- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
David, thanks for having a go at the Kiwi question.
++”Let's let scientists (oceanographers) help us answer this one.
The findings of oceanographers indicate that at one time land ridges connected what are now isolated land areas.That helps to explain how humans and other land animals migrated to populate the world. Some boat trips were required for human migration to have followed its pattern, as well.
++”For example, oceanographic studies indicate that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge may have crossed that ocean above the surface. Possibly there were also other ridges, and animals could have migrated by means of these before such ridges sank below the surface of the ocean.
The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is 2500 metres under the ocean surface, so that would be a lot of sinking/ sea level rising. Although there are islands along its length it would not be a good land bridge because it runs parallel to the two continents, it does not connect them. The same principle applies to all mid-oceanic ridges.
++”Other oceanographic studies have turned up evidence that once there existed a huge South Pacific continent that took in Australia and many of the South Sea isles.
If such was the case, then, of course, the animals had no difficulty in migrating to these lands.Yes. The reason I chose the Kiwi is because New Zealand has never been connected to any other large land mass. It is really composed of sea floor that has been pushed up from the collision of two tectonic plates. There was never a land bridge for the Kiwi to walk over. There is no record in any European or Asian account of seeing Kiwi, they are not mentioned in the Judeao-Christian holy book, they left no remains anywhere other than on the islands of New Zealand. For a Kiwi, any attempt at a walking trip from Mt. Ararat to anywhere would have resulted in a pretty quick death. They are utterly defenceless.
The real story of the Kiwi is much more interesting. Kiwi (and all flightless birds of New Zealand) are descended from ancestors that were able to fly over the water (from Australia). Being isolated by a decent stretch of water, there were no land mammals on the islands (the only native mammal species are ones that can fly!). Kiwi still have vestigial wings but in the predator-free environment they turned to nesting and foraging on the ground, occupying a niche that had no competition and losing the ability to fly. They effective took the place that small mammals would occupy in other parts of the world, and even evolved some mammal-like characteristics, not least of which being a big increase in size. This adaptation to a mammalian existence is classic evolution.
Another example can be seen in the first section of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KakapoEven if the flood myth was true, the ark did not contain any Kiwi.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 06 2007,22:36) Hi t8 ++”Sure. And it is perfectly logical that nothing did an amazing job at the human eye and even better than intelligent humans have, who create cameras that work on the some principle.
Not nothing. Natural selection. I don't know about intelligence, but I don't think we have the technology to make an eye. Yet.
Even if natural selection couldn't explain the arising of complexity, which it actually can perfectly, that still doesn't mean that an imaginary friend did it, or even exists. Anyway, who designed the imaginary friend?
Stu.I use to use the same arguments but I was blind.
You foolishness lies in the fact that intelligence always has advantage over chance.
E.g., if you play heads and tails, you have a 50 50 chance. But if you have intelligence, you can make one side of the coin heavier. Yet what you must observe in the universe is the complete opposite. So called intelligent men cannot even understand the gene pool of the human race and yet no intelligence made it. He he, your too much.
It is obvious to even a child that intelligence can stack things in their favour. All laws have a law giver. Your faith that nothing brought everything into being using processes such as natural selection is quite incredible. Incredibly foolish is what I mean.
Nothing brings forth nothing my friend.
Life brings forth life. These are basic principles.
Stu, if there was nothing in the beginning, then how did nothing come up with something? If there were the raw elements, then did they just always exist. Elements that existed for all time that no one created or that had no cause. What a joke. Do you really expect to talk people into that?
I think you have underestimated most of us here.
Your belief is as foolish as the Websters dictionary coming about by a monkey who lived for billions times billions of years in a room with a typewriter. Given enough time all the keystroke combinations at some point will eventuate in the Websters dictionary being typed out.
That is how silly you sound to me.
Hi t8
++”E.g., if you play heads and tails, you have a 50 50 chance. But if you have intelligence, you can make one side of the coin heavier. Yet what you must observe in the universe is the complete opposite.
What do you observe in the universe t8?
++” So called intelligent men cannot even understand the gene pool of the human race and yet no intelligence made it. He he, your too much.
Why, thank you. I think we do understand the gene pool pretty well now, though. Entire genomes of a variety of species have been determined and many of the 30,000 genes in humans have been assigned to specific effects.
++”It is obvious to even a child that intelligence can stack things in their favour.
True.
++”All laws have a law giver.
Not the law of gravity, nor Newton’s Laws of motion.
++” Your faith that nothing brought everything into being using processes such as natural selection is quite incredible. Incredibly foolish is what I mean.
It is not faith. There is plenty of evidence that natural selection has produced the variety of life we see around us from original single-celled ancestors. Do you have evidence that shows this to be wrong?
++”Nothing brings forth nothing my friend. Life brings forth life. These are basic principles.
True, and true (apart, possibly from the Big Bang and some very strange things that happen on the quantum scale).
If life brings forth life, why does David keep banging on about cars and houses?++”Stu, if there was nothing in the beginning, then how did nothing come up with something? If there were the raw elements, then did they just always exist. Elements that existed for all time that no one created or that had no cause.
The lighter elements formed from the sub-atomic particles (protons, electrons, gluons etc) produced by the Big Bang. There is good evidence that there was such an event, although the theory is still in its early childhood. The heavy elements (beryllium upwards) formed by nuclear fusion in a star. Such a star exploded (a supernova) and the heavy-element dust from that explosion was attracted into orbit around our sun. The dust (or gas) accumulated into molten (or gaseous) balls by gravitational attraction. Ball cooled, crust formed. Earth. We see supernovas all the time and from the light emitted by the star we know that’s where the heavy elements are produced.
++”Your belief is as foolish as the Websters dictionary coming about by a monkey who lived for billions times billions of years in a room with a typewriter. Given enough time all the keystroke combinations at some point will eventuate in the Websters dictionary being typed out.
Yes. To type out the dictionary entirely by random monkey typing would involve a lot of monkey lfetimes and many worn-out typewriters. In fact, the experiment has been done. They had lots of monkeys type for ages and only a few words emerged here and there.
I don’t believe it is reasonable to actually get the dictionary typed in this way either. I can’t see how any belief I hold could be this hopeless.
Stuart
Forces of power and iniquity that no man could prevent or change
Hi Stuart, this is Random, but Addresses more the mind deceit of what we choose to believe.
In most cases people that believe man evolved from apes; also Reject and refuse Jesus Christ even exsisted and ever lived?2000 yrs ago a Man named Jesus walked the earth
Yes or NO?
SO IF YOU SAY YES he lived, Then those who believe NO will use their force, and insist that this all did not really happen, and insist again, those who believe in this Jesus are full of delusion and far from reality living a …..Fairytale of hope
But I wounder why this is so, and why people refuse to even try to understand, as if a part of the brain cannot comprehend and perceive a reality
Within this man Jesus's life on earth
a new era began and the power of God, ordered the earth to begin numbing its days from one again, and the days that proceeded his life were ordered to be dedicated and called BC, before Christ, (were men playing with our heads) or are we safe in believing the Mark BC still standing 2000 yrs Latter, is AS good as evidence of dug up in fossilsI have to say that Christians are entreated badly by those that have rejected this force of power and ITS reality, they have a need to see things to believe, and others hear and just have faith and hope
No man was able to prevent God;
So If the Man Jesus did not exist they may well have destroyed the earths peace and caused a deliberate deceit? Of fables,…eg… why not Name the next era HP , after Harry potter, and start the number of days at one?
Or is it… that we choose a power full God, that DOSE MAKE HIMSELF PRESENT, in the invisible things of the earth, even from the beginning, he leaves his mark, and those who follow, can hear, and do not need to rely alone on seeing evidence
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 07 2007,19:35) Quote (kenrch @ Aug. 07 2007,06:53) AMEN Sis! Head knowledge doesn't do anyone any good in the spiritual. You can know scripture but unless you know it's author you find the truth. If one tries to understand a Spiritual book with their head full of man's knowledge then they become atheist.
Herein lies the communication gap
1Co 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
Unless Stu IS seeking truth, Spiritual Truth, and unless he is able to climb out of his evolution soup bowl then their is no hope for him. HOWEVER if he is allowed to stick around may be God will throw him a life preserver. At any rate if he does pull any weeds out the garden then I'm all for it! May be he's just the gardener
Hi Kenrck1 Co really has a good point here. You have to agree with the facts up to the “spiritually judged” bit.
I think that there is no particular way of thinking of which you are capable and I am not, all other things being equal. There is plenty of evidence that people can be mislead into thinking that they have some special gifts or powers.
Anyway, the wheels come off in the next verse:
1 Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
You might call me a wise guy but how arrogant is that??
You strike me as a straightforward person of good humour (see I can't help myself, I have to pass judgement on you now – How 1 Co has tempted the temptable!) but I can't agree with your celebration of ignorance. Is your faith so weak that it could be toppled by a proper understanding of the science you reject?
On gardening; you forget, Kenrck it is the beloved and worshipped fairies at the bottom of my garden that do the weeding at our place.
Stuart
Quote Anyway, the wheels come off in the next verse: 1 Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
Stu how can you judge me when you don't know God, WHO IS SPIRIT? You are spiritually ignorant and I don't mean just knowing the scriptures. We worship God in SPIRIT and TRUTH.
You are beginning to bore me Stu
You are like someone who knows the world but has never been out their neighborhood hi Kenrch (got it right this time!)
++”Stu how can you judge me when you don't know God, WHO IS SPIRIT? You are spiritually ignorant and I don't mean just knowing the scriptures. We worship God in SPIRIT and TRUTH.
1 Corinthians was right! You can judge me but I can't judge you! Judge not lest ye be judged??
You are ignorant of the power of the fairies at the bottom of my garden. How can you possibly judge me without knowing Their Ways? I worship them as the Green Fingered geniuses who have special powers not of this world, but of keeping potted African Violets alive. I don't think you will ever be able to appreciate the way they spread the good fertiliser for us all.You are also ignorant of Thor. What if you have unknowingly been deceived and got it all wrong? how do you know you're praying to the right imaginary friend?
Sorry to bore you Kenrch, but you're the one (well, one of many) proposing the Bumbling Beetle Collecter in the sky. What IS spiritual knowledge? Give me one clear example that is not also perfectly explainable by psychology or some other branch of the Wisdom of the World.
Stuart
Hi Charity
Jesus’ existence is certainly debatable. If you put aside the Gospels, which were of course not written by eyewitnesses, you are really left with just the account of the historian Josephus who makes a very vague mention of someone who could have been an historical Jesus. It is striking that the supposed miracles, Herod’s alleged mass infanticide and the alleged resurrection supposedly witnessed by many were not recorded by the Romans who were pretty avid chroniclers of the day. There could have been many people of the time who fitted the description of a Jewish political / religious stirrer who got into trouble with the Roman authorities. I’m not an expert. Educate me if you can. Facts though, please.
So. Yes, I believe it is possible that Jesus existed. I believe that if he ever did say he was the “Son of God” at best he was speaking figuratively or politically, and that the miracles are in each case either fictional or illusion. His followers would have been no more sceptical that they are today, ignoring contrary evidence and making extraordinary claims without evidence. It is almost certain that he was a standard human being and the mythological aspects of his life, virgin birth, living after death, so-called miracles were all invented after his death. So much other church doctrine has arisen this way you should be surprised not to see the life of the Messiah embellished a bit… or a lot. Judeo-Christian mythology has a lot in common with other mythologies. It has borrowed from them too.
Did Jesus give an example of a good person leading a fulfilling life of service to others? Lets say yes. A4J (Atheists for Jesus) advocated this. Do unto others. No question about that one. Do we have to slavishly do exactly as he literally said and did in order to be “good” human beings? Of course not.
Do we need to be “saved”? Did Jesus actually say you have to be “reborn”? Well the churches have a vested interest in telling you that, and keeping you in an intellectual second childhood.BC is not evidence. It is simply a timekeeping device used by Christian-dominated western Europe. Today we use BCE, Before Common Era and CE, to acknowledge that the world is not a Christian one.
That leads to an interesting, unrelated question: who rules the world? My answer I think is bacteria.
Stuart
Quote It is not a fact that Moses wrote Genesis. It does not say anywhere in Genesis that it is written from an Earth-bound observer’s point of view; Well whoever wrote Genesis, they wrote it thousands of years before scientists figured out the order of creation, and he got it right, somehow.
As for it being written from an Earth bound perspective, the context itself demands this understanding. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth Genesis “day.” There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, (from that perspective) the sun appears to be a ‘greater light that rules the day’ and the moon a ‘lesser light that dominates the night.’—Genesis 1:14-18.
So we have two choices stu. You will say that calling the sun and moon greater luminaries than stars in unscientific. But I will look at this and realize that from my perspective, this is true and that from this context it indicates that this is being considered from an earthly observers perspective. Even today, we talk of things such as the sun “setting” or “rising” etc and we are just describing events from our perspective.
And taken from that perspective, the order is absolutely correct.
It’s correct about there being a beginning to the universe, (which scientists finally figured out less than a hundred years ago,) and it’s right about the order of events as it would be seen from an earthly observer, (which science also didn’t figure out until too recently.)Quote it [Creationism] is rejected because there are explanations that do a much better job, with fewer far-fetched assumptions or convoluted interpretations, for the observations we make. Reading the process of evolution, all the near impossible and mathematically impossible things that must have taken place, (and there is a long list of these) I would consider such far fetched leaps and stretches beyond what math and science can bear. Even the existence of anything at all, the big “why.” The question that has kept many up at night, the question of why there is anything when there could apparently just as easily if not more easily be nothing.
Quote The science capable of verifying such things [the beginning of the universe] is much less than 100 years old. Unlike mythologies, science has waited until it is possible to have an intelligent discussion about the evidence for the Big Bang.
Most religions have a myth of origins. Are you saying they all got it right about the Big Bang?First, science didn’t wait. It has always discussed the universe. It’s just that “it” thought that the universe has always existed. Scientific thoughts change. The Bible had it right from it’s first words–the universe had a beginning and didn’t always exist. Science can be and often has been wrong. In fact, I would bet that much of what science believes today, will be considered stone age thinking in 50 years.
Quote science was never very happy about fitting all the known and unknown species into a single wooden craft, or producing a human female from a rib, or being able to see all the kingdoms of the world from a single high point. Today, much of what science does would be considered voodoo witchcraft just a couple hundred years ago. My point again, is that you know very very little about science, or true science. You know about the science of today, which is constantly learning that less and less seems impossible.
As for your comment, again, like the word “day” you assume too much and don’t actually consider the account itself. Each animal according to it’s “kind.” The wolf, being one kind. How many species today do we have from the wolf? Yet, they are all one “kind” of animal: dogs.
It is true that encyclopedias refer to over a million species of animals. But what the Bible actually says is that Noah was instructed to preserve only representatives of every “kind” of land animal and flying creature. Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. The ark had about 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) of usable space—ample for the passenger list
Again, I would think that a scientific mind would make less assumptions and look at the actual facts.
That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never forgot it. In the book Myths of Creation, Philip Freund estimates that over 500 Flood legends are told by more than 250 tribes and peoples. The only explanation for such a widespread acceptance is that the Flood was a historical event.I had said:
It's quite possible that if there were billions of years of time everything possible would happen right? That house across the street would come together in just that way, as though designed, and yet, by accident.Quote No, houses are designed and built. Well, so are universes then. That was easy.
If you had never seen a house before and had been living in a cave in the dessert all your life and suddenly came across a house, with running water, etc, how would you know whether that thing that house just came to be or that it was designed?
I asked:
”We can take the simplest of things. Take a meat grinder made up of 15 parts. Take it apart and set it in a bathtub. Now, shake that bathtube for 100 billion years. Will you have a meat grinder?Quote No. . . .Is it not just as well then that living things do not attempt to reproduce by shaking in a bathtub?
My point is that you could take 100 billion bath tubs with a 100 billion meat grinders in them in pieces and shake them for 100 billion years and you would not have one meat grinder.
A meat grinder is infinitely more simple then a bird's feather, or an eye ball, or a brain. Yet you think the universe, after creating itself from nothing created these complicated things in much less time.I said:
“Aren't the four forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong neucler force and weak neucler force) so precisely finely tuned.
What if any of these forces were .001% stronger or weaker. Could the universe even exist? Could any universe exist?Quote Possibly not. It just seems to mean that it would have been infinitely more likely that nothing existe
d, and that nothing would ever exist. All these forces are very precise in their strengths. They almost seem chosen. A little stronger or a little weaker, no universe. And why the universe at all? It seems so much more likely there should be nothing.Quote Yes humans are egocentric and think the universe is here just for them.
Well, if you walked into your room and found clothes that measured to fit you precisely, you may think that they were made for you. These forces seem very precise.It's energy and math. Who devised these calculations? Who provided the energy, the abundance of energy?
Quote You tell me! You're the one pretending there is a “who”! ISAIAH 40:26
““Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.”david
Quote Jesus’ existence is certainly debatable. Quote Educate me if you can. While you may doubt he was who he said he was, no one, not his enemies even, not those who wished his name disappeared questioned his existence.
The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”—(1976), Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 145.
“A character so original, so complete, so uniformly consistent, so perfect, so human and yet so high above all human greatness, can be neither a fraud nor a fiction. . . . It would take more than a Jesus to invent a Jesus.”—Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church.
“That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”—Will Durant, Caesar and Christ.
I would like to know the actual number or ratio of scientists who believe in God.
Stu before suggested that 95% of scientists believe in evolution.
I'm not sure this represents reality.
According to New Scientist:
“An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.
Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.
“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.
The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.
I'm still looking to try to find how many scientists actually believe in evolution and how many believe in God and how many believe in both.
The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out:
“Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.
A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.
Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.
Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.
The repeated propaganda like idea that the theory of evolution is a fact is basically a lie. It is what is taught. And it is what you have to believe to become a teacher, to publish papers etc. Then you have to teach it. Those who try to argue against it are not taken seriously, and hence, don't get their grants, aren't published and are never known.
“Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”—The Guardian, London, England, December 4, 1980, p. 15.
Science Digest states: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.” (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.
The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”—(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.
What about those “ape-men” depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?
(This is what truly bothered me a long time ago and still does a little.)
“The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”—The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151.“The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”—Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.
“Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”—Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304.
David Thank you for your Articles. What makes me sad is, that our Grandchildren have to learn about evolution. Thanks to the A.C.L.U.
Mrs.why is it Men attempt to change history?
I say …..Woe to those who's hearts that have made attempts to remove all remeberance of christ from the earth.David I stopped reading after the third recent post. I got sick of you repeating the lies of those who call themselves “creation scientists” who have never actually done any science in their lives. They are parasites on the work of others, turning reality inside-out and into their bible-sized chunks. I'm not particularly interested in the website(s) you copied all this illogical nonsense from either. My guess is that litttle or none of it is your original work.
Of course your audience on this forum will applaud you to their heavens without realising that you are committing false witness on their behalf. The classic illusion employed by the intellectual criminals you stole material from is to misquote real scientists by omission.
Here's an example I made up (myself!), of a statement by a scientist:
“It would seem that it is impossible that complex things like eyes could come into existence by blind forces…
***
…yet in natural selection we have a powerful mechanism that is far from blind, accumulating small changes as those with the genes that make bodies best suited to survival and reproduction in the current environment are favoured.”
Your nasty bit of work that calls himself a creationist but can't even show real faith, and who is essentially lying for god because presumably he thinks his deity isn't all-powerful to defend himself, CUTS OFF the satement above at the *** to make it seem like the “evolutionist” (that's a religious word, by the way) can't answer simple questions about how evolution works, when all s/he is doing is framing an introduction to the main point, the point that usually demonstrates what charletans the creationists are.
Real scientists like the late Stephen J Gould, Richard Dawkins, Steve Jones and Stephen Pinker whose jobs are to know and communicate about biology became careful some time ago to stop making statements that could be pillaged by the dishonest in this way.
So my honest advice to readers of this (this advice given by many bishops too) is by all means reject evolution if you really know what it is and still insist on biblical inerrancy, but be careful who you applaud. He who is your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend!
David, instead of posting all this misrepresentation, how about you choose just one issue that you think is evidence against the scientific explanation of the origins of life, and lets concentrate on that before moving on. Unless you just want to try and baffle people with the weight of your brilliance.
Stuart
Hi Mrs. IM4Truth
++”David Thank you for your Articles. What makes me sad is, that our Grandchildren have to learn about evolution. Thanks to the A.C.L.U.
EXACTLY the same science that leads to the theory of gravity or the design of your refrigerator gives us the fact of evolution by the theory of natural selection. It is a product of the very same process.
To be consistent you should also want ignorance for your grandchildren on gravity and refrigerators. Will you start a petition to outlaw any mention of gravity or principles of household appliances?
Stuart
Here's an example of what I mean about misquoting (Carl Sagan from David's post above):
“The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a
Great Designer…***
…perhaps some species are destroyed when the
Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments
are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a
little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely
made;
should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to
make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record
implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future,
features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer
(although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect
temperament).”, HE GOES ON.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
