Is the new 60,000 sq.ft. Creation Museum 'anti-science' ???
Dave in Lake Villa
everything is going quite well ; many many people have already walked
thru the Museum and have learned just how deceptive present
macro-evolutionary philsophy is as it masquerades as real science.
So the question becomes : Is the Creation Museum and its creation
message scientific or anti-scientific ?? The site below answers this
question from an unbiased standpoint (scroll down toward the bottom for
the real answer to the question) :
Address:http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
If you are remotely close to the Creation Museum just outside of
Cincinnatti, Ohio (located in FLorence, KY) ... be sure and stop in.
There is also a full cafeteria for your enjoyment.
I shall be going down there 2 weeks from today and staying the weekend ;
it would be my honor to have you as a guest and Id be most pleased to
take care of your admittance fee. Please email me if you will be there
2 weekends from today.
Come and see the sheer lunacy of thinking that your great ancestor was
accidental slimey algae (Pond Scum) which ultimately came from Hydrogen
Gas accidentally ; learn as you walk thru the Museum just how special
and loved you are by the personal Creator of the Universe who made you
in his image .
Dave
Sue
Sue
Imno1
"Dave in Lake Villa" <DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2010-467...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net...
..
>
; learn as you walk thru the Museum just how special
> and loved you are by the personal Creator of the Universe who made you
> in his image .
>
> Dave
gee- considering we look like made-over apes,and share 99% of our DNA with
them ,does that mean that the Creator is some kind of ape.
A Lurker
news:1181927468....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> What RU looking 'ere here 4?
>
> Sue
>
Probably one of these:-
http://www.divine-interventions.com/baby.php
R C & M S
from primates?
this museum is a monument to hopefulness but not to reality....
"Dave in Lake Villa" <DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2010-467...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net...
Dave in Lake Villa
desended from primates? '
REPLY: Because we are not descended from primates and ultimately
floating Pond Scum ,so your question is a presumptuous one. How do i
know we didnt come from a macro evolutionary chain ???? Cause i believe
in what these Evolutionists have to say ! :
" It is therefore a MATTER OF FAITH on the part of the biologist that
biogenesis (evolution) did occur and he can choose whatever method of
biogenesis happens to suit him personally ; the evidence for what did
happen is not available" --- Evolutionist Prof. G.A. Kerkut of the
University of Southampton. Source : Implications of Evolution. London.
Pergamon Press, 1960, page 150.
" The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on FAITH ALONE" -- Evolutionist Prof. T.L. Moor .
Origins ? The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988 page 22.
Another confession from an evolutionist -
" We Palenontologists have said that the history of life supports (the
story of gradual adaptive change) , all the while really knowing that it
does not" -- Dr. Niles Eldredge. Darwin on Trial. Regnery Gateway, 1991,
page 59.
This person comes clean finally. A confession of extraordinary honesty
---
" The record of reckless speculation of human origins is so astonishing
that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in
this field at all" -- Evolutionist Dr. Solly Zuckerman. Darwin on Trial.
1991. page 82.
From an article in Science Digest Special---
" Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest
growing controversial minorities ... Many of the scientists supporting
this posiiton hold impressive credentials in science" . -- Educators
Against Darwin. winter 1979, page 94
A huge number of Scientists know Darwinian Evolution is an utter fraud
--
" I believe that one day the Darwinnian myth will be ranked the greatest
deciet in the history of science "--- Prof. Soren Lovtrup, Embriologist.
Darwinism : The Refutation of a Myth. 1987. page 422.
" The more i examine the Universe and the details of its architecture,
the more evidence i find that the Universe in some sense must have known
we were coming"--- Prof. Freeman Dyson, Physicist from Princeton Univ.
'Disturbing the Universe' . 1979. page 250.
Do you recognize this famous person ??? --
" The more man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events, the
firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of
this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature than a Creator"
-- Albert Einstein. His LIfe and Times. page 286.
And finally, the bottom line from an "agnostic" Astronomer (and my
favourite) ----
" For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason,
the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of
ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak and as he pulls
himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of Theologians who
have been sitting there for centuries reading Genesis 1:1 : In the
Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" --- Prof. Robert
Jastrow founder of Nasa's Goddard Institute. His book, 'God and the
Astronomers. page 116.
Dave in Lake Villa
with them ,does that mean that the Creator is some kind of ape.'
REPLY: Imno, When you come to the Museum, youll get answers to
questions like the one you raised . Looking forward to seeing you at the
Museum soon. Heres a synopsis to your DNA statement :
1. Furry little humans?
Creation Archive > Volume 24 Issue 3 > Furry little humans?
Dedicated research shows that evolutionary ideas about the 'people-like'
nature of apes and monkeys are largely fantasy.
Over the past half-century or so, dozens of dedicated Darwinists have
devoted decades of their lives to studying the behaviour of apes and
monkeys. The public is regaled with stories about the likes of Jane
Goodall and Dianne Fossey living with chimps and mountain gorillas,
respectively. The social structures, behaviours, communication and so on
of apes and monkeys are scrutinized for the slightest evidence that they
have thoughts and minds not all that far from our own. We are regularly
left to conclude that the differences between mankind and these alleged
'close relatives' of ours are really minor ones of degree, not kind.
Two developments in particular have comforted1 and reinforced the masses
in such evolutionary notions.
One is the high percentage of genetic (DNA) similarity which such
primates hold in common with humans. Chimp DNA is supposed to be
anywhere from 96% to 98.7% identical to that of humans, depending on who
is telling the story. The reason for the variation is that no-one has
yet sequenced an ape's DNA; other, much cruder techniques are used to
give a 'guesstimate' of the similarity.2
Bananas in pyjamas?
Baboons are said to share 92% of their DNA with us. Granted a high
degree of shared DNA, even if it were 90%, would that make them 90%
human, as most interpret this? It is worth repeating what prominent
evolutionist Steve Jones reminded his audience of recently in the
context of man/chimp DNA-sharing: 'We also share about 50% of our DNA
with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the
waist up or the waist down.'3
The other development has to do with the issue of language. The
chimpanzee Washoe and the bonobo Kanzi 'have become famous for their
ability to respond to human language in surprisingly complex ways'.4
It must be a great disappointment, then, for committed evolutionists to
read of the latest work by two of the most dedicated primate behaviour
researchers in the world.5 Robert Seyfarth and Dorothy Cheney are a
husband-and-wife team who have performed many ingenious experiments with
vervet monkeys and baboons, plumbing the depths of their social
knowledge and mental processes.
Though they have occasionally revealed previously unknown 'richness' in
a monkey's social knowledge, overall their results have caused them to
give a massive 'thumbs down' to the 'monkeys are almost human' view.
They have gradually come to the conclusion (no surprise to
Bible-believing Christians) that there are 'severe limitations on
intelligence and communication in monkeys'.6
For instance, baboons walking past a recently dismembered buffalo
carcass do not 'put two and two together' to conclude that lions are in
the vicinity. They only act alarmed once they spot the actual lions.
Also, when they see an antelope carcass stuffed high up in a tree, they
show no signs of concluding the obvious—that their mortal enemy, the
leopard, is in the vicinity.
For another example: Baboons from a foraging troop which has spread out
so that some are on either side of a forest are known to give barking
calls. It has long been assumed that they were keeping 'contact',
saying, in effect, 'Hey, we're over here, where are you?' like humans
would. But ingenious experiments have shown that the monkeys were only
lamenting their own lostness.
Seyfarth and Cheney say that, unlike humans, 'monkeys don't actually
recognize that other monkeys have minds'.7 Whatever thoughts and
emotions they may have, they cannot project them outside of themselves,
as humans do all the time. Thus, a chimp may grieve due to loss, but
chimps do not seem to comfort others that are grieving.
This inability to put themselves in another monkey's place was starkly
demonstrated when a monkey named Sylvia made a deep water crossing with
a baby clinging to her underside, causing it to drown. Since she could
breathe, she could not relate to the fact that her baby could not.
So what does all this do to the 'genetic similarity' issue? The
(definitely non-creationist) writer of the Smithsonian article which
inspired this piece concedes that these results remind us that 'just a
few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between
species.'8 Of course, we have long been saying that a few percentage
points means many millions of base pair differences—which are likely
to be in much more crucial 'controlling genes'.
We were created with more similarities to apes than to jellyfish. Since
our bodily construction reflects our DNA 'recipe', it is perfectly
logical and consistent that we would also be genetically more similar to
apes than to jellyfish—or bananas, for that matter.
And what about the much-vaunted ape language abilities? These
researchers remind us that the circumstances were artificial. Seyfarth
says, 'You can teach a bear to ride a bicycle in the circus, but it
doesn't tell you much about what bears learn to do in the wild.'9 And
furthermore, says the article's author, 'even in the laboratory, no
animal has attained anything like true language'. Whereas humans 'embody
a theory of mind in wild excess.' We are aware that we, and our minds,
exist and that others have thinking minds too. Humans, and humans alone,
'know what we know, and we know that we know it. We possess the playful,
curious, strange and sympathetic entity called human consciousness.'9
This is because, he should have added, we were made in the image of God.
Made to think, reason, love and communicate with our Creator. Apes and
monkeys, no matter how superficially similar, were not.
As Seyfarth concludes, 'They're not furry little humans. They're just
monkeys.'6
References and notes
Evolution often functions to anesthetize the conscience against the
discomfort caused by the knowledge of sin/guilt. If Adam is your
ancestor, God sets the rules; if ape, you do. Return to text.
Batten, D. (Ed.), The Answers Book, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane,
Australia, pp. 102–106, 1999. Return to text.
Jones, S., interviewed at the Australian Museum on The Science Show,
broadcast on ABC radio, 12 January 2002,
<www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s456478.htm>, 25 January 2002.
Return to text.
Conniff, R., Monkey wrench, Smithsonian, pp. 102–104, October 2001.
Return to text.
Reported in ref. 4, pp. 97–104. Return to text.
Ref. 4, p. 97. Return to text.
Ref. 4, p. 102. Return to text.
Ref. 4, p. 98. Emphasis added. Return to text.
9. Ref. 4, p. 104. Return to text.
2. Is man an animal?
One increasingly hears phrases such as 'humans and other animals'. This
seems to be intended to attack the notion that people are special, being
made in the image of God.
The answer to the question 'is man an animal?' is not, however, a simple
one. In the technical biological sense, using the man-made
classification criteria instituted by the creationist Linnaeus, the
answer would seem to be 'yes'. Man is obviously not a plant, or a
bacterium. Creatures are grouped together using various criteria of
similarity, which do not need to have any evolutionary overtones. We
obviously have backbones, which would place us in the group known as
vertebrates. We give birth to live young, suckle our offspring, and so
on, which would place us with mammals, specifically the placental
mammals. Furthermore, we have many features in common with the group
known as primates.
But the problem is not so much with technical classification as with the
'propagandistic' effect that labelling people as 'animals' achieves. The
real point that evolutionists try to make, and which should be resisted,
is that man is 'just one more animal'.
The potential for confusion is particularly strong because the word
'animal', in the layperson's understanding, means something other than a
human being. Thus, when people say, 'animals are used to test
cosmetics', it is obvious that man is not included in this use of the
term 'animals'. (Equally, fish, insects and birds, though technically
'animals', are not usually talked about that way. E.g. 'The fire injured
many animals and birds'.)
People are definitely not 'animals' in any normal sense of that word,
nor are they related to animals by common descent. They have been made
in the very image of their Creator, and an awesome gulf separates them
from even the most similar of any other living creatures (see main
article).
The ultimate solution might be a separate kingdom in technical
classification to adequately reflect that fact. However, this is
unlikely to appear anytime soon in a world dominated by evolutionary
thinking.
In the meantime, when asked whether man is 'an animal', the best way to
avoid fostering evolutionary notions may be to:
Carefully point out the different definitions of the term.
Affirm that man is not an animal in any common usage of the term, nor in
any evolutionary sense whatsoever.
Imno1
have no argument with the finding that they are not human, and I know of no
researcher who says they are.No living apes or monkeys are classified as
being in the genus HOMO. But there is no question we share a great deal of
anatomy and genome with the apes. The issue is your statement that the
Creator made us in his image. Does that mean the Creator looks like an
ape-or has 50% of the DNA of a banana?.
"Dave in Lake Villa" <DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3345-467...@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
show no signs of concluding the obvious-that their mortal enemy, the
leopard, is in the vicinity.
For another example: Baboons from a foraging troop which has spread out
so that some are on either side of a forest are known to give barking
calls. It has long been assumed that they were keeping 'contact',
saying, in effect, 'Hey, we're over here, where are you?' like humans
would. But ingenious experiments have shown that the monkeys were only
lamenting their own lostness.
Seyfarth and Cheney say that, unlike humans, 'monkeys don't actually
recognize that other monkeys have minds'.7 Whatever thoughts and
emotions they may have, they cannot project them outside of themselves,
as humans do all the time. Thus, a chimp may grieve due to loss, but
chimps do not seem to comfort others that are grieving.
This inability to put themselves in another monkey's place was starkly
demonstrated when a monkey named Sylvia made a deep water crossing with
a baby clinging to her underside, causing it to drown. Since she could
breathe, she could not relate to the fact that her baby could not.
So what does all this do to the 'genetic similarity' issue? The
(definitely non-creationist) writer of the Smithsonian article which
inspired this piece concedes that these results remind us that 'just a
few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between
species.'8 Of course, we have long been saying that a few percentage
points means many millions of base pair differences-which are likely
to be in much more crucial 'controlling genes'.
We were created with more similarities to apes than to jellyfish. Since
our bodily construction reflects our DNA 'recipe', it is perfectly
logical and consistent that we would also be genetically more similar to
apes than to jellyfish-or bananas, for that matter.
And what about the much-vaunted ape language abilities? These
researchers remind us that the circumstances were artificial. Seyfarth
says, 'You can teach a bear to ride a bicycle in the circus, but it
doesn't tell you much about what bears learn to do in the wild.'9 And
furthermore, says the article's author, 'even in the laboratory, no
animal has attained anything like true language'. Whereas humans 'embody
a theory of mind in wild excess.' We are aware that we, and our minds,
exist and that others have thinking minds too. Humans, and humans alone,
'know what we know, and we know that we know it. We possess the playful,
curious, strange and sympathetic entity called human consciousness.'9
This is because, he should have added, we were made in the image of God.
Made to think, reason, love and communicate with our Creator. Apes and
monkeys, no matter how superficially similar, were not.
As Seyfarth concludes, 'They're not furry little humans. They're just
monkeys.'6
References and notes
Evolution often functions to anesthetize the conscience against the
discomfort caused by the knowledge of sin/guilt. If Adam is your
ancestor, God sets the rules; if ape, you do. Return to text.
Batten, D. (Ed.), The Answers Book, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane,
Australia, pp. 102-106, 1999. Return to text.
Jones, S., interviewed at the Australian Museum on The Science Show,
broadcast on ABC radio, 12 January 2002,
<www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s456478.htm>, 25 January 2002.
Return to text.
Conniff, R., Monkey wrench, Smithsonian, pp. 102-104, October 2001.
Return to text.
Reported in ref. 4, pp. 97-104. Return to text.
High Miles
> my question and the issue here is not how human apes may or may not be.I
> have no argument with the finding that they are not human, and I know of no
> researcher who says they are.No living apes or monkeys are classified as
> being in the genus HOMO. But there is no question we share a great deal of
> anatomy and genome with the apes. The issue is your statement that the
> Creator made us in his image. Does that mean the Creator looks like an
> ape-or has 50% of the DNA of a banana?.
>
You'll never get a straight answer from this bird.
All he has is what he's been programmed to repeat.
He HAS to believe...............................OR ELSE.
You know the drill.
Sue
wrote: <snipped dave's utter bullocks>
Shalt we assume you faked all those quotes just like you did with this
one? (Which GW never made!)
Sue
Newsgroups: soc.senior.issues
From: DaveInLakeVi...@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:24:59 -0500
Local: Fri, Jun 1 2007 3:24 pm
Subject: Re: Mexico's opinion of the US
I guess George Washingtons prophecy was
correct when he said in his inaugural speech :
' If American ever decides to turn its back on God, she will come to
ruin ' . When you toss aside necessary Foundations for morality and
honor to the Creator...then it becomes a springboard to anarchy and
the
general populus doing what is 'right' in their own minds (moral
relativism/situational ethics).
Dave
ImNo1
looks llike a made over ape.It follows that God looks like a made-over ape.
Right?news:3345-467...@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
Dave in Lake Villa
with them ,does that mean that the Creator is some kind of ape.''
REPLY: Humans also have DNA simularities to Tobacco ... so, does that
mean that the One Celled Pond Protozoa smoked Marlboro ? Because we
have simular DNA composition to a variety of things simply means that
the personal Creator used the same basic blueprint in many many cases ;
dont forget, REAL science negates Darwinisms ""THEORY"" (note that
'theory' doesnt mean fact) .
See you at the Museum next weekend. Just ask for Dave . Ill be the one
wearing this little poem :
Ode to the Evolutionist-
Once i was a tadpole when i did begin,
then i was a frog with my tail tucked in.
Then i was a monkey swingin' from a tree,
now im a Professor with a P.H.D. !
High Miles
Zip A. DeDuda
Dave. you are wasting your time talkinjg to these old whores and
queers. They are probablty too young to be in a retirment group
anyway, or else they are left-over dregs from the Beatnik-Hippie
generation who let
Greenwich village and UC at Berkley determine their thinking for them.
To have an original thoguht, to them, is unthinkable. Pushing the
Atheistic Hedonistic philosophy of thier "perfessers" is all they care
about.. They have no minds other than their gonads and the drug
receptor cells in their brains....which are defectiive by definition.
Save your efforts.
A Lurker
news:plf87358a5dmoo461...@4ax.com...
>
> Dave. you are wasting your time talkinjg to these old whores and
> queers. They are probablty too young to be in a retirment group
> anyway, or else they are left-over dregs from the Beatnik-Hippie
> generation who let
> Greenwich village and UC at Berkley determine their thinking for them.
> To have an original thoguht, to them, is unthinkable. Pushing the
> Atheistic Hedonistic philosophy of thier "perfessers" is all they care
> about.. They have no minds other than their gonads and the drug
> receptor cells in their brains....which are defectiive by definition.
> Save your efforts.
So Dave has a supporter! Well well well! There would also seem to be a
common denominator in both of their comments.
Dave in his earlier post with his little poem makes the scathing final line,
"now I'm a professor with a PhD"
and Zip A. DeDuda, makes scathing comments about professors and UC at
Berkley.
I've noticed many other creationists who attack real science in this way and
often wonder if it is simply jealousy engendered by their total lack of
education and inablility to grasp the most simple of scientific concepts
that drives them towards a pseudo scientific explanation to bolster their
fragile egos because they are too dumb to understand anything else, and too
dumb to have been able to get into college.
Whatever their reasons it's a certain irrefutable fact that $70,000,000
could have been far better spent on real education or medical research
instead of massaging the egos of these idiots who feel they need to ram
their vile brand of superstition and myth down everyone elses throats.
High Miles
Momma and Deddy and Granny and Gramps warned them that if they
didn't believe every stinking word in the good book, their loving god
would see that they burned eternally.
What chance would truth and science stand against generations of
ignorant superstition ?
prof_ne...@yahoo.com
BOZO!
prof_ne...@yahoo.com
> "Sue" <shaggdo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
or this:
http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/gallery/v/worst_ever/IMG_0065.JPG.html
Welcome back Mr. Lurk
Haven't seen you around in a long while
Hewy
prof_ne...@yahoo.com
> why don't you answer my question? You said God made man in his image.Man
> looks llike a made over ape.It follows that God looks like a made-over ape.
> Right?
You won't receive an answer but expect a link to a moronic creationist
site
Hewy
Earl Evleth
9849-467...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net, "Dave in Lake Villa"
<DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote:
> ''gee- considering we look like made-over apes,and share 99% of our DNA
> with them ,does that mean that the Creator is some kind of ape.''
>
> REPLY: Humans also have DNA simularities to Tobacco ...
Not the same genetic overlap. Not the same as with current primates.
So you distorted the facts.
Creationism is not uniform in its postions. Are you just a plain
Creationist or a Biblical Creationist?
When do you believe Creation occurred.
High Miles
>
>
This guy doesn't answer questions.
He only posts more deceptive quotes from the bag he's purchased.
Earl Evleth
"High Miles" <2Blu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> When do you believe Creation occurred?
>>
>>
> This guy doesn't answer questions.
> He only posts more deceptive quotes from the bag he's purchased.
>
>
Which is why I asked the questions, to expose him as a phony.
Imno1
everyone else is wasted?
Dave with whom you emphatically agree said that God made man in his image.
Man looks like a made over ape.Does that mean God looks like a made-over
ape?.
"Zip A. DeDuda" <ZA...@Mmmfna.net> wrote in message
news:plf87358a5dmoo461...@4ax.com...
>
Imno1
the relationship of humans to the rest of the natural world, but about the
relationship of man to God. To repeat if man was made in God's image, does
God look like man- a made over ape?
"Dave in Lake Villa" <DaveInL...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9849-467...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net...
prof_ne...@yahoo.com
> why don't you answer my simple minded question, if you're so smart and
> everyone else is wasted?
>
> Dave with whom you emphatically agree said that God made man in his image.
> Man looks like a made over ape.Does that mean God looks like a made-over
> ape?.
>
> > Dave. you are wasting your time talkinjg to these old whores and
> > queers. They are probablty too young to be in a retirment group
> > anyway, or else they are left-over dregs from the Beatnik-Hippie
> > generation who let
> > Greenwich village and UC at Berkley determine their thinking for them.
> > To have an original thoguht, to them, is unthinkable. Pushing the
> > Atheistic Hedonistic philosophy of thier "perfessers" is all they care
> > about.. They have no minds other than their gonads and the drug
> > receptor cells in their brains....which are defectiive by definition.
> > Save your efforts.
>
Sorry to further extend this OT discussion in an inappropriate
senior's group, but as neither DILV or Bozo, our thread's two
creationist nitwit's, will be able to present you with an intelligent
answer, check out this site explaining an idea as to how Earth's
inhabitants might today appear, but for an extintion event a few years
ago at Chicxulub.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/dinosaurintell.html
or here:
They sure don't look too ape-like to me, which leads one to wonder: if
evolution had favored them, would they have developed their own
"creationist subculture" of religious halfwits like the humans race
has, complete with a imaginary Dino-creator, Dino-bibles, an
immaculate Dino-conception, plastic Dino-jesus's and money grubbing
Dino tele-evangelists?
HAL
Imno1
<prof_ne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182113966.8...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 17, 1:04 pm, "Imno1" <w...@erewon.com> wrote:
>> why don't you answer my simple minded question, if you're so smart and
>> everyone else is wasted?
>>
>> Dave with whom you emphatically agree said that God made man in his
>> image.
>> Man looks like a made over ape.Does that mean God looks like a made-over
>> ape?.
>>
> Sorry to further extend this OT discussion in an inappropriate
> senior's group, but as neither DILV or Bozo, our thread's two
> creationist nitwit's, will be able to present you with an intelligent
> answer, check out this site explaining an idea as to how Earth's
> inhabitants might today appear, but for an extintion event a few years
> ago at Chicxulub.
>
> http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/dinosaurintell.html
>
> or here:
>
> http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Al_xtkT-Tf0J:groups.msn.com/WeNotAloneUniverse/thedinosaurmanstenonychosaurusinequalis.msnw+Stenonychosaurus+inequalis+ottawa&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
>
> They sure don't look too ape-like to me, which leads one to wonder: if
> evolution had favored them, would they have developed their own
> "creationist subculture" of religious halfwits like the humans race
> has, complete with a imaginary Dino-creator, Dino-bibles, an
> immaculate Dino-conception, plastic Dino-jesus's and money grubbing
> Dino tele-evangelists?
>
I know they won't answer. I just want them to be concious of their
evasiveness. They aren't even smart enough to come up with some kind of
metaphoric or metaphysical explanation of the biblical statement.
prof_ne...@yahoo.com
?
>
> I know they won't answer. I just want them to be concious of their
> evasiveness. They aren't even smart enough to come up with some kind of
> metaphoric or metaphysical explanation of the biblical statement.
Creationists being conscious of anything?
That's good for a laugh!
Noted DILV's off-the-wall attempt to liken tobacco DNA to human DNA
<<Humans also have DNA simularities to Tobacco ... so, does that
mean that the One Celled Pond Protozoa smoked Marlboro ? Because
we
have simular DNA composition to a variety of things simply means that
the personal Creator used the same basic blueprint in many many
cases ;
dont forget, REAL science>>
(Real science doesn't exist in DILV's world)
Somehow he has heard that all DNA and RNA (plant, bacteria, human,
frog, virus, etc) involves only 4 base chemicals, (Adenine, Thymine,
Guanine, Cytosine) arranged in different sequences
Now if some imaginary creator had the good sense to think ahead, she/
he/it would have made humans completely different from all other forms
of life. The fact that we aren't provides absolute evidence of the
truth of evolution
HAL
High Miles
They need their imaginary friends and deities.
D
Earl Evleth
YUgdi.16810$y_7....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net, "Imno1" <wh...@erewon.com>
wrote:
Dave in Lake Villa
natural world, but about the relationship of man to God. To repeat if
REPLY: Re: our relationship to the Creator ---- the very purpose of
our existence on earth is to relate to God our CREATOR and to enjoy him
and his handiwork that is evident for all to witness and find
remarkable. Personal man is made in the image of the personal Creator,
for, it is the only way personal attributes such as moral oughtness,
ethical systems, abstract thinking, empathy, compassion, love, hate, et
al...could possibly come about ; these sorts of things DONT come from
the non personal such as materials (hydrogen gas from an accidental non
personal big bang). God is infinite , he is Spirit yet with
personality ; im not talking some mumbo jumbo Pagan idea...rather, the
first cause of a finite universe has to be INfinite , first cause of
personal human traits has to be VERY personal, first cause of moral
oughtness has to be VERY Holy and Moral, first cause of abstract thought
has to be INFINITELY intelligent, etc, etc... Its not just 'my
opinion' on what God is like...he has chosen to reveal himself thru the
way we are made, thru the Creation around us, thru the Bible, and thru
the 2nd person of the Trinity (God) , Jesus the Christ ... saviour of
mankind of whom there is great historical evidence for
(www.impactapologetics.com for the large booklet :' The 12 Points that
prove Christianity' . $10 .00 . Inside this booklet , you will find
an enormous amount of evidences for Gods existence, the historical
evidence for Christ and his ressurection proving he was God in the
flesh, why there are absolute moral laws, and why it makes good rational
sense to become a Christian. The evidence is out there --- its just a
matter if we are willing or not. With the ramifications of eternity at
stake, i personally thought it was worth a very close examination and it
was so compelling for me that i had to become a Follower of Christ. It
was so compelling for Prof./Attorney Simon Greenleaf , the worlds
foremost expert on Court Evidence, that he too had to become a Follower
after being challenged by his Law class to put the evidence on a mock
trial.
Atheism is the least tenable approach to take in life, although it
offers (temporarily) license to do as you want. But for the person who
is willing to get beyond what feels good thru complete autonomy...the
truth of The Christian Faith is so compelling that any rational person
can/and would, accept it because of how true it is to what we can test
and personally experience .
Dave in Lake Villa
Address:http://www.impactapologetics.com/product.asp?numRecordPosition=1&P_I
Dave in Lake Villa
From: "Dave in Lake Villa" <daveinl...@webtv.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:46:22 GMT
Local: Wed, Mar 29 2006 5:46 am
Subject: The Guide to Avoidism (my religion)
Many a time ive come across nay sayers.
i want to remind you sinners how to
properly answer any questions that people ask you about your faith -
once of
course you realise that God is fact and that nobody can deny this.
Pslam I) Never answer a question directly. What would that prove ?
That you
give credence to their sinning ways ? That you're no better than a
mere
question answerer ? Jesus spoke only in meandering riddles, so learn
from
the master. Of course, when reminded that you didn't answer a direct
question SAY "I did answer it !" This will then completely confuse
your
asailant.
Pslam II) Divert. Always divert. You'll need this once the evil
sinners back
you into a corner. It's a bit like a mugger trapping you in the corner
and
you suddenly go "look over there !!" This of course would rarely lead
to
anything other than you getting stabbed repeatedly in the chest. But
at
least on the webtv service no one can stab you. So randomly point out
how
much they're sinning. And keep mentioning their "truth system". It
always
confuses them.
Pslam III) Announce that science does not exist and that the bible
predicted
everything, ever. Now unfortunately the bible cannot name specific
names,
but hey, you know that's what the bible MEANT. When Jesus made enough
fishes
to feed the 5000, that was actually a direct reference to Unilever
selling
off Birdseye. Of course no one SEES it that way, they wouldn't,
they're just
willful atheist pond scum. But you know deep in your heart the actual
truth.
The bible has the answer to absolutely everything, from quantum
physics to
"discoveries" in medicine that haven't even been discovered yet. I
mean why
do you think they've not found the cure for AIDS yet - it's because
they
haven't read the bible properly ! Although when they do they'd find
out that
the bible tells them "everyone who has AIDS has sinned and deserves to
die
anyway". This could account for the delay.
Pslam IV) Quote relentlessly. Just because someone refuses to accept
the
truth of the bible, does not mean they can't still be taught !! Okay ?
So
you tell them, over and over. It's not that the bible is wrong, it's
that
they just don't understand it ! Or else of course they're in denial.
Pslam V) Stop replying at all. Silence is your best holy weapon. So
when
they just can't see that you're right, or you just don't know the
answer,
stop answering altogether. This serves beautifully to make them
finally
realise that they are always wrong and you are always right. It's
difficult
for them to accept this, so you must leave them to work it out for
themselves sometimes.
I hope this has been of use to you. Remember it's not you who is
wrong, even
when no one else agrees. Just carry on fghting the good fight, that's
attacking peverted gays, blacks and infact anyone not part of
Hitler's
vision of perfection.
Dave
High Miles
> From: "Dave in Lake Villa" <daveinl...@webtv.net>
> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:46:22 GMT
> Local: Wed, Mar 29 2006 5:46 am
> Subject: The Guide to Avoidism (my religion)
>
> Many a time ive come across nay sayers.
> i want to remind you sinners how to
> properly answer any questions that people ask you about your faith -
> once of
> course you realise that God is fact and that nobody can deny this.
>
If you could just answer directly once, it would be a nice change.
Quoting from the book you have chosen to accept just presents the
same old circular argument and shows how little thought you've
given to that voodoo.
Dave in Lake Villa
; it is an unclever imposter, stalker , and long time fan club member
who gets off on malice.
So, always check the addy when you read a post . Regards, dave.
c/o
Daveinlakevilla @webtv.net.
High Miles
Joan F (MI)
killfile.
noname
<jjf...@removethisameritech.net> wrote:
>Ah, that explains it, I thought DLV had changed his addy to escape my
>killfile.
Me, too. I am relieved to know my kill file still works:)