a
religion, and can only offer reasons you have faith in those
beliefs. =(
Take care.
Devils Advocaat
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:27:34 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
>
So you still insist that all you have been offered is other people's
belief in what the evidence shows with respect to evolutionary theory.
Yet you are unable to offer any viable alternative interpretation of
the same evidence. It seems to me that you are wasting my time and
effort as well as that of others who have constantly shown you where
the evidence leads. And still you insist that we have shown you
nothing except a belief rather than a valid conclusion. And this makes
me wonder why you continually post the same, or similar demands over
and over again, when it is evident from past behaviour on your own
part that you will never, ever listen to or accept what you are being
told. Perhaps, and this is only a suggestion, you should go and study
some genuine text books on the subject of evolutionary theory, and do
so with an open mind.
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Not an observation of it actually happening, Dave. Just a belief
attached to dead bones and fossils on what evolutionists want
everyone else to believe it means. I asked for an actual
observation of it happening, or test case showing it happening.
> Amphibia (fish in the larval stage
> but tetrapods when adult).
Not an observation of it actually happening, Dave. Just a belief
attached to dead bones and fossils on what evolutionists want
everyone else to believe it means. I asked for an actual
observation of it happening, or test case showing it happening.
> Seymouria (intermediate between amphibia and
> reptiles).
Not an observation of it actually happening, Dave. Just a belief
attached to dead bones and fossils on what evolutionists want
everyone else to believe it means. I asked for an actual
observation of it happening, or test case showing it happening.
> Therapsids (intermdiate between reptiles and mammals with a
> record so cluttered the distinction between reptile and mammal is
> arbitrary).
Not an observation of it actually happening, Dave. Just a belief
attached to dead bones and fossils on what evolutionists want
everyone else to believe it means. I asked for an actual
observation of it happening, or test case showing it happening.
> Mammals of all types, including a phylogenetic series
> connecting humans and chimps to an as-yet unidentified (in the fossil
> record) common ancestor.
Not an observation of it actually happening, Dave. Just a belief
attached to dead bones and fossils on what evolutionists want
everyone else to believe it means. I asked for an actual
observation of it happening, or test case showing it happening.
So again, Dave - provide a single observation or test case of
your version of evolution actually happening. Not dead bones and
fossils with the attached belief that it did. You still haven't
provided a single one (no one can) - just bones, beliefs, and
reasons why you have more faith in those beliefs than you have in
God.
Devils Advocaat
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:40:19 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>
>
>
>
>
> > gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in> > ><doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > >: gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >:news:593hh5p1uomrkuqs6...@4ax.com:
> > >:
> > >: >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:52:17 -0800 (PST), AusShane
The process by which the fossil of Tiktaalik was found is described in
Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish", and that process is firmly
established in the scientific method. Are you suggesting that the
scientific method is flawed?
>
> > Amphibia (fish in the larval stage
> > but tetrapods when adult).
>
> Not an observation of it actually happening, Dave. Just a belief
> attached to dead bones and fossils on what evolutionists want
> everyone else to believe it means. I asked for an actual
> observation of it happening, or test case showing it happening.
So are you claiming now that no one has seen the transition in
amphibians from a free swimming fish-like larval stage to the tetrapod
adult form except in the fossil record?
How about frogs and toads?
>
> > Seymouria (intermediate between amphibia and
> > reptiles).
>
> Not an observation of it actually happening, Dave. Just a belief
> attached to dead bones and fossils on what evolutionists want
> everyone else to believe it means. I asked for an actual
> observation of it happening, or test case showing it happening.
Are you asking for evidence of such transitions happening right now?
You want evidence of speciation in other words. Right?
>
> > Therapsids (intermdiate between reptiles and mammals with a
> > record so cluttered the distinction between reptile and mammal is
> > arbitrary).
>
> Not an observation of it actually happening, Dave. Just a belief
> attached to dead bones and fossils on what evolutionists want
> everyone else to believe it means. I asked for an actual
> observation of it happening, or test case showing it happening.
Are you asking for evidence of such transitions happening right now?
You want evidence of speciation in other words. Right?
>
> > Mammals of all types, including a phylogenetic series
> > connecting humans and chimps to an as-yet unidentified (in the fossil
> > record) common ancestor.
>
> Not an observation of it actually happening, Dave. Just a belief
> attached to dead bones and fossils on what evolutionists want
> everyone else to believe it means. I asked for an actual
> observation of it happening, or test case showing it happening.
Are you asking for evidence of such transitions happening right now?
You want evidence of speciation in other words. Right?
>
> So again, Dave - provide a single observation or test case of
> your version of evolution actually happening. Not dead bones and
> fossils with the attached belief that it did. You still haven't
> provided a single one (no one can) - just bones, beliefs, and
> reasons why you have more faith in those beliefs than you have in
> God.
>
You really don't want the evidence you are asking for do you?
It seems to me that what you really want is for the evidence to go
away.
The evidence isn't just fossils, as you know.
How about the evidence from embryology?
How about the evidence from comparative anatomy?
How about the evidence from genetic studies?
How about the evidence from geological distribution?
So come on, how do you dismiss all of that evidence?
Which you have been shown time and time again, but choose to reject
and ignore.
Dave Oldridge
news:o24ri5l41r19uaa97...@4ax.com:
You lie. These ARE observations of what remained after the events
happened. And you libel the expert paleontologists who have interpreted
them scientifically. You are a deliberate obdurate sinner peddling your
sins to a corrupted "public" in the name of God. You are headed straight
to hell, whether you acknowledge it or not.
>
>
>So again, Dave - provide a single observation or test case of
>your version of evolution actually happening. Not dead bones and
>fossils with the attached belief that it did. You still haven't
>provided a single one (no one can) - just bones, beliefs, and
>reasons why you have more faith in those beliefs than you have in
>God
See above. I REJECT your claim to speak for God. You are not even smart
enough to speak for yourself.
>> >: You are lying
>> >: when you imply there is no evidence for it. Lying your way
>> >: into hell where your master, the father of lies will torture you
>> >: forever.
>> >:
>> >: You must be some kind of masochist!
>> >:
>> >: Universal gravitation is just as impossible to observe in action.
>> >:
>> >: But I don't see you idiots attacking the "godless
gravitationalists."
>> >:
>> >: The REAL problem here is that you just cannot accept the fact that
>> >: you're a mammal.
>>
>> And cannot accept God's injunction to forbear from lying for political
>> advantage...
>>
>> Like most every creationist I meet, you think you know better than
God.
When you decide to acknowledge God instead of pretending to be Him, let
us know. I am empowered to grant you absolution if you do repent.
--
Dave Oldridge+
gabriel
See that's the problem. Even though it's fact beliefs of
evolutionism are not observable actually happening, and cannot be
shown in any test cases actually happening, evolutionists fall
back on "well it's the best belief we have, so unless you can
come up with a better belief, we're going to call it scientific
fact anyway". See that doesn't solve the *fact* that the beliefs
of evolutionism are not observable actually happening, and cannot
be shown in any test cases: i.e., are not science. It only shows
what I've said in the past: no origins theory can qualify as
*science*, because no such theory will be observable, nor able to
be shown in test cases.
The fact that you cannot provide a single observation nor a test
case of evolutionism in action prove the point. I'm sorry but you
can't call evolutionism science just because you don't like any
other belief on what the evidence means to you. This is about
science, not religion.
Devils Advocaat
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:39:03 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
>
> > > David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt
> > > are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that
> > > doeth good.
>
> > > Romans 1:17-25 KJV
> > > faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
> > > ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
> > > unrighteousness;
> > > them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
> > > world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
> > > made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
> > > without excuse:
> > > as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
> > > imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> > > � � 23 �And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an
> > > image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted
> > > beasts, and creeping things.
> > > the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies
> > > between themselves:
Let's see now.
The horse and the donkey can mate, and occasionally foal, but those
foals that survive are sterile.
The fact that this happens supports the contention that these two
species share a common ancestor.
What would be your scientific explanation for it given that you don't
accept the theory of evolution?
Human chromosome 2 clearly possesses telomeric sequences in its
central region as well as at its ends.
It also possesses one functional centromere and one nonfunctional
centromere.
The chimpanzee has two chromosomes which when laid end to end present
the same banding pattern as human chromosome 2.
And the centromeres of these two chromosomes line up with the
functional and nonfunctional centromeres of the human chromosome 2.
This evidence supports the contention that humans and chimpanzees
share a common ancestor.
What would be your scientific explanation for this given that you
don't accept the theory of evolution?
> > Yet you are unable to offer any viable alternative interpretation of
> > the same evidence. It seems to me that you are wasting my time and
> > effort as well as that of others who have constantly shown you where
> > the evidence leads. And still you insist that we have shown you
> > nothing except a belief rather than a valid conclusion. And this makes
> > me wonder why you continually post the same, or similar demands over
> > and over again, when it is evident from past behaviour on your own
> > part that you will never, ever listen to or accept what you are being
> > told. Perhaps, and this is only a suggestion, you should go and study
> > some genuine text books on the subject of evolutionary theory, and do
> > so with an open mind.
Evasion noted.
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
No, these are observations of what you *believe* is the remains
of events you merely *believe* happened. It's still not an
observation of that *actually happening* (that's what an
observation means), and it's not a test case showing it
happening. Not science.
So again, please provide a single observation or test case of
your version of evolution actually happening. Not dead bones and
fossils with the attached belief of what it means to you.
Dave Oldridge
news:fmmnj55tvhlr1m0rv...@4ax.com:
You are confused (or deliberately confusing the issue). Past events have
present consequences. We can often deduce a great deal about the events
from an eamination of those consequences.
>
>So again, please provide a single observation or test case of
>your version of evolution actually happening. Not dead bones and
>fossils with the attached belief of what it means to you.
Actually, you are living proof, being somewhere between a chordate worm
and a spineless fish on the scale of things (sarcasm intentional).
>
>> And you libel the expert paleontologists who have interpreted
>> them scientifically. You are a deliberate obdurate sinner peddling
>> your sins to a corrupted "public" in the name of God. You are headed
>> straight to hell, whether you acknowledge it or not.
Since you didn't acknowledge it, I will reiterate. You seem to WANT to
go to hell and be with your master, Belial forever. So be it.
Repent,son.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
news:fmmnj55tvhlr1m0rv...@4ax.com:
Until you provide a single valid reason for rejecting this scientific
evidence and libelling (against God's commandments) the expert
paleontologists who have studied it, you are simply continuing your SIN.
>
>So again, please provide a single observation or test case of
>your version of evolution actually happening. Not dead bones and
>fossils with the attached belief of what it means to you.
I reject your demand. You know that it's unreasonable and impossible to
fulfil and you PRETEND that this is a problem for the science and for the
scientists whom ypou libel in defiance of the deit you PRETEND to
worship.
Belial is going to have fun with you. You have given yourself over to
him completely.
>> And you libel the expert paleontologists who have interpreted
>> them scientifically. You are a deliberate obdurate sinner peddling
>> your sins to a corrupted "public" in the name of God. You are headed
>> straight to hell, whether you acknowledge it or not.
I see you just ignored this part. Your master Belial is probably
beginning to fume at your ineptitude in his service.
Creationism consists of a movement that tries to abuse political power to
have lies told to children. And the followers of this ABOMINATION teach
their children to lie and teach others that you have to luie to be save.
That. sir, is heresy by rules older than the Christian Church. By
teaching such an abomination you show that your are apart from and
against that Church--a servant of antichrist.
Oh, you can keep making up your ridiculous rules about how YOU say
science is supposed to proceed and keep demanding that scientists follow
them--right up until your master Belial becomes the TOTAL master of your
soul and the free will you so despised has been stripped from you, along
with any hope of communion with God.
You have been repeatedly warned. You are still in rebellion against
Almighty God and you still preach and teach your abomination. How do you
expect your pathetic excuse for a soul to even exist in God's direct
presence? Your present state is such that you will flee to hell just to
avoid admitting your errors!
--
Dave Oldridge+