A Myth about Creation: Creationists Don't Believe Species Change
gabriel
Myth 10: Creationists Don�t Believe Species Change
A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
of species (i.e., species don�t change). And since species
obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
the first place.
Prior to the publication of Darwin�s On the Origin of Species
especially, some Christians did claim that species were
immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
not mean the same thing then as it does now�nor was there ever
any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
that species do change�but only within the original kinds God
created roughly 6,000 years ago.
Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
evolution�they remind us that God put enough information in the
genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed
world.
More information:
Fixity of species:
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species
Do Species Change:
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-change
Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, oh my!
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/zonkeys-ligers-wholphins
Bara-what ?
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/bara-what
RichTravsky
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
>
> Myth 10: Creationists DonīŋŊt Believe Species Change
>
> A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> the first place.
>
> especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
>
> Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> that species do changeīŋŊbut only within the original kinds God
> created roughly 6,000 years ago.
Explain all those fossils...
> Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how human
and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
> evolutionīŋŊthey remind us that God put enough information in the
Frankie Lee
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat...
***Micro-evolution of species,no Christian has problem with that.From
Monkey to man,that is blaspheme.
Frankie Lee
> gabriel wrote:
>
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat...
>
> > Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change
>
> > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> > the first place.
>
> > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
>
> > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
>
> Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
>
> > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
>
> Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
>
> > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
>
> Explain all those fossils...
>
> > Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> > in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
>
> Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how human
> and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
>
> > genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed
> > world.
Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how
human
and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
**You see,your assumptions are flawed.The Bible is already a huge
collection,no reason to make it even bigger or like an
Encyclopedias.The Bible shouldn't have explain the details of
science,or meticulous details which is not relevant to the main
subject.
Human are all creatures of God,the Bible said so.A monkey could
walk,and human also could walk.The functions of movements in our limbs
perhaps also bore resemblance.O.1 % different,is hell alot,in science
concept.
Juan M
"Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6322acb-3159-4270...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
It is the brains of the Creationists that are incapable of change.
Pat Magroyne
> God
> created roughly 6,000 years ago.
LOL
RichTravsky
Oh look, it's Wanker Lee. Glad to see you admit the bible is no science
document and should not be relied upon as such.
RT
gabriel
<patma...@null.net> wrote:
Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
submitted to scientists to be dated with their faulty dating
methods: they came back with dates of 1.1 million years when
rocks were only a few decades old.
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: >
: > http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
: >
: > Myth 10: Creationists DonīŋŊt Believe Species Change
: >
: > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
: > of species (i.e., species donīŋŊt change). And since species
: > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
: > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
: > the first place.
: >
: > Prior to the publication of DarwinīŋŊs On the Origin of Species
: > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
: > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
: > not mean the same thing then as it does nowīŋŊnor was there ever
: > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
: >
: > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
:
: Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
:
: > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
:
: Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
:
: > that species do changeīŋŊbut only within the original kinds God
: > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
:
: Explain all those fossils...
Fossils don't come with tags indicating how old they are. The
scientists use dating methods rife with assumptions. Google the
RATE group and how they submitted rocks merely a few decades old,
and they came back dating them over a million years old.
:
: > Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
: > in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
:
: Where does the bible explain mutations?
The Bible doesn't have to explain every detail of every thing we
demand that it does, else it proves something is not true.
: Where do they explain how human
: and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
Alleles are there to represent features of the animal, and that
since chimps and humans have similar features: eyes, ears, noses,
mouths, brains, hearts, lungs, intestines, stomachs, arms, legs,
hands, and on and on, that it follows they'd have DNA similarity.
Meanwhile common designer is another possible explanation.
The Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record proves they couldn't
have evolved from a common ancestor once upon a time. The
Cambrian Explosion falsifies the fish to man version of
evolution, but of course nothing will cause them to abandon their
attack on God.
But *any* beliefs about what fossils means to people concerning
origins cannot qualify as science as those beliefs are not
observable, not testable and not verifiable - one can only
believe what they want us to believe about them.
:
: > evolutionīŋŊthey remind us that God put enough information in the
gabriel
<juanmSP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: "Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Truth doesn't change. What would you say to someone who called
you dogmatic, closed-minded and incapable of change because you
cling to the truth that 2 + 2 = 4? Exactly the point.
:
:
:
:
:
Sid9
"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ogusg51n8saun8ctq...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : >
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
> : >
> : >
> : > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> : > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> : > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> : > the first place.
> : >
> : > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> : > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> : > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
> : >
> : > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
> :
> : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> :
> : > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
> :
> : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> :
> : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> :
> : Explain all those fossils...
>
> Fossils don't come with tags indicating how old they are. The
> scientists use dating methods rife with assumptions. Google the
> RATE group and how they submitted rocks merely a few decades old,
> and they came back dating them over a million years old.
.
.
.
.
.
.........................
Where does one find rocks a "few decades old"?
.........................
.
.
.
.
.
>
> :
> : > Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> : > in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
> :
> : Where does the bible explain mutations?
>
> The Bible doesn't have to explain every detail of every thing we
> demand that it does, else it proves something is not true.
>
>
> : Where do they explain how human
> : and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
>
> Alleles are there to represent features of the animal, and that
> since chimps and humans have similar features: eyes, ears, noses,
> mouths, brains, hearts, lungs, intestines, stomachs, arms, legs,
> hands, and on and on, that it follows they'd have DNA similarity.
>
> Meanwhile common designer is another possible explanation.
>
> The Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record proves they couldn't
> have evolved from a common ancestor once upon a time. The
> Cambrian Explosion falsifies the fish to man version of
> evolution, but of course nothing will cause them to abandon their
> attack on God.
>
> But *any* beliefs about what fossils means to people concerning
> origins cannot qualify as science as those beliefs are not
> observable, not testable and not verifiable - one can only
> believe what they want us to believe about them.
>
>
> :
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat...
>
> Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change
>
> A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity
> Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
> evolution
Ahhhh, pulling out ol'-faithful (heh) "fudge the species-kind
argument" again, I see, along with a good dollop of the "evolution-is-
not-evolution" mantra.
Wild Bill
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:35:35 -0800, "Juan M"
> <juanmSP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> : "Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> :
> news:f6322acb-3159-4270...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> : On Nov 8, 12:48 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> : > gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : >
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat...
> : >
> : > > Myth 10: Creationists Don't Believe Species Change
> : >
> : > > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> : > > of species (i.e., species don't change). And since species
> : > > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> : > > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> : > > the first place.
> : >
> : > > Prior to the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species
> : > > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> : > > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> : > > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
> : >
> : > > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
> : >
> : > Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> : >
> : > > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
> : >
> : > Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> : >
> : > > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> : >
> : > Explain all those fossils...
> : >
> : > > Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
> : > > in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
> : >
> : > Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how
> human
> : > and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
> : >
> : > > genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed
> : > > world.
> :
> :
> : Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how
> : human
> : and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
> :
> : **You see,your assumptions are flawed.The Bible is already a huge
> : collection,no reason to make it even bigger or like an
> : Encyclopedias.The Bible shouldn't have explain the details of
> : science,or meticulous details which is not relevant to the main
> : subject.
> :
> : Human are all creatures of God,the Bible said so.A monkey could
> : walk,and human also could walk.The functions of movements in our limbs
> : perhaps also bore resemblance.O.1 % different,is hell alot,in science
> : concept.
> :
> :
> : It is the brains of the Creationists that are incapable of change.
>
> Truth doesn't change. What would you say to someone who called
> you dogmatic, closed-minded and incapable of change because you
> cling to the truth that 2 + 2 = 4? Exactly the point.
Are you really able to add that far, Gabriel? Gosh...I'm impressed!
>
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
Bob LeChevalier
Mathematicians have no problem defining a system wherein 2+2 does not
equal 4. For one thing, go to base 3, where there is no such thing as
"4", but there is such a thing as 2.
Traditional arithmetic is the result of certain definitions and rules,
which are used because they are useful in the real world.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
RichTravsky
Talk about moving the goalposts around...
RichTravsky
gabriel wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : > http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
> : >
> : > Myth 10: Creationists Don�t Believe Species Change
> : >
> : > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> : > of species (i.e., species don�t change). And since species
> : > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> : > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> : > the first place.
> : >
> : > Prior to the publication of Darwin�s On the Origin of Species
> : > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> : > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> : > not mean the same thing then as it does now�nor was there ever
> : > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
> : >
> : > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
> :
> : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> :
> : > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
> :
> : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> :
> : > that species do change�but only within the original kinds God
> : > evolution�they remind us that God put enough information in the
RichTravsky
>
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
> <patma...@null.net> wrote:
>
> : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : > God
> : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> :
> : LOL
>
> Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
RichTravsky
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:35:35 -0800, "Juan M"
> <juanmSP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : "Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
An evolution is the truth.
RichTravsky
> Where does one find rocks a "few decades old"?
You have to squint really hard...
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: >
: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
: > <patma...@null.net> wrote:
: >
: > : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : > God
: > : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
: > :
: > : LOL
: >
: > Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
:
: The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
www.nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html
www.icr.org/article/radioisotopes-age-earth/
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination
:
: > of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: Hey. Cupcake. Learn how to post. I didn't write any of this.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
...
: Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
...
: Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
...
: Explain all those fossils...
...
:
: Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how human
: and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
...
Well unless someone else posted it using your account, the above
is what was posted with your account name.
:
: gabriel wrote:
: >
: > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
: > <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : gabriel wrote:
: > : >
: > : > http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
: > : >
: > : > Myth 10: Creationists DonīŋŊt Believe Species Change
: > : >
: > : > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
: > : > of species (i.e., species donīŋŊt change). And since species
: > : > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
: > : > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
: > : > the first place.
: > : >
: > : > Prior to the publication of DarwinīŋŊs On the Origin of Species
: > : > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
: > : > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
: > : > not mean the same thing then as it does nowīŋŊnor was there ever
: > : > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
: > : >
: > : > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
: > :
: > : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
: > :
: > : > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
: > :
: > : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
: > :
: > : > that species do changeīŋŊbut only within the original kinds God
: > :
: > : > evolutionīŋŊthey remind us that God put enough information in the
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: news:umvsg5hnualld04g7...@4ax.com:
:
: >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
: ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
: >
: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
: >: news:f4icf55rg21cv9ckm...@4ax.com:
: >:
: >: >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat
: >: >ion #paginateTop
: >: >
: >: >Myth 10: Creationists Don�t Believe Species Change
: >: >
: >: >A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
: >: >of species (i.e., species don�t change). And since species
: >: >obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
: >: >straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
: >: >the first place.
: >:
: >: Actually, some creationists have unwisely made the claim. Some even
: >: to this day.
: >: >
: >: >Prior to the publication of Darwin�s On the Origin of Species
: >: >especially, some Christians did claim that species were
: >: >immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
: >: >not mean the same thing then as it does now�nor was there ever
: >: >any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
: >: >
: >: >Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
: >: >created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
: >: >that species do change�but only within the original kinds God
: >: >created roughly 6,000 years ago.
: >:
: >: "Baramin" is an artificial word concocted from the Hebrew phrase
: >: "miyn bara" found in Genesis and translated as "created kind." But
: >: my Hebrew sources tell me that a very reasonable translation would be
: >: "species."
: >:
: >: The fact that the author of that part of Genesis had observed what we
: >: still see today--that species generally reproduce by giving rise to
: >: members of their own species in no way makes fixity of species or
: >: "kind" (whatever you think you mean by the term) a law of nature,
: >: even according to the scripture you are so anxious to misinterpret.
: >:
: >: >
: >: >Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly
: >: >in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
: >: >evolution�they remind us that God put enough information in the
: >: >genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed
: >: >world.
: >:
: >: Such changes are precisely what scientists mean by evolution. Lying
: >: about things like this is what is condemning you to an eternity in a
: >: lake of fire.
: >:
: >
: >No, those scientists mean the fish to man version of evolution,
: >which is a far cry from [flies] evolving over generations, but
: >remaining [flies] no matter how much they adapt or mutate.
:
: Fish to man evolution is a logical inference from the fossil record and
: from the evolution we see happening all around us.
Yes, it's a ~belief on what you want things to mean~ attached to
dead bones and fossils, and even the things you see around you.
The ~belief itself~ is not observable, not testable and not
verifiable.
Creation by God is also a logical inference from the fossil
record (Cambrian Explosion: global flood), DNA and the ability
for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon to perform the
miraculous feat of building organic machines, which we see
happening all around us, and the irreducible complexity of
animals and even a single cell.
: >
: >Their version of evolution: that populations of [flies] would
: >evolve, over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer
: >[flies] at all. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
: >beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they believe all
: >those things evolved over generations from populations of tiny
: >fish once upon a time). You can replace [flies] with any animal
: >you wish, and this belief of theirs remains unobservable, hence
: >impossible to test/verify in the entire recorded history of the
: >human race.
:
: Yet the same genes produce our limbs as produce the fins of lobefin
: fishes. And no, we don't expect to see 100 million years of evolution in
: a fortnight in the lab.
You can't see any of the fish to man version of evolution in any
lab or in life.
Show a test of populations of [flies] evolving and mutating over
generations eventually into animals that are clearly no longer
[flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal known
to man. The fact is, the belief that such a thing can happen is
unobservable, untestable and unverifiable. Please cite the
scientific tests that shows this happening. The only thing we
ever observed happening is populations of [flies] producing more
flies, and worst case a slightly different species of [flies]
(but they are still [flies]!) - that's Speciation. Not the fish
to man version of evolution no matter how much they mutate, no
matter how much the allele frequencies change. And that's a
scientific fact. In that effect, what is repeatable, observable,
testable and verifiable: that this ~never~ happens no matter how
much they supposedly mutate and allele frequencies change. So in
effect, science actually falsifies / disproves the fish to man
version of evolution!
However, if you have such a test case, please cite it to back up
what you believe actually qualifying as science. Thank you.
: However, I can provide you with a very nice
: protocol for producing new genera in plants with a single mutation of a
: particular type. Look up triticale. The thing does, very rarely, happen
: in animals, too, but it is actually quite common in self-fertilizing
: plants.
:
: >: >More information:
: >: >Fixity of species:
: >: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species
:
: No fixity is observed.
:
: >: >
: >: >Do Species Change:
: >: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-change
:
: Many changes are observerd.
:
:
: >: >
: >: >Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, oh my!
: >: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/zonkeys-ligers-wholphins
:
: These kinds of hybrids ARE predicted in evolution. But they are found
: where speciation has not fully resulted in genetic incompatibility. The
: key factor for speciation is genetic isolation. Subpopulations that have
: no gene flow between them, or very little, whatever the reason for the
: isolation, will diverge.
:
:
: >: >
: >: >Bara-what ?
: >: >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/bara-what
: >:
: >: Yes, bara-what?
: >:
: >: Barmin: A creationist-coined word that is said to mean "created
: >: kind." This fleible pseudotaxon is excellent for avoiding discussion
: >: of actual directly-observed evolution events while denying those
: >: inferred from the fossil record and from genetics. It has no
: >: objective, scientific definition and is therefore a great tool in
: >: fallacies of equivocation.
: >:
: >: Your master, Satan, is well pleased with such work, but tends to get
: >: quite testy when the lies stop working.
:
: See above. The biblical scholarship of creationist hack polemicists is
: almost on a par with their scientific scholarship. Which is to say that
: their Bible scholarship, like their scientific scholarship is all
: distorted so as to support their damned (literally) heresy!
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:35:35 -0800, "Juan M"
: ><juanmSP...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: It is the brains of the Creationists that are incapable of change.
: >
: >Truth doesn't change. What would you say to someone who called
: >you dogmatic, closed-minded and incapable of change because you
: >cling to the truth that 2 + 2 = 4? Exactly the point.
:
: Mathematicians have no problem defining a system wherein 2+2 does not
: equal 4. For one thing, go to base 3, where there is no such thing as
: "4", but there is such a thing as 2.
:
: Traditional arithmetic is the result of certain definitions and rules,
: which are used because they are useful in the real world.
Hi Bob,
No, they are useful because they merely describe what has always
been true:
If someone wants to combine this many O's:
O O
with this many O's:
O O
then they will always get this many O's:
O O O O
No matter what base we came up with to describe this eternal,
fundamental truth, this fundamental truth always was true and can
never change. Would we call someone dogmatic, closed-minded and
incapable of change because they adhere to this eternal truth?
Not at all (unless we were trying to undermine some other point
they had which is uncomfortable for us to admit), which is
exactly the point.
:
: lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>No, they are useful because they merely describe what has always
>been true:
>
>If someone wants to combine this many O's:
>
>O O
>
>with this many O's:
>
>O O
>
>then they will always get this many O's:
>
>O O O O
Not necessarily. If the rules for "combine" include overwriting, then
combining the two leads to
O O
That is what you fail to understand. WE define what it means to
"combine", or to "add", or to use the "+" sign. WE define what "="
means. WE define whether "O O O O" is representable by the symbol "4"
or by "11" in base 3 or by "100" in base 2 or by "121" in base
negative 3.
2+2=4 is a human invention.
>No matter what base we came up with to describe this eternal,
>fundamental truth, this fundamental truth always was true and can
>never change.
Wrong. It is neither eternal or fundamental and whether it is "true"
depends on our definitions.
If you combine them within a black hole, you get
?
>Would we call someone dogmatic, closed-minded and
>incapable of change because they adhere to this eternal truth?
Yes, assuming that they brought the fact of their adherence to our
attention. if they keep their peculiar beliefs to themselves, no one
would care.
And if they were posting about it on Usenet, we would call them a
clueless idiot.
RichTravsky
>
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
> : > <patma...@null.net> wrote:
> : >
> : > : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > :
> : > : > God
> : > : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> : > :
> : > : LOL
> : >
> : > Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
> :
> : The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
>
> www.nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html
>
> www.icr.org/article/radioisotopes-age-earth/
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#index_d
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#radio
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#geology
ETC
> :
RichTravsky
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> : gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> : ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> : >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
As the fossils get younger, the more they resemble modern forms. Fact.
> Creation by God is also a logical inference from the fossil
> record (Cambrian Explosion: global flood), DNA and the ability
What flood?
> for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon to perform the
> miraculous feat of building organic machines, which we see
> happening all around us, and the irreducible complexity of
> animals and even a single cell.
Not observable, not testable, not verifiable.
> : >
> : >Their version of evolution: that populations of [flies] would
> : >evolve, over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer
> : >[flies] at all. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
> : >beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they believe all
> : >those things evolved over generations from populations of tiny
> : >fish once upon a time). You can replace [flies] with any animal
> : >you wish, and this belief of theirs remains unobservable, hence
> : >impossible to test/verify in the entire recorded history of the
> : >human race.
> :
> : Yet the same genes produce our limbs as produce the fins of lobefin
> : fishes. And no, we don't expect to see 100 million years of evolution in
> : a fortnight in the lab.
>
> You can't see any of the fish to man version of evolution in any
> lab or in life.
Do you live millions of years? No? But speciation is happening right now.
> Show a test of populations of [flies] evolving and mutating over
Show a creation. Now.
> generations eventually into animals that are clearly no longer
> [flies] at all. And you can replace [flies] with any animal known
> to man. The fact is, the belief that such a thing can happen is
> unobservable, untestable and unverifiable. Please cite the
> scientific tests that shows this happening. The only thing we
> ever observed happening is populations of [flies] producing more
> flies, and worst case a slightly different species of [flies]
> (but they are still [flies]!) - that's Speciation. Not the fish
> to man version of evolution no matter how much they mutate, no
> matter how much the allele frequencies change. And that's a
> scientific fact. In that effect, what is repeatable, observable,
> testable and verifiable: that this ~never~ happens no matter how
> much they supposedly mutate and allele frequencies change. So in
> effect, science actually falsifies / disproves the fish to man
> version of evolution!
>
> However, if you have such a test case, please cite it to back up
> what you believe actually qualifying as science. Thank you.
Give a scientific cite for a creation. Or a space alien creating life forms
here.
Sid9
"RichTravsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4B15E878...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> gabriel wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> : gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> : >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> : ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> : >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> : >:
>> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creat
>> : >: >ion #paginateTop
>> : >: >
>> : >: >Myth 10: Creationists Don't Believe Species Change
>> : >: >
>> : >: >A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the
>> fixity
>> : >: >of species (i.e., species don't change). And since species
>> : >: >obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
>> : >: >straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really
>> there in
>> : >: >the first place.
>> : >:
>> : >: Actually, some creationists have unwisely made the claim.
>> Some even
>> : >: to this day.
>> : >: >
>> : >: >Prior to the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species
>> : >: >especially, some Christians did claim that species were
>> : >: >immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species
>> did
>> : >: >any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
>> : >: >
>> : >: >Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within
>> each
>> : >: >created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We
>> know
>> : >: >created roughly 6,000 years ago.
>> : >:
>> : >: "Baramin" is an artificial word concocted from the Hebrew
>> phrase
>> : >: "miyn bara" found in Genesis and translated as "created kind."
>> But
>> : >: my Hebrew sources tell me that a very reasonable translation
>> would be
>> : >: "species."
>> : >:
>> : >: The fact that the author of that part of Genesis had observed
>> what we
>> : >: still see today--that species generally reproduce by giving
>> rise to
>> : >: members of their own species in no way makes fixity of species
>> or
>> : >: "kind" (whatever you think you mean by the term) a law of
>> nature,
>> : >: even according to the scripture you are so anxious to
>> misinterpret.
>> : >:
>> : >: >
>> : >: >Species changing via natural selection and mutations is
>> perfectly
>> : >: >in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not
?
?
?
What happened to the guy that proposed "decades old rocks"?
?
?
?
He never came back to explain where they may be found
?
?
?
?
RichTravsky
>
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:15 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : Hey. Cupcake. Learn how to post. I didn't write any of this.
>
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
>
> ...
>
> : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
>
> ...
>
> : Explain all those fossils...
>
> ...
>
> :
> : Where does the bible explain mutations? Where do they explain how human
> : and chimp DNA are similar to the extent of the high 90 percents?
>
> ...
>
> Well unless someone else posted it using your account, the above
> is what was posted with your account name.
Change your quote character
> :
> : gabriel wrote:
> : >
> : > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:48:01 -0700, RichTravsky
> : > <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > : gabriel wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-about-creation#paginateTop
> : > : >
> : > : > Myth 10: Creationists Don�t Believe Species Change
> : > : >
> : > : > A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity
> : > : > of species (i.e., species don�t change). And since species
> : > : > obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this
> : > : > straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in
> : > : > the first place.
> : > : >
> : > : > Prior to the publication of Darwin�s On the Origin of Species
> : > : > especially, some Christians did claim that species were
> : > : > immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did
> : > : > not mean the same thing then as it does now�nor was there ever
> : > : > any reason to assume fixity in the first place.
> : > : >
> : > : > Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each
> : > :
> : > : Because they ahve no understanding of genetics.
> : > :
> : > : > created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know
> : > :
> : > : Baramins are a cretinist term with no scientific standing.
> : > :
> : > : > that species do change�but only within the original kinds God
> : > : > evolution�they remind us that God put enough information in the
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: >
: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky
: > <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : gabriel wrote:
: > : >
: > : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
: > : > <patma...@null.net> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : > God
: > : > : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
: > : > :
: > : > : LOL
: > : >
: > : > Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
: > :
: > : The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
: >
: > www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
: >
: > www.nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html
: >
: > www.icr.org/article/radioisotopes-age-earth/
: >
: > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#index_d
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#radio
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#geology
:
: ETC
Refuted by the RATE group experiments quoted above.
:
: > :
: > : > of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
RichTravsky
Actually, those links refute the cretinists. They cover cretinist claims.
This one
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
is particularly damaging.
Get over it.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >No, they are useful because they merely describe what has always
: >been true:
: >
: >If someone wants to combine this many O's:
: >
: >O O
: >
: >with this many O's:
: >
: >O O
: >
: >then they will always get this many O's:
: >
: >O O O O
:
: Not necessarily. If the rules for "combine" include overwriting, then
: combining the two leads to
: O O
There are no man made rules when you put items in two separate
groups (say marbles or O's or whatever) together in the same
group, Bob.
If you want to pretend this many marbles in one group
O O
put together with this many marbles in a second group
O O
will give this many marbles as a result
O O
if "we define it that way", you're free to believe in that false
description of reality. It really shows how willingly you want to
remain blind to the truth, or dishonestly hide the truth, that
the reality is we will get this many marbles
O O O O
today, yesterday, and thousands of years before math numbers and
match were ever invented, all no matter how you want to describe
it with words. The universal truth of logic that always existed
that we only describe using whatever words we wish, but did not
invent.
Good luck.
:
: That is what you fail to understand. WE define what it means to
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Never said creation by God qualifies as science, so no need. But
evidence points to it nonetheless.
Notice meanwhile you failed to provide an observation or test
case of what you believe in, which shows it's also not science -
just a belief. You only offer reasons you have faith in your
beliefs.
:
: > generations eventually into animals that are clearly no longer
Dave Oldridge
news:8lm2i5l52rk4bob53...@4ax.com:
>On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:09:28 -0700, RichTravsky
><traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
>: gabriel wrote:
>: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>: > <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>: > : gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>: > : >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>: > : ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>: > : >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>: > : >: >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-abou
>: > : >: >t-creat ion #paginateTop
But that is PRECISELY the claim made by the "creation science" websites
you continually link us to.
>
>Notice meanwhile you failed to provide an observation or test
>case of what you believe in, which shows it's also not science -
>just a belief. You only offer reasons you have faith in your
>beliefs.
Show one scientific observation that conflicts with the molecules to man
hypothesis.
Or else admit that you know of none and that, therefore, your noises in
this connection were deliberate deceptions designed to deceive an
audience ignorant of how science actually works.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:18:38 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >No, they are useful because they merely describe what has always
>: >been true:
>: >
>: >If someone wants to combine this many O's:
>: >
>: >O O
>: >
>: >with this many O's:
>: >
>: >O O
>: >
>: >then they will always get this many O's:
>: >
>: >O O O O
>:
>: Not necessarily. If the rules for "combine" include overwriting, then
>: combining the two leads to
>: O O
>
>There are no man made rules when you put items in two separate
>groups (say marbles or O's or whatever) together in the same
>group, Bob.
Of course there are. There is whatever rule that says that you CAN
put them in the same group, and whatever rule that says whatever you
did actually accomplished "putting them together".
>If you want to pretend this many marbles in one group
>
>O O
What says that is a "group", or that there are any marbles there at
all? I see two letters or perhaps numbers.
>put together with this many marbles in a second group
>
>O O
Same question. And you haven't defined what "put together" means.
Provide a definition, and that definition is a human rule (unless you
claim to be something other than human).
>will give this many marbles as a result
>
>O O
I still see no marbles.
>if "we define it that way",
We can define it any way we want.
>you're free to believe in that false description of reality.
That YOU say something is false, doesn't mean that it is false.
Especially YOU.
>It really shows how willingly you want to remain blind to the truth,
"Truth" is irrelevant, since we define what it means.
>or dishonestly hide the truth, that
>the reality is we will get this many marbles
>O O O O
I still see no marbles.
gabriel
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Actually it's not.
And talkorigins.org is not a science site - it only blogs posts
in the newsgroup made by anyone that says something they agree
with.
Meanwhile the inflated dates remain exposed by actual test cases
in the lab.
Take care.
Draccus
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
>
>
> : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : > God
> : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> :
> : LOL
>
> Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
> submitted to scientists to be dated with their faulty dating
> methods: they came back with dates of 1.1 million years when
> rocks were only a few decades old.
Funny thing is there is not a single thing published outside of the
Creationist Websites and I am sorry they are not actually known for
their science. Where are these "rocks" that are a few decades old
coming from? You are aware that rocks would not be carbon dated unless
they are organic in nature.
Draccus
I looked it up they are a Young Earth Creationist offshoot it is very
funny to read and yet very sad.
Draccus
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky
>
> : gabriel wrote:
>
> : >
> : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne: > <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
>
> : >
> : > : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > :
> : > : > God
> : > : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> : > :
> : > : LOL
> : >
> : > Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
> :
> : The what group? Are you incapable of backing up your claims?
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
>
> www.nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html
>
> www.icr.org/article/radioisotopes-age-earth/
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination
>
> :
> : > of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
> : > submitted to scientists to be dated with their faulty dating
> : > methods: they came back with dates of 1.1 million years when
> : > rocks were only a few decades old.
Yeah they made me laugh and laugh and then cry because you all are so
damn dumb.
Draccus
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:03:12 -0700, RichTravsky
>
> : gabriel wrote:
>
> : >
> : > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky: > <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> : >
> : > : gabriel wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
They like you could not refute that the sun came out last Tuesday.
Draccus
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:28:09 -0700, RichTravsky
>
>
>
>
>
> <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > gabriel wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:03:12 -0700, RichTravsky
> > > <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > > : gabriel wrote:
> > > : >
> > > : > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:00:45 -0700, RichTravsky
> > > : >
> > > : > : gabriel wrote:
> > > : > : >
> > > : > : > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
have no background in science to prove their religious beliefs are
true. They use information that is distorted and they lie.
Sid9
"Draccus" <dracc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cbabbfee-d7a9-4ec3...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
.
I had posed a question as to where "rocks were only a few decades old"
might be found.
"rocks were only a few decades old" is the dumbest thing I had ever
heard.
RichTravsky
The YECs. Heh. Fitting square pegs into round holes. Most amusing.
RichTravsky
No answer.
> : > for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon to perform the
> : > miraculous feat of building organic machines, which we see
> : > happening all around us, and the irreducible complexity of
> : > animals and even a single cell.
> :
> : Not observable, not testable, not verifiable.
No answer.
> : > : >
> : > : >Their version of evolution: that populations of [flies] would
> : > : >evolve, over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer
> : > : >[flies] at all. (Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
> : > : >beings are clearly no longer fish at all, yet they believe all
> : > : >those things evolved over generations from populations of tiny
> : > : >fish once upon a time). You can replace [flies] with any animal
> : > : >you wish, and this belief of theirs remains unobservable, hence
> : > : >impossible to test/verify in the entire recorded history of the
> : > : >human race.
> : > :
> : > : Yet the same genes produce our limbs as produce the fins of lobefin
> : > : fishes. And no, we don't expect to see 100 million years of evolution in
> : > : a fortnight in the lab.
> : >
> : > You can't see any of the fish to man version of evolution in any
> : > lab or in life.
> :
> : Do you live millions of years? No? But speciation is happening right now.
> :
> : > Show a test of populations of [flies] evolving and mutating over
> :
> : Show a creation. Now.
>
> Never said creation by God qualifies as science, so no need. But
> evidence points to it nonetheless.
What evidence? Note: Superstition not admissible.
> Notice meanwhile you failed to provide an observation or test
> case of what you believe in, which shows it's also not science -
> just a belief. You only offer reasons you have faith in your
> beliefs.
Meanwhile, you fail to provide any evidence or observation of creation
or space aliens.
> :
RichTravsky
Actually it is.
> And talkorigins.org is not a science site - it only blogs posts
icr is not a science site.
Take care.
RichTravsky
Sid's still waiting for that whopper to be backed up too.
gabriel
<dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Some have, yes, and they were wrong. No origins theory can
qualify as science as it's impossible to observe, and no test
case can be shown of it in action. One can only offer reasons why
they have faith in their beliefs.
Please quote where AiG claims creation (meaning that God created
the universe) is literally scientific fact.
> >
> >Notice meanwhile you failed to provide an observation or test
> >case of what you believe in, which shows it's also not science -
> >just a belief. You only offer reasons you have faith in your
> >beliefs.
>
> Show one scientific observation that conflicts with the molecules to man
> hypothesis.
Don't need to - the molecules to man or fish to man version of
evolution is not observable, and no test case can be shown of it
in action. So the molecules to man version of evolution you love
more than God is not science.
Meanwhile if you want to claim it is, please provide a single
observation or test case of it in action - not more reasons you
have more faith in populations of fish evolving over generations
into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people.
>
> Or else admit that you know of none and that, therefore, your noises in
> this connection were deliberate deceptions designed to deceive an
> audience ignorant of how science actually works.
Unfortunately you can't back up your words with an actual
observation or test case of your fish to man version of evolution
in action. So your words ring hollow.
Seon Ferguson
created every single species then why is there so much variety in one
species? Why would he create one type of species on one particular Island
and then create another type of the same species but different on a
neighboring Island? 2. Why has God allowed the majority of species to go
extinct? 3. Why did God create nature to be so cruel? 4. How do you explain
genetic disorders like VCFS? What kind of a compassionate God would create
it so children could suffer? 5. The human eye is too imperfect to be a
creation. 6. Why is it Pigeon breeders can breed pigeons with different
species of pigeons and create new ones? Does "God" somehow create these new
species? 7. Why did God create some species so they can only be found in one
country? Like Australia's duckbilled Platypus?
Dave Oldridge
news:2lrli5li299ude2av...@4ax.com:
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:25:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:8lm2i5l52rk4bob53...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:09:28 -0700, RichTravsky
>> ><traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >: gabriel wrote:
>> >: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> >: > <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> >: > : gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >: > : >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:52:31 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> >: > : ><dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> >: > : >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >: > : >: >http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/top-ten/myths-a
>> >: > : >: >bou t-creat ion #paginateTop
You keep repeating this egregipous lie as if repeating it will save you.
Hint: No amount of repitition will render it truth.
>
>>
>> Or else admit that you know of none and that, therefore, your noises
>> in this connection were deliberate deceptions designed to deceive an
>> audience ignorant of how science actually works.
>
>Unfortunately you can't back up your words with an actual
>observation or test case of your fish to man version of evolution
>in action. So your words ring hollow.
Don't have to. YOU have to show that the evidence points to something
else. CAN you, for example, explain why humans and chimps have the same
broken GULO gene? Did your godlet break it in the same manner in all
member of the two separately-created species way back when? Why would
your godlet do that? In order to LIE?
--
Dave Oldridge+
Seon Ferguson
"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE69019726C...@69.16.185.250...
>>> >: > : >: >now-nor was there ever any reason to assume fixity in the
>>> >: > : >: >first place.
>>> >: > : >: >
>>> >: > : >: >Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within
>>> >: > : >: >each created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family
>>> >: > : >: >level). We know that species do change-but only within the
>>> >: > : >: >original kinds God created roughly 6,000 years ago.
>>> >: > : >:
>>> >: > : >: "Baramin" is an artificial word concocted from the Hebrew
>>> >: > : >: phrase "miyn bara" found in Genesis and translated as
>>> >: > : >: "created kind." But my Hebrew sources tell me that a very
>>> >: > : >: reasonable translation would be "species."
>>> >: > : >:
>>> >: > : >: The fact that the author of that part of Genesis had
>>> >: > : >: observed what we still see today--that species generally
>>> >: > : >: reproduce by giving rise to members of their own species in
>>> >: > : >: no way makes fixity of species or "kind" (whatever you
>>> >: > : >: think you mean by the term) a law of nature, even according
>>> >: > : >: to the scripture you are so anxious to misinterpret.
>>> >: > : >:
>>> >: > : >: >
>>> >: > : >: >Species changing via natural selection and mutations is
>>> >: > : >: >perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such
>>> >: > : >: >changes are not evolution-they remind us that God put
Because we both share the same common ancestor. Oh wait I accept
evolution.
> --
> Dave Oldridge+
>
>
Dave Oldridge
dnavVBe6OxLDWn...@westnet.com.au:
These creationists will commit any sin at all if it lets them deny
evolution. That is why their cults are heresies.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Seon Ferguson
"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE78AA028C26...@69.16.185.250...
That's religion for you. I can't see why people can't just accept evolution
based on the evidence like I did.
Wild Bill
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9JmdnVKkqe6GArPW...@westnet.com.au...
Because the minute a fundamentalist, young-earth creationist does that, he
blows his precious religious beliefs completely out of the water--instantly!
>
Seon Ferguson
"Wild Bill" <bils...@daytonwa.net> wrote in message
news:hgomn6$l9h$1...@news.parasun.com...
Yeah anyone with a understanding of evolution will realise there is no need
for God and that God didn't create us like the Bible says. I spent years
trying to find a way to still believe in God and evolution but I just don't
know how to fit them both in. An argument could be made God was the cause of
the big bang but after that the laws of science took over which makes it
pretty pointless to worship him or her.
Wild Bill
Yes, I can see that your experience and conclusions drawn, pretty well
mirror mine.
>
>
>
Seon Ferguson
"Wild Bill" <bils...@daytonwa.net> wrote in message
news:hgov34$cmr$1...@news.parasun.com...
Oh cool it's nice to meet someone who has gone through the same thing. It
was pretty amazing moment when I finally got what evolution actually is and
realised the Christian apologists were lying or ignorant.
Dave Oldridge
Not all religion, just silly heresies.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Ron Dean
irony? Both evolution and Genesis can be right.
Seon Ferguson
"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE8C920015D7...@69.16.185.247...
True I think the Bahai faith accepts evolution and some churches accept it
as well. But I believe in evolution based on intelligent design.
> --
> Dave Oldridge+
>
>
Seon Ferguson
"Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NtXXm.103742$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
True if Genisis is 100% literally true then God created man out of dirt and
women out of a man's rib. Not all Christians believe that is what actually
happened. At least I hope not!
Dave Oldridge
@newsfe23.iad:
It is heresy to use your private interpretation of Genesis as an excuse
for the SIN of false witness and to teach that one MUST do this to be
saved. That is heresy by definitions older than the Church.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
Well, evolution is certainly an elegant solution to the problem of
keeping life in tune with a changing environment. And those of us who
accept the ancient creeds should therefore conclude that it was designed
by God.
But that should not in any way place us in conflict with honest science,
whereas the latter-day anti-science creationists are opposed to honest
science BY DESIGN.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Seon
"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEA95D9A3A05...@69.16.185.250...
Exactly Bahaullah said faith and science should co exist. I mean if you have
faith anyway. Evolution also explains genetic disorders and why children
suffer from cancer. There is no way a loving God would create the
possibility for this to happen.
I feel sorry for Mormons and anyone who is not allowed to explore real
science. I did and it opened my eyes to a incredible world and universe.
Which is way more amazing to look at with scientific eyes than religious
one's.
> --
> Dave Oldridge+
>
>
gabriel
<seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think creationism can be disproven by just a few questions. 1. If God
> created every single species then why is there so much variety in one
> species?
Because we know there can be variations within kinds. Speciation.
Observable and repeatedly able to be shown in test cases actually
happening: populations of [flies] in rare cases evolving over
generations into a slightly different species of [flies], but
still [flies]! Same holds true no matter animal you replace with
[flies] in that sentence.
What is never observable? Not able to be shown in a single test
case actually happening? The fish to man version: populations of
[flies] evolving over generations into animals that are clearly
no longer [flies] at all.
> Why would he create one type of species on one particular Island
> and then create another type of the same species but different on a
> neighboring Island?
Speciation again. See above. That's not fish to man evolution.
> 2. Why has God allowed the majority of species to go
> extinct?
Why does God allow anyone to die?
Genesis 3:17-19 KJV
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto
the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I
commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the
ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days
of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee;
and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou
return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust
thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
So if death and suffering is in the world, then of course it's
possible specific species would go extinct. We see it happen even
today, and the threat of many species going extinct.
> 3. Why did God create nature to be so cruel?
He didn't. He created it perfect without death, and saw it was
"good" - giving green herbs for their "meat" to all living
creatures.
Genesis 1:29-31 KJV
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in
the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall
be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the
air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein
there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was
so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it
was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth
day.
Mankind's sin caused death and suffering to enter the world. (see
above)
This is one of the major problems of theistic evolutionists that
even you notice, but they don't seem to: in their version of
their god's creation, their god created a world of suffering and
death through no fault of mankind's, instead of suffering and
death being the result of mankind's sinning and wanting to reject
their Creator, God.
Also, when Christ returns and the creation is restored - restored
to what? According to theistic evolutionists, there was always
suffering and death in the world before mankind ever supposedly
came into existence.
> 4. How do you explain
> genetic disorders like VCFS? What kind of a compassionate God would create
> it so children could suffer?
What kind of people would mock and spit upon the One who created
them? Again, this world is cursed with suffering and death. the
results of mankind sinning against God. And people continue to
sin against God to this very day, showing the judgment is
deserving.
> 5. The human eye is too imperfect to be a
> creation.
Yet science continues to try to mimic it and fails miserable to
do the feats that human vision can pull off.
> 6. Why is it Pigeon breeders can breed pigeons with different
> species of pigeons and create new ones? Does "God" somehow create these new
> species?
See above. Speciation.
But notice they can never breed pigeons to come up with animals
that are clearly no longer pigeons at all.
> 7. Why did God create some species so they can only be found in one
> country? Like Australia's duckbilled Platypus?
Again, Speciation. See above.
gabriel
Actually they can't. Christians have to completely delete Genesis
and create their own version of a god in their minds, a god that
created a world of suffering and death through no fault of
mankind's if they are going to instead have more faith in mankind
than in the one true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the
true heavenly Father of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Just like the Pharisees, the ones most verbally telling everyone
else they were still under God's curse, were rebuked by Jesus
Christ as still being dead in their trespasses and sins for not
believing what Moses wrote, we still have those today who refuse
to believe what Moses wrote.
John 5:45-47 KJV
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there
is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for
he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe
my words?
God created in six days, and created mankind at the beginning,
male and female, Adam and Eve.
Exodus 20:9-11 KJV
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:
in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle,
nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore
the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Some are too embarrassed to believe it, and are even embarrassed
by the words of Christ that said the same thing:
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 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.
True children of God are sealed by the Holy Spirit - it's to a
person's own peril to think the Holy Spirit would lead them to be
ashamed of Christ's Words, and that the Holy Spirit would lead
them to not believe what Moses wrote, rather than the truth that
they perhaps have not yet received the Holy Spirit. =(
Dave Oldridge
news:8i8lj55ff0oj7j0a0...@4ax.com:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:04:09 +1100, "Seon Ferguson"
><seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think creationism can be disproven by just a few questions. 1. If
>> God created every single species then why is there so much variety in
>> one species?
>
>Because we know there can be variations within kinds. Speciation.
>Observable and repeatedly able to be shown in test cases actually
>happening: populations of [flies] in rare cases evolving over
>generations into a slightly different species of [flies], but
>still [flies]! Same holds true no matter animal you replace with
>[flies] in that sentence.
>
>What is never observable? Not able to be shown in a single test
>case actually happening? The fish to man version: populations of
>[flies] evolving over generations into animals that are clearly
>no longer [flies] at all.
Except the observed rate of morphological change agrees well with the
fish-to-man scenario.
>
>> Why would he create one type of species on one particular Island
>> and then create another type of the same species but different on a
>> neighboring Island?
>
>Speciation again. See above. That's not fish to man evolution.
Actually, it is.
>
>> 2. Why has God allowed the majority of species to go
>> extinct?
>
>Why does God allow anyone to die?
Nearly all species that have ever existed on the planet are extinct.
>
>Genesis 3:17-19 KJV
> 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto
>the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I
>commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the
>ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days
>of thy life;
> 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee;
>and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
> 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou
>return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust
>thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
>
>So if death and suffering is in the world, then of course it's
>possible specific species would go extinct. We see it happen even
>today, and the threat of many species going extinct.
Almsot all did.
>
>> 3. Why did God create nature to be so cruel?
>
>He didn't. He created it perfect without death, and saw it was
>"good" - giving green herbs for their "meat" to all living
>creatures.
Nice theory, but there isn't a shred of scientific evidence supportin the
idea.
>
>Genesis 1:29-31 KJV
> 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
>seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in
>the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall
>be for meat.
> 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the
>air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein
>there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was
>so.
> 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it
>was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth
>day.
>
>
>Mankind's sin caused death and suffering to enter the world. (see
>above)
>
Yet there are physical remains of animals that died well before any
humans existed.
> This is one of the major problems of theistic evolutionists that
>even you notice, but they don't seem to: in their version of
>their god's creation, their god created a world of suffering and
>death through no fault of mankind's, instead of suffering and
>death being the result of mankind's sinning and wanting to reject
>their Creator, God.
Take it up with God. If you can get past the guy with the flaming sword.
>Also, when Christ returns and the creation is restored - restored
>to what? According to theistic evolutionists, there was always
>suffering and death in the world before mankind ever supposedly
>came into existence.
Suffering and death are definitely two different things. But before you
decide what the Bible really means about them, become consciously
immmortal yourself.
>> 4. How do you explain
>> genetic disorders like VCFS? What kind of a compassionate God would
>> create it so children could suffer?
>
>What kind of people would mock and spit upon the One who created
>them? Again, this world is cursed with suffering and death. the
Creationists. They always prefer blasphemy to any attempt to honestly
understand reality and to interpret scripture in light of it. They
prefer their interpretations of darkness and the incessant devotions to
their false god, the father of lies that flow from their private cult
interpretations--DESIGNED to promote their rebellion against God and His
Church.
>results of mankind sinning against God. And people continue to
>sin against God to this very day, showing the judgment is
>deserving.
And you are a poster-child for the idea of sinning and sinning and
sinning.
>
>> 5. The human eye is too imperfect to be a
>> creation.
>
>Yet science continues to try to mimic it and fails miserable to
>do the feats that human vision can pull off.
Actually, we can usually do much better except for the processor and
we're beginning to come to grips with that part of the problem, too.
>> 6. Why is it Pigeon breeders can breed pigeons with different
>> species of pigeons and create new ones? Does "God" somehow create
>> these new species?
>
>See above. Speciation.
>
>But notice they can never breed pigeons to come up with animals
>that are clearly no longer pigeons at all.
Evolution doesn't predict such rapid excursions, though they occasionally
happen. For example there is helacyton gartleri which has a very
interesting biological ancestry indeed!
>> 7. Why did God create some species so they can only be found in one
>> country? Like Australia's duckbilled Platypus?
>
>Again, Speciation. See above.
Uh, no. The monotremes are found ONLY in Australia. What did they
speciate from?
--
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
news:t79lj5ls6ou00j5bm...@4ax.com:
YOU are sealed by the spirit of your father, Belial. There is NOTHING
holy about that spirit. It is your teaching that the Bible is an excuse
to tell lies--to children and to anyone you can get to listen. Your cult
is seen by El Shaddai as an ABOMINATION!!!
Come out of Babylon before you share her fate!
--
Dave Oldridge+
Seon Ferguson
"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8i8lj55ff0oj7j0a0...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:04:09 +1100, "Seon Ferguson"
> <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think creationism can be disproven by just a few questions. 1. If God
>> created every single species then why is there so much variety in one
>> species?
>
> Because we know there can be variations within kinds. Speciation.
> Observable and repeatedly able to be shown in test cases actually
> happening: populations of [flies] in rare cases evolving over
> generations into a slightly different species of [flies], but
> still [flies]! Same holds true no matter animal you replace with
> [flies] in that sentence.
>
> What is never observable? Not able to be shown in a single test
> case actually happening? The fish to man version: populations of
> [flies] evolving over generations into animals that are clearly
> no longer [flies] at all.
>
You just admitted species evolved over generations.
And no one has observed God create anything.
>> Why would he create one type of species on one particular Island
>> and then create another type of the same species but different on a
>> neighboring Island?
>
> Speciation again. See above. That's not fish to man evolution.
>
No one says that men evolved from fish.
>> 2. Why has God allowed the majority of species to go
>> extinct?
>
> Why does God allow anyone to die?
>
> Genesis 3:17-19 KJV
> 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto
> the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I
> commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the
> ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days
> of thy life;
> 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee;
> and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
> 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou
> return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust
> thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
>
> So if death and suffering is in the world, then of course it's
> possible specific species would go extinct. We see it happen even
> today, and the threat of many species going extinct.
>
So animals become extinct because of something a different species did? My
answer sounds more rational. Because natural selection decided that they
weren't the fittest and allowed the species to die out.
>> 3. Why did God create nature to be so cruel?
>
> He didn't. He created it perfect without death, and saw it was
> "good" - giving green herbs for their "meat" to all living
> creatures.
>
> Genesis 1:29-31 KJV
> 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
> seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in
> the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall
> be for meat.
> 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the
> air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein
> there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was
> so.
> 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it
> was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth
> day.
>
>
> Mankind's sin caused death and suffering to enter the world. (see
> above)
>
> This is one of the major problems of theistic evolutionists that
> even you notice, but they don't seem to: in their version of
> their god's creation, their god created a world of suffering and
> death through no fault of mankind's, instead of suffering and
> death being the result of mankind's sinning and wanting to reject
> their Creator, God.
>
Most evolutionists don't believe in God. We believe it came about naturally.
> Also, when Christ returns and the creation is restored - restored
> to what? According to theistic evolutionists, there was always
> suffering and death in the world before mankind ever supposedly
> came into existence.
>
>
Yep that's life. Life is suffering.
>
>> 4. How do you explain
>> genetic disorders like VCFS? What kind of a compassionate God would
>> create
>> it so children could suffer?
>
> What kind of people would mock and spit upon the One who created
> them? Again, this world is cursed with suffering and death. the
> results of mankind sinning against God. And people continue to
> sin against God to this very day, showing the judgment is
> deserving.
>
What kind of a God would allow a baby to go through operations and stuff
just because of something he didn't even do? That kind of God is a bastard
and unworthy of my worship.
>> 5. The human eye is too imperfect to be a
>> creation.
>
> Yet science continues to try to mimic it and fails miserable to
> do the feats that human vision can pull off.
>
But that doesn't change the fact that the human eye is not perfect. Why
would God created the human eye like this?
Seon Ferguson
"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF0D6918D76D...@69.16.185.247...
> gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:8i8lj55ff0oj7j0a0...@4ax.com:
>
>>> 7. Why did God create some species so they can only be found in one
>>> country? Like Australia's duckbilled Platypus?
>>
>>Again, Speciation. See above.
>
> Uh, no. The monotremes are found ONLY in Australia. What did they
> speciate from?
>
>
And why did God create them so they only existed in Australia? Did God
designate specific animals to live in specific countries? Darwins model is
much more rational.
>
> --
> Dave Oldridge+
>
>
Dave Oldridge
>"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8i8lj55ff0oj7j0a0...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:04:09 +1100, "Seon Ferguson"
>> <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think creationism can be disproven by just a few questions. 1. If
>>> God created every single species then why is there so much variety
>>> in one species?
>>
>> Because we know there can be variations within kinds. Speciation.
>> Observable and repeatedly able to be shown in test cases actually
>> happening: populations of [flies] in rare cases evolving over
>> generations into a slightly different species of [flies], but
>> still [flies]! Same holds true no matter animal you replace with
>> [flies] in that sentence.
>>
>> What is never observable? Not able to be shown in a single test
>> case actually happening? The fish to man version: populations of
>> [flies] evolving over generations into animals that are clearly
>> no longer [flies] at all.
>>
>You just admitted species evolved over generations.
>And no one has observed God create anything.
>
>>> Why would he create one type of species on one particular Island
>>> and then create another type of the same species but different on a
>>> neighboring Island?
>>
>> Speciation again. See above. That's not fish to man evolution.
>>
>No one says that men evolved from fish.
Actually, we did. But not directly. There were a lot of amphibia,
reptiles and other mammals in between.
>
>>> 2. Why has God allowed the majority of species to go
>>> extinct?
>>
>> Why does God allow anyone to die?
>>
>> Genesis 3:17-19 KJV
>> 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto
>> the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I
>> commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the
>> ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days
>> of thy life;
>> 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee;
>> and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
>> 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou
>> return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust
>> thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
>>
>> So if death and suffering is in the world, then of course it's
>> possible specific species would go extinct. We see it happen even
>> today, and the threat of many species going extinct.
>>
>So animals become extinct because of something a different species did?
>My answer sounds more rational. Because natural selection decided that
>they weren't the fittest and allowed the species to die out.
Creationist fanatics would rather indulge in blasphemy than admit that
their literalism results in bad theology.
And orthodox Christianity doesn't have this materialist view of original
sin, though we certainly believe that it is real.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Seon Ferguson
"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF1990F01184...@69.16.185.250...
I know what your trying to say but that doesn't make it true (or not true).
But with evolution tell me, where is god needed?
> --
> Dave Oldridge+
>
>
Dave Oldridge
Where is God NEEDED with Newtonian mechanics? Why aren't the
creationists running off at the mouth about "Godless gravitationalism" or
evil Newtonism? Some of their more or less direct spiritual ancestors
actually did.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Seon Ferguson
"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF29278E1902...@69.16.185.250...
That's a good question. I guess they are ignorant about Newtonian mechanics
and think God created it. But with evolution they truly are afraid because
it proves we don't need God.
>
>
> --
> Dave Oldridge+
>
>
Dave Oldridge
Actually it doesn't. It just shows that we don't need God to achieve a
scientific understanding of how species arise any more than we need God
to understand the motions of planets.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Pat Magroyne
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
>
> <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
>
> : On Nov 7, 11:30 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : > God
> : > created roughly 6,000 years ago.
> :
>
> Go check out the RATE group exposing how dating methods are full
> of false assumptions. Rocks formed in the past few decades were
> submitted to scientists to be dated with their faulty dating
> methods: they came back with dates of 1.1 million years when
> rocks were only a few decades old.
Sometimes there are errors.
But the earth is much older than 6,000 years old.