Creation VS Evolution
Jimmy Adams
In article <5dquqo$3...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, Royce Buehler
<bue...@space.mit.edu> writes
>
>In article <32FBB3...@mindspring.com>, Judson McClendon
><ju...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> Jimmy Adams wrote:
>> >
>> > Please don't say that God created them: according to the Bible, God only
>> > created semitics.
>>
>> Genesis 9:18,19 "Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem,
>> Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the
>> sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated."
>>
>> Shem is the father of the Semitic peoples, including the Jews. All the
>> genes for all the racial types were in Noah and his wife.
>
>Judson, you are underselling your side of the argument here. The Flood
>account, if you choose to take it literally, constrains you to say
>that all racial types are descended from Noah and his wife. However,
>it does not constrain you to say that all racial types were contained
>in the genes of Noah and his wife.
>
>Remember, Shem, Ham, and Japheth each had wives, and they might have
>had any racial characteristics under the sun. Check the epistles of
>Peter: eight were saved on the Ark, not five.
>
So, one wife was Inuit: she must have found it pretty hot. Another was a
Negro: which Jewish tribe did she start? And the third was an Australian
aborigene: how did she get to the Middle East?
That still leaves Anglo-Saxons, Polynesians, Sino-Tibetans, Japanese ...
Could they have been stowaways?
--
Jimmy Adams
Judson McClendon
David Weinstein: david.w...@virgin.net, no longer at Demon wrote:
>
> >
> >Show me a quark or a black hole or an electron or gamma rays. Your
> >logic is impeccable, Elmer.
> The difference is, no scientist will have claimed to have _seen_
> some of these "items" (black holes, quarks). However, the effects of
> electrons and gamma rays are easily in a high school labaratory, if not
> in your home (what do you think the cathode ray tube in your computer
> monitor uses to produce an image?) Science can produce models of the
> universe, which fit in with other models, and these are then tested to
> see how accurately they fit in with our observations. We know to a
> fairly high degree of certainty (way above 99% I'd venture) that
> electrons and gamma rays exist: too much of our observations support
> this model. As for quarks and black holes, the same applies, wiht more
> and more evidence being produced daily. Religion on the other hand, is
> substantiated by nothing more than a couple books and an oral tradition,
> and is self-contradictory. Take a look at the 100's of religions and
> variants world-wide. What makes you so certain _yours_ is the "correct"
> religion.
You're missing my point. My question was to illustrate the fact that we
can know about things which we can't necessarily directly demonstrate.
Our only way of knowing that *anything* exists is through our
perception, generally our five senses. God is not made of matter and
energy, God is spirit. God created all the matter and energy and all
the laws of the universe. A person who has received the Holy Spirit
through receiving Jesus Christ as Savior can perceive God through the
spirit, just as we perceive the physical world through the physical
senses. Millions and millions of people have known God in this way and
there are millions of them alive right now who will certainly tell you
that this is true. Denying this merely displays ignorance of the truth.
> >> > How could a book written by strictly human knowledge, ancient knowledge
> >> > at that, be so absolutely accurate?
> >>
> >> It isn't Judson.
> >
> >Oh, but it is. It is our own knowledge which is fallible.
> Maybe "God" should have given us better memories, or at least a
> reasonable method of observing "his" actions. If "God" expects us to
> have faith in "him" on purely irrational reasons, one oculd assume that
> "he" is an irrational entity. The past few centuries have shown the
> benefits of being rational (200 years ago you wouldn't have had the
> leishure, let alone technology to hold this converstation). Surely a
> rational God would be better, yet by definition a rational God would
> have provided proof, and the lack of evidence "proves" that none such
> exists. Therefore, we either have an inferior, irrational God, whom we
> can hope to surpass someday using reason and science, or else none at
> all, in which case religion is a needless waste of resources.
It is interesting to me, and very sad, the arrogance displayed by such a
statement. The gap between God and man is greater than between man and
an amoeba. And you think you can rationalize what God should think?
That's very funny! God's wisdom and knowledge is beyond our
comprehension. The only way we can understand Him at all is because He
gave us the Bible and to believers He gives the Holy Spirit. There is
no other way. See 1 Corinthians 2:9-14:
9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have
entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for
those who love Him."
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit
searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the
man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except
the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit
who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely
given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom
teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things
with spiritual.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of
God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned.
Until someone receives the Holy Spirit by receiving Jesus Christ, the
things of God will be 'foolishness' to them.
> >> > He KNEW from the beginning
> >> > exactly what would transpire, becaue no single variable was beyond His
> >> > understanding.
> >>
> >> Then why did he bother making Satan and evil??
> >
> >You can ask Him when you stand before Him. My own belief is that it was
> >the only (or at least, His preferred) way of creating for Himself a
> >group of beings who know what it is like to have been in rebellion
> >against Him but who chose to receive His free gift of salvation through
> >Jesus Christ.
> One of the saddest and most pathetic things is someone who
> purposely creates something imperfect and allows others to be harmed due
> to their own need to see something to "fix" later. Surely God is not
> that petty, or else God is not omniscient, omnipotent, etc.
Oh, you're going to judge God now? See Romans 9:20-23 below:
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the
thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like
this?"
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump
to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power
known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared
for destruction,
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the
vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
It's our choice. In how we receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ we decide
for ourselves if we are to be 'vessels of wrath' or 'vessels of mercy'.
That's why God gave us free will.
> >> > He KNEW what He would do, and He KNEW what every single
> >> > individual would do, even though each person exercises free will at
> >> > every point. In other words, sufficient preknowledge, combined with
> >> > God's infinite ability to act, results in predestination, even with free
> >> > will.
> >>
> >> Then proselytizing others is simply a waste of your time.
> >
> >No, it's not. The fact that God already knows what we are going to do
> >makes it 'predestined', but in no way reduces our ability to chose what
> >we will do, or the consequences of our actions.
> But no matter what you "choose" to do, God already knows what is going
> to happen and since God allowed it to happen ,indeed made in possible,
> then you can do anything you want in the name of God.
Allowing it to happen is not making it happen. It is *always* our
choice to receive God or to reject Him.
> I do not agree
> with this, because it would mean that you could do anything, including
> murder, rape, and genocide, with God's assistance and approval. Not a
> very "nice" or ethical God eh? If God didn't want someone to do
> something, he wouldn't even need to take direct action (miracles) to
> stop them, just set up the system in the first place to prevent this. I
> guess he can't be bothered.
Your agreement isn't needed. God is Sovereign. He does as He wills
without our permission. And it will be humans who stand before Him for
judgment, not the other way around. God did not 'force' Adam and Eve to
disobey, God told them what was expected of them and they disobeyed on
their own. Such is free will. The really important things to remember
are this:
All men are sinners (Romans 3:10-18)
10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside; they have together become
unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one.
...
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes."
We cannot save ourselves by doing good, or obeying 'rules' (Romans
3:19,20)
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are
under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may
become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in
His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
God provides a way for us to be saved; through faith in Jesus Christ
(Romans 3:21-24)
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed,
being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to
all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is
in Christ Jesus,
God did it this way to demonstrate His righteousness (Romans 3:25,26)
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith,
to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had
passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He
might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Jesus is the ONLY way to be saved: "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way,
the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'"
(John 14:6) "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other
name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts
4:12)
Jesus died for you, too. You just have to believe it to receive it.
--
Judson McClendon This is a faithful saying and worthy of all
Sun Valley Systems acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the
ju...@mindspring.com world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15)
Judson McClendon
Elmer Bataitis wrote:
>
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> > Here's what the Bible says
> > about whether there is enough evidence to believe in God or not, and the
> > consequences:
>
> > (Romans 1:18-32)
> > 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
> > ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
> > unrighteousness,
>
> Reread this verse a couple of thousand times please!!
I've read this verse many, many times. Have you?
> > 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has
> > shown it to them.
> > 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are
> > clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> even His
> > eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,...
>
> Now, how old is the universe? Is evolution a fact? Is the Garden of Eden
> a *real* place?
Please explain why you are confusing 'His invisible attributes' with the
age of the universe? I don't know for certain how old the universe is,
because only God knows and He hasn't told us. I do know that evolution
is false, because God told us (in brief) how He created Adam and Eve,
and it is totally inconsistent with evolution. There are many other
truths in the Bible which are also inconsistent with evolution. The
Garden of Eden was a *real* place, just as Adam and Eve were *real*
individuals.
> > 21 "But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be
> > clearly seen, that they have been done in God."
>
> I'm still waiting for your citations on Thompson and Huxley, Judson.
You're going to have a long wait. I clearly told you everything I know
about it, more than once, and have reminded you of that fact several
times. If I had more information, I would be happy to give it to you.
Brian James Mueller
On Sat, 22 Feb 1997 13:16:36 -0600, Judson McClendon
<ju...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Please explain why you are confusing 'His invisible attributes' with the
>age of the universe? I don't know for certain how old the universe is,
>because only God knows and He hasn't told us. I do know that evolution
>is false, because God told us (in brief) how He created Adam and Eve,
>and it is totally inconsistent with evolution. There are many other
>truths in the Bible which are also inconsistent with evolution. The
>Garden of Eden was a *real* place, just as Adam and Eve were *real*
>individuals.
I respectfully differ with you, sir. I believe in God. I also believe
in Evolution. In case you didn't know, the official position of the
Roman Catholic Church is that things such as Genesis and Revalation
are meant to be taken METAPHORICALLY, not literally. It's been proven
that God did NOT create the Universe in seven literal days. The
sequence of events described in Genesis is right, but I don't think
that the word "day" is meant in the same sense that it's generally
used today. For example, older people have a tendency to say "In my
day..." does this mean, literally, a specific day? No. Although I
believe in God, anthropologists will tell you that there is more than
one place in which the homo sapiens species is believed to have
emerged; the Middle East is one such area, as is Africa, IIRC. I'm
unable to recall the third place at this moment. I believe the current
thinking is that the female emerged first, also. This would seem to be
in contradiction to the Judaic/Christian Bible, however, as I said
before, it was not meant to be interpreted literally.
My concept of God seems to be different from yours, although I do
believe in Him. My concept of God is that He is the sentient
embodiment of all the laws of the universe, as percieved by the
science of Physics. In my view, physics comes closer to God than most
theology.
wf...@enter.net
On Sat, 22 Feb 1997 13:16:36 -0600, Judson McClendon
>Please explain why you are confusing 'His invisible attributes' with the
>age of the universe? I don't know for certain how old the universe is,
>because only God knows and He hasn't told us. I do know that evolution
>is false, because God told us (in brief) how He created Adam and Eve,
>and it is totally inconsistent with evolution.
what a stupid ignorant arrogant statement. how do you know this story
is literally true? until luther first declared the bible literally
true in 1517 no church anywhere had this as a doctrine. you are
letting subjective ignorance masquerade as objectivity. you are saying
you are willing to believe a lie, regardless of the fact it was
created (ironic!) 16 centuries after christ...and is not
biblical...rather than look at the facts. what a stupid theology.
Herb Huston
In article <UfOjnLAQ...@pensive.com>,
The ancestry of the Anglo-Saxons, Polynesians, Sino-Tibetans, and Japanese
could all be accounted for by one of the wives. However, another wife
would probably have to be a Khoi-San.
Genetically, the human "races" would seem to be the Khoi-San, several
groups of sub-Saharan Africans, and a remaining group consisting of
everyone else. "Negro" would seem not to be a valid grouping.
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
-- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
Alan Scott
In article <330F46...@mindspring.com>,
Judson McClendon <ju...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Elmer Bataitis wrote:
<snip>
>> Now, how old is the universe? Is evolution a fact? Is the Garden of Eden
>> a *real* place?
>
>Please explain why you are confusing 'His invisible attributes' with the
>age of the universe? I don't know for certain how old the universe is,
>because only God knows and He hasn't told us.
He has left us some excellent clues however. Note the evidence for an
expanding universe, the microwave background and the primordial
helium abundance. These all point to a big-bang type creation around
10-15 billion years ago.
>I do know that evolution
>is false, because God told us (in brief) how He created Adam and Eve,
>and it is totally inconsistent with evolution.
Why don't you read the word of God as expressed in his creation, and
use the truths evident therein as a guide to your interpretation of
the Bible. Certainly there are allegorical passages and poetic references
in the Bible. Why do you pridefully assume that your so-called 'literal'
interpretation of Genesis is the correct one? I say so-called because
it is obvious that there is not a single correct literal interpretation
of Genesis. From such a naive interpretation come the young-earthers,
and the old-earthers; evidence that a literal interpretation is still
merely another opinion on the 'correct' way to read the Bible.
It is interesting that the Hebrew name 'Adam' can be translated roughly
as 'man', lending credence to an allegorical interpretation. Most
Christian theologians as far back as St. Augustine have decried literal
un-thinking interpretations of the Bible as naive.
Why not read the only word of God that man cannot alter? The rocks and
trees cry out the folly of your path.
>There are many other
>truths in the Bible which are also inconsistent with evolution. The
>Garden of Eden was a *real* place, just as Adam and Eve were *real*
>individuals.
That is your opinion. It is interesting that Catholics and most
Protestant Christian denominations disagree.
--
Al Scott....Creationist Quote of the Month--David Ford again!!--
..the electron has a classical radius of 2.8x10^-15 meters, which would be
within your stated upper bound of 10^-18 meters.
Lenny Flank
Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> You're missing my point. My question was to illustrate the fact that we
> can know about things which we can't necessarily directly demonstrate.
> Our only way of knowing that *anything* exists is through our
> perception, generally our five senses. God is not made of matter and
> energy, God is spirit. God created all the matter and energy and all
> the laws of the universe. A person who has received the Holy Spirit
> through receiving Jesus Christ as Savior can perceive God through the
> spirit, just as we perceive the physical world through the physical
> senses.
I see. So the only ones who are able to see any evdience that such an
entity exists are those who already believe that it exists . . . .
My, how scientific of you.
Millions and millions of people have known God in this way and
> there are millions of them alive right now who will certainly tell you
> that this is true. Denying this merely displays ignorance of the truth.
Since Christianity is itself a minority religion in the world, millions
MORE people are alive right now who would instead tell you that they
have known Buddha or Allah or Tao in this way. There are others who can
tell you with equal validity (and equal evdience) that they have seen
Quetzelcoatl, Zeus, Wakan Tanka or Odin in the same manner.
Does denying THIS also display ignorance of the truth? Why are YOU the
exclusive possessor of "The Truth"?
=====================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life."
Check out my herp photos:
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2421
Creation "Science" debunked:
http://www.users.fast.net/~lflank
=====================================================
Joe & Audrey Sinisi
>On Sat, 22 Feb 1997 13:16:36 -0600, Judson McClendon
><ju...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Please explain why you are confusing 'His invisible attributes' with the
>>age of the universe? I don't know for certain how old the universe is,
>>because only God knows and He hasn't told us. I do know that evolution
>>is false, because God told us (in brief) how He created Adam and Eve,
>>and it is totally inconsistent with evolution. There are many other
>>truths in the Bible which are also inconsistent with evolution. The
>>Garden of Eden was a *real* place, just as Adam and Eve were *real*
>>individuals.
>
>I respectfully differ with you, sir. I believe in God. I also believe
>in Evolution. In case you didn't know, the official position of the
>Roman Catholic Church is that things such as Genesis and Revalation
>are meant to be taken METAPHORICALLY, not literally. It's been proven
>that God did NOT create the Universe in seven literal days. The
>sequence of events described in Genesis is right, but I don't think
>that the word "day" is meant in the same sense that it's generally
>used today. For example, older people have a tendency to say "In my
>day..." does this mean, literally, a specific day? No. Although I
>believe in God, anthropologists will tell you that there is more than
>one place in which the homo sapiens species is believed to have
>emerged; the Middle East is one such area, as is Africa, IIRC. I'm
>unable to recall the third place at this moment. I believe the current
>thinking is that the female emerged first, also. This would seem to be
>in contradiction to the Judaic/Christian Bible, however, as I said
>before, it was not meant to be interpreted literally.
>
>My concept of God seems to be different from yours, although I do
>believe in Him. My concept of God is that He is the sentient
>embodiment of all the laws of the universe, as percieved by the
>science of Physics. In my view, physics comes closer to God than most
>theology.
Hi Mr. Mueller,
Just a quick question. If physics comes closer to God than most
theology, then how do you account for the fact that it is the laws of
physics (specifically, the laws of classical and statistical
thermodynamics) that scientifically prove that evolution is
impossible? I really am curious, and I would appreciate a response.
Thanks,
Joe
Gil Garteiz
Judson McClendon <ju...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<330F42...@mindspring.com>...
> David Weinstein: david.w...@virgin.net, no longer at Demon wrote:
> >
> > >
> You're missing my point. My question was to illustrate the fact that we
> can know about things which we can't necessarily directly demonstrate.
> Our only way of knowing that *anything* exists is through our
> perception, generally our five senses.
And I think youre missing his point. There is a difference between
indirectly demonstrating a theory, and blindly accepting something.
> > >Oh, but it is. It is our own knowledge which is fallible.
> > Maybe "God" should have given us better memories, or at least a
> > reasonable method of observing "his" actions. If "God" expects us to
> > have faith in "him" on purely irrational reasons, one oculd assume that
> > "he" is an irrational entity. The past few centuries have shown the
> > benefits of being rational (200 years ago you wouldn't have had the
> > leishure, let alone technology to hold this converstation). Surely a
> > rational God would be better, yet by definition a rational God would
> > have provided proof, and the lack of evidence "proves" that none such
> > exists. Therefore, we either have an inferior, irrational God, whom we
> > can hope to surpass someday using reason and science, or else none at
> > all, in which case religion is a needless waste of resources.
> It is interesting to me, and very sad, the arrogance displayed by such a
> statement. The gap between God and man is greater than between man and
> an amoeba. And you think you can rationalize what God should think?
> That's very funny! God's wisdom and knowledge is beyond our
> comprehension. The only way we can understand Him at all is because He
> gave us the Bible and to believers He gives the Holy Spirit. There is
> no other way. See 1 Corinthians 2:9-14:
Classic religious statement. I love it when people try to invalidate
someones argument by saying he cant possibly understand what he is talking
about.
> Until someone receives the Holy Spirit by receiving Jesus Christ, the
> things of God will be 'foolishness' to them.
Wait, I thought you just said that God's wisdom is beyond our
comprehension.
> > One of the saddest and most pathetic things is someone who
> > purposely creates something imperfect and allows others to be harmed
due
> > to their own need to see something to "fix" later. Surely God is not
> > that petty, or else God is not omniscient, omnipotent, etc.
>
> Oh, you're going to judge God now? See Romans 9:20-23 below:
> 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the
> thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like
> this?"
> 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump
> to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
Well the difference here is that pots are inanimate objects and do not
suffer because of their various shapes and uses.
> 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power
> known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared
> for destruction,
> 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the
> vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
Oh I see, its not enough to be almighty, you have to make petty little
servants do your bidding and strike down the ones who disobey.
Wesley R. Elsberry
Newsgroups trimmed. Followups set to talk.origins. Posted and emailed.
[...]
In article <3310888b...@news.inetworld.net>,
Joe & Audrey Sinisi <jasi...@inet1.inetworld.net> wrote:
[...]
JS>Just a quick question. If physics comes closer to God than most
JS>theology, then how do you account for the fact that it is the laws of
JS>physics (specifically, the laws of classical and statistical
JS>thermodynamics) that scientifically prove that evolution is
JS>impossible? I really am curious, and I would appreciate a response.
Thermodynamics and Evolutionary Mechanism Theory Challenge
Created 961229. Last updated 970224.
SciCre-ists often complain that evolutionary theory runs counter to
the second law of thermodynamics, information theory, or sometimes
just "thermodynamics".
Thermodynamics addresses processes which may involve changes in
energy distribution or availability. Because SciCre-ists challenge
evolutionary mechanism theories on the basis of thermodynamics, it
follows that some particular process or processes must have been
identified as being objectionable by those SciCre-ists.
This challenge is designed to test the rigor of the SciCre-ist's claim
regarding thermodynamics. Because the SciCre-ist has made the claim
that one or more evolutionary processes are thermodynamically invalid
or unviable, the following three questions must be answered if there
is any competence of the SciCre claim at all:
1. Specifically, which process or processes are identified
as being thermodynamically invalid? [Identify the process such that
it can be researched.]
2. Specifically, which evolutionary mechanism theory
postulates the process or processes identified in (1) as being
necessary to evolutionary change? [Identify the theory such
that the claim can be researched.]
3. Defend the claim that the process identified in (1)
and referenced in (2) has not been observed in extant populations.
[Processes which are observed to happen in extant populations
are highly unlikely to be thermodynamically invalid. Indicate
sources that tend to confirm the claim that the process is not
observed to happen.]
In my reading and research on evolutionary mechanism theories, I
have found no reliance upon any process that has not been observed in
extant populations. This leads me to treat claims of thermodynamic
inviability for these theories with great skepticism.
Roster of the challenged:
Date Name Forum Response
961229 DJ (al...@one.net) talk.origins None
970101 Bill Morgan k12.ed.science None
970224 Joe Sinisi talk.origins Pending
Newly challenged persons have the "Response" field listed as
"Pending". "Pending" automatically changes to "None" if no
response is sent to me at wels...@orca.tamu.edu within one
month. A later response will replace a "None" entry after
receipt.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, 6070 Sea Isle, Galveston TX 77554. Central Neural System
BBS, 409-737-5222, 1:385/385, ANNs, GAs, Alife, AI, evolution, and more.
Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry
"to resist the insidious process of assimiliation" - archy
J. Michael Wagner
> Just a quick question. If physics comes closer to God than most
Thermodynamics posits a constant net increase of entropy in the entire
universe. However, localized systems may have a net decrease in entropy due
to an influx of energy from elsewhere. Otherwise your electric refrigerator
would not work.
Evolution may be true or false (or a combination, i.e, Guided Evolution.)
But arguing against it using entropy is a dead end road.
--
J. Michael Wagner
Please reply in email and newgroup
email: fire...@iquest.net
crs
Joe & Audrey Sinisi wrote:
> Hi Mr. Mueller,
>
> Just a quick question. If physics comes closer to God than most
> theology, then how do you account for the fact that it is the laws of
> physics (specifically, the laws of classical and statistical
> thermodynamics) that scientifically prove that evolution is
> impossible? I really am curious, and I would appreciate a response.
I don't know about the rest of you but I've been getting snippy little
notes from the self-appointed bandwidth police saying that posts in this
and a similar thread do not have anything to do with physics, astronomy
or whatever. The truth is, though, that this thread *has* really gone
off the deep end. Somebody talks about his "personal experience" with
Jesus and quotes scripture at length (to prove what?) and somebody else
snipes at him for a while. Overall, pretty dopey stuff.
Now, however we're back to physics (of a sort). Joe, here, wants to
trott out the old tired argument that evolution violates the (get this)
"laws of physics." So, we're back to that. Well, here's a little hint
for you, Joe, it doesn't.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins jasi...@inet1.inetworld.net (Joe & Audrey Sinisi)
wrote:
[snip]
>
>Just a quick question. If physics comes closer to God than most
>theology, then how do you account for the fact that it is the laws of
>physics (specifically, the laws of classical and statistical
>thermodynamics) that scientifically prove that evolution is
>impossible? I really am curious, and I would appreciate a response.
>
The quick answer is that it is not a fact. If you want some more
details I will point out that the laws of thermodynamics govern a
close/isolated system. The Earth is not close/isolated, it has a
significant heat source, the Sun.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------
The scariest line I can think of is:
Hi, my name is Number 6, what's yours?
Dick Craven
In article <3310888b...@news.inetworld.net>, jasi...@inet1.inetworld.net (Joe & Audrey Sinisi) wrote:
snip
>Just a quick question. If physics comes closer to God than most
>theology, then how do you account for the fact that it is the laws of
>physics (specifically, the laws of classical and statistical
>thermodynamics) that scientifically prove that evolution is
>impossible? I really am curious, and I would appreciate a response.
I have question for you Joe. Just exactly what part or mechanism of
evolution is shown to be impossible by thermodynamics? A reference
to a peer reviewed scientific paper would work if you don't know.
>
>Thanks,
>Joe
Your welcome.
All opinions are mine, and no one elses.
to eliminate junk email I am using a junk email address
you can email me at di...@nwlink.com
http://www.nwlink.com/~dickc
Dick (Chris) Craven,
Professor of Modern Humor
from the ICR.
George Dyke
crs wrote:
Let us first define the 2nd Law of Thermo. :
Teh entropy S, must always increase or remain constant for an isolated
system.
-Howell and Buckius , Fund. of Eng'g. Thermo.
Consider the universe is an isolated system. Although highly ordered
*subsystems* such as the planet earth may be observed, the entire system
(the universe) is becoming disordered by its expansion. Here I am
conceptualizing energy/order per unit volume. A simple way to think of
it this :
If I burn incense in a room, the smoke will not bind into a tight ball
ine one corner, it disperses. The *volume* which the smoke inhabits
increases. As does the universe.
Anyway if you think about this concept of *local richness* there
absolutely no problem with evolution( an ex. of local richness). If you
don't like this, blame GOD not me. :)
> Joe & Audrey Sinisi wrote:
>
> > Hi Mr. Mueller,
> >
Doug Craigen
George Dyke wrote:
>
> crs wrote:
> Let us first define the 2nd Law of Thermo. :
> Teh entropy S, must always increase or remain constant for an isolated
> system.
> -Howell and Buckius , Fund. of Eng'g. Thermo.
There are other forms of the 2nd law to deal with other types of systems.
Anybody who believes that evolution defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics should
be challenged to show it using an appropriate form of the law. For those who
know enough chemistry and physics to do so, it would be very instructive to step
through the various processes related to life and see that there is nowhere that
the second law is violated. And if they do find their smoking gun, the place
where the second law is violated, they will go down in science history.
>
> Consider the universe is an isolated system. Although highly ordered
> *subsystems* such as the planet earth may be observed, the entire system
> (the universe) is becoming disordered by its expansion. Here I am
> conceptualizing energy/order per unit volume. A simple way to think of
> it this :
> If I burn incense in a room, the smoke will not bind into a tight ball
> ine one corner, it disperses. The *volume* which the smoke inhabits
> increases. As does the universe.
>
> Anyway if you think about this concept of *local richness* there
> absolutely no problem with evolution( an ex. of local richness). If you
> don't like this, blame GOD not me. :)
You give the argument of "evolution=increasing order - which violates 2nd law"
far too much credit. The fact that the earth is not a closed system is essential
to the preservation of life, but not to the process of evolution. The process of
evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the sense in which the word "order"
is used when it is stated that entropy=disorder. I would again refer any
interested reader to my page
http://www.winnipeg.freenet.mb.ca/accc/evol.html
for more details (this thread is very repetitive isn't it?). And yes, I've
received many excellent comments on this page and plan to revise it sometime,
hopefully soon. The basic idea of the page though is something that I haven't
yet had any physicist disagree with.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen |
| |
| If you think Physics is no laughing matter, think again .... |
| http://cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/humor.html |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
George Dyke
Doug Craigen wrote:
>
> George Dyke wrote:
> >
> > crs wrote:
> > Let us first define the 2nd Law of Thermo. :
> > Teh entropy S, must always increase or remain constant for an isolated
> > system.
> > -Howell and Buckius , Fund. of Eng'g. Thermo.
>
> There are other forms of the 2nd law to deal with other types of systems.
No, This is a generic form, where different instances are incorporated
by a different S function. Note I didn't define S above. If I did I
would have done it through thermo./heat transfer, being my field of
science. You can define some *measurable* S function in eolution
although thermo. would be a less debatable than an S function by
various evolutionary scientists. In other words I can pick a thermo.
book and read entropy charts which a community of peers agree on. I may
be wrong but I doubt evolution has that.
> You give the argument of "evolution=increasing order - which violates 2nd law" far too much credit.
I disagree, an evolved lifeform is inarguably a higher ordered system
than a hydrogen gas cloud in outer space. Maybe you are assuming I am a
christian trying to use sciencebabble to justify my faith.
My point is that regardless of local richness ( for the sake of argument
define it however you please, but you *must* that entropy is not a
constant throughout *all* time/space), the entropy of the universe not
*decreasing*. And nowhere does evolution violate 2nd. Evolution is in
fact unimportant to my argument, the expansion of the universe is enough
to compensate any local highly ordered state, when summed over the
entire universe.
Sorry, for the repetitiveness of this thread I am new to this newsgroup.
However, I felt *I* misrepresented my views and needed to correct them
Dan Evens
George Dyke wrote:
> I disagree, an evolved lifeform is inarguably a higher ordered system
> than a hydrogen gas cloud in outer space. Maybe you are assuming I am a
> christian trying to use sciencebabble to justify my faith.
Whether you are christian or not, whether you have faith or not,
you are using sciencebabble. Order is not simply related to
entropy. Nor is disorder. Order and disorder are very difficult
things to define. Entropy is a well defined thermodynamic state
function.
If entropy had anything to do with your babble, then babies would
be impossible. After all, if your babble meant anything, it would
certainly mean exactly the same thing when talking about a baby
and the boiled potatoes and gravy the mother ate for 9 months.
The whole notion that entropy has anything to say about the
possibility of evolution is completely silly. "Order," of the
kind referred to, fluctuates wildly in natural systems. You
can see this in any forest fire or thunder storm.
Also, you display a poor understanding of what "evolved lifeform"
means. Evolving does NOT mean becoming more complicated, nor
more "ordered" nor any such thing. Evolving means ADAPTING.
In some cases this means becoming more complex, in some it
means becoming more simple (think of snakes losing all limbs,
and one lung and kidney). In some cases, complexity does not
change noticably (think of flower shape and colour adapting
to the "esthetic sense" of polinating insects). The notion
that evolution is this unidirectional building of complexity
on top of complexity on top of complexity is misguided and
misleading. It is also dangerous because it can tempt you
into believing that because of the erroneous thought that
evolution is directional, that it therefore has a purpose
and so a guiding intelligence. It does not.
--
Standard disclaimers apply.
I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
I don't buy from their ISPs.
Dan Evens
Lenny Flank
Dan Evens wrote:
> Evolving means ADAPTING.
> In some cases this means becoming more complex, in some it
> means becoming more simple (think of snakes losing all limbs,
> and one lung and kidney).
Woops! As an amateur herpetologist, I have to step in here with a
correction---snakes do have two functional kidneys, and they are
relatively larger than in most other vertebrates (snakes excrete
dry uric acid crystals rather than urea). As for the lungs, most snakes
have nonfunctional left lungs, but most of the boids and the
primitive thread snakes have two functional lungs. The boids also
have vestigial rear limbs, which form two external claws on either
side of the tail that are used in the mating process. But all snakes
still have the remnants of the nerves that used to lead to the four
limbs.
Dov Shmuel Freedman
I think I missed something....Are you saying that babies are born because a
cell feels a need to adapt and devide?
Dan Evens <dan....@hydro.on.ca> wrote in article
<331F36...@hydro.on.ca>...
> George Dyke wrote:
> > I disagree, an evolved lifeform is inarguably a higher ordered system
than a hydrogen gas cloud in outer space. Maybe you are assuming I am a
christian trying to use sciencebabble to justify my faith.
>
> Whether you are christian or not, whether you have faith or not, you are
using sciencebabble. Order is not simply > related to entropy. Nor is
disorder. Order and disorder are very difficult things to define. Entropy
is a well defined > thermodynamic state function.
>
*SNIP*
> Also, you display a poor understanding of what "evolved lifeform" means.
Evolving does NOT mean becoming more complicated, nor more "ordered" nor
any such thing. Evolving means ADAPTING. In some cases this means becoming
> more complex, in some it means becoming more simple (think of snakes
losing all limbs, and one lung and kidney). > In some cases, complexity
Mountain Man
It is my observation that the historical evolution of the
sciences of the west can be traced back to the wholesome
appreciation and the search for the specifications of the
nature of motion in the outer world ... for in this the
ancient western sages perceived the "divinity".
On the oher hand, it is my observation that the historical
evolution of the sciences of the east can be traced back to
the wholesome appreciation and the search for the
specifications of the nature of motion in the inner world:
for in this the ancient eastern sages perceived the
"divinity".
Exceptions exist on both sides, the above is a generic
observation only. To this end, the following observation
from a "scientist of the east" may/may not be relevant.
[cross out that which does not apply]
The Future Evolution of Man,
by Sri Aurobindo
Chapter (1): The Human Aspiration
=======================================
http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/auro.html
"Life evolves out of Matter, Mind out of Life,
because they are already involved there:
Matter is a form of veiled Life,
Life a form of veiled Mind.
May not Mind be a form and veil of a higher power,
the Spirit, which would be supramental in its nature?
Man's highest aspiration would then only indicate
the gradual unveiling of the Spirit within,
the preparation of a higher life upon earth.
We speak of the evolution of Life in Matter,
the evolution of Mind in Matter;
but evolution is a word which merely states
the phenomenon without explaining it.
For there seems to be no reason why Life
should evolve out of material elements
or Mind out of living form,
unless we accept the Vedantic solution
that Life is already involved in Matter and Mind in Life
because in essence Matter is a form of veiled Life,
Life a form of veiled Consciousness."
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BoomerangOutPost: Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
Thematic Threading: Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
Webulous Coordinates: http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html
QuoteForTheDay: "A skillful soldier is not violent;
An able fighter does not rage;
A mighty conqueror does not give battle;
A great commander is a humble man.
You may call this pacific virtue;
Or say that it is mastery of men;
Or that it is rising to the measure of God,
Or to the stature of the ancients.
- Lao Tzu (about 300BC) - The Way of Life
http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/tao_7_9.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Evens
Dov Shmuel Freedman wrote:
>
> I think I missed something....Are you saying that babies are born because a
> cell feels a need to adapt and devide?
You are missing something. But more than I can help you with.
Try a reading comprehension course.
Alan Barclay
In article <331F80...@fast.net>, Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> wrote:
>have vestigial rear limbs, which form two external claws on either
>side of the tail that are used in the mating process. But all snakes
>still have the remnants of the nerves that used to lead to the four
>limbs.
I've got to ask out Creationist friends here.
What sort of design is it to give nerves, even remnants of them, to
non-existant limbs?
Doesn't this seem like a perfect example of a vestigal feature?
xona
Backwater, Mississippi, Jr. Hi. baseball team vs New York Yankees
xona
Capella
xona wrote:
>
> Backwater, Mississippi, Jr. Hi. baseball team vs New York Yankees
>
> xona
Good analogy!
If it's between Dr. Stephen Hawkings and that Gish idiot, call me silly,
but I would have to go with Dr. Hawkings. ;-)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
Dallas, Texas
Marcelo Cantos
gor...@elaine.drink.com (Alan Barclay) writes:
> What sort of design is it to give nerves, even remnants of them, to
> non-existant limbs?
>
> Doesn't this seem like a perfect example of a vestigal feature?
Surely you are aware of the serpent in the garden of Eden! What
happened to it?
Frankly, your comment astonishes me, since it gives remarkable
biological confirmation of the story of the fall!!
Ref: Genesis 3:14
--
______________________________________________________________________
Marcelo Cantos, Research Assistant mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au
Multimedia Database Systems Group, RMIT__/_ _ Tel 61-3-9282-2497
723 Swanston St, Carlton VIC 3053 Aus/ralia ><_> Fax 61-3-9282-2490
/
Acknowledgements: errors - me; wisdom - God; funding - RMIT
Lenny Flank
Marcelo Cantos wrote:
>
> gor...@elaine.drink.com (Alan Barclay) writes:
>
> > What sort of design is it to give nerves, even remnants of them, to
> > non-existant limbs?
> >
> > Doesn't this seem like a perfect example of a vestigal feature?
>
> Surely you are aware of the serpent in the garden of Eden! What
> happened to it?
>
Why don't you explain what happened to it, fundie. I've never seen a
snake of any sort talk. I've never even seen one that had vocal cords.
So tell me how the snake in the garden talked to anybody.
You, of course, will come up with "it was the Devil pretending to be a
snake" story. But, you see, God cursed the SNAKE for this act. If it
were NOT really a snake, but in fact really the devil, then why did
God curse and punish the poor innocent snake? If I rob a bank in a
clown disguise, should we lock up all clowns to punish them for my act?
How do you reconcile this injustice with your notion of a just and
loving God?
> Frankly, your comment astonishes me, since it gives remarkable
> biological confirmation of the story of the fall!!
>
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good one, fundie.
Wanna explain to me how that snake managed to talk? I have over a dozen
snakes in my home right now (I'm a reptile writer) and never heard any
of them say a word . . .
Anthony S Gambino
Note followups.
On 10 Mar 1997 12:31:18 +1100, Marcelo Cantos wrote:
: gor...@elaine.drink.com (Alan Barclay) writes:
: > What sort of design is it to give nerves, even remnants of them, to
: > non-existant limbs?
: >
: > Doesn't this seem like a perfect example of a vestigal feature?
: Surely you are aware of the serpent in the garden of Eden! What
: happened to it?
It, um, evolved.
:)
--
Anthony S. Gambino | "I love the way you smile at me, I love the way
p014...@pb.seflin.org | the way your hands reach out and hold me near..."
agam...@nyx.net | -- Sarah McLachlan, "Elsewhere"
http://www.nyx.net/~agambino
Marcelo Cantos
Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> writes:
>
> Marcelo Cantos wrote:
> >
> > gor...@elaine.drink.com (Alan Barclay) writes:
> >
> > > What sort of design is it to give nerves, even remnants of them, to
> > > non-existant limbs?
> > >
> > > Doesn't this seem like a perfect example of a vestigal feature?
> >
> > Surely you are aware of the serpent in the garden of Eden! What
> > happened to it?
> >
>
> Why don't you explain what happened to it, fundie. I've never seen a
> snake of any sort talk. I've never even seen one that had vocal cords.
> So tell me how the snake in the garden talked to anybody.
[Fundie? Sticks and stones work better.]
The Bible also records a donkey talking, and is quite clear that this
was a supernatural event. No one ever suggested that snakes always
talk. In this case, the serpent was the Devil in a snakes body,
supernaturally giving it speech. Is this impossible?
> You, of course, will come up with "it was the Devil pretending to be a
> snake" story.
Since the Bible states this, it is hardly suprprising that I would
come up an answer like this. My answer is not quite this however: my
assertion is that the devil was in control of the snake, but that the
snake was real.
> But, you see, God cursed the SNAKE for this act. If it
> were NOT really a snake, but in fact really the devil, then why did
> God curse and punish the poor innocent snake? If I rob a bank in a
> clown disguise, should we lock up all clowns to punish them for my act?
> How do you reconcile this injustice with your notion of a just and
> loving God?
Do you know what capacity a snake has for evil? I haven't the
faintest notion! So it would be presumptuous of either of us to draw
conclusions about the relationship between the snake species and the
Devil.
Besides, it is only considered unjust if you give animals the same
moral status as humans. Furthermore, snakes get along fine without
legs. Maybe they would be better off with them, but so what?
The curse on the snake was a symbol of God's curse on the devil. This
doesn't mean however that the incident itself never took place. The
presence of vestigial nerve endings is, to me, strong evidence that it
did in fact occur.
> > Frankly, your comment astonishes me, since it gives remarkable
> > biological confirmation of the story of the fall!!
>
> BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Good one, fundie.
>
> Wanna explain to me how that snake managed to talk? I have over a dozen
> snakes in my home right now (I'm a reptile writer) and never heard any
> of them say a word . . .
You already asked that question and I already answered it.
Matt Silberstein
[science and philosophy groups snipped]
In talk.origins Marcelo Cantos <mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> writes:
>
>>
[snip]
>
>> You, of course, will come up with "it was the Devil pretending to be a
>> snake" story.
>
>Since the Bible states this, it is hardly suprprising that I would
>come up an answer like this. My answer is not quite this however: my
>assertion is that the devil was in control of the snake, but that the
>snake was real.
Could you remind me where in the Bible is says that the snake is the
Devil. Genesis 3 talks about the snake but says nothing about Satan or
the Devil.
[snip]
Lenny Flank
Marcelo Cantos wrote:
>
> > Why don't you explain what happened to it, fundie. I've never seen a
> > snake of any sort talk. I've never even seen one that had vocal cords.
> > So tell me how the snake in the garden talked to anybody.
>
> [Fundie? Sticks and stones work better.]
Would you prefer "religiouts nut"? How about "Ayatollah-wanna-be"?
>
> The Bible also records a donkey talking, and is quite clear that this
> was a supernatural event. No one ever suggested that snakes always
> talk. In this case, the serpent was the Devil in a snakes body,
> supernaturally giving it speech. Is this impossible?
>
Yes. Prove it possible----show me a talking snake.
>
> > But, you see, God cursed the SNAKE for this act. If it
> > were NOT really a snake, but in fact really the devil, then why did
> > God curse and punish the poor innocent snake? If I rob a bank in a
> > clown disguise, should we lock up all clowns to punish them for my act?
> > How do you reconcile this injustice with your notion of a just and
> > loving God?
>
> Do you know what capacity a snake has for evil?
It has none, since it's just a dumb animal. However, you miss the
point---the snake was cursed for talking Eve into eating the forbidden
fruit. But since snakes CAN'T talk, it was SATAN that allegedly did the
talking---so why did God curse the poor innocent SNAKE, which had no
volition in the matter at all?
>I haven't the
> faintest notion! So it would be presumptuous of either of us to draw
> conclusions about the relationship between the snake species and the
> Devil.
>
But your fudnie friend here HAS drawn some conclusions. He's cited the
snake as an example of "entropy". Is he wrong?
> Besides, it is only considered unjust if you give animals the same
> moral status as humans.
Uh, *YOU* are the one talking about a snake's "capacity for evil" . . .
.
> The curse on the snake was a symbol of God's curse on the devil. This
> doesn't mean however that the incident itself never took place. The
> presence of vestigial nerve endings is, to me, strong evidence that it
> did in fact occur.
And the fact that legless lizards also have vestigianl nerves and pelvic
girdles means what, fundie.
>
> >
> > Wanna explain to me how that snake managed to talk? I have over a dozen
> > snakes in my home right now (I'm a reptile writer) and never heard any
> > of them say a word . . .
>
> You already asked that question and I already answered it.
>
Thanks, I'd prefer a SCIENTIFIC explanation (creationism does after all
claim to be SCIENCE, doesn't it?) rather than your unsupported
assertions.
Za...@sanity.com
One could really question science itself. Science knows many things and new
things are being discovered all the time. However most of what science
claims to know about the origins of the universe or of life itself is at best
speculation! The findings of the Hubble telescope have blown most believed
scientific facts of cosmology out of the water.
The scientist who went over the data could not believe what they saw and tried
and tried to somehow find flaws in the Hubble data, but they could not....and
I've seen many on the news and on other programs on A&E, the Learning Channel,
and Discovery that now admit that they know very little if they know anything at
all about the origins of the universe. They had high hopes that the data and
pictures sent back by Hubble would confirm what they had long viewed as fact,
however that has not been the case.
Just an observation...nothing more.
dan...@gate.net
In <3893.7009...@sanity.com>, Za...@sanity.com writes:
>
<<deletions>>
>One could really question science itself. Science knows many things and new
>things are being discovered all the time. However most of what science
>claims to know about the origins of the universe or of life itself is at best
>speculation! The findings of the Hubble telescope have blown most believed
>scientific facts of cosmology out of the water.
Uh oh, I'm about to agree with fundamentalist...
What you're saying, then, is that the creation/flood/babel stories must be
accepted on faith alone, since science can find no evidence for them. The
talking snake - an impossibility according to science - was in fact the devil,
the devil being another life form totally unknown to science.
So I have to agree with what you seem to be saying. If you're going to
believe these stories, you must have faith. You certainly can't put the mantle
of science on them, since science has not uncovered any evidence to support
any of these tales.
Dan
Science has nothing to say about the Spirit. The Bible has nothing to say
about science. Those who try to explain one in terms of the other are doomed
to fail at both.
(e-mail hosed, talk to me here.)
Dan Holdsworth
In article <33249B...@fast.net>, Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> writes:
>Why don't you explain what happened to it, fundie. I've never seen a
>snake of any sort talk. I've never even seen one that had vocal cords.
>So tell me how the snake in the garden talked to anybody.
>
>You, of course, will come up with "it was the Devil pretending to be a
>snake" story. But, you see, God cursed the SNAKE for this act. If it
>were NOT really a snake, but in fact really the devil, then why did
>God curse and punish the poor innocent snake? If I rob a bank in a
>clown disguise, should we lock up all clowns to punish them for my act?
>How do you reconcile this injustice with your notion of a just and
>loving God?
It gets better...
OK, start from the bog-standard fundie claim: "God is eternal, all powerful,
all knowing".
That means that when this god started off the universe, Heisenberg uncertainty
didn't exist for him. He knew everything that was going to happen.
Given that this is the case, praying is useless. Worship is useless. God knows
what you will think _before_ you think, knows what you'll do before you do
it.
God knew all about Satan, etc. He created things that way. In short, no matter
what you do, you are doing God's will...
In other words, fundies are just wasting their time and yours. Worship is
irrelevant. Sin is irrelevant. All this rubbish about redemption etc. is
irrelevant.
On the other hand, God might not be all-powerful, etc. Current evidence
suggests that God has virtually no power, and that prayer is essentially
useless. Either way, the fundies lose out.
In short, religion is crap.
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java
that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a
warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Dan Holdsworth, drh92@*ber.ac.uk, ** SPAMMERS WILL BE FILTERED **
kil...@magicnet.net
> What you're saying, then, is that the creation/flood/babel stories must be
> accepted on faith alone, since science can find no evidence for them. The
> talking snake - an impossibility according to science - was in fact the devil,
> the devil being another life form totally unknown to science.
>
> So I have to agree with what you seem to be saying. If you're going to
> believe these stories, you must have faith. You certainly can't put the mantle
> of science on them, since science has not uncovered any evidence to support
> any of these tales.
>
> Dan
> Science has nothing to say about the Spirit. The Bible has nothing to say
> about science. Those who try to explain one in terms of the other are doomed
> to fail at both.
> (e-mail hosed, talk to me here.)
People "can" account for the fact that Moses touched his staff to the
rock and water flowed out of it, forming what became a river.
The Jewish people are known for their accorate records. So accurate
that Historians use the bible as a reference around the Dark Ages being
that their was so much war that historians were very few if at all any
at that time.
Even when Jesus confronted people with demons in them, the demons
would reply to Jesus "It is not your time, what are you doing here?
Have you come to destroy us?"
Forgive any misquotes, but it is in the good book of Mathew around
Chapter 11 (I think).
Joseph M. Piazza
In article <3327BE...@magicnet.net>, kil...@magicnet.net wrote:
[And ommited citation for Dan Lee's post}
>> What you're saying, then, is that the creation/flood/babel stories must be
>> accepted on faith alone, since science can find no evidence for them. ...
>>
>> So I have to agree with what you seem to be saying. If you're going to
>> believe these stories, you must have faith. You certainly can't put the
>> mantle of science on them, since science has not uncovered any evidence to
>> support any of these tales. ...
> Jesus was, however, a witnessed and recorded event by "Historians".
Ack! Bullshit!
>People "can" account for the fact that Moses touched his staff to the
>rock and water flowed out of it, forming what became a river.
Good, let's see it.
> The Jewish people are known for their accorate records.
Which say's nothing of the accuracy of the original claims.
>So accurate
>that Historians use the bible as a reference around the Dark Ages being
>that their was so much war that historians were very few if at all any
>at that time.
Uh, give your head a jog -- your piece of brain seems to have become
dislodged. Are you trying to say that there were few if any historians
during the Dark Ages because warfare was so common? And because of this,
those "few if any" historians used the Bible as a reference? I fail to see
your point.
> Even when Jesus confronted people with demons in them, the demons
>would reply to Jesus "It is not your time, what are you doing here?
>Have you come to destroy us?"
Is this according to a Gospel account or one from Paul? Are you saying
that demons exist?
> Forgive any misquotes, but it is in the good book of Mathew around
>Chapter 11 (I think).
*What* quotes? Better give your head a kick; brain fragments are
reluctant to fall back in their sockets.
Better yet: go away and leave us alone.
Flip side,
joe piazza
--
"God is an overwhelming responsibility" -- I. Anderson
jmpi...@earthlink.net [List #238]
Marion Evans
Guys,
I loved reading yall argue bout whether snakes and donkeys could talk
but did ya consider the possibility that maybe we just forgot how to
talk to snakes and donkey's?
Mythology is full of talking animals. And truth be told we humans have
forgotten quite a few of our own languages over the last couple of
thousand years.
Mike Pelletier
In article <5g6hqp$q...@osfb.aber.ac.uk>,
Dan Holdsworth <dr...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
>It gets better...
>
>OK, start from the bog-standard fundie claim: "God is eternal, all powerful,
>all knowing".
>
>That means that when this god started off the universe, Heisenberg uncertainty
>didn't exist for him. He knew everything that was going to happen.
>Given that this is the case, praying is useless. Worship is useless. God knows
>what you will think _before_ you think, knows what you'll do before you do
>it.
>God knew all about Satan, etc. He created things that way. In short, no matter
>what you do, you are doing God's will...
>In other words, fundies are just wasting their time and yours. Worship is
>irrelevant. Sin is irrelevant. All this rubbish about redemption etc. is
>irrelevant.
>On the other hand, God might not be all-powerful, etc. Current evidence
>suggests that God has virtually no power, and that prayer is essentially
>useless. Either way, the fundies lose out.
>
>In short, religion is crap.
It sounds like Dan gave up the process of studying religious thought
and philosophy in about fourth grade or so. His words here reflect
a simplistic, unsophisticated engagement with the matter.
This very question of G-d's power and "knowingness" has been covered by
individuals far wiser than any of us, numerous times over the last
three thousand five hundred years or so. I'd suggest that before
one lays bare their personal angst over their religious upbringing
that they avail themselves of this wisdom.
I'd suggest "Guide to the Perplexed" by Moses Maimonedes first, only
since that's what I'm reading right now.
-Mike Pelletier.
Mike Pelletier
In article <5g6hbn$1mde$3...@news.gate.net>, <dan...@gate.net> wrote:
>In <3893.7009...@sanity.com>, Za...@sanity.com writes:
>>One could really question science itself. Science knows many things and new
>>things are being discovered all the time. However most of what science
>>claims to know about the origins of the universe or of life itself is at best
>>speculation! The findings of the Hubble telescope have blown most believed
>>scientific facts of cosmology out of the water.
><snip>
>
>Uh oh, I'm about to agree with fundamentalist...
>
>What you're saying, then, is that the creation/flood/babel stories must be
>accepted on faith alone, since science can find no evidence for them. The
>talking snake - an impossibility according to science - was in fact the devil,
>the devil being another life form totally unknown to science.
>
>So I have to agree with what you seem to be saying. If you're going to
>believe these stories, you must have faith. You certainly can't put the
>mantle of science on them, since science has not uncovered any evidence
>to support any of these tales.
Woah, I think that before this debate goes any further, everyone here
should sit down and read a copy of Moses Maimonedes' "Guide to the
Perplexed." Until that happens, the raving Biblical Literalists and the
raving anti-theist scientists will be talking entirely at cross purposes.
Dan puts it well:
>Science has nothing to say about the Spirit. The Bible has nothing to say
>about science. Those who try to explain one in terms of the other are doomed
>to fail at both.
-Mike Pelletier.
Lenny Flank
Mike Pelletier wrote:
>
> This very question of G-d's power and "knowingness" has been covered by
> individuals far wiser than any of us, numerous times over the last
> three thousand five hundred years or so.
Sure, Ok. And what again is it that gives those "wise" individuals any
more insight into this question than the rest of us mere mortals? Did
God
give them an exclsuive interview or something?
Neale
Dan Holdsworth wrote:
>
> OK, start from the bog-standard fundie claim: "God is eternal, all powerful,
> all knowing".
>
> That means that when this god started off the universe, Heisenberg uncertainty
> didn't exist for him. He knew everything that was going to happen.
>
> Given that this is the case, praying is useless. Worship is useless. God knows
> what you will think _before_ you think, knows what you'll do before you do
> it.
>
> God knew all about Satan, etc. He created things that way. In short, no matter
> what you do, you are doing God's will...
>
> In other words, fundies are just wasting their time and yours. Worship is
> irrelevant. Sin is irrelevant. All this rubbish about redemption etc. is
> irrelevant.
>
> On the other hand, God might not be all-powerful, etc. Current evidence
> suggests that God has virtually no power, and that prayer is essentially
> useless. Either way, the fundies lose out.
>
> In short, religion is crap.
>
> It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java
> that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a
> warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
> Dan Holdsworth, drh92@*ber.ac.uk, ** SPAMMERS WILL BE FILTERED **
Right On Dan
Unfortunately, logic doesn't work with the religious weirdos out there.
Neale
Keith Stein
In article <3328EA...@netcom.ca>, Neale <nh...@netcom.ca> writes
>>
>> In short, religion is crap.
>>
>
>
>Right On Dan
>
>Unfortunately, logic doesn't work with the religious weirdos out there.
>
>Neale
That's funny Neale, it doesn't work with the 'relativist' weirdos ether!
--
Keith Stein
Michelle D'Arcy Computer Concerns
In article <3327F6...@wcom.com>, Marion Evans <marion...@wcom.com>
writes
I strongly agree that we can communicate with animals. I have
communicated with animals telepathically and I am sure that in the past
when our minds were more open all of us could be able to do this.
As our technology advances our minds close. We will soon become a world
of same thinking robots if we do not let ourselves go a little and open
up to all the ideas that are out there.
(I think this newsgroup is great by the way. I love being able to talk
about the larger issues with people who are willing to think about new
ideas.)
--
Michelle D'Arcy Computer Concerns
Richard Keatinge
mi...@comshare.com (Mike Pelletier) wrote:
>In article <5g6hqp$q...@osfb.aber.ac.uk>,
> Dan Holdsworth <dr...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
>>It gets better...
>>
>>OK, start from the bog-standard fundie claim: "God is eternal, all powerful,
>>all knowing".
>>
>>That means that when this god started off the universe, Heisenberg uncertainty
>>didn't exist for him. He knew everything that was going to happen.
>>Given that this is the case, praying is useless. Worship is useless. God knows
>>what you will think _before_ you think, knows what you'll do before you do
>>it.
>>God knew all about Satan, etc. He created things that way. In short, no matter
>>what you do, you are doing God's will...
(snip)
>>In short, religion is crap.
>
>It sounds like Dan gave up the process of studying religious thought
>and philosophy in about fourth grade or so. His words here reflect
>a simplistic, unsophisticated engagement with the matter.
>
>This very question of G-d's power and "knowingness" has been covered by
>individuals far wiser than any of us, numerous times over the last
>three thousand five hundred years or so. I'd suggest that before
>one lays bare their personal angst over their religious upbringing
>that they avail themselves of this wisdom.
>
>I'd suggest "Guide to the Perplexed" by Moses Maimonedes first, only
>since that's what I'm reading right now.
In that case, could you post a straightforward reason why Dan's wrong?
With 3,500 years of wisdom, it shouldn't hardly be difficult. Or does
all the wisdom consist of failures?
Richard Keatinge
Za...@sanity.com
>mi...@comshare.com (Mike Pelletier) wrote:
>(snip)
>Richard Keatinge
Since Richard appears to be a scholar on the issue. Perhaps he will share his
wisdom with us and post a straightforward reason as to why Dan's right? With the
3,500 years of wisdom, it should not be difficult for him to do so either. Or
does his wisdom consist of failures, and as such, would be as worthless as
dirt!
dan...@gate.net
In <3327F6...@wcom.com>, Marion Evans <marion...@wcom.com> writes:
>Guys,
>I loved reading yall argue bout whether snakes and donkeys could talk
>
>but did ya consider the possibility that maybe we just forgot how to
>talk to snakes and donkey's?
>
>Mythology is full of talking animals. And truth be told we humans have
>forgotten quite a few of our own languages over the last couple of
>thousand years.
Actually snakes talk in morse code. That's where Samuel Morse got the idea.
You see, snakes have no vocal cords, but what they do is when they flick that
little forked tongue out, the left fork stands for dot, the right fork stands for
dash. One or the other of the forks will be raised slightly higher to indicate
dot or dash when the snake flicks its tongue out repeatedly to spell words.
Unfortunately there is somewhat of a language barrier anyway. Southwestern
rattlesnakes, for example, speak a dialect that consists of both Spanish and
English flicks, making it difficult for them to communicate with other snakes
who only flick in one tongue or the other.
On the other hand, the migratory Canadian Snow Serpent can flick in three
languages, French, English, and Spanish. So when it migrates from its summer
home in Quebec down to its winter home in Cancun, it can pass itself off as
a local no matter where it is.
Donkeys do have vocal chords, and as one would expect, they can speak a much
greater variety of languages. Some subspecies of donkey can communicate in
nearly one hundred different languages and dialects. Unfortunately they can
say only two words in all those languages - Hee and Haw.
Dan (e-mail still dead)
Richard Keatinge
Za...@sanity.com wrote:
>>mi...@comshare.com (Mike Pelletier) wrote:
>
>>>In article <5g6hqp$q...@osfb.aber.ac.uk>,
>>> Dan Holdsworth <dr...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>It gets better...
>>>>
>>>>OK, start from the bog-standard fundie claim: "God is eternal, all
>>>>powerful, all knowing".
>>>>
>>>>That means that when this god started off the universe, Heisenberg
>>>>uncertainty didn't exist for him. He knew everything that was going to
>>>>happen. Given that this is the case, praying is useless. Worship is
>>>>useless. God knows what you will think _before_ you think, knows what
>>>>you'll do before you do it. God knew all about Satan, etc. He created
>>>>things that way. In short, no matter what you do, you are doing God's
>>>>will...
>
>>(snip)
>
>>>>In short, religion is crap.
>>>
>>>It sounds like Dan gave up the process of studying religious thought
>>>and philosophy in about fourth grade or so. His words here reflect
>>>a simplistic, unsophisticated engagement with the matter.
>>>
>>>This very question of G-d's power and "knowingness" has been covered by
>>>individuals far wiser than any of us, numerous times over the last
>>>three thousand five hundred years or so. I'd suggest that before
>>>one lays bare their personal angst over their religious upbringing
>>>that they avail themselves of this wisdom.
>
>>In that case, could you post a straightforward reason why Dan's wrong?
>>With 3,500 years of wisdom, it shouldn't hardly be difficult. Or does
>>all the wisdom consist of failures?
>
>>Richard Keatinge
>
>Since Richard appears to be a scholar on the issue. Perhaps he will share his
>wisdom with us and post a straightforward reason as to why Dan's right?
Actually, I thought that Dan had already done that.
Richard Keatinge
Za...@sanity.com
>Za...@sanity.com wrote:
>Richard Keatinge
Good answer since you have no valid comments, it would have been hard for you to
come up with some facts! And it is obvious that Dan is in fact clueless.
Speaking for prayer, there have been several programs on television and even on
the news talking about the power of prayer. So obviously it is not useless as he
babbles above!
erikc
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:02:41 -0800
Neale <nh...@netcom.ca>
as message <3328EA...@netcom.ca>
-- origin: alt.atheism:
>|Dan Holdsworth wrote:
[===]
>|> In short, religion is crap.
>|>
[===]
>|
>|Right On Dan
>|
>|Unfortunately, logic doesn't work with the religious weirdos out there.
It only inspires them to even greater feats of illogic.
>|
>|Neale
Erikc -- fire...@insync.net
Atheist #2
Evolution is God's will.
To see the extreme depths of hypocrisy some people will descend to, visit:
http://www.christiangallery.com/ (home page)
http://www.christiangallery.com/sick1.html#bugger (really nasty)
/* recently updated */
Fred McGalliard
Richard Keatinge wrote:
>
> In that case, could you post a straightforward reason why Dan's wrong?
> With 3,500 years of wisdom, it shouldn't hardly be difficult. Or does
> all the wisdom consist of failures?
>
> Richard Keatinge
A chalange? The first question should be, would you listen if you were
confronted with whisdom that contradicts your own views? If not, and
this applies to all sides in any discussion, there is little purpose.
Assuming that you at least hope to make yes the answer to the first
question-
>>OK, start from the bog-standard fundie claim: "God is eternal, all powerful,
>>all knowing".
You may notice that this is phraised in english and thus carries the
lack of precision and the emotional connotations of that language,
changing with time and local philosophy. To be provable this sort of
statment should be phrased in a more precise form, perhaps in
mathmatics. This is just a warning that we might need to approach this
carefully to avoid blowing our fundamental argument with false
assumptions.
>>
>>That means that when this god started off the universe, Heisenberg uncertainty
>>didn't exist for him. He knew everything that was going to happen.
Boy, it didn't take long to blow this argument to bits, did it? First,
we have no idea what the Heisenberg uncertainty implies to God's
information. This principal applies only to our experimental processes
for measuring such things as velocity/position, (and the other conjugate
variables subject to quantum uncertainty). Granted that God does not
need to use light to "see" where a thing is, nor to collapse a wave
function, whatever that means, to realize velocity, it is not at all
clear that uncertainty applies to Him or his knowledge at all. (In fact,
if you asked real nice, and spent 50 years in study, God might share
with you a little bit of his knowledge of where an electron is when it
is between the diffraction grating and the screen.) Secondly we have a
surprisingly precise knowledge of things that are "uncertain". Just
because we think that more can be known does not imply that there is
really more there. Imagine a 7 year old arguing that his mom doesn't
know everything because she can't tell him where Santa Clause lives.
Just so, this argument may assume that God must know things which may
not really exist at all. This could make any further conclusions quite
unfounded.
>>Given that this is the case, praying is useless. Worship is useless. God knows
>>what you will think _before_ you think, knows what you'll do before you do
>>it.
>>God knew all about Satan, etc. He created things that way. In short, no matter
>>what you do, you are doing God's will...
This is a form of really negative absolute determinism, or
predestination I think. First we cannot know if this is true, or if and
to what extent we get to choose our own route to heaven or hell. God has
told us that we are like him. I think that the correct interpretation of
this is that we do have some choice. The implication that because God
can know what has happened tomorrow while today is still young, worship
and prayer today is useless, is pretty silly any way you look at it.
Suppose that you pray that it rain, and God hears and wants to act. You
may well know that He designed the universe the way that it is and
was/is happy with that. He now has a choice. He may create a miracle and
drag a strom out of nothing, or he might chose to remember you as the
earth cools from it's fierce birth pangs, and touch one small gust of
wind, to steer the storm 10 billion years in the future, or he might
chose to do nothing at all, because the rain you prayed for was planned
at the foundation of the universe, uncertainty or not, and you must only
be patient to see it come. Do you think that your prayer, because God
knows of it at the begining of time, and knows what action he has/will
take because of it, is any less effective? For your prayer to be less
effective you must imagine that God already knows that you prayed it and
is bored by the issue. This is not the God that is represented in
scripture, and certainly not the God that has saved me from my evil
nature. Where you and I stand, the future is not yet known. I would far
prefer to have God know that I am going to pray, and to praise him every
day, than to know that I used the intellegence he gave me to make
childish excuses to do just exactly what I wanted to do, leading to my
destruction, just as He warned.
I do not know if any of this can illuminate for you why this issue, one
which every believer must begin to grasp at some point, cannot be dealt
with using a mix of 6th grade logic and 12th grade science. I believe
that God sends answeres if we have questions, but we do have to be ready
to listen.
Boy this is cross posted. This answer is from the physics NG, so it is
heavily weighted toward the issue of drawing logical inference from
quantum mechanics and God's nature. BTW, I am not a theologin, so there
may already be a whole section of the library devoted to this argument,
in which case I hope this was not too badly worded in comparison.
Dan Evens
-.. --- -. - - .-. . .- -.. --- -. -- .
--
Standard disclaimers apply.
I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
I don't buy from their ISPs.
Dan Evens
jim
> >
>
> That's funny Neale, it doesn't work with the 'relativist' weirdos ether!
Relativist weirdos don't believe in ether.
jim
--
j.ca...@physiology.ucl.ac.uk
This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence.
Neale
> >>
> >
> >
> >Right On Dan
> >
> >
> >Neale
>
> That's funny Neale, it doesn't work with the 'relativist' weirdos ether!
> Keith Stein
So Keith, let's see some logic then to debunk Dan's arguments. That is,
if you know what logic is.
Neale
Lester
Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> Marcelo Cantos wrote:
> >
>
>
> Would you prefer "religiouts nut"? How about "Ayatollah-wanna-be"?
>
> >
> > The Bible also records a donkey talking, and is quite clear that this
> > was a supernatural event. No one ever suggested that snakes always
> > talk. In this case, the serpent was the Devil in a snakes body,
> > supernaturally giving it speech. Is this impossible?
> >
>
> Yes. Prove it possible----show me a talking snake.
>
> >
> > > were NOT really a snake, but in fact really the devil, then why did
> > > God curse and punish the poor innocent snake? If I rob a bank in a
> > > clown disguise, should we lock up all clowns to punish them for my act?
> > > How do you reconcile this injustice with your notion of a just and
> > > loving God?
> >
Let me ask all the fundamentalist christians a question:
If you heard about a talking snake or donkey in the Koran or thr Rig
Veda would YOU believe it?
Samaritan
With sufficient evidence, yes. The devil has a voice also.
--
Samaritan********sama...@centuryinter.net
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"God's got an army, not afraid to fight
Soldiers of the Cross and children of the Light..."
-----Carman----
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nick Cummings
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nick Cummings University of Maryland (physics)
On 12 Mar 1997, Dan Holdsworth wrote:
> It gets better...
>
> OK, start from the bog-standard fundie claim: "God is eternal, all powerful,
> all knowing".
>
> That means that when this god started off the universe, Heisenberg uncertainty
> didn't exist for him. He knew everything that was going to happen.
>
> Given that this is the case, praying is useless. Worship is useless. God knows
> what you will think _before_ you think, knows what you'll do before you do
> it.
>
> God knew all about Satan, etc. He created things that way. In short, no matter
> what you do, you are doing God's will...
>
> In other words, fundies are just wasting their time and yours. Worship is
> irrelevant. Sin is irrelevant. All this rubbish about redemption etc. is
> irrelevant.
What you are basically saying is that if everything is predestined
then it makes no difference what one does? Oddly enough that is in a way
similar to what Calvin argued.
What you seem to be ignoring is that your position is no better
than the "fundie's". What happens to you can be calculated form the
current conditions. In principle, the probability of each outcome can be
calculated. Your actions, and their effects an be calculated (as a set of
probabilities of states); thus, the probability of you surviving a fire in
your home is already determined (in principle). Yet you would not say
that trying to escape would be useless, even though your thoughts and
actions are probabilistically predetermined.
The problem people have with deterministic theories (fate) is that
they cannot change the time line. In a model with uncertainty; however,
you have no more control over your life. What happens is a result of
probabilities that you cannot effect; thus, you do not decide to flee a
fire. A electrical interactions in your brain (governed by QED) cause you
to flee.
There seems to be no room for human perogitive in either view;
however, we still consider it absurd to say that our actions have no
effect. To claim that prayer etc. is irrelevant, because God's will and
plan are already set, you have to accept that what you do is irrelevant,
because it is a result of probabilities and physical laws you cannot
control. You are merely a quantum puppet (better hope you don't get
mauled by Schoedinger's cat).
I've already restated my point several times to make sure I get it
across, but I'll say once more: Prayer is only as irrelevant as your own
actions.
[snip]
> In short, religion is crap.
In short, what you are claiming is as much crap.
A note: I am not a "fundie". I am not even religious. I am
merely a lover of logic and science, who thinks that it is as absurd to
try to logically disprove the existence of God as it is to try to prove
His existence through logic. There may be ground to logically dispute the
Christian conception of God, but this is not it!
Marcelo Cantos
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>
> [science and philosophy groups snipped]
>
> In talk.origins Marcelo Cantos <mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> writes:
> >
> >>
> [snip]
> >
> >> You, of course, will come up with "it was the Devil pretending to be a
> >> snake" story.
> >
> >Since the Bible states this, it is hardly suprprising that I would
> >come up an answer like this. My answer is not quite this however: my
> >assertion is that the devil was in control of the snake, but that the
> >snake was real.
>
> Could you remind me where in the Bible is says that the snake is the
> Devil. Genesis 3 talks about the snake but says nothing about Satan or
> the Devil.
Revelation 12:9. It has been stated in this thread that this passage
is "close, but no cigar," but frankly, I don't know how much closer
you could get, other than saying, "that ancient serpent mentioned in
Genesis 3..."
My point about the devil being in control of a real snake is
speculative, but fits in with the story and what christians believe
about demonic activity.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Marcelo Cantos, Research Assistant __/_ mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au
Multimedia Database Systems Group, RMIT / _ Tel 61-3-9282-2497
723 Swanston St, Carlton VIC 3053 Aus/ralia ><_> Fax 61-3-9282-2490
Acknowledgements: errors - me; wisdom - God; funding - RMIT
Marcelo Cantos
someone writes:
>>>>>>>>God is a fake.
>>>>>>>No he isn't.
>>>>>>Yes he is.
>>>>>Prove it.
>>>>You prove it!
>>>I have!
>>No you haven't
>Yes I have...
Could someone post some actual arguments one way or the other?
Marcelo Cantos
Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> writes:
> Marcelo Cantos wrote:
> >
> > > Why don't you explain what happened to it, fundie. I've never seen a
> > > snake of any sort talk. I've never even seen one that had vocal cords.
> > > So tell me how the snake in the garden talked to anybody.
> >
> > [Fundie? Sticks and stones work better.]
>
> Would you prefer "religiouts nut"? How about "Ayatollah-wanna-be"?
Frankly, I don't care what you call me, but I might be more convinced
of your intelligence and integrity if you stuck to the topic (but then
again, you probably don't care what I think of you, so you will do as
please).
> > The Bible also records a donkey talking, and is quite clear that this
> > was a supernatural event. No one ever suggested that snakes always
> > talk. In this case, the serpent was the Devil in a snakes body,
> > supernaturally giving it speech. Is this impossible?
>
> Yes. Prove it possible----show me a talking snake.
This is a ridiculous argument, since I never said that snakes always
talk, or even that they have the ability.
> > > But, you see, God cursed the SNAKE for this act. If it
> > > were NOT really a snake, but in fact really the devil, then why did
> > > God curse and punish the poor innocent snake? If I rob a bank in a
> > > clown disguise, should we lock up all clowns to punish them for my act?
> > > How do you reconcile this injustice with your notion of a just and
> > > loving God?
> >
> > Do you know what capacity a snake has for evil?
>
> It has none, since it's just a dumb animal. However, you miss the
> point---the snake was cursed for talking Eve into eating the forbidden
> fruit. But since snakes CAN'T talk, it was SATAN that allegedly did the
> talking---so why did God curse the poor innocent SNAKE, which had no
> volition in the matter at all?
I have pointed out earlier that the purpose of the curse was symbolic.
Christians don't have the same exalted view of animals that
naturalists do, since the Bible states that they are here for us, and
that we are to have dominion over them. So for us, there is little
difference between cursing a snake by removing its legs and cursing a
tree by making it whither. The curse is more of a humiliation than a
form of suffering.
Besides, people on this thread have gone to great pains to point out
that it was hardly a curse if viewed from the perspective of motility.
So the curse is obviously symbolic in purpose, since it has had little
effect on the quality of life of individual snakes. This doesn't,
however, imply that the curse only occurred symbolically, since snakes
clearly have no legs and they *do* have nerve endings (yes, I know you
have another explanation, I'm just pointing out why my perspective is
perfectly reasonable).
> >I haven't the
> > faintest notion! So it would be presumptuous of either of us to draw
> > conclusions about the relationship between the snake species and the
> > Devil.
>
> But your fudnie friend here HAS drawn some conclusions. He's cited the
> snake as an example of "entropy". Is he wrong?
I must have missed that post! I haven't seen the word entropy
anywhere in this discussion.
> > Besides, it is only considered unjust if you give animals the same
> > moral status as humans.
>
> Uh, *YOU* are the one talking about a snake's "capacity for evil" . . .
> .
No. I'm saying that it's impossible to know, therefore I can't say
that the snake is *evil* and deserves its curse, but you can't say
it's *innocent*. But the real issue I make by bringing up morality is
that snakes don't have any rights, as you seem to imply they do by
condemning God's action of cursing it.
> > The curse on the snake was a symbol of God's curse on the devil. This
> > doesn't mean however that the incident itself never took place. The
> > presence of vestigial nerve endings is, to me, strong evidence that it
> > did in fact occur.
>
> And the fact that legless lizards also have vestigianl nerves and pelvic
> girdles means what, fundie.
I am not an expert in snakes (I'm sure you'll make much of this
fact!), but I never claimed to be, and I am only too glad to have my
statements corrected if they are wrong since I prefer to grow in
knowledge than win arguments. I would, however, question the term
vestigial, since any part that has even slight use can be considered a
valid design component, and therefore not strictly vestigial (at least
not in the sense that it would discredit the creationist position).
> > > Wanna explain to me how that snake managed to talk? I have over a dozen
> > > snakes in my home right now (I'm a reptile writer) and never heard any
> > > of them say a word . . .
> >
> > You already asked that question and I already answered it.
>
> Thanks, I'd prefer a SCIENTIFIC explanation (creationism does after all
> claim to be SCIENCE, doesn't it?) rather than your unsupported
> assertions.
Actually I don't claim creationism to be science. Karl Popper would
support me in the assertion that the distinction between scientific
knowledge and other kinds of knowledge is totally artificial and is
irrelevant to any debates on the respective merits of two theories.
There is evidence to support creationism. You may disagree with it,
think it's a load of rubbish, cast aspersions on its proponents, etc,
etc. But the fact is that there are theories which creationism
upholds, which deserve examination. Many evolutionists seem to prefer
to just discredit creationists altogether and not consider any merit
their ideas might have. This is not a scientific attitude, no matter
how wacky the theories are considered to be.
And as to the issue of biblical accuracy, the presence of vestigial
nerves in snakes, *does* give weight to a literal interpretation of
Genesis 3. This is obviously a debatable point, but you cannot
discredit it out of hand without first considering it. The question
of vestigial limbs is a valid one which also contributes to the
debate, but it is itself also open to debate.
Marcelo Cantos
dr...@aber.ac.uk (Dan Holdsworth) writes:
> OK, start from the bog-standard fundie claim: "God is eternal, all powerful,
> all knowing".
Agreed.
> That means that when this god started off the universe, Heisenberg
> uncertainty didn't exist for him. He knew everything that was going
> to happen.
Agreed.
> Given that this is the case, praying is useless. Worship is
> useless. God knows what you will think _before_ you think, knows
> what you'll do before you do it.
No. No. Yes.
The Bible is in agreement with you that God knows what you will pray
before you pray it [Mt 6:7-8]. The point is that prayer is for our
benefit more than for his since events that occur in answer to prayer
are more of a blessing than events that occur that weren't asked for
(even if they are fortuitous events). Also, prayer, at its simplest
level is conversation with our father, so it can partly be viewed as
`small-talk' with a concerned parent.
> God knew all about Satan, etc. He created things that way. In short,
> no matter what you do, you are doing God's will...
In a sense, yes. In the other sense, our actions are our choice, and
satan must take personal responsibility for his rejection of God's
authority. The question is one of perspective, and certainly doesn't
mean that we can just do as we please, since the Bible is very clear
that we will all be called to account for our lives.
> In other words, fundies are just wasting their time and yours. Worship is
> irrelevant. Sin is irrelevant. All this rubbish about redemption etc. is
> irrelevant.
Believe what you will, the Bible disagrees, the end of time will
reveal who was right.
The point I am making is that you either completely accept the Bible
or you completely reject it. If you reject it, then why even discuss
fatalism? If you accept it then you also accept what it has to say
about personally liability.
> On the other hand, God might not be all-powerful, etc. Current evidence
> suggests that God has virtually no power, and that prayer is essentially
> useless. Either way, the fundies lose out.
If God was real, would you really *want* him to exert his power over
unbelieving people such as yourself? The Bible portrays God as
wanting to have a relationship with us, not to control us like robots.
Therefore, what purpose would be achieved by his taking over the world
and becoming the ultimate `cop'.
> In short, religion is crap.
Jesus agrees.
Gully Foyle
On 14 Mar 97 11:10:05 -0600, Za...@sanity.com wrote:
>>>Since Richard appears to be a scholar on the issue. Perhaps he will share
>>>his wisdom with us and post a straightforward reason as to why Dan's right?
>
>>Actually, I thought that Dan had already done that.
>
>>Richard Keatinge
>
>Good answer since you have no valid comments, it would have been hard for you to
>come up with some facts! And it is obvious that Dan is in fact clueless.
>
>Speaking for prayer, there have been several programs on television and even on
>the news talking about the power of prayer. So obviously it is not useless as he
>babbles above!
>
Speaking of clueless, what you say is obviously true since you saw it
on the t-e-l-e-v-i-s-i-o-n. You should read a few tabloids, they are
packed with amazing facts that you will find er, informative.
BTW, did you know that is you edit the posts, instead of including the
entire previous one, you actually save bandwidth. Wow.
Kevin O'Connor
Nick Cummings <cumm...@delphi.umd.edu> wrote:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Nick Cummings University of Maryland (physics)
>On 12 Mar 1997, Dan Holdsworth wrote:
>
>> It gets better...
>>
>> OK, start from the bog-standard fundie claim: "God is eternal, all powerful,
>> all knowing".
>>
>> That means that when this god started off the universe, Heisenberg uncertainty
>> didn't exist for him. He knew everything that was going to happen.
>>
>> Given that this is the case, praying is useless. Worship is useless. God knows
>> what you will think _before_ you think, knows what you'll do before you do
>> it.
>>
>> God knew all about Satan, etc. He created things that way. In short, no matter
>> what you do, you are doing God's will...
>>
>> In other words, fundies are just wasting their time and yours. Worship is
>> irrelevant. Sin is irrelevant. All this rubbish about redemption etc. is
>> irrelevant.
> What you are basically saying is that if everything is predestined
>then it makes no difference what one does? Oddly enough that is in a way
>similar to what Calvin argued.
Not quite. You still get to choose whatever you like , but you're in a
trap whereby your choice has been preselected , although to you it
feels like you have total free will.
> What you seem to be ignoring is that your position is no better
>than the "fundie's". What happens to you can be calculated form the
>current conditions. In principle, the probability of each outcome can be
>calculated. Your actions, and their effects an be calculated (as a set of
>probabilities of states); thus, the probability of you surviving a fire in
If god is all knowing , then there is no such thing as "probability"
to him. Its all certainty.
>your home is already determined (in principle). Yet you would not say
>that trying to escape would be useless, even though your thoughts and
>actions are probabilistically predetermined.
> The problem people have with deterministic theories (fate) is that
>they cannot change the time line. In a model with uncertainty; however,
God being all knowing means the model does not have uncertainty.
Try to stay with this argument , will you ?
>you have no more control over your life. What happens is a result of
>probabilities that you cannot effect; thus, you do not decide to flee a
One does not follow the other. You have a will to live. Staying in
this burning house will cause this not to happen. You leave the house.
Very predictable.
>fire. A electrical interactions in your brain (governed by QED) cause you
>to flee.
> There seems to be no room for human perogitive in either view;
>however, we still consider it absurd to say that our actions have no
>effect. To claim that prayer etc. is irrelevant, because God's will and
Our actions are part of the probabilities. Just because we don't know
what we're going to do next doesn't mean God doesn't know (by
definition , he does )
>plan are already set, you have to accept that what you do is irrelevant,
Not irrelevant , just already predicted.
Predicting that a rock is going to fall to the ground does not stop
the rock from falling , after all.
>because it is a result of probabilities and physical laws you cannot
>control. You are merely a quantum puppet (better hope you don't get
>mauled by Schoedinger's cat).
Now you've totally wandered off the deep end here into some sort of
straw man argument.
>> In short, religion is crap.
>In short, what you are claiming is as much crap.
When you eventually figure out what he's trying to say , we'll see
if you still thing it's crap. Right now you're blinded by your own
opinions on the matter.
> A note: I am not a "fundie". I am not even religious. I am
>merely a lover of logic and science, who thinks that it is as absurd to
>try to logically disprove the existence of God as it is to try to prove
Try this then.
Everything from God is Good
-------------------------------------------------
God is good
contrasted with this...
God is all knowing , all powerful
God made the universe , including the angels
Lucifer is a fallen angel
Lucifer is evil
God made Lucifer
------------------------------------
God is Evil
You can't cut it both ways , but you are trying. And that means that
, according to the logic you claim you love , the god you describe
cannot exist.
>His existence through logic. There may be ground to logically dispute the
>Christian conception of God, but this is not it!
And you know what it is ? Beyond a vague sort of "There must be a god.
Its a cool idea. Therefore God is real." ?
Argumentia ad ignorantiam cuts both ways , after all.
" If you can't proove there is no god , there must be a God !" has
always been considered a false argument. So has "If you can't prove
there is a God , there must NOT be a God !"
Lloyd Zusman
On 15 Mar 1997 17:23:40 +1100, Marcelo Cantos <mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
> someone writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>God is a fake.
> >>>>>>>No he isn't.
> >>>>>>Yes he is.
> >>>>>Prove it.
> >>>>You prove it!
> >>>I have!
> >>No you haven't
> >Yes I have...
>
> Could someone post some actual arguments one way or the other?
Sadly, you have just now posted the actual arguments which take place
so frequently in these newsgroups.
It is logically impossible to prove anything about the existence or
non-existence of God, because in order to prove something, you must
begin with one or more non-proven postulates and build on top of them.
No such unproven postulate exists that everyone will agree upon as
being universally true. Therefore, all such "proofs" will fail to
yield any absolute truth about whether or not God exists.
Of course, there are many arguments that have been made as to whether
or not it is *plausible* that God exists. Unfortunately, once you
examine these arguments, you can always reduce each and every one of
them to one or more root premises which are not proven and must be
taken as postulates. Once we get to this point, the discussion
quickly degenerates to something similar to what you have illustrated
above.
--
Lloyd Zusman 01234567 <-- The world famous Indent-o-Meter.
l...@asfast.com ^ Indent or be indented.
Jeremy Henty
Marcelo Cantos wrote:
>
> someone writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>God is a fake.
> >>>>>>>No he isn't.
> >>>>>>Yes he is.
> >>>>>Prove it.
> >>>>You prove it!
> >>>I have!
> >>No you haven't
> >Yes I have...
>
> Could someone post some actual arguments one way or the other?
YES, THEY COULD!
Could *not* resist that. :-)
Jeremy Henty
Atheist #152
Lenny Flank
Marcelo Cantos wrote:
>
> >
> > Could you remind me where in the Bible is says that the snake is the
> > Devil. Genesis 3 talks about the snake but says nothing about Satan or
> > the Devil.
>
> Revelation 12:9. It has been stated in this thread that this passage
> is "close, but no cigar," but frankly, I don't know how much closer
> you could get, other than saying, "that ancient serpent mentioned in
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Liar. There is NO such quote anywhere in Revelation, and you know it
just as well as I do. It mentions "that serpent", but gives NO
reference to Genesis. None at all.
Stop bearing false witness, fundie.
> My point about the devil being in control of a real snake is
> speculative, but fits in with the story and what christians believe
> about demonic activity.
>
Do Christians believe that innocent creatures (and all future
descendents of innocent creatures) should be punished if one of
those creatures is involuntarily and unwillingly used by a malevolent
being to commit an evil act? Is that your idea of a just and loving
God? "The Devil forced you to commit this act, therefore I will
punish you and your future descendents forever and ever."
Sounds more like a vengeful psychotic than a just and loving god to me.
Lenny Flank
Marcelo Cantos wrote: However, you miss the
> > point---the snake was cursed for talking Eve into eating the forbidden
> > fruit. But since snakes CAN'T talk, it was SATAN that allegedly did the
> > talking---so why did God curse the poor innocent SNAKE, which had no
> > volition in the matter at all?
>
> I have pointed out earlier that the purpose of the curse was symbolic.
> Christians don't have the same exalted view of animals that
> naturalists do, since the Bible states that they are here for us, and
> that we are to have dominion over them. So for us, there is little
> difference between cursing a snake by removing its legs and cursing a
> tree by making it whither. The curse is more of a humiliation than a
> form of suffering.
First, is it your opinion that we (and God) can perpetrate senseless
cruelty on dumb animnals at will, just for "symbolism"? Is THAT your
idea of a just and loving God?
Second, how exactly does "humiliating" an innocent creature for
something that it could not have done do anything to promote peace and
justice in the world? Is your God more interested in humiliation,
punishment and vengeance than He is in love, understanding and
justice? I think such an assertion says a lot more about **YOU**
than it does about God . . . .
>
> Besides, people on this thread have gone to great pains to point out
> that it was hardly a curse if viewed from the perspective of motility.
If it was "hardly a curse", then why did God **DO** it? make up your
mind, fundie. First you tell me it was a curse to serve as a reminder
to us sinful humans. NOW you tell me that "well, it wasn't REALLY a
curse anyway". make up your mind.
> So the curse is obviously symbolic in purpose, since it has had little
> effect on the quality of life of individual snakes.
I think the snake might have a different opinion . . . .
This doesn't,
> however, imply that the curse only occurred symbolically, since snakes
> clearly have no legs and they *do* have nerve endings (yes, I know you
> have another explanation, I'm just pointing out why my perspective is
> perfectly reasonable).
"Reasonable"? "My just and loving God decided to inflict punishment and
humiliation on an innocent animal, just for the heck of it, because
after all it's just a dumb animal so who cares anyway?" You call
THAT "reasonable"?
You are in serious need of psychiatric help . . . .
>
> > > Besides, it is only considered unjust if you give animals the same
> > > moral status as humans.
> >
> > Uh, *YOU* are the one talking about a snake's "capacity for evil" . . .
> > .
>
> No. I'm saying that it's impossible to know, therefore I can't say
> that the snake is *evil* and deserves its curse, but you can't say
> it's *innocent*.
YOU just said it was---YOU are the one babbling on about "it was really
the Devil and not just a snake". Well make up your friggin mind.
WAS it the DEVIL or was it just a snake? If it WAS the Devil, then why
punish the SNAKE for what the DEVIL did?
But the real issue I make by bringing up morality is
> that snakes don't have any rights, as you seem to imply they do by
> condemning God's action of cursing it.
>
I don't think snakes have any "rights". Nor am I "condemning" God
for cursing it. I am asking YOU why a just and loving God would
curse an innocent animal for something that it could not have done.
> > > The curse on the snake was a symbol of God's curse on the devil.
And what good does a "symbolic curse" do? How was the devil stopped
or even threatened by such a "symbolic curse"? Why didn't God just
curse the DEVIL?
I would, however, question the term
> vestigial, since any part that has even slight use can be considered a
> valid design component, and therefore not strictly vestigial (at least
> not in the sense that it would discredit the creationist position).
>
Feel free to tell me what "use" what can get from nerves that control
limbs that are no longer there . . . . . .
> > Thanks, I'd prefer a SCIENTIFIC explanation (creationism does after all
> > claim to be SCIENCE, doesn't it?) rather than your unsupported
> > assertions.
>
> Actually I don't claim creationism to be science.
Glad to hear it. Next time some idiotic redneck legislature passes
yet another "equal time" bill, would you be willing to put your hand on
a Bible and testify that creation "science" is not science at all, but
merely religious doctrine?
Karl Popper would
> support me in the assertion that the distinction between scientific
> knowledge and other kinds of knowledge is totally artificial and is
> irrelevant to any debates on the respective merits of two theories.
>
And you would both be wrong.
> There is evidence to support creationism. You may disagree with it,
> think it's a load of rubbish, cast aspersions on its proponents, etc,
> etc.
It is.
>But the fact is that there are theories which creationism
> upholds, which deserve examination.
Feel free to name one.
Many evolutionists seem to prefer
> to just discredit creationists altogether and not consider any merit
> their ideas might have.
They ahve no merit.
>This is not a scientific attitude, no matter
> how wacky the theories are considered to be.
>
Wrong. Creationist claims were discredited over 150 years ago. The
whole argument over the age of the earth, flood geology, fixed "kinds",
etc etc etc, was fought over a century ago> The religious nuts lost.
Get used to it.
erikc
On 16 Mar 1997 17:56:17 GMT
l...@asfast.com (Lloyd Zusman)
as message <slrn5iod2...@sunspot.tiac.net>
-- origin: alt.atheism:
>|On 15 Mar 1997 17:23:40 +1100, Marcelo Cantos <mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>|> someone writes:
>|>
>|> >>>>>>>>God is a fake.
>|> >>>>>>>No he isn't.
>|> >>>>>>Yes he is.
>|> >>>>>Prove it.
>|> >>>>You prove it!
>|> >>>I have!
>|> >>No you haven't
>|> >Yes I have...
>|>
>|> Could someone post some actual arguments one way or the other?
>|
>|so frequently in these newsgroups.
>|
>|It is logically impossible to prove anything about the existence or
>|non-existence of God, because in order to prove something, you must
>|begin with one or more non-proven postulates and build on top of them.
>|No such unproven postulate exists that everyone will agree upon as
>|being universally true. Therefore, all such "proofs" will fail to
>|yield any absolute truth about whether or not God exists.
>|
>|Of course, there are many arguments that have been made as to whether
>|or not it is *plausible* that God exists. Unfortunately, once you
>|examine these arguments, you can always reduce each and every one of
>|them to one or more root premises which are not proven and must be
>|taken as postulates. Once we get to this point, the discussion
>|quickly degenerates to something similar to what you have illustrated
>|above.
So ultimately, the question of whether or not god(s) exist becomes a matter of
personal belief. As far as that goes, I have no problem with that. I've met a
deist who believes that the universe is an experiment of god's "just to see
what will happen". A couple of theists in the crowd seem to find this attitude
even more offensive and threatening than my atheism, by virtue of the fact that
the deist's ideas challenge the entire underpinnings of thier faith. (God knew
what he was doing when he started, etc)
Erikc -- fire...@insync.net
Atheist #2
Although it is said that faith can move mountains, experience shows that dynamite works better.
Lenny Flank
Nick Cummings wrote:
>
> What you seem to be ignoring is that your position is no better
> than the "fundie's". What happens to you can be calculated form the
> current conditions. In principle, the probability of each outcome can be
> calculated.
Actually, this is not true, for two reasons (at least). One, the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible, even in
principle, to calculate precise "current conditions". Second,
chaos makes it impossible to "predict" or "calculate" any long-term
outomes from those initial conditions.
We live in a fundamentally indeterministic world.
Marcelo Cantos
Lenny Flank <lfl...@fast.net> writes:
>
> Marcelo Cantos wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Could you remind me where in the Bible is says that the snake is the
> > > Devil. Genesis 3 talks about the snake but says nothing about Satan or
> > > the Devil.
> >
> > Revelation 12:9. It has been stated in this thread that this passage
> > is "close, but no cigar," but frankly, I don't know how much closer
> > you could get, other than saying, "that ancient serpent mentioned in
> > Genesis 3..." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> Liar. There is NO such quote anywhere in Revelation, and you know it
> just as well as I do. It mentions "that serpent", but gives NO
> reference to Genesis. None at all.
>
> Stop bearing false witness, fundie.
How about reading my post! "other than saying" means this is how it
would have to be written in order to be more obvious than the
*current* reading. I did not say that this *is* the current reading.
You shouldn't be so hasty to make such bald-faced accusations.
> > My point about the devil being in control of a real snake is
> > speculative, but fits in with the story and what christians believe
> > about demonic activity.
>
> Do Christians believe that innocent creatures (and all future
The term innocent keeps rearing up in this thread. Innocence has
nothing to do with it as I have pointed out many times. The curse was
symbolic, did not adversly affect the lifestyle of snakes (only their
status), and your implied assumption that snakes have rights is merely
an opinion which has no rational basis.
A plate is innocent (it has done no wrong), greeks smash dozens of
them repeatedly at wedding ceremonies and no-one mourns the plight of
the plate! Why is a God who curses animals to be considered evil? Do
animals have more rights than plates? Do they have the same rights as
humans? If you believe evolution, then the answers are no and yes.
If you believe the Bible, then the answers are yes and no.
So the bottom line is that if you believe God exists then he had every
right to curse the snake regardless of its innocence. If you don't
believe in God then you don't believe any part of the story and this
entire discussion is meaningless. But my point is that your arguments
do not trouble the Biblical viewpoint one little bit.
Emmanuel Cabahug
Marcelo Cantos wrote:
>
> dr...@aber.ac.uk (Dan Holdsworth) writes:
>
> > OK, start from the bog-standard fundie claim: "God is eternal, all powerful,
> > all knowing".
>
>
> > That means that when this god started off the universe, Heisenberg
> > uncertainty didn't exist for him. He knew everything that was going
> > to happen.
>
>
> > Given that this is the case, praying is useless. Worship is
> > useless. God knows what you will think _before_ you think, knows
> > what you'll do before you do it.
>
>
> The Bible is in agreement with you that God knows what you will pray
> before you pray it [Mt 6:7-8]. The point is that prayer is for our
> benefit more than for his since events that occur in answer to prayer
> are more of a blessing than events that occur that weren't asked for
> (even if they are fortuitous events). Also, prayer, at its simplest
> level is conversation with our father, so it can partly be viewed as
> `small-talk' with a concerned parent.
>
> > no matter what you do, you are doing God's will...
>
> satan must take personal responsibility for his rejection of God's
> authority. The question is one of perspective, and certainly doesn't
> mean that we can just do as we please, since the Bible is very clear
> that we will all be called to account for our lives.
>
> > irrelevant. Sin is irrelevant. All this rubbish about redemption etc. is
> > irrelevant.
>
> reveal who was right.
>
> The point I am making is that you either completely accept the Bible
> or you completely reject it. If you reject it, then why even discuss
> fatalism? If you accept it then you also accept what it has to say
> about personally liability.
>
> > On the other hand, God might not be all-powerful, etc. Current evidence
> > suggests that God has virtually no power, and that prayer is essentially
> > useless. Either way, the fundies lose out.
>
> If God was real, would you really *want* him to exert his power over
> unbelieving people such as yourself? The Bible portrays God as
> wanting to have a relationship with us, not to control us like robots.
> Therefore, what purpose would be achieved by his taking over the world
> and becoming the ultimate `cop'.
>
>
>
> --
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Marcelo Cantos, Research Assistant __/_ mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au
> Multimedia Database Systems Group, RMIT / _ Tel 61-3-9282-2497
> 723 Swanston St, Carlton VIC 3053 Aus/ralia ><_> Fax 61-3-9282-2490
> Acknowledgements: errors - me; wisdom - God; funding - RMIT
Religion is not crap.
A good Christian who practices the teaching of Christ. Christians
pray that they may not be tempted by the devil and the evils of this
earth. Prayer gives strength to a Christian in times of temptation. God
gives him strength. Christian pray for their own sake and to give Honor
to God the Father. An Atheist like you would never understand. Pray is
powerful. I suggest you read the recent studies about prayer and it's
healthy benefits for all people.
In Christ,
Emmanuel Cabahug
Emmanuel Cabahug
P.S. I pray that you will convert you ways and follow the Laws of God!!!
St...@starlink.com
>On 11 Mar 97 21:40:12 -0600, Za...@sanity.com wrote:
> The findings of the Hubble telescope have blown most believed
>>scientific facts of cosmology out of the water.
>hardly. what a stupid generalization. last i heard smoot and company
>were still in business and the big bang itself was picking up
>additional support. sorry dude, try again.
>>
Obviously you don't get out much do you. This has been widely reported on the
news NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN. They have even interviewed prominent scientist who say
that based on the findings of Hubble, they now have to admit they know very
little about the origins of the universe. Do you have a television? Perhaps not,
as it appears you live under a rock.........sorry dude, your brain is lame!
wf...@enter.net
Thomas Scharle
In article <741.7017T...@starlink.com>, St...@starlink.com writes:
...
|> Obviously you don't get out much do you. This has been widely reported on the
|> news NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN. They have even interviewed prominent scientist who say
|> that based on the findings of Hubble, they now have to admit they know very
|> little about the origins of the universe. Do you have a television? Perhaps not,
|> as it appears you live under a rock.........sorry dude, your brain is lame!
Ah, yes, the high level of education, knowledge and discernment
in the US today.
It was on network television, so it must be true.
Just like the Weekly World News tells us "experts say".
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Shooty
St...@starlink.com wrote:
> >>
>
> Obviously you don't get out much do you. This has been widely reported on the
> news NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN. They have even interviewed prominent scientist who say
> that based on the findings of Hubble, they now have to admit they know very
> little about the origins of the universe. Do you have a television? Perhaps not,
> as it appears you live under a rock.........sorry dude, your brain is lame!
Ok Who are the 'prominent scientists' We should be told.
Examples?
No one told me about all this.
Its a conspiracy.
Certainly Hubble has raised more questions but it has also provided a
lot of confirmations and answers.
Shooty
Richard Keatinge
In article <2143.701...@sanity.com>, Za...@sanity.com writes
>>Za...@sanity.com wrote:
>Speaking for prayer, there have been several programs on television and even on
>the news talking about the power of prayer. So obviously it is not useless as he
>babbles above!
>
Funny you should say that. I am collecting materials for a formal meta-
analysis of the healing powers of prayer. Any references to any
randomized controlled trials would be gratefully received. But nothing
else, thanks a lot!
--
Dr Richard Keatinge, MFPHM, MBA
ymgynghorwr mewn meddygaeth iechyd cyhoeddus / consultant in public health
medicine,
Awdurdod Iechyd Gogledd Cymru / North Wales Health Authority
Eryldon
Caernarfon
North Wales
United Kingdom LL55 1HU
http://www.ihi.aber.ac.uk/Other/maternity.html
am fanylion gofal mamolaeth gorau yng Nghymru / for details of best maternity
care in Wales
http://www.nwi.co.uk/nant/nant.htm am gyrsiau preswyl /for Welsh residential
courses
David Sepkoski
> news NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN. They have even interviewed prominent scientist who say
> that based on the findings of Hubble, they now have to admit they know very
> little about the origins of the universe. Do you have a television? Perhaps not,
> as it appears you live under a rock.........sorry dude, your brain is lame!
Or perhaps he just doesn't get all his information from the idiot box.
Imagine, some people actually read books and journals instead or relying
on Dan Rather to tell them what to think. How "lame"...
Lenny Flank
Marcelo Cantos wrote:
>
> > > > Could you remind me where in the Bible is says that the snake is the
> > > > Devil. Genesis 3 talks about the snake but says nothing about Satan or
> > > > the Devil.
> > >
> > > Revelation 12:9. It has been stated in this thread that this passage
> > > is "close, but no cigar," but frankly, I don't know how much closer
> > > you could get, other than saying, "that ancient serpent mentioned in
> > > Genesis 3..." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >
> > Liar. There is NO such quote anywhere in Revelation, and you know it
> > just as well as I do. It mentions "that serpent", but gives NO
> > reference to Genesis. None at all.
> >
> > Stop bearing false witness, fundie.
>
> How about reading my post! "other than saying" means this is how it
> would have to be written in order to be more obvious than the
> *current* reading. I did not say that this *is* the current reading.
>
Point out to me where in Revelation it says that the serpent referred to
is the one in Genesis. Stop waving your hands and just answer
my question.
> >
> > Do Christians believe that innocent creatures (and all future
>
> The term innocent keeps rearing up in this thread. Innocence has
> nothing to do with it as I have pointed out many times.
If the snake was NOT innocent, then please feel free to point out what
it did to deserve punishment . . . . ?
The curse was
> symbolic, did not adversly affect the lifestyle of snakes (only their
> status),
So your "curse" really wasn't a curse at all, was it?
> and your implied assumption that snakes have rights is merely
> an opinion which has no rational basis.
>
>
<sigh> I very EXPLICITLY stated (in the part you edited out above) that
I *do not* think snakes have "rights". Let me repeat--SNAKES DO NOT
HAVE RIGHTS. If you still don't understand, let me know and I'll
explain it again using smaller words.
My point, which you've danced around yet again, is why would a just and
loving god punish an animal for something that it not only did not do,
but could not possibly have done?
A plate is innocent (it has done no wrong), greeks smash dozens of
> them repeatedly at wedding ceremonies and no-one mourns the plight of
> the plate! Why is a God who curses animals to be considered evil?
Because just and compassionate beings do not arbitrarily punish other
beings for things they did not and cannot do. Or are you so addicted to
"punishment" and "humiliation" that you cannot grasp this elementary
concept?
Do
> animals have more rights than plates? Do they have the same rights as
> humans? If you believe evolution, then the answers are no and yes.
What the bloody hell are you yammering about, fundie. If you know of
ANY bit of evolutionary science that says anything at all whatsoever
about animal "rights", please post it. You are talking out your ass
here.
> So the bottom line is that if you believe God exists then he had every
> right to curse the snake regardless of its innocence.
How just and compassionate of him. And we're supposed to WORSHIP this
thing? Sounds like a vengeful psycho.
If you don't
> believe in God then you don't believe any part of the story and this
> entire discussion is meaningless. But my point is that your arguments
> do not trouble the Biblical viewpoint one little bit.
You mean, of course, that they do not trouble ***YOUR*** viewpoint one
little bit. I do realize that you are indeed so arrogant and
presumptuopus as to assume that YOUR viewpoint is the only "christian"
one (a trait that is true of fundies generally). But despite your best
efforts, there are a lot of Christians out there (far outnumbering
fundie fanatics) who think your biblical literalism is anti-god
and does nothing but discredit Christianity. I happen to agree with
them.
Now answer my question---granted that god has the "right" to punish the
innocent if he so desires----WHY WOULD HE? In what manner is "justice"
served by allowing the perpetrator of an evil act (Satan) to escape
unpunished, while punishing an entirely innocent creature?
I believe that a psychiatrist would call what you are doing
"projection"----attributing your OWN desire for punishing and
humiliating others onto your conception of God. . . .
You need some serious help, my friend.
David Sepkoski
St...@starlink.com wrote:
> >...
> >|> Obviously you don't get out much do you. This has been widely reported on
> >|> the news NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN Perhaps not, as it appears you live under a
> >|> rock.........sorry dude, your brain is lame!
>
> > Ah, yes, the high level of education, knowledge and discernment
> >in the US today.
>
> > It was on network television, so it must be true.
> Not only are you a complete Idiot your are a jackass as well. These programs
> were on PBS, Discovery, The Learning Channel as well as all the major network
> news! So what your suggesting that all these people are involved in some kind of
> anti-evolution/anti-cosmology conspiracy? These are probably some of the most
> anti-religious orginazations on the face of the earth. But then again what kind
> of reply did we really expect from a sixth grade dropout like yourself!
Ok, a couple of things. First off, if you are going to start
criticizing people's intelligence, it would be nice for you to learn
some English grammar. The word is "you're"--it's a contraction of "you
are"--not "your," and it is obviously not a typo since you make the same
mistake twice in two sentences. I knew that in sixth grade, and I'd bet
the author of the post you are attacking did also.
Secondly, you are hopelessly naive if you think that everything that is
reported on the television is gospel. It may not be a "conspiracy," but
tv news programs are first and foremost vehicles for entertainment, and
are therefore not always accurate.
Third, you make yourself look like a jackass with your ranting and your
posturing. Why don't you try rational debate instead of name-calling
and ad hominem attacks? You certainly aren't going to convince anyone
of anything with posts like the one above.
A casual observer
Gully Foyle
>
>Religion is not crap.
>
> A good Christian who practices the teaching of Christ. Christians
>pray that they may not be tempted by the devil and the evils of this
>earth. Prayer gives strength to a Christian in times of temptation. God
>gives him strength. Christian pray for their own sake and to give Honor
>to God the Father. An Atheist like you would never understand.
Maybe you can't even conceive of the idea that many atheists are in
fact ex-theists and they may have rejected their faith partly for the
reasons that you state above.
>Pray is
>powerful. I suggest you read the recent studies about prayer and it's
>healthy benefits for all people.
>
No doubt there are psychological benefits to be gained from religion
and prayer. There are also a lot of benefits to be gained from owning
a pet.
>In Christ,
In knowledge and reason
GF
_________________________________________________________________
Remove the Z at the end of my e-mail address,
this has been placed there to stop junk mail.
_________________________________________________________________
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they
are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the
Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce
_________________________________________________________________
Gully Foyle
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 02:35:44 GMT, firew...@insync.net (erikc) wrote:
>
>So ultimately, the question of whether or not god(s) exist becomes a matter of
>personal belief. As far as that goes, I have no problem with that. I've met a
>deist who believes that the universe is an experiment of god's "just to see
>what will happen".
That's one idea that I've thought about (and still do). The only
problem with "The Great Scientist" idea is that it brings us back to
the question of the origin of TGS and where it may be (if it created
this universe does it exist in a separate dimension?). If TGS only
planted the seeds of life on this planet, that still brings us to the
question of its origins.
>A couple of theists in the crowd seem to find this attitude
>even more offensive and threatening than my atheism, by virtue of the fact that
>the deist's ideas challenge the entire underpinnings of thier faith. (God knew
>what he was doing when he started, etc)
>
It's not hard to offend most theists. That doesn't apply to the more
enlightened ones out there.
Mitchell Coffey
St...@starlink.com wrote in article <741.7017T...@starlink.com>...
> >On 11 Mar 97 21:40:12 -0600, Za...@sanity.com wrote:
> > The findings of the Hubble telescope have blown most believed
> >>scientific facts of cosmology out of the water.
>
> >hardly. what a stupid generalization. last i heard smoot and company
> >were still in business and the big bang itself was picking up
> >additional support. sorry dude, try again.
> >>
>
the
who say
> that based on the findings of Hubble, they now have to admit they know
very
> little about the origins of the universe. Do you have a television?
> as it appears you live under a rock.........sorry dude, your brain is
lame!
>
Zane,
I see, you think that network news programs are more authoritive on issue
of science than scientific journals? And it is also your belief that
reading those journals or authoritative sources like "Scientific American"
and "Science News" constitutes "living under a rock" as far as exposure to
scientific information is concerned?
For the record, where do you get most of your information on new
developments in science?
And, re: "sorry dude, your brain is lame!", exactly how old are you?
--
Mitchell Coffey
Header address is an anti-spam fake.
Real email address is: mco...@grci.com.
*********************************************************************
Glendower: "At my nativity
The font of heaven was full of fiery shapes,
Of burning cressets, and at my birth
The frame and huge foundation of the earth
Shaked like a coward!"
Hotspur: "Why, so it would have done at the same season
If your mother's cat had but kittened, though yourself
Had never been born.
...
Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep!"
Hotspur: "Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?"
-- Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part One, III, i
Rog
Michelle D'Arcy Computer Concerns wrote:
>
> In article <3327F6...@wcom.com>, Marion Evans <marion...@wcom.com>
> writes
> >Guys,
> >I loved reading yall argue bout whether snakes and donkeys could talk
> >
> >but did ya consider the possibility that maybe we just forgot how to
> >talk to snakes and donkey's?
> >
> >Mythology is full of talking animals. And truth be told we humans have
> >forgotten quite a few of our own languages over the last couple of
> >thousand years.
>
> I strongly agree that we can communicate with animals. I have
> communicated with animals telepathically and I am sure that in the past
> when our minds were more open all of us could be able to do this.
We certainly do communicate with animals, but I believe it`s more
a case of empathy rather than telepathy. We all interpret signals
given out by animals via their behaviour, and in most cases we can
tell if an animal is scared or angry etc. The better you 'know' an
animal the stronger the empathy between you and it is, and the better
you can communicate your desires and emotions with it. Dogs seem
particularly talented at this and appear to pick up on your mood,
acting accordingly (probably because they`re descended from a pack
animal, the wolf).
Although this is a form of communication, there is little evidence
for a communication of ideas/concepts etc between people and animals.
Animals seem to have emotions like affection, anger, nervousness and
are capable of direct association (stimulus-response) which may
give the impression they`re in some way self-conscious or sentient,
but I am yet to be convinced (my general agnostic stance:-) that
we can communicate on a higher level.
Rog.
St...@starlink.com
>|> the news NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN. They have even interviewed prominent
>|> scientist who say that based on the findings of Hubble, they now have to
>|> admit they know very little about the origins of the universe. Do you have
>|> a television? Perhaps not, as it appears you live under a
>|> rock.........sorry dude, your brain is lame!
> Ah, yes, the high level of education, knowledge and discernment
>in the US today.
> It was on network television, so it must be true.
> Just like the Weekly World News tells us "experts say".
>--
>Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Not only are you a complete Idiot your are a jackass as well. These programs
Thomas Swanson
In article <1239.701...@starlink.com> St...@starlink.com writes:
>>In article <741.7017T...@starlink.com>, St...@starlink.com writes:
>>...
>
>
>> Just like the Weekly World News tells us "experts say".
>
>
>were on PBS, Discovery, The Learning Channel as well as all the major network
>news! So what your suggesting that all these people are involved in some kind of
>anti-evolution/anti-cosmology conspiracy? These are probably some of the most
>anti-religious orginazations on the face of the earth. But then again what kind
>of reply did we really expect from a sixth grade dropout like yourself!
>
Things on TV ar in the newspaper sound pretty solid until you read/hear
about events of which you have some knowledge. Then things sound pretty
skimpy or just plain wrong, much of the time.
TV caters to a broad audience. In generating shows for a broad audience,
some subtleties are lost and the watered down generalizations you
hear might not reflect the real state of things.
____________________________________________________________
Tom Swanson | "I have a cunning plan that cannot fail"
TRIUMF | S Baldrick
><DARWIN> "Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs."
L L B Waggoner
bryan palmer graef hayward
St...@starlink.com wrote:
<to one of his opponents in this debate, Tom Scharle(scha...@nd.edu)
: Not only are you a complete Idiot your are a jackass as well. These programs
: were on PBS, Discovery, The Learning Channel as well as all the major network
: news! So what your suggesting that all these people are involved in some kind of
: anti-evolution/anti-cosmology conspiracy? These are probably some of the most
: anti-religious orginazations on the face of the earth. But then again what kind
: of reply did we really expect from a sixth grade dropout like yourself!
I guess since we don't believe the ravings of some drooling fundie
fanatic without proof, we are uneducated, idiotic, and assinine. Gee, I
am so hurt. Sorta gets you right here <points to pinky fingernail).
I really wish intelligence was connected with sex drive, then "Starr"-struck
wouldn't reproduce. He wouldn't even have a wet dream. As it is,
fanaticism is connected with sex drive, which is why they take celibacy
vows - that way the sheep and the cats will be safe.
Cheers,
The Ixian Heretic
Dan Evens
St...@starlink.com wrote:
> Not only are you a complete Idiot your are a jackass as well. These programs
> were on PBS, Discovery, The Learning Channel as well as all the major network
> news! So what your suggesting that all these people are involved in some kind of
> anti-evolution/anti-cosmology conspiracy? These are probably some of the most
> anti-religious orginazations on the face of the earth. But then again what kind
> of reply did we really expect from a sixth grade dropout like yourself!
Oh please! I have seen multiple programs on each of these media with
glaring
scrufulous errors. The errors were obviously due to the dumbing down
that
goes on when science gets mass-transmitted. The very last place I would
go
for authoritative understanding of such issues, like what Hubble's data
means,
would be any mass media outlet.
No conspiracy is required, just a lot of ill educated plastic faced
talking
heads pretending to be knowledgeable about things they can not even
properly
pronounce.
You want to see what is the state of the typical news reporter's mind
w.r.t. sicence? Get yourself to
http://www.milk.com/wall-o-shame/heavy_boots.html
and think about how many reporters have liberal-arts degrees.
Television's understanding of science consists of picking fights in
an attempt to get a scandal going, and "swallowing camels" when it
comes to things like the Bermuda triangle, the Loch Ness monster,
astrology, aliens, and Atlantis.
--
Standard disclaimers apply.
I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
I don't buy from their ISPs.
Dan Evens
Lenny Flank
St...@starlink.com wrote:
>
> >...
> >|> Obviously you don't get out much do you. This has been widely reported on
> >|> the news NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN. They have even interviewed prominent
> >|> scientist who say that based on the findings of Hubble, they now have to
> >|> admit they know very little about the origins of the universe. Do you have
> >|> a television? Perhaps not, as it appears you live under a
> >|> rock.........sorry dude, your brain is lame!
>
> > Ah, yes, the high level of education, knowledge and discernment
> >in the US today.
>
>
> > Just like the Weekly World News tells us "experts say".
>
> were on PBS, Discovery, The Learning Channel as well as all the major network
> news! So what your suggesting that all these people are involved in some kind of
> anti-evolution/anti-cosmology conspiracy? These are probably some of the most
> anti-religious orginazations on the face of the earth. But then again what kind
> of reply did we really expect from a sixth grade dropout like yourself!
And once again we see that remarkable fundie capacity for love,
compassion and forgiveness being demonstrated, in a shining example of
Christianity at its most profound . . . . After all, didn't Christ say
"If someone smites thee on the right cheek, then yell at him in a
juvenile manner and call him rude names" . . . ?
Notice that our fundie friend didn't make any SUBSTANTIVE response---he
didn't name any "prominent scientists", or offer a citation to a
specific show or date so we can obtain the transcript, or even offer
a good description of whatever "criticisms" were discussed. . . .
Typical fundie arrogance. It's idiots like THIS that give Christianity
such a bad name . . . . .
Jim Carr
St...@starlink.com writes:
} ...
} Obviously you don't get out much do you. This has been widely reported on
} the news NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN. They have even interviewed prominent
} scientist who say that based on the findings of Hubble, they now have to
} admit they know very little about the origins of the universe. Do you have
} a television? Perhaps not, as it appears you live under a
} rock.........sorry dude, your brain is lame!
Scientists have always known very little about the origins of the
universe, but what is known about the universe and its history will
fill lots of books. Adding to that knowledge increases our level
of understanding even if (particularly if) it forces some rethinking.
But that "have to admit" part is hyperbole.
Tom Scharle (scha...@nd.edu) replies:
)
) It was on network television, so it must be true.
St...@starlink.com writes:
>
>Not only are you a complete Idiot your are a jackass as well. These programs
>were on PBS, Discovery, The Learning Channel as well as all the major network
>news!
I think you just proved his point. You might have cited a journal
commentary or review article. Even PBS targets its writing below
the college grad level of knowledge of a field.
>So what your suggesting that all these people are involved in some kind of
>anti-evolution/anti-cosmology conspiracy?
Your statement above implies that the results being talked about provide
specific evidence for a 6000 year old earth? I don't think so. It is a
common logical fallacy among creationists to take evidence against some
particular theory and claim it as evidence for theirs. This ignores the
evidence that led to the rejection of creation-based theories of the
universe over a century ago. That part of the history of science is not
taught in schools.
>These are probably some of the most
>anti-religious orginazations on the face of the earth.
You confuse organizations that are neutral regarding your religion
or mine with ones that actively work against all religions.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | "Whatever."
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ |
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | George Herbert Walker Bush
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 |
dan...@gate.net
Last month's Psychology Today has an article about studies done that claimed
that both positive prayer and negative prayer (prayers for catastrophe upon the
heads of your enemies) seem to be effective. Mostly anecdotal stuff, but the
names of other researchers were mentioned. You could probably followup by
looking those researchers up in PsychLit - to see if any of this has actually
been published in peer-reviewed journals.
Dan
wf...@enter.net
On 19 Mar 97 21:39:42 -0600, St...@starlink.com wrote:
>>On 11 Mar 97 21:40:12 -0600, Za...@sanity.com wrote:
>> The findings of the Hubble telescope have blown most believed
>>>scientific facts of cosmology out of the water.
>
>>hardly. what a stupid generalization. last i heard smoot and company
>>were still in business and the big bang itself was picking up
>>additional support. sorry dude, try again.
>>>
>
>Obviously you don't get out much do you. This has been widely reported on the
>news NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN.
gee whiz i guess we scientists should turn to peter jennings for the
latest stuff. toss astrophysical journal, science, nature, etc out the
window. whats next, rupert murdoch and the 'national inquirer' for
results from fermilab?
They have even interviewed prominent scientist who say
>that based on the findings of Hubble, they now have to admit they know very
>little about the origins of the universe
gee whiz some revelation. saying that we know little about the origins
of the universe is not the same as saying the big bang is false. you
creationists are experts at quoting scientists out of context and do
so just to support your political agenda.
wf...@enter.net
On 21 Mar 97 00:18:52 -0600, St...@starlink.com wrote:
>Not only are you a complete Idiot your are a jackass as well. These programs
>were on PBS, Discovery, The Learning Channel as well as all the major network
>news! So what your suggesting that all these people are involved in some kind of
>anti-evolution/anti-cosmology conspiracy? These are probably some of the most
>anti-religious orginazations on the face of the earth. But then again what kind
>of reply did we really expect from a sixth grade dropout like yourself!
>
huh? you creationists seem to be experts at distorting and quoting out
of context (gould has provided ample evidence of you doing so to his
own writings). no one is more unreliable than someone positing and
quoting to support his own political agenda. and we know what your
agenda is...to support your religious beliefs. thus its no suprise to
see that we scientists are unwilling to accept the creationist
contention that we scientists are abandoning science.
Phil Nicholls
Marcelo Cantos <mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>Actually I don't claim creationism to be science. Karl Popper would
>support me in the assertion that the distinction between scientific
>knowledge and other kinds of knowledge is totally artificial and is
>irrelevant to any debates on the respective merits of two theories.
I for one would be interested to here where Karl Popper made this
assertion. It has been a while, but I believe you are in error. As a
matter of fact I believe it was Popper who developed the idea of
falsification as a criteria of scientific knowledge.
>There is evidence to support creationism. You may disagree with it,
>think it's a load of rubbish, cast aspersions on its proponents, etc,
>etc. But the fact is that there are theories which creationism
>upholds, which deserve examination. Many evolutionists seem to prefer
>to just discredit creationists altogether and not consider any merit
>their ideas might have. This is not a scientific attitude, no matter
>how wacky the theories are considered to be.
Didn't you just claim that the difference between scientific knowledge
and other kinds of knowledges is artificial and irrelevent? If so
then why is a scientific attitude so important.
The simple facts are that there is no evidence to support creationism
and that most of what passes as "scientific creationism" are
half-baked critiques of evolutionary theory. The main premises of
creationism cannot be tested. Those premises that can be tested have
been tested and have been disproven.
Phil Nicholls
Biology, Chemistry and Physics Teacher
Sharon Springs High School
pn...@capital.net http://www.capital.net/users/pnich/
Ch...@merimont.net.fr
>Marcelo Cantos <mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
All premises of evolution tht have been tested are seriously questionable
themselves or have been outright disproven! So what's your point?
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins Chaz'@merimont.net.fr wrote:
[snip]
>All premises of evolution tht have been tested are seriously questionable
>themselves or have been outright disproven! So what's your point?
Having made this claim you can certainly supply us with a list of the
major premises of evolution and the problems with them.
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.
Michael Lacy
In article <3331e6bf...@news.capital.net>,
pn...@capital.net (Phil Nicholls) wrote:
>Marcelo Cantos <mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>>There is evidence to support creationism. You may disagree with it,
>>think it's a load of rubbish, cast aspersions on its proponents, etc,
>>etc. But the fact is that there are theories which creationism
>>upholds, which deserve examination. Many evolutionists seem to prefer
>>to just discredit creationists altogether and not consider any merit
>>their ideas might have. This is not a scientific attitude, no matter
>>how wacky the theories are considered to be.
It depends on whether you have looked at the theories first. If you have
examined them, and found them to be a load of cranky pesudo-science, then
you are fully entitled to say so.
I have looked through several so called "creation science" theories, and I
highly reccomend them for their entertainment value - the hydroplate
theory, for instance, had me in hysterics! Check it out on line (just type
"hydroplate" in on a search engine). Great value for money as far as
entertainment goes. It would also be a great object study for a logic
teacher to demonstrate to his class _all_ of the known logical fallacies in
action.
Michael Lacy
John Ings
On 15 Mar 1997 17:06:47 +1100, Marcelo Cantos
<mar...@mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>> Thanks, I'd prefer a SCIENTIFIC explanation (creationism does after all
>> claim to be SCIENCE, doesn't it?) rather than your unsupported
>> assertions.
>
>Actually I don't claim creationism to be science.
But the ICR does.
>There is evidence to support creationism.
None.
> You may disagree with it,
>think it's a load of rubbish, cast aspersions on its proponents, etc,
>etc. But the fact is that there are theories which creationism
>upholds, which deserve examination.
Not that I have ever heard. Every creationist theory I have ever
encountered has been proven wrong.
>Many evolutionists seem to prefer
>to just discredit creationists altogether and not consider any merit
>their ideas might have.
There is no such merit.
>This is not a scientific attitude, no matter
>how wacky the theories are considered to be.
It is a scientific attitude. A scientist whose theories have been
disproven goes back to the lab and starts over. The Creationist whose
theories have been disproven keeps on publishing them anyway, knowing
that his audience of gullible innocents won't have the scientific
background to know he's full of baloney.
Stanley Friesen
St...@starlink.com wrote:
>Obviously you don't get out much do you. This has been widely reported on the
>news NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN.
Well, no wonder you are confused. NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN are *shitty*
places to get scientific information.
> They have even interviewed prominent scientist who say
>that based on the findings of Hubble, they now have to admit they know very
>little about the origins of the universe.
I think it is better to say that they got a scientist saying something
which, when taken out of context, sounds like they are admitting such
a thing. This is what news shows do. It is how they maintain high
ratings.
The reality is that there is *one* series of results, coming from
several sources, not just from the Hubble, which indicates there are
some problems in measuring the age of the Universe.
That is a *far* cry from throwing out all of cosmology.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Stanley Friesen
St...@starlink.com wrote:
>
>Not only are you a complete Idiot your are a jackass as well. These programs
>were on PBS, Discovery,
With Discovery airing shows about "paranormal" events and space
aliens, I would hardly call that a reliable source either.
PBS is marginally better, but mostly airs predigested pablum for the
general public. It is still not a good place to get in depth
understanding of complex issues, as it can, at best, mention the
existance of complex issues. One simply cannot address most such
issues adequately in a mere hour of TV time.
> The Learning Channel as well as all the major network
>news! So what your suggesting that all these people are involved in some kind of
>anti-evolution/anti-cosmology conspiracy?
No - they are engages in a process called "ratings sweeps" by which
they determine which shows stay on the air, and which ones die. If
there is a choice between accuracy and attracting an audience, guess
which wins? (Hint: which one pays the bills).
> These are probably some of the most
>anti-religious orginazations on the face of the earth. ...
Actually, it is probably more accurate to say that the TV industry is
completely uninerested in religion unless it improves their ratings.