Discussion:
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
(too old to reply)
Antimulticulture
2005-08-08 12:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
-- Or, None of the Above?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.

I have heard many Christians say that evolution
doesn't concern them because, after all, it's
"_only a theory_." Presumably they think that the
word "theory" means about the same thing as a
"pipe dream."

[Ed. The dictionary also defines a "theory" as
speculation - eg 'JFK conspiracy theory'. When
the "theory of evolution" was first proposed it
was nothing more than a form of this aforementioned
'speculation' as it had no grounding in science -
Remember Darwin never explained the 'Origin of Species'
in his book...now let's learn how the term "theory" is
deliberately misapplied in the scientific sense by
the Marxists...]

But the term "theory," at least as it applies to
experimental science, has a much nobler meaning
than that. A scientific theory is a careful
attempt to explain certain observable
_facts_ of nature by means of experiments. Since
many Christians have concluded that evolution is
incompatible with the Biblical account of
creation, we would do well to investigate if
evolution is a fact or a theory -- or perhaps neither.

There is a widespread misconception that good
theories grow up to be facts and that the really
good ones finally become laws. But these three
categories of scientific description are neither
directly related nor mutually exclusive. It often
occurs that a single natural phenomenon can be
described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law
-- all at the same time!

Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity.
First, there is a "fact" of gravity. While we
cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we
do observe the effects of this force every time we
drop something. There is also a _theory_ of
gravity that addresses the question of how this
force we call gravity really works. While we don't
know how gravity works, there are theories that
attempt to explain it. Finally there is the
well-known _law_ of gravity. This law, first
formulated by Isaac Newton, a believing Christian
and creationist, is a mathematical equation that
shows a relationship between mass, distance and
gravitational force. So, in summary, a _scientific
fact_ is an observable natural occurrence; a
"scientific theory" is an attempt to explain how a
natural occurrence works; and a _scientific law_
is a mathematical description of a natural occurrence.

Science itself is the whole process of making
careful observations of certain facts of nature
and then constructing and testing theories that
seek to explain those facts. Scientists call these
attempts to test their theories experiments.
Experimental science, better known as "empirical
science", is the kind of science that is
responsible for the marvelous technological
achievements that make our life easier. One has
only to consider what it would be like to endure
surgery without anesthesia to appreciate the
contributions of empirical science to our lives.

The most important requirement of empirical
science is that any object or phenomenon we wish
to study must first be "observable". While we may
assume the existence of events not witnessed by
human observers, such events are not suited to
study by empirical science. Secondly, the event we
wish to study should be "repeatable". Unique and
unrepeatable
events, such as the Babylonian Empire, are the
subject of history, not empirical science.
Finally, any theory we might propose as an
explanation for an observable and repeatable event
must be "testable": we must be able to conceive of
an experiment that could refute our theory if it
were wrong. If one were to propose an explanation
for an event in such a way that no one could
conceive of any way to test or refute it, it
wouldn't be a theory at all, but rather a
"belief". Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily
wrong, they just aren't well suited to study by
empirical science.

What then shall we say of evolution? First,
evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary
changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to
be "observable" in the lifetime of human
observers. The offspring of most living organisms,
for example, are said to remain largely unchanged
for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years.
Second, even when evolutionary changes do occur,
evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky tells us they
are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible." Dobzhansky concludes that the
"applicability of the experimental method to the
study of such unique historical processes is
severely restricted." Finally, evolutionist Paul
Ehrlich concedes that the theory of evolution
"cannot be refuted by any possible observations"
and thus is "outside of empirical science."

Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely
believed by the scientific community to be a
"fact" and those who dare to doubt it are not
endured gladly. The _Encyclopedia Britannica_
confidently assures us that "we are not in the
least doubt as to the fact of evolution." In his
textbook _Evolution_, Joe Savage says "we do not
need a listing of the evidences to demonstrate the
fact of evolution any more than we need to
demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges." In
another textbook, "Outlines of General Zoology",
H. Newman arrogantly declares that evolution has
no rival as an explanation for the origin of
everything "except the outworn and completely
refuted one of special creation, now retained only
by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudicial."

What exactly is the "observable fact" of
evolution? First you should be aware that
evolutionists recognize two types of "evolution"
--microevolution, which is observable, and
macroevolution, which isn't. So called
"microevolution" is a process of "limited"
variation among the individuals of a given species
that produces the sort of variety we observe among
dogs. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a
hypothetical process of "unlimited" variation that
evolutionists believe transforms one kind of
living organism into a fundamentally different
kind such as the transformation of reptiles into
birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has
ever observed anything remotely like this
transformation.

The very name "microevolution" is intended to
imply that it is this kind of variation that
accumulates to produce macroevolution, though a
growing number of evolutionists admit there is no
evidence to support this. Thus, an observable
phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable
phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and
then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the
strength of the former. It is this kind of
limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the
argument for evolution.

In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable,
repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify
as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account
of creation is not observable, repeatable or
refutable by man. Special creation is accepted
with faith by those who believe that the Bible is
the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient
Creator whose Word is more reliable than the
speculations of men. Both evolution and creation,
however, can be compared for their "compatibility"
with what we "do" observe of the facts of nature.
In future essays we will see that creation by
intelligent design is a vastly more reasonable
explanation for the origin of the complexity we
see in living things than is evolution by mere
chance and the intrinsic properties of matter.

[Ed. Evolution is not science, it is a political
movement pushed by leftists who seek a world without
consequence for their depravity...]

-x-

Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from
Brown University. He has been involved in
biomedical research and education for over 30 years.

--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Union Against Multi-culty

"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up The Traitors!"
Dr. Sunil
2005-08-08 12:34:33 UTC
Permalink
"Only morons believe in god!"
Peter Watson
2005-08-08 13:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Sunil
"Only morons believe in god!"
The fool has said there is no god.
--
Peter Watson
Dr. Sunil
2005-08-08 13:30:14 UTC
Permalink
'Amar M'lumad B'libo "Eyn Mashiach!"'
or in the vernacular:
'A learned man says in his heart "There is no Messiah!"': Psunils 14:1
Peter Watson
2005-08-08 15:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Sunil
'Amar M'lumad B'libo "Eyn Mashiach!"'
'A learned man says in his heart "There is no Messiah!"': Psunils 14:1
Hardly the word of God. More words of fools eh?
--
Peter Watson
PerfectlyAble
2005-08-08 14:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Dr. Sunil
"Only morons believe in god!"
The fool has said there is no god.
--
Peter Watson
We are all fools on the path to truth.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-08 14:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Dr. Sunil
"Only morons believe in god!"
The fool has said there is no god.
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would create
one anyway.
Peter Watson
2005-08-08 16:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Dr. Sunil
"Only morons believe in god!"
The fool has said there is no god.
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would
create one anyway.
Interesting. Why?
--
Peter Watson
BOB
2005-08-08 16:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Dr. Sunil
"Only morons believe in god!"
The fool has said there is no god.
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would
create one anyway.
Interesting. Why?
Brainwashing starting at an early age by the family and the churches?
Ford Prefect
2005-08-08 19:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Dr. Sunil
"Only morons believe in god!"
The fool has said there is no god.
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would
create one anyway.
Interesting. Why?
Out of fear of the unknown, it is the basis of all early legends. The
idea that there is no guiding force out their scares the hell out of
people who wish, hope and pray there is a reason for it all.
Paul Hyett
2005-08-09 08:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would
create one anyway.
Interesting. Why?
Out of fear of the unknown, it is the basis of all early legends. The
idea that there is no guiding force out their scares the hell out of
people who wish, hope and pray there is a reason for it all.
If there *is* a 'guiding force' out there, it seems to be a pretty
incompetent one...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Anubis
2005-08-09 09:54:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:37:26 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
If there *is* a 'guiding force' out there, it seems to be a pretty
incompetent one...
Man is the one fucking things up.
PT
2005-08-09 12:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Anubis <***@uce.gov> wrote in message: news:<***@news-
server.houston.rr.com>
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:37:26 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
If there *is* a 'guiding force' out there, it seems to be a pretty
incompetent one...
Man is the one fucking things up.
All powerful and omnipotent God is on America's side.
BOB
2005-08-09 15:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:37:26 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
If there *is* a 'guiding force' out there, it seems to be a pretty
incompetent one...
Man is the one fucking things up.
Do you know what "guiding force" means?
Ford Prefect
2005-08-09 17:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would
create one anyway.
Interesting. Why?
Out of fear of the unknown, it is the basis of all early legends. The
idea that there is no guiding force out their scares the hell out of
people who wish, hope and pray there is a reason for it all.
If there *is* a 'guiding force' out there, it seems to be a pretty
incompetent one...
That's why the church invented " Free Will" ;-) To explain to the less
gullible** why bad things happen to good people.

**As opposed to the more gullible that never question anything.
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 17:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would
create one anyway.
Interesting. Why?
Out of fear of the unknown, it is the basis of all early legends. The
idea that there is no guiding force out their scares the hell out of
people who wish, hope and pray there is a reason for it all.
If there *is* a 'guiding force' out there, it seems to be a pretty
incompetent one...
That's why the church invented " Free Will" ;-) To explain to the less
gullible** why bad things happen to good people.
And your explanation is?
Post by Ford Prefect
**As opposed to the more gullible that never question anything.
--
Peter Watson
BOB
2005-08-09 19:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would
create one anyway.
Interesting. Why?
Out of fear of the unknown, it is the basis of all early legends.
The idea that there is no guiding force out their scares the hell
out of people who wish, hope and pray there is a reason for it all.
If there *is* a 'guiding force' out there, it seems to be a pretty
incompetent one...
That's why the church invented " Free Will" ;-) To explain to the less
gullible** why bad things happen to good people.
And your explanation is?
Post by Ford Prefect
**As opposed to the more gullible that never question anything.
"Free will" is a joke and a copout.
mimus
2005-08-09 20:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOB
"Free will" is a joke and a copout.
Determinism (of whatever variety) is the ultimate copout.
--
And now the saints began their reign,
For which th' had hankered so long in vain,
And felt such bowel-hankerings,
To see an empire, all of kings,
Delivered from th' Egyptian awe
Of justice, government and law.

< _Hudibras_
BOB
2005-08-09 20:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Post by BOB
"Free will" is a joke and a copout.
Determinism (of whatever variety) is the ultimate copout.
de·ter·min·ism (d¹-tûr“m…-n¹z”…m) n.
The philosophical doctrine that every event, act, and decision is the
inevitable consequence of antecedents that are independent of the human
will.
--de·ter“min·ist n. --de·ter”min·is“tic adj. --de·ter”min·is“ti·cal·ly adv.

I'll take "determinism" as an explanation over "free will".

Ford Prefect
2005-08-09 19:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would
create one anyway.
Interesting. Why?
Out of fear of the unknown, it is the basis of all early legends.
The idea that there is no guiding force out their scares the hell
out of people who wish, hope and pray there is a reason for it all.
If there *is* a 'guiding force' out there, it seems to be a pretty
incompetent one...
That's why the church invented " Free Will" ;-) To explain to the less
gullible** why bad things happen to good people.
And your explanation is?
Shit happens, regardless of who you are. Some of it is avoidable, like
golfing in the rain, some of it, like being struck down by a genetic
defect isn't.

2000 years ago most of the civilized world believed the fable of gods
living atop a mountain made it rain, now we know it's just a result of
temperature and humidity. As far as I'm concerned the bible is no
different, using a fable to explain away ignorance of why things happen.
PerfectlyAble
2005-08-09 01:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Dr. Sunil
"Only morons believe in god!"
The fool has said there is no god.
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would create
one anyway.
If we knew everything, God, we wouldn't need
to ask questions. Gods love would see us through.
Alas the more mature of us know God is a crock
of sh*t used by those lame enough to know
they would never win a fair fight so they don't
fight fair if at all. Religion provides cheaters with
a way out, all they need to is confess their
sins to themselves and then its ok to go back
to the raping and murdering. In NZ recently
a prominent religious heritage party leader
declared child rape wrong publically like
religious politicians do then went away to
rape a child, even up to the last moment
before the trial he was trying to give a
reason why the underage girl wanted to have
sex with him!!! He of course got a lesser
sentance because of his religious contrition
(how sick). But thats how the poor's religiousness
filters up to the more mature amongst us,
we become the victums and even lessen the
effects of religious immorality.
BOB
2005-08-08 15:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Dr. Sunil
"Only morons believe in god!"
The fool has said there is no god.
The bigger fool says there is a god...and believes it.
Harry the Horse
2005-08-08 12:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antimulticulture
[Ed. The dictionary also defines a "theory" as
speculation - eg 'JFK conspiracy theory'.
Any decent dictionary would give several meanings for the word 'theory'.

For example: http://www.wordreference.com/definition/theory

"A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an
organised system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of
circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena".

Sounds to me to be a pretty good description of the Theory of Evolution.

<rest of god bothering drivel deleted>
Peter White
2005-08-08 13:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry the Horse
Post by Antimulticulture
[Ed. The dictionary also defines a "theory" as
speculation - eg 'JFK conspiracy theory'.
Any decent dictionary would give several meanings for the word 'theory'.
For example: http://www.wordreference.com/definition/theory
"A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an
organised system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of
circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena".
Sounds to me to be a pretty good description of the Theory of Evolution.
<rest of god bothering drivel deleted>
Cease the semantic drivel !

The THEORY of evolution was the basis for the discovery for the LAWS of
natural selection

Just as any discussion with a fundamentalist creationism evolves to
noise and smoke.
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-09 19:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry the Horse
Post by Antimulticulture
[Ed. The dictionary also defines a "theory" as
speculation - eg 'JFK conspiracy theory'.
Any decent dictionary would give several meanings for the word 'theory'.
For example: http://www.wordreference.com/definition/theory
"A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an
organised system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of
circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena".
Sounds to me to be a pretty good description of the Theory of Evolution.
**Except there never was a "Theory of Evolution". Not ever. There was a
Theory of Natural Selection, which attempts to explain the FACT of
Evolution.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
DBDriver
2005-08-08 13:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antimulticulture
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
-- Or, None of the Above?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable,
repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify
as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account
of creation is not observable, repeatable or
refutable by man.
Pretty well sums it up. I believe evolution qualifies as a theory though.

The important thing though is that only one should be taught in Science
classes - the one developed from scientific endeavours, methodologies, and
techniques. You can "believe" the moon is made of cheese but basic
scientific study can show that it is not.

Just a side note, isn't it funny how many "miracles" occurred in biblical
times that just don't seem to happen anymore. Great floods, people living
900 years, giants, people turning to pillars of salt, waters parting, people
rising from the dead. They surely were the good old days. Almost too good to
be true really.
Post by Antimulticulture
--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Union Against Multi-culty
"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up The Traitors!"
RJ.
Rightist Religious Kook
2005-08-08 14:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by DBDriver
Post by Antimulticulture
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
-- Or, None of the Above?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable,
repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify
as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account
of creation is not observable, repeatable or
refutable by man.
Pretty well sums it up. I believe evolution qualifies as a theory though.
The important thing though is that only one should be taught in Science
classes - the one developed from scientific endeavours, methodologies, and
techniques. You can "believe" the moon is made of cheese but basic
scientific study can show that it is not.
Just a side note, isn't it funny how many "miracles" occurred in biblical
times that just don't seem to happen anymore. Great floods, people living
900 years, giants, people turning to pillars of salt, waters parting,
people rising from the dead. They surely were the good old days. Almost
too good to be true really.
Are you saying that the Bible's words are untrue? What about the image of Ce
of the Birgin Mary which keeps manifesting itself everywhere for the true
believers?

‘Virgin Mary grilled cheese’ sells for $28,000
Online casino wins eBay auction for 10-year-old 'holy' snack
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:17 a.m. ET Nov. 23, 2004

MIAMI - A woman who said her 10-year-old grilled cheese sandwich bore the
image of the Virgin Mary will be getting a lot more bread after the item sold
for $28,000 on eBay.

GoldenPalace.com, an online casino, confirmed that it placed the winning bid,
and company executives said they were willing to spend “as much as it took”
to own the 10-year-old half-sandwich with a bite out of it.

“It’s a part of pop culture that’s immediately and widely recognizable,”
spokesman Monty Kerr told The Miami Herald. “We knew right away we wanted to
have it.”

Photos posted on eBay show what can be viewed as a woman’s face emblazoned on
the sandwich, a bite taken out of one end. Bidding closed Monday.

In a statement, GoldenPalace.com CEO Richard Rowe said he planned to use the
sandwich to raise money for charity. Kerr and Steve Baker, CEO of
GoldenPalace’s management company, Cyberworld Group, flew to south Florida on
Monday to make arrangements for a sandwich handover from its owner, Diana
Duyser.

“I would like all people to know that I do believe that this is the Virgin
Mary Mother of God,” Duyser, a work-from-home jewelry designer, said in the
casino’s statement.

The online auction site initially pulled the sale, saying it didn’t post joke
items. The page was restored after the company was convinced that Duyser
would deliver on the bid, said eBay spokesman Hani Durzy.

Duyser said she took a bite after making the sandwich 10 years ago and saw a
face staring back at her. She put the sandwich in a clear plastic box with
cotton balls and kept it on her night stand. She said the sandwich has never
sprouted a spore of mold.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6511148/
DBDriver
2005-08-08 22:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rightist Religious Kook
Post by DBDriver
Post by Antimulticulture
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
-- Or, None of the Above?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable,
repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify
as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account
of creation is not observable, repeatable or
refutable by man.
Pretty well sums it up. I believe evolution qualifies as a theory though.
The important thing though is that only one should be taught in Science
classes - the one developed from scientific endeavours, methodologies, and
techniques. You can "believe" the moon is made of cheese but basic
scientific study can show that it is not.
Just a side note, isn't it funny how many "miracles" occurred in biblical
times that just don't seem to happen anymore. Great floods, people living
900 years, giants, people turning to pillars of salt, waters parting,
people rising from the dead. They surely were the good old days. Almost
too good to be true really.
Are you saying that the Bible's words are untrue? What about the image of Ce
of the Birgin Mary which keeps manifesting itself everywhere for the true
believers?
'Virgin Mary grilled cheese' sells for $28,000
Online casino wins eBay auction for 10-year-old 'holy' snack
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:17 a.m. ET Nov. 23, 2004
MIAMI - A woman who said her 10-year-old grilled cheese sandwich bore the
image of the Virgin Mary will be getting a lot more bread after the item sold
for $28,000 on eBay.
GoldenPalace.com, an online casino, confirmed that it placed the winning bid,
and company executives said they were willing to spend "as much as it
took"
to own the 10-year-old half-sandwich with a bite out of it.
"It's a part of pop culture that's immediately and widely recognizable,"
spokesman Monty Kerr told The Miami Herald. "We knew right away we wanted
to
have it."
Photos posted on eBay show what can be viewed as a woman's face emblazoned
on
the sandwich, a bite taken out of one end. Bidding closed Monday.
In a statement, GoldenPalace.com CEO Richard Rowe said he planned to use the
sandwich to raise money for charity. Kerr and Steve Baker, CEO of
GoldenPalace's management company, Cyberworld Group, flew to south Florida
on
Monday to make arrangements for a sandwich handover from its owner, Diana
Duyser.
"I would like all people to know that I do believe that this is the Virgin
Mary Mother of God," Duyser, a work-from-home jewelry designer, said in
the
casino's statement.
The online auction site initially pulled the sale, saying it didn't post
joke
items. The page was restored after the company was convinced that Duyser
would deliver on the bid, said eBay spokesman Hani Durzy.
Duyser said she took a bite after making the sandwich 10 years ago and saw a
face staring back at her. She put the sandwich in a clear plastic box with
cotton balls and kept it on her night stand. She said the sandwich has never
sprouted a spore of mold.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6511148/
So "miracles" are now winning games of chance or selling items of natural
"art". Wasn't there that thing about money handlers and idol worship in the
bible?!! Obviously in a later chapter there is a verse which says it's OK.

RJ.
Leo J Callaghan
2005-08-08 22:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by DBDriver
Post by Antimulticulture
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
-- Or, None of the Above?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable,
repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify
as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account
of creation is not observable, repeatable or
refutable by man.
Pretty well sums it up. I believe evolution qualifies as a theory though.
The important thing though is that only one should be taught in Science
classes - the one developed from scientific endeavours, methodologies, and
techniques. You can "believe" the moon is made of cheese but basic
scientific study can show that it is not.
Just a side note, isn't it funny how many "miracles" occurred in biblical
times that just don't seem to happen anymore. Great floods, people living
900 years, giants, people turning to pillars of salt, waters parting, people
rising from the dead. They surely were the good old days. Almost too good to
be true really.
consider technolgy to be our miracles. without 'it' we might still be
talking about and believing in the 900 year old man.

btw, wasn't mel brooks the 2,000 yr old man? or was it carl reiner. i
wasnt' born then so i don't know.
Post by DBDriver
Post by Antimulticulture
--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Union Against Multi-culty
"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up The Traitors!"
RJ.
glork
2005-08-08 14:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antimulticulture
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
-- Or, None of the Above?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
I have heard many Christians say that evolution
doesn't concern them because, after all, it's
"_only a theory_." Presumably they think that the
word "theory" means about
It's a fact. Along with the elephant that the Earth stands atop of; something
that the government still covers up and refuses to confirm or deny.
David Segall
2005-08-08 15:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antimulticulture
Special creation is accepted
with faith by those who believe that the Bible is
the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient
Creator whose Word is more reliable than the
speculations of men. Both evolution and creation,
however, can be compared for their "compatibility"
with what we "do" observe of the facts of nature.
OK but which of the several "Special Creation Theories" am I supposed
to accept? Is "Old Earth Creation" correct and the earth is about the
same age as the scientists tell me because the "days" in the bible
before man was created were not equivalent to the current 24 hour day?
Is "Young Earth Creation" correct and the earth is much younger than
the scientists tell me? Are the scientists wrong because the evidence
for the age of the earth was obscured by the flood? Or are the
scientists wrong because, when God created the fully formed earth
including the fully formed Adam he also made the fully formed,
apparently ancient, fossils?

Maybe I should accept the creation theory that says that the "days" in
the bible referred to some much longer period, that the earth is about
the same age as the scientists claim and we are still in the seventh
day and God is still resting.
Peter Watson
2005-08-08 16:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Segall
Post by Antimulticulture
Special creation is accepted
with faith by those who believe that the Bible is
the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient
Creator whose Word is more reliable than the
speculations of men. Both evolution and creation,
however, can be compared for their "compatibility"
with what we "do" observe of the facts of nature.
OK but which of the several "Special Creation Theories" am I supposed
to accept? Is "Old Earth Creation" correct and the earth is about the
same age as the scientists tell me because the "days" in the bible
Scientists may; language experts do not. The word for day is

YOM - yom falls into clear categories. When yom isn't prefixed by a
definite article or pronoun-like "b"- or in the plural and used with
numbers, yom *always* refers to a literal day (some 200x). Genesis 1 of
is a battleground but later on in Genesis 1, YOM describes "evening and
morning" a phrase which is never used in reference to anything other
than a 24 hour day.
Post by David Segall
before man was created were not equivalent to the current 24 hour day?
Is "Young Earth Creation" correct and the earth is much younger than
the scientists tell me?
I believe so.
Post by David Segall
Are the scientists wrong because the evidence
for the age of the earth was obscured by the flood?
Or are the
scientists wrong because, when God created the fully formed earth
including the fully formed Adam he also made the fully formed,
apparently ancient, fossils?
He also made fully matured wine which must have appeared cask aged but
was only minutes old. This was Jesus' first miracle.
Post by David Segall
Maybe I should accept the creation theory that says that the "days" in
the bible referred to some much longer period, that the earth is about
the same age as the scientists claim and we are still in the seventh
day and God is still resting.
It is an interesting subject to debate.
--
Peter Watson
Bryan Heit
2005-08-08 15:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Antimulticulture wrote:
<snip>

Well, you did good upto here, but now your ignorance is showing again.
At least you finally appear to understand what a scientific theory is,
although you do start to ignore your own definition later on...
Post by Antimulticulture
What then shall we say of evolution? First,
evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary
changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to
be "observable" in the lifetime of human
observers.
Really? That's funny, seeing as I've personally given you several
examples of evolution which have occurred in our lifetimes. Examples
which you've repetitively ignored. Goes to show that you can believe
anything so long as you ignore the pertinent facts. Here's a short list
of species who's evolution we've observed recently:

1) Evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (i.e. MRSA). In many
cases every single genetic change resulting in this has been mapped and
dated.

2) Evolution of drug-resistant viruses (i.e. HIV). And, as in the case
of the bacteria, the genetic (i.e. evolutionary) changes which have
resulted in this resistance have been mapped and dated.

3) Evolution of pesticide resistant insects. And, as before, the
genetic changes which resulted in this are well known.

4) Evolution of herbicide-resistant plants. Genetic changes are mapped
in most cases.

5) Evolution of the Australian rock wallabys - 3 new species in 1,000
years. Genetic changes have been mapped, many have been dated.

6) Pepper moths. Genetic changes mapped, and replicated in-lab.

7) Bacterial evolution, in general. It's been driven artificially in
the lab and observed occurring naturally in nature. Mapped, dated, and
well understood.

8) See #7, but replace "bacterial" with "viral".
Post by Antimulticulture
The offspring of most living organisms,
for example, are said to remain largely unchanged
for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years.
Your lying again; and I challenge you to give us a single scientific
source which makes the claim that "most" organisms remain unchanged for
millions of years. Heck, significant changes in human skeletons has
been observed since modern humans appeared ~150,000 years ago. And on
the scale of things, humans are very slow evolving mammals, due to our
long generation times.
Post by Antimulticulture
Second, even when evolutionary changes do occur,
evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky tells us they
are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible."
So? They tend to be unique, due to the large amount of DNA we have (3
billion base pairs, x 3 possible mutations per base = 12 billion
possible mutations, not counting other forms of mutations (deletion,
etc)). Unrepeatable is a bad choice of words - the chance of the exact
same mutation occurring a second time is improbable, not impossible. As
for irreversible, it is, in the context that the reverse mutation has
the same 1:12 billion chance of occurring. And that's in humans - many
organisms (i.e. plants) have way more DNA then us, so the probabilities
become even more remote for reversion.
Post by Antimulticulture
Dobzhansky concludes that the
"applicability of the experimental method to the
study of such unique historical processes is
severely restricted."
Let's be very, very careful about the context of this comment.
Dobzhansky was a very well known and respected evolutionary scientist,
who led some of the first attempts to drive evolution in the lab. The
comments you've quoted are in regards to a response he made as to why
his (and others) lab experiments were not exactly the same as those we
observe in nature.

Even today, 30 years after his death, we still cannot perfectly
replicate evolution in lab, or in silico. This is due to the extreme
complexity of both our genetic code and the environmental/population
effects which drive evolution. This is why the study of evolution still
remains a largely observatory science, rather then experimental science.
In this sense, evolution is very much like astronomy.
Post by Antimulticulture
Finally, evolutionist Paul
Ehrlich concedes that the theory of evolution
"cannot be refuted by any possible observations"
and thus is "outside of empirical science."
Ehrlich did not study evolution, rather he studied disease (for which he
received a Nobel prize). I could not find any evidence that he ever
made the statement you've "quoted". Even so, he seems to be right
(assuming he said this, in the context you claim). After all, he died
in 1915, and 90 years later evolutionary theory is still going strong
and has survived every scientific and non-scientific challenge it's faced.
Post by Antimulticulture
Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely
believed by the scientific community to be a
"fact"
Of course it is. It is a well established theory, and matches the data
we have perfectly. We've observed it occur in nature, in the lab, and
in our lifetimes. The data supporting evolutionary theory is excellent
- certainly much stronger then the data in support of the numerous
theories of how gravity works, or for that matter the proof of things
like quarks.

Scientists believe in evidence, and the evidence says "evolution".

<snip>
Post by Antimulticulture
What exactly is the "observable fact" of
evolution? First you should be aware that
evolutionists recognize two types of "evolution"
--microevolution, which is observable, and
macroevolution, which isn't.
Actually, macroevolution can, and has been, observed. Take the example
of the Australian rock wallabys. 3 new species in less then 1,000
years. Speciation events (i.e. macroevolution) has also been observed
in multiple simple eukaryotes (amoebas, yeast,etc), as well as bacteria,
and arguably in viruses as well.

Once again showing that you can believe anything, so long as you ignore
the pertinent data.

<snip> transforms one kind of
Post by Antimulticulture
living organism into a fundamentally different
kind such as the transformation of reptiles into
birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has
ever observed anything remotely like this
transformation.
This statement is easily falsifiable, considering that the exact thing
you've said we haven't observed, has been observed several times. We
even have several mechanisms by which speciation/macroevolution can
occur, all of which were identified by watching speciations occur.
Post by Antimulticulture
The very name "microevolution" is intended to
imply that it is this kind of variation that
accumulates to produce macroevolution, though a
growing number of evolutionists admit there is no
evidence to support this.
Really? Name 3. In the real world (not your fantasy one), the genetic
changes which resulted in the divergence of multiple species is now
being mapped. This takes a lot of work (and money, gene sequencing is
not cheap), but the data is becoming available. For example, many of
the big changes that occurred when chimps and humans diverged have been
mapped and published:

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v4/n1/abs/nrg981_fs.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6901/full/418910a_fs.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6990/abs/nature02564_fs.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v335/n6187/abs/335268a0.html
Post by Antimulticulture
Thus, an observable
phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable
phenomenon for which there is no evidence,
But it has been observed, repetitively.
Post by Antimulticulture
and
then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the
strength of the former.
It has been observed.
Post by Antimulticulture
It is this kind of
limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the
argument for evolution.
It has been observed (maybe if I keep repeating this, it'll sink in).
Post by Antimulticulture
In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable,
It has been observed.
Post by Antimulticulture
[not] repeatable,
Mathematically unlikely to repeat, but repetition iitself is not impossible.
Post by Antimulticulture
or [not] refutable
Actually, evolution is completely refutable; all you need to do is find
evidence that life does not evolve. Problem is (for you) that
evolutionary theory was proposed 146 years ago, and has survived every
challenge made to it to date. No viable scientific theories are in
place which can explain the data nearly as well as evolutionary theory
can, nor has any data ever been published which draws evolutions major
contentions into question. The body of evidence supporting the theory
has grown to an immense size - much larger then the body of evidence
supporting pretty much any other scientific theory.

So refuting it is possible, but given todays massive amount of data, it
will be very, very difficult to do so. Not to mention that refuting it
would require that the theory be wrong; and given the amount of data
behind it this is extremely unlikely.

Oh, and pointing out potential holes in the theory, or saying things
like "the bible says you're wrong" is not evidence.
Post by Antimulticulture
and thus does not qualify
as either a scientific fact or theory.
Why not? Evolution is testable - indeed, we test it all the time.
Evolution is also observable, thus we can get empirical data direct from
nature, and as such it isn't a theory built entirely on lab-based
conjecture. Although direct experimentation is difficult, it's not
impossible and has been done. I'm not sure exactly what else evolution
should do to be a "real" scientific theory by your standard, but by the
standard we scientists hold theories to, it's a real good one...
Post by Antimulticulture
Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator.
But lets not forget the many scientists who believe in evolution, but
whom do not deny the existence of god. In fact, most Christian faiths
have no (official) beef with evolution, including Catholicism (the
worlds largest Christian faith). I've personally worked with a large
number of religious scientists who see no conflict between their
scientific beliefs and their religious ones. In fact, the people who
seem to make the biggest noise about the "conflict" between science and
religion, are not the scientists.
Post by Antimulticulture
Similarly, the Biblical account
of creation is not observable,
True
Post by Antimulticulture
repeatable or
True
Post by Antimulticulture
refutable by man.
False, assuming you are taking the creation literally. From a literal
interpretation of creation you can make several hypothesis which can be
tested scientifically - the age of the universe, the age of the earth,
the age of life on earth, the approximate order in which different life
forms were created, how many generations humans have been around, etc.

A literal interpretation of the bible states that the "creation" by god
occurred about ~6,000 years ago. Several lines of evidence place the
age of the universe at ~12 billion years, and the age of the earth at ~4
billion. This refutes the age in the bible. Various means of dating when
certain life forms evolved demonstrate that most of todays species have
been around for hundreds of thousands of years, also refuting the
literal biblical interpretation of creation. Likewise, genetic evidence
demonstrates that there have been several thousand generations of
humans, which also disproved the literal interpretation of creation.
Nor does the order life forms emerged agree with the biblical account.

Of course, if you belong to the majority of Christian faiths who do not
interpret the bible literally, then evolution (and the big bang, etc)
all fit nicely into your world view, as the events in Genesis I fit
fairly well with the scientific view of our universes creation. The
timings off, but that's no big surprise considering that God was trying
to explain these complex events to sheepherders.
Post by Antimulticulture
Special creation is accepted
with faith by those who believe that the Bible is
the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient
Creator
But why can't he/she/it have used evolution as the vehical of this
creation? That's the one thing that's always confused me about the
religious opposition to evolution. Their denyal of evolution implys
that God could not have used evolution as a tool. Aside from putting
limits on Gods power (which supposedly is unlimited), this seems to be
both arrogant and stupid (religious people continually tell scientists
that we cannot know gods "mysterious ways", and then proceed to tell us
exactly how he/she/it works).
Post by Antimulticulture
[Ed. Evolution is not science, it is a political
movement pushed by leftists who seek a world without
consequence for their depravity...]
There are tens of thousand of scientists who would disagree with you on
this. Of course you've never met any scientists, which would explain
why you're so wrong on this account. And what would you say to the
devout Christians who are also scientists? Are they too promoting
depravity? For that matter, where does this depravity come from?
Evolution says we're all related - we're all family. In my mind that
should promote unity and peace. Religion is oft used to separate people
into "us" and "them" (this "article" is a perfect example of this - the
"good" Christians against the "evil" scientists). Religion has killed
millions, and has been used to justify some of the most depraved acts
imaginable. AFAIK no one has died for evolutionary theory...
Post by Antimulticulture
-x-
Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from
Brown University. He has been involved in
biomedical research and education for over 30 years.
Not really. Dr. Mention is a medical doctor who occasionally has been
involved in medical research - and rarely has he been the lead
researcher in the studies. A quick search of the medical literature
(pubmed.gov) shows that Dr. Menton is only marginally associated with
medical research - most labs produce half as many papers per year as Dr.
Menton did in his entire life time. In a good year, the lab I work in
will produce more (and higher impact) papers then Dr. Menton has in his
entire life. Not to mention that he hasn't published anything in the
past 10 years...


Nor has any of his research involved anything even close to evolution.
He "studies" the structure and healing of skin.

Of course, we shouldn't have expected you to actually find an expert.
After all, no expert would have resorted to the outright lies and
distortions which were written in this article.

Bryan Heit
Avidbuff
2005-08-08 17:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Heit
<snip>
Well, you did good upto here, but now your ignorance is showing again.
At least you finally appear to understand what a scientific theory is,
although you do start to ignore your own definition later on...
Post by Antimulticulture
What then shall we say of evolution? First,
evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary
changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to
be "observable" in the lifetime of human
observers.
Really? That's funny, seeing as I've personally given you several
examples of evolution which have occurred in our lifetimes. Examples
which you've repetitively ignored. Goes to show that you can believe
anything so long as you ignore the pertinent facts. Here's a short
1) Evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (i.e. MRSA). In many
cases every single genetic change resulting in this has been mapped
and dated.
2) Evolution of drug-resistant viruses (i.e. HIV). And, as in the
case of the bacteria, the genetic (i.e. evolutionary) changes which
have resulted in this resistance have been mapped and dated.
3) Evolution of pesticide resistant insects. And, as before, the
genetic changes which resulted in this are well known.
4) Evolution of herbicide-resistant plants. Genetic changes are
mapped in most cases.
5) Evolution of the Australian rock wallabys - 3 new species in 1,000
years. Genetic changes have been mapped, many have been dated.
6) Pepper moths. Genetic changes mapped, and replicated in-lab.
7) Bacterial evolution, in general. It's been driven artificially in
the lab and observed occurring naturally in nature. Mapped, dated,
and well understood.
8) See #7, but replace "bacterial" with "viral".
Post by Antimulticulture
The offspring of most living organisms,
for example, are said to remain largely unchanged
for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years.
Your lying again; and I challenge you to give us a single scientific
source which makes the claim that "most" organisms remain unchanged
for millions of years. Heck, significant changes in human skeletons
has been observed since modern humans appeared ~150,000 years ago.
And on the scale of things, humans are very slow evolving mammals, due
to our long generation times.
Post by Antimulticulture
Second, even when evolutionary changes do occur,
evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky tells us they
are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible."
So? They tend to be unique, due to the large amount of DNA we have (3
billion base pairs, x 3 possible mutations per base = 12 billion
possible mutations, not counting other forms of mutations (deletion,
etc)). Unrepeatable is a bad choice of words - the chance of the
exact same mutation occurring a second time is improbable, not
impossible. As for irreversible, it is, in the context that the
reverse mutation has the same 1:12 billion chance of occurring. And
that's in humans - many organisms (i.e. plants) have way more DNA then
us, so the probabilities become even more remote for reversion.
Post by Antimulticulture
Dobzhansky concludes that the
"applicability of the experimental method to the
study of such unique historical processes is
severely restricted."
Let's be very, very careful about the context of this comment.
Dobzhansky was a very well known and respected evolutionary scientist,
who led some of the first attempts to drive evolution in the lab. The
comments you've quoted are in regards to a response he made as to why
his (and others) lab experiments were not exactly the same as those we
observe in nature.
Even today, 30 years after his death, we still cannot perfectly
replicate evolution in lab, or in silico. This is due to the extreme
complexity of both our genetic code and the environmental/population
effects which drive evolution. This is why the study of evolution
still remains a largely observatory science, rather then experimental
science.
In this sense, evolution is very much like astronomy.
Post by Antimulticulture
Finally, evolutionist Paul
Ehrlich concedes that the theory of evolution
"cannot be refuted by any possible observations"
and thus is "outside of empirical science."
Ehrlich did not study evolution, rather he studied disease (for which
he received a Nobel prize). I could not find any evidence that he
ever made the statement you've "quoted". Even so, he seems to be
right (assuming he said this, in the context you claim). After all,
he died in 1915, and 90 years later evolutionary theory is still going
strong and has survived every scientific and non-scientific challenge
it's faced.
Post by Antimulticulture
Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely
believed by the scientific community to be a
"fact"
Of course it is. It is a well established theory, and matches the
data we have perfectly. We've observed it occur in nature, in the
lab, and in our lifetimes. The data supporting evolutionary theory is
excellent - certainly much stronger then the data in support of the
numerous theories of how gravity works, or for that matter the proof
of things like quarks.
Scientists believe in evidence, and the evidence says "evolution".
<snip>
Post by Antimulticulture
What exactly is the "observable fact" of
evolution? First you should be aware that
evolutionists recognize two types of "evolution"
--microevolution, which is observable, and
macroevolution, which isn't.
Actually, macroevolution can, and has been, observed. Take the
example of the Australian rock wallabys. 3 new species in less then
1,000 years. Speciation events (i.e. macroevolution) has also been
observed in multiple simple eukaryotes (amoebas, yeast,etc), as well
as bacteria, and arguably in viruses as well.
Once again showing that you can believe anything, so long as you
ignore the pertinent data.
<snip> transforms one kind of
Post by Antimulticulture
living organism into a fundamentally different
kind such as the transformation of reptiles into
birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has
ever observed anything remotely like this
transformation.
This statement is easily falsifiable, considering that the exact thing
you've said we haven't observed, has been observed several times. We
even have several mechanisms by which speciation/macroevolution can
occur, all of which were identified by watching speciations occur.
Post by Antimulticulture
The very name "microevolution" is intended to
imply that it is this kind of variation that
accumulates to produce macroevolution, though a
growing number of evolutionists admit there is no
evidence to support this.
Really? Name 3. In the real world (not your fantasy one), the
genetic changes which resulted in the divergence of multiple species
is now being mapped. This takes a lot of work (and money, gene
sequencing is not cheap), but the data is becoming available. For
example, many of the big changes that occurred when chimps and humans
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v4/n1/abs/nrg981_fs.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6901/full/418910a_fs.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6990/abs/nature02564_fs.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v335/n6187/abs/335268a0.html
Post by Antimulticulture
Thus, an observable
phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable
phenomenon for which there is no evidence,
But it has been observed, repetitively.
Post by Antimulticulture
and
then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the
strength of the former.
It has been observed.
Post by Antimulticulture
It is this kind of
limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the
argument for evolution.
It has been observed (maybe if I keep repeating this, it'll sink in).
Post by Antimulticulture
In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable,
It has been observed.
Post by Antimulticulture
[not] repeatable,
Mathematically unlikely to repeat, but repetition iitself is not impossible.
Post by Antimulticulture
or [not] refutable
Actually, evolution is completely refutable; all you need to do is
find evidence that life does not evolve. Problem is (for you) that
evolutionary theory was proposed 146 years ago, and has survived every
challenge made to it to date. No viable scientific theories are in
place which can explain the data nearly as well as evolutionary theory
can, nor has any data ever been published which draws evolutions major
contentions into question. The body of evidence supporting the theory
has grown to an immense size - much larger then the body of evidence
supporting pretty much any other scientific theory.
So refuting it is possible, but given todays massive amount of data,
it will be very, very difficult to do so. Not to mention that
refuting it would require that the theory be wrong; and given the
amount of data behind it this is extremely unlikely.
Oh, and pointing out potential holes in the theory, or saying things
like "the bible says you're wrong" is not evidence.
Post by Antimulticulture
and thus does not qualify
as either a scientific fact or theory.
Why not? Evolution is testable - indeed, we test it all the time.
Evolution is also observable, thus we can get empirical data direct
from nature, and as such it isn't a theory built entirely on lab-based
conjecture. Although direct experimentation is difficult, it's not
impossible and has been done. I'm not sure exactly what else
evolution should do to be a "real" scientific theory by your standard,
but by the standard we scientists hold theories to, it's a real good
one...
Post by Antimulticulture
Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator.
But lets not forget the many scientists who believe in evolution, but
whom do not deny the existence of god. In fact, most Christian faiths
have no (official) beef with evolution, including Catholicism (the
worlds largest Christian faith). I've personally worked with a large
number of religious scientists who see no conflict between their
scientific beliefs and their religious ones. In fact, the people who
seem to make the biggest noise about the "conflict" between science
and religion, are not the scientists.
Post by Antimulticulture
Similarly, the Biblical account
of creation is not observable,
True
Post by Antimulticulture
repeatable or
True
Post by Antimulticulture
refutable by man.
False, assuming you are taking the creation literally. From a literal
interpretation of creation you can make several hypothesis which can
be tested scientifically - the age of the universe, the age of the
earth, the age of life on earth, the approximate order in which
different life forms were created, how many generations humans have
been around, etc.
A literal interpretation of the bible states that the "creation" by
god occurred about ~6,000 years ago. Several lines of evidence place
the age of the universe at ~12 billion years, and the age of the earth
at ~4 billion. This refutes the age in the bible. Various means of
dating when certain life forms evolved demonstrate that most of todays
species have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, also
refuting the literal biblical interpretation of creation. Likewise,
genetic evidence demonstrates that there have been several thousand
generations of humans, which also disproved the literal interpretation
of creation. Nor does the order life forms emerged agree with the
biblical account.
Of course, if you belong to the majority of Christian faiths who do
not interpret the bible literally, then evolution (and the big bang,
etc) all fit nicely into your world view, as the events in Genesis I
fit fairly well with the scientific view of our universes creation.
The timings off, but that's no big surprise considering that God was
trying to explain these complex events to sheepherders.
Post by Antimulticulture
Special creation is accepted
with faith by those who believe that the Bible is
the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient
Creator
But why can't he/she/it have used evolution as the vehical of this
creation? That's the one thing that's always confused me about the
religious opposition to evolution. Their denyal of evolution implys
that God could not have used evolution as a tool. Aside from putting
limits on Gods power (which supposedly is unlimited), this seems to be
both arrogant and stupid (religious people continually tell scientists
that we cannot know gods "mysterious ways", and then proceed to tell
us exactly how he/she/it works).
Post by Antimulticulture
[Ed. Evolution is not science, it is a political
movement pushed by leftists who seek a world without
consequence for their depravity...]
There are tens of thousand of scientists who would disagree with you
on this. Of course you've never met any scientists, which would
explain why you're so wrong on this account. And what would you say
to the devout Christians who are also scientists? Are they too
promoting depravity? For that matter, where does this depravity come
from? Evolution says we're all related - we're all family. In my mind
that should promote unity and peace. Religion is oft used to separate
people into "us" and "them" (this "article" is a perfect example of
this - the "good" Christians against the "evil" scientists). Religion
has killed millions, and has been used to justify some of the most
depraved acts imaginable. AFAIK no one has died for evolutionary
theory...
Post by Antimulticulture
-x-
Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from
Brown University. He has been involved in
biomedical research and education for over 30 years.
Not really. Dr. Mention is a medical doctor who occasionally has been
involved in medical research - and rarely has he been the lead
researcher in the studies. A quick search of the medical literature
(pubmed.gov) shows that Dr. Menton is only marginally associated with
medical research - most labs produce half as many papers per year as
Dr. Menton did in his entire life time. In a good year, the lab I
work in will produce more (and higher impact) papers then Dr. Menton
has in his entire life. Not to mention that he hasn't published
anything in the past 10 years...
Nor has any of his research involved anything even close to evolution.
He "studies" the structure and healing of skin.
Of course, we shouldn't have expected you to actually find an expert.
After all, no expert would have resorted to the outright lies and
distortions which were written in this article.
Bryan Heit
Well argued.
mimus
2005-08-08 18:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Heit
Of course, if you belong to the majority of Christian faiths who do
not interpret the bible literally, then evolution (and the big bang,
etc) all fit nicely into your world view, as the events in Genesis I
fit fairly well with the scientific view of our universes creation.
I consider the "Big Bang" theory to be an intrusion of Judaeo- Christian
metaphysics into cosmology-- hence its surprisingly rapid adoption and
scorn for any alternative, even in face of the constant "fixes" needed for
the theory (to begin with, the "inflationary epoch") and the evidence
against it (eg, the "non- missing iron" problem: iron is synthesized only
in supernovae as far as we know, and the amount of iron in the Universe
therefore should be less and less as one approaches the so- called "origin"
in time of the Universe, and it is not apparently so).

And there's been a lot of good mathematical and astronomical time and
effort wasted on this disastrous hypothesis.
--
And now the saints began their reign,
For which th' had hankered so long in vain,
And felt such bowel-hankerings,
To see an empire, all of kings,
Delivered from th' Egyptian awe
Of justice, government and law.

< _Hudibras_
mimus
2005-08-08 16:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antimulticulture
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
-- Or, None of the Above?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
I have heard many Christians say that evolution
doesn't concern them because, after all, it's
"_only a theory_." Presumably they think that the
word "theory" means about the same thing as a
"pipe dream."
[Ed. The dictionary also defines a "theory" as
speculation - eg 'JFK conspiracy theory'. When
the "theory of evolution" was first proposed it
was nothing more than a form of this aforementioned
'speculation' as it had no grounding in science -
Remember Darwin never explained the 'Origin of Species'
in his book...now let's learn how the term "theory" is
deliberately misapplied in the scientific sense by
the Marxists...]
But the term "theory," at least as it applies to
experimental science, has a much nobler meaning
than that. A scientific theory is a careful
attempt to explain certain observable
_facts_ of nature by means of experiments. Since
many Christians have concluded that evolution is
incompatible with the Biblical account of
creation, we would do well to investigate if
evolution is a fact or a theory -- or perhaps neither.
There is a widespread misconception that good
theories grow up to be facts and that the really
good ones finally become laws. But these three
categories of scientific description are neither
directly related nor mutually exclusive. It often
occurs that a single natural phenomenon can be
described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law
-- all at the same time!
Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity.
First, there is a "fact" of gravity. While we
cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we
do observe the effects of this force every time we
drop something. There is also a _theory_ of
gravity that addresses the question of how this
force we call gravity really works. While we don't
know how gravity works, there are theories that
attempt to explain it. Finally there is the
well-known _law_ of gravity. This law, first
formulated by Isaac Newton, a believing Christian
and creationist, is a mathematical equation that
shows a relationship between mass, distance and
gravitational force. So, in summary, a _scientific
fact_ is an observable natural occurrence; a
"scientific theory" is an attempt to explain how a
natural occurrence works; and a _scientific law_
is a mathematical description of a natural occurrence.
Science itself is the whole process of making
careful observations of certain facts of nature
and then constructing and testing theories that
seek to explain those facts. Scientists call these
attempts to test their theories experiments.
Experimental science, better known as "empirical
science", is the kind of science that is
responsible for the marvelous technological
achievements that make our life easier. One has
only to consider what it would be like to endure
surgery without anesthesia to appreciate the
contributions of empirical science to our lives.
The most important requirement of empirical
science is that any object or phenomenon we wish
to study must first be "observable". While we may
assume the existence of events not witnessed by
human observers, such events are not suited to
study by empirical science. Secondly, the event we
wish to study should be "repeatable". Unique and
unrepeatable
events, such as the Babylonian Empire, are the
subject of history, not empirical science.
Finally, any theory we might propose as an
explanation for an observable and repeatable event
must be "testable": we must be able to conceive of
an experiment that could refute our theory if it
were wrong. If one were to propose an explanation
for an event in such a way that no one could
conceive of any way to test or refute it, it
wouldn't be a theory at all, but rather a
"belief". Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily
wrong, they just aren't well suited to study by
empirical science.
What then shall we say of evolution? First,
evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary
changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to
be "observable" in the lifetime of human
observers. The offspring of most living organisms,
for example, are said to remain largely unchanged
for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years.
Second, even when evolutionary changes do occur,
evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky tells us they
are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible." Dobzhansky concludes that the
"applicability of the experimental method to the
study of such unique historical processes is
severely restricted." Finally, evolutionist Paul
Ehrlich concedes that the theory of evolution
"cannot be refuted by any possible observations"
and thus is "outside of empirical science."
Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely
believed by the scientific community to be a
"fact" and those who dare to doubt it are not
endured gladly. The _Encyclopedia Britannica_
confidently assures us that "we are not in the
least doubt as to the fact of evolution." In his
textbook _Evolution_, Joe Savage says "we do not
need a listing of the evidences to demonstrate the
fact of evolution any more than we need to
demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges." In
another textbook, "Outlines of General Zoology",
H. Newman arrogantly declares that evolution has
no rival as an explanation for the origin of
everything "except the outworn and completely
refuted one of special creation, now retained only
by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudicial."
What exactly is the "observable fact" of
evolution? First you should be aware that
evolutionists recognize two types of "evolution"
--microevolution, which is observable, and
macroevolution, which isn't. So called
"microevolution" is a process of "limited"
variation among the individuals of a given species
that produces the sort of variety we observe among
dogs. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a
hypothetical process of "unlimited" variation that
evolutionists believe transforms one kind of
living organism into a fundamentally different
kind such as the transformation of reptiles into
birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has
ever observed anything remotely like this
transformation.
Fossil record + observable adaptation of species + embryogenetic sequence +
genetic analysis places evolution on firm evidentiary ground.

Where is the firm evidentiary ground of Genesis?
Post by Antimulticulture
The very name "microevolution" is intended to
imply that it is this kind of variation that
accumulates to produce macroevolution, though a
growing number of evolutionists admit there is no
evidence to support this. Thus, an observable
phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable
phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and
then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the
strength of the former. It is this kind of
limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the
argument for evolution.
In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable,
repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify
as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers,
See above for refutation of this blatant lie.
Post by Antimulticulture
many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account
of creation is not observable, repeatable or
refutable by man. Special creation is accepted
with faith by those who believe that the Bible is
the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient
Creator whose Word is more reliable than the
speculations of men. Both evolution and creation,
however, can be compared for their "compatibility"
with what we "do" observe of the facts of nature.
In future essays we will see that creation by
intelligent design is a vastly more reasonable
explanation for the origin of the complexity we
see in living things than is evolution by mere
chance and the intrinsic properties of matter.
[Ed. Evolution is not science, it is a political
movement pushed by leftists who seek a world without
consequence for their depravity...]
Oh? How does belief in evolution prove disbelief in morality? Or do you
have any evidence or argument whatsoever to back up that assertion?

OTOH, let's look at the long long history of religious "morality", shall
we?

Or do we even need to?
Post by Antimulticulture
Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from
Brown University. He has been involved in
biomedical research and education for over 30 years.
You're obviously so prejudiced as to defy evidence, while requiring none
for your own hypothesis, and Dr. Menton's "biomedical research" has
evidently left him with nothing but contempt for evidence.

I wonder what church he goes to?
--
And now the saints began their reign,
For which th' had hankered so long in vain,
And felt such bowel-hankerings,
To see an empire, all of kings,
Delivered from th' Egyptian awe
Of justice, government and law.

< _Hudibras_
Joseph Cotton
2005-08-08 16:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antimulticulture
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
-- Or, None of the Above?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Another moron with a Ph.D. in basket weaving.
mimus
2005-08-08 16:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Cotton
Post by Antimulticulture
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
-- Or, None of the Above?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Another moron with a Ph.D. in basket weaving.
Ortega y Gasset had some unkind words for such "scientists" in _The Revolt
of the Masses_.
--
And now the saints began their reign,
For which th' had hankered so long in vain,
And felt such bowel-hankerings,
To see an empire, all of kings,
Delivered from th' Egyptian awe
Of justice, government and law.

< _Hudibras_
BOB
2005-08-08 16:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Post by Antimulticulture
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
-- Or, None of the Above?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
I have heard many Christians say that evolution
doesn't concern them because, after all, it's
"_only a theory_." Presumably they think that the
word "theory" means about the same thing as a
"pipe dream."
[Ed. The dictionary also defines a "theory" as
speculation - eg 'JFK conspiracy theory'. When
the "theory of evolution" was first proposed it
was nothing more than a form of this aforementioned
'speculation' as it had no grounding in science -
Remember Darwin never explained the 'Origin of Species'
in his book...now let's learn how the term "theory" is
deliberately misapplied in the scientific sense by
the Marxists...]
But the term "theory," at least as it applies to
experimental science, has a much nobler meaning
than that. A scientific theory is a careful
attempt to explain certain observable
_facts_ of nature by means of experiments. Since
many Christians have concluded that evolution is
incompatible with the Biblical account of
creation, we would do well to investigate if
evolution is a fact or a theory -- or perhaps neither.
There is a widespread misconception that good
theories grow up to be facts and that the really
good ones finally become laws. But these three
categories of scientific description are neither
directly related nor mutually exclusive. It often
occurs that a single natural phenomenon can be
described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law
-- all at the same time!
Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity.
First, there is a "fact" of gravity. While we
cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we
do observe the effects of this force every time we
drop something. There is also a _theory_ of
gravity that addresses the question of how this
force we call gravity really works. While we don't
know how gravity works, there are theories that
attempt to explain it. Finally there is the
well-known _law_ of gravity. This law, first
formulated by Isaac Newton, a believing Christian
and creationist, is a mathematical equation that
shows a relationship between mass, distance and
gravitational force. So, in summary, a _scientific
fact_ is an observable natural occurrence; a
"scientific theory" is an attempt to explain how a
natural occurrence works; and a _scientific law_
is a mathematical description of a natural occurrence.
Science itself is the whole process of making
careful observations of certain facts of nature
and then constructing and testing theories that
seek to explain those facts. Scientists call these
attempts to test their theories experiments.
Experimental science, better known as "empirical
science", is the kind of science that is
responsible for the marvelous technological
achievements that make our life easier. One has
only to consider what it would be like to endure
surgery without anesthesia to appreciate the
contributions of empirical science to our lives.
The most important requirement of empirical
science is that any object or phenomenon we wish
to study must first be "observable". While we may
assume the existence of events not witnessed by
human observers, such events are not suited to
study by empirical science. Secondly, the event we
wish to study should be "repeatable". Unique and
unrepeatable
events, such as the Babylonian Empire, are the
subject of history, not empirical science.
Finally, any theory we might propose as an
explanation for an observable and repeatable event
must be "testable": we must be able to conceive of
an experiment that could refute our theory if it
were wrong. If one were to propose an explanation
for an event in such a way that no one could
conceive of any way to test or refute it, it
wouldn't be a theory at all, but rather a
"belief". Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily
wrong, they just aren't well suited to study by
empirical science.
What then shall we say of evolution? First,
evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary
changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to
be "observable" in the lifetime of human
observers. The offspring of most living organisms,
for example, are said to remain largely unchanged
for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years.
Second, even when evolutionary changes do occur,
evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky tells us they
are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible." Dobzhansky concludes that the
"applicability of the experimental method to the
study of such unique historical processes is
severely restricted." Finally, evolutionist Paul
Ehrlich concedes that the theory of evolution
"cannot be refuted by any possible observations"
and thus is "outside of empirical science."
Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely
believed by the scientific community to be a
"fact" and those who dare to doubt it are not
endured gladly. The _Encyclopedia Britannica_
confidently assures us that "we are not in the
least doubt as to the fact of evolution." In his
textbook _Evolution_, Joe Savage says "we do not
need a listing of the evidences to demonstrate the
fact of evolution any more than we need to
demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges." In
another textbook, "Outlines of General Zoology",
H. Newman arrogantly declares that evolution has
no rival as an explanation for the origin of
everything "except the outworn and completely
refuted one of special creation, now retained only
by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudicial."
What exactly is the "observable fact" of
evolution? First you should be aware that
evolutionists recognize two types of "evolution"
--microevolution, which is observable, and
macroevolution, which isn't. So called
"microevolution" is a process of "limited"
variation among the individuals of a given species
that produces the sort of variety we observe among
dogs. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a
hypothetical process of "unlimited" variation that
evolutionists believe transforms one kind of
living organism into a fundamentally different
kind such as the transformation of reptiles into
birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has
ever observed anything remotely like this
transformation.
Fossil record + observable adaptation of species + embryogenetic
sequence + genetic analysis places evolution on firm evidentiary
ground.
Where is the firm evidentiary ground of Genesis?
Post by Antimulticulture
The very name "microevolution" is intended to
imply that it is this kind of variation that
accumulates to produce macroevolution, though a
growing number of evolutionists admit there is no
evidence to support this. Thus, an observable
phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable
phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and
then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the
strength of the former. It is this kind of
limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the
argument for evolution.
In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable,
repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify
as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers,
See above for refutation of this blatant lie.
Post by Antimulticulture
many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account
of creation is not observable, repeatable or
refutable by man. Special creation is accepted
with faith by those who believe that the Bible is
the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient
Creator whose Word is more reliable than the
speculations of men. Both evolution and creation,
however, can be compared for their "compatibility"
with what we "do" observe of the facts of nature.
In future essays we will see that creation by
intelligent design is a vastly more reasonable
explanation for the origin of the complexity we
see in living things than is evolution by mere
chance and the intrinsic properties of matter.
[Ed. Evolution is not science, it is a political
movement pushed by leftists who seek a world without
consequence for their depravity...]
Oh? How does belief in evolution prove disbelief in morality? Or do
you have any evidence or argument whatsoever to back up that
assertion?
OTOH, let's look at the long long history of religious "morality",
shall we?
Pedophilia = "morality"?
Post by mimus
Or do we even need to?
One need only look at the catholic church in recent times.'
Post by mimus
Post by Antimulticulture
Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from
Brown University. He has been involved in
biomedical research and education for over 30 years.
You're obviously so prejudiced as to defy evidence, while requiring
none for your own hypothesis, and Dr. Menton's "biomedical research"
has evidently left him with nothing but contempt for evidence.
I wonder what church he goes to?
Stephen Horgan
2005-08-08 18:43:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 22:32:36 +1000, "Antimulticulture"
Post by Antimulticulture
I have heard many Christians say that evolution
doesn't concern them because, after all, it's
"_only a theory_." Presumably they think that the
word "theory" means about the same thing as a
"pipe dream."
This Christian says that evolution represents good science and any
alternative that he has been presented with so far has been very bad
science. Faith is for that which is more than observable truths, not a
blindfold for the intellect.
--
Stephen Horgan

"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
mimus
2005-08-08 18:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Horgan
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 22:32:36 +1000, "Antimulticulture"
Post by Antimulticulture
I have heard many Christians say that evolution
doesn't concern them because, after all, it's
"_only a theory_." Presumably they think that the
word "theory" means about the same thing as a
"pipe dream."
This Christian says that evolution represents good science and any
alternative that he has been presented with so far has been very bad
science. Faith is for that which is more than observable truths, not a
blindfold for the intellect.
He, and them wot he's referring to, ought to look up the word "hypothesis",
and its relation to the word "theory" . . . .

Evolution is theory, not hypothesis.
--
And now the saints began their reign,
For which th' had hankered so long in vain,
And felt such bowel-hankerings,
To see an empire, all of kings,
Delivered from th' Egyptian awe
Of justice, government and law.

< _Hudibras_
Gregory Shearman
2005-08-08 21:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Evolution is theory, not hypothesis.
No, evolution is FACT, not theory.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
Antimilty
2005-08-08 21:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by mimus
Evolution is theory, not hypothesis.
No, evolution is FACT, not theory.
It's a bunch of Leftist Junk Science designed to undermine Christian
influence and morality. More proof that Leftists are the minions of Satan.
BOB
2005-08-08 22:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antimilty
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by mimus
Evolution is theory, not hypothesis.
No, evolution is FACT, not theory.
It's a bunch of Leftist Junk Science designed to undermine Christian
influence and morality.
Do you mean like the xtian influence and morality as demonstrated by the
hundreds of pedophile catholic priests and the church hierarchy that
protects and defends them as they molest young children?
Post by Antimilty
More proof that Leftists are the minions of
Satan.
Indeed. Sounds like there isn't that much difference between you xtian
loons and the entity you call satan.
Clough
2005-08-08 18:52:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 22:32:36 +1000, "Antimulticulture"
<***@somewhere.com> wrote:

If science can't give us any answers, where shall we turn?

There are those who say say the Koran provides Meaning, Truth and
direction.

Who am I to argue with the Word of God.

Allahu Akbar.

Thanks, Antimulticulture, now I know where the Truth lies.

Clough
m***@xtra.co.nz
2005-08-08 22:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antimulticulture
Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator.
So define the creator, rationally. What did the creator use to begin
the creation from nothing?

IE Who or what created the creator?


Michael Gordge
Peter Watson
2005-08-08 22:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Antimulticulture
Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator.
So define the creator, rationally. What did the creator use to begin
the creation from nothing?
The Creator did not create from nothing. He created from information
which He fused into matter and form. Creation ex nihilo is nonsense.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
IE Who or what created the creator?
Nothing and no one. He just always was. Before earth there was no time
and after death there will be no time.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Michael Gordge
--
Peter Watson
Joseph Cotton
2005-08-08 23:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Antimulticulture
Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator.
So define the creator, rationally. What did the creator use to begin
the creation from nothing?
The Creator did not create from nothing. He created from information
which He fused into matter and form. Creation ex nihilo is nonsense.
Can you prove this theory?
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
IE Who or what created the creator?
Nothing and no one. He just always was. Before earth there was no time
and after death there will be no time.
Can you prove this theory?
Paul Hyett
2005-08-09 08:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Cotton
Post by Peter Watson
Nothing and no one. He just always was. Before earth there was no time
and after death there will be no time.
Can you prove this theory?
No - he just believes it.

Of course, when atheists use the same 'rationale'...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 17:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Cotton
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Antimulticulture
Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator.
So define the creator, rationally. What did the creator use to begin
the creation from nothing?
The Creator did not create from nothing. He created from information
which He fused into matter and form. Creation ex nihilo is nonsense.
Can you prove this theory?
I can try. Assume we agree that form and matter and create and
information are words understood and agreed upon by us using Chambers as
the dictionary.

Objects cannot exist without form. Form can only be filled with matter.
For something to be formed, ie created, the necessary cause must will a
result to make something which currently is not, and it will come from
matter which currently is.

The faith of those who deny creation is staggering as they believe all
form and matter came from either nothing or a pea sized blob which was
so dense it contained within it all which we see now. They still are
unable to determine from whence such matter came but they admit the
existence of matter.

The question is one of design and purpose. I have not sufficient faith
in chance to think the moon and mars just "happened" by accident without
purpose.
Post by Joseph Cotton
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
IE Who or what created the creator?
Nothing and no one. He just always was. Before earth there was no time
and after death there will be no time.
Can you prove this theory?
No.
--
Peter Watson
Anubis
2005-08-09 19:30:08 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:01:45 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
Can you prove this theory?
No.
I can.

But it requires a knowledge of science - and the intellect to
undertand it. Atheists as a lot are not intelligent enough because
they let their anti-religious bigotry get in the way. If they dropped
the anti-religious bigotry then they would be intelligent enough to
realize what Peter said - the material Universe must have an external
cause of its existence, not just at the moment of its purported
creation but right now, this very moment.

It would be easier to convince a Nazi to love Jews than to prove the
existence of God to an atheist.
mimus
2005-08-09 19:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:01:45 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
Can you prove this theory?
No.
I can.
But it requires a knowledge of science - and the intellect to
undertand it. Atheists as a lot are not intelligent enough because
they let their anti-religious bigotry get in the way. If they dropped
the anti-religious bigotry then they would be intelligent enough to
realize what Peter said - the material Universe must have an external
cause of its existence, not just at the moment of its purported
creation but right now, this very moment.
Sez who? You're demanding of the whole that it share the properties of its
parts, which is not commonly true, even with regard to ordinary sets-- eg,
any real number is finite, but not the set of real numbers.

So just because every phenomenon has a cause in the world does not in the
slightest prove that the world has or needs one.
--
And now the saints began their reign,
For which th' had hankered so long in vain,
And felt such bowel-hankerings,
To see an empire, all of kings,
Delivered from th' Egyptian awe
Of justice, government and law.

< _Hudibras_
Michael Voytinsky
2005-08-09 19:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
realize what Peter said - the material Universe must have an external
cause of its existence, not just at the moment of its purported
creation but right now, this very moment.
Why must material universe have that, and what is the cause of that cause?
Post by Anubis
It would be easier to convince a Nazi to love Jews than to prove the
existence of God to an atheist.
So, existence of God can be proven only to those who believe in God?
BOB
2005-08-09 19:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:01:45 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
Can you prove this theory?
No.
I can.
No you can't. No one can because your "god" theory is pure hogwash.
Post by Anubis
But it requires a knowledge of science - and the intellect to
undertand it.
Or the stupidity to ignore science and common sense.
Post by Anubis
Atheists as a lot are not intelligent enough because
they let their anti-religious bigotry get in the way.
Whereas religious kooks rely on brainwashing and blind faith in.
Post by Anubis
If they dropped
the anti-religious bigotry then they would be intelligent enough to
realize what Peter said - the material Universe must have an external
cause of its existence, not just at the moment of its purported
creation but right now, this very moment.
Peter has been dead for two thousand years. Who cares what he said back
then when ignorance of the natural order of things was prevalent.
Post by Anubis
It would be easier to convince a Nazi to love Jews than to prove the
existence of God to an atheist.
Or to anyone else who isn't already brainwashed into believing in a
mythical, supernatural, invisible "god" without any evidence.
BOB
2005-08-09 19:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Antimulticulture
Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator.
So define the creator, rationally. What did the creator use to begin
the creation from nothing?
The Creator did not create from nothing. He created from information
which He fused into matter and form. Creation ex nihilo is nonsense.
Can you prove this theory?
I can try. Assume we agree that form and matter and create and
information are words understood and agreed upon by us using Chambers as
the dictionary.
Objects cannot exist without form. Form can only be filled with matter.
For something to be formed, ie created, the necessary cause must will a
result to make something which currently is not, and it will come from
matter which currently is.
The faith of those who deny creation is staggering as they believe all
form and matter came from either nothing or a pea sized blob which was
so dense it contained within it all which we see now. They still are
unable to determine from whence such matter came but they admit the
existence of matter.
The question is one of design and purpose. I have not sufficient faith
in chance to think the moon and mars just "happened" by accident without
purpose.
When are you going to try to prove your theory of a "creator"?
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
IE Who or what created the creator?
Nothing and no one. He just always was. Before earth there was no time
and after death there will be no time.
Can you prove this theory?
No.
But still you believe it strickly on "faith"?
BOB
2005-08-09 00:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Antimulticulture
Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator.
So define the creator, rationally. What did the creator use to begin
the creation from nothing?
The Creator did not create from nothing. He created from information
which He fused into matter and form. Creation ex nihilo is nonsense.
Any "creator" worth it's salt could have done a much better job of creating
an earth or a human being than the one you support. Could it have been
drunk or just practicing?
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
IE Who or what created the creator?
Nothing and no one. He just always was. Before earth there was no time
and after death there will be no time.
If your alleged "creator" always was, is it still? If it still is, where
is it?
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Michael Gordge
mimus
2005-08-09 00:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOB
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Antimulticulture
Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator.
So define the creator, rationally. What did the creator use to begin
the creation from nothing?
The Creator did not create from nothing. He created from information
which He fused into matter and form. Creation ex nihilo is nonsense.
Information == energy == matter.

See Shannon and Einstein.

So where'd the info/ energy/ matter come from?
Post by BOB
Any "creator" worth it's salt could have done a much better job of creating
an earth or a human being than the one you support. Could it have been
drunk or just practicing?
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
IE Who or what created the creator?
Nothing and no one. He just always was. Before earth there was no time
and after death there will be no time.
Why not just assume that about the Universe and leave any creator out of
it, as Hume suggested (_Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_)?
Post by BOB
If your alleged "creator" always was, is it still? If it still is, where
is it?
Actually, I thought the philosopher Pratchett settled this one already:

"In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
DBDriver
2005-08-09 01:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Information == energy == matter.
See Shannon and Einstein.
That would Einstein's famous extended formulae E = MC2 = I3CR

where I is "Information" and CR is the crap multiplier.
Post by mimus
< Machiavelli
RJ.
Paul Hyett
2005-08-09 08:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
The Creator did not create from nothing. He created from information
which He fused into matter and form. Creation ex nihilo is nonsense.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
IE Who or what created the creator?
Nothing and no one. He just always was.
This crap is supposed to convince atheists they are wrong? :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
m***@xtra.co.nz
2005-08-09 09:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
The Creator did not create from nothing.
Oh so some *things* existed before the universe? So where did it/they
exist?
Post by Peter Watson
Nothing and no one. He just always was.
And your *reasoning* for claming that the universe did not need a
creator is?
Post by Peter Watson
Before earth there was no time...
Really? so what is *time*

Did the creator only create earth?
Post by Peter Watson
and after death there will be no time.
Well how come there is still time when things have died?


Michael Gordge
Enkidu
2005-08-09 11:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
The Creator did not create from nothing.
Oh so some *things* existed before the universe? So
where did it/they exist?
Your logic and understanding is, as always, deficient, Michael.

First of all assume, for the sake of argument that a Creator
exists. I personally don't think there was, but just for
arguments sake, assume it. "A Creator" means some entity (it
doesn't have to be a "being" or 'material') which created
everything. If a Creator exists and since the Creator
created everything, asking what existed before the moment of
creation is nonsense. Such an entity can be assumed to
create time also, since time is 'something' if not material.
Therefore it makes no sense to ask what was *before* the
moment of creation. Since there is no 'before' the moment of
creation there is no 'nothing' from which everything was
created. Therefore the Creator did not create something from
nothing.

The logic is consistent, even if it is totally wacky.

Cheers,

Cliff
--
Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
PT
2005-08-09 12:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
And your *reasoning* for claming that the universe did not need a
creator is?
There was no creator, the universe exists on the back of a giant elephant.
mimus
2005-08-09 14:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by PT
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
And your *reasoning* for claming that the universe did not need a
creator is?
There was no creator, the universe exists on the back of a giant elephant.
Is this that turtle thing again?
--
And now the saints began their reign,
For which th' had hankered so long in vain,
And felt such bowel-hankerings,
To see an empire, all of kings,
Delivered from th' Egyptian awe
Of justice, government and law.

< _Hudibras_
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 17:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Peter Watson
The Creator did not create from nothing.
Oh so some *things* existed before the universe? So where did it/they
exist?
Matter existed. Both atheist and theist presuppose matter because it is
irrational to believe something can come from nothing.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Peter Watson
Nothing and no one. He just always was.
And your *reasoning* for claming that the universe did not need a
creator is?
I claim the universe was created so I don't see your point....
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Peter Watson
Before earth there was no time...
Really? so what is *time*
The measure of distance between observed events.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Did the creator only create earth?
No. All things.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Peter Watson
and after death there will be no time.
Well how come there is still time when things have died?
For the living there is time. For the dead, time ceases.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Michael Gordge
--
Peter Watson
mimus
2005-08-09 17:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Peter Watson
The Creator did not create from nothing.
Oh so some *things* existed before the universe? So where did it/they
exist?
Matter existed. Both atheist and theist presuppose matter because it is
irrational to believe something can come from nothing.
Untrue.

Look at _Laws of Form_, "compensation" (the arithmetic initial I2
reversed), "putting in" (the algebraic initial J2 reversed-- and what a
clumsy name or expression for it!) and especially "revelation" (the
algebraic consequence C4 reversed, and with "a" set to the unmarked state).

Also, it is hardly irrational to posit something like "pair production" in
nuclear and astrophysics, where space might degenerate into, or generate, a
particle and its somehow opposite-- or even some absolute "nothingness",
not even space, which might degenerate into, or generate, say, a photon or
particle and its equivalent in space or space/time . . . .
--
.sigzip:*
Anubis
2005-08-09 19:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Look at _Laws of Form_, "compensation" (the arithmetic initial I2
reversed), "putting in" (the algebraic initial J2 reversed-- and what a
clumsy name or expression for it!) and especially "revelation" (the
algebraic consequence C4 reversed, and with "a" set to the unmarked state).
Where the hell did you get that nonsense - Jehovah's Witnesses?
Post by mimus
Also, it is hardly irrational to posit something like "pair production" in
nuclear and astrophysics, where space might degenerate into, or generate, a
particle and its somehow opposite-- or even some absolute "nothingness",
not even space, which might degenerate into, or generate, say, a photon or
particle and its equivalent in space or space/time . . . .
You are not qualified to make credible comments on physics. You just
butchered pair production because you do not know anything about
quantum field theory.

The pair (electron and positron) are created from two photons from the
Quantum Vacuum. The Vacuum is the reservior of Zero Point motion for
all quantum particles. It is filled with fluctuations because of the
Zero Point motion. When two such fluctuations in the form of photons
of the right energy and momentum collide, pair production occurs.

The reverse happens when a pair collide and disappear creating two
photons like before. These photons then wander off into the Vacuum
joining the other fluctuations.

There is more to pair production that that layman's scenario, but for
our purposes it suffices to show that particles are created from
*something*, not nothing.
mimus
2005-08-09 19:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by mimus
Look at _Laws of Form_, "compensation" (the arithmetic initial I2
reversed), "putting in" (the algebraic initial J2 reversed-- and what a
clumsy name or expression for it!) and especially "revelation" (the
algebraic consequence C4 reversed, and with "a" set to the unmarked state).
Where the hell did you get that nonsense - Jehovah's Witnesses?
From the book _Laws of Form_. It's cited, see?
Post by Anubis
Post by mimus
Also, it is hardly irrational to posit something like "pair production" in
nuclear and astrophysics, where space might degenerate into, or generate, a
particle and its somehow opposite-- or even some absolute "nothingness",
not even space, which might degenerate into, or generate, say, a photon or
particle and its equivalent in space or space/time . . . .
You are not qualified to make credible comments on physics.
I do apologize.
--
And now the saints began their reign,
For which th' had hankered so long in vain,
And felt such bowel-hankerings,
To see an empire, all of kings,
Delivered from th' Egyptian awe
Of justice, government and law.

< _Hudibras_
DBDriver
2005-08-08 23:32:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Antimulticulture
Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator.
So define the creator, rationally. What did the creator use to begin
the creation from nothing?
IE Who or what created the creator?
Michael Gordge
You're putting your eggs before your chickens with that mate. You need to
entered a higher plain of understanding and belief**.

** Beliefs in other gods, beings, miracles, and matters of a religious
nature that do not correspond to nor support our notion of "Belief" will not
be tolerated. These other so-called beliefs will be ridiculed as obvious
mumbo jumbo and any miracles accorded to such beliefs will either be
downplayed as pure heresay or will be attributed to our God. . There is only
one true belief - our book actually says so.

RJ.
BrentC
2005-08-09 00:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by DBDriver
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Antimulticulture
Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator.
So define the creator, rationally. What did the creator use to begin
the creation from nothing?
IE Who or what created the creator?
Michael Gordge
You're putting your eggs before your chickens with that mate. You need to
entered a higher plain of understanding and belief**.
** Beliefs in other gods, beings, miracles, and matters of a religious
nature that do not correspond to nor support our notion of "Belief" will not
be tolerated. These other so-called beliefs will be ridiculed as obvious
mumbo jumbo and any miracles accorded to such beliefs will either be
downplayed as pure heresay or will be attributed to our God. . There is only
one true belief - our book actually says so.
RJ.
Keh - you believe what you read?




**************

BrentC
DBDriver
2005-08-09 01:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrentC
Post by DBDriver
** Beliefs in other gods, beings, miracles, and matters of a religious
nature that do not correspond to nor support our notion of "Belief" will not
be tolerated. These other so-called beliefs will be ridiculed as obvious
mumbo jumbo and any miracles accorded to such beliefs will either be
downplayed as pure heresay or will be attributed to our God. . There is only
one true belief - our book actually says so.
RJ.
Keh - you believe what you read?
**************
BrentC
It's not a problem until another person comes along with a different book
that says that it purports to tell the one and only truth but espouses views
different from our book. In this case THEY are obviously misguided and we
should educate them on the "truth".

RJ..
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 17:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by DBDriver
Post by BrentC
Post by DBDriver
** Beliefs in other gods, beings, miracles, and matters of a religious
nature that do not correspond to nor support our notion of "Belief" will not
be tolerated. These other so-called beliefs will be ridiculed as obvious
mumbo jumbo and any miracles accorded to such beliefs will either be
downplayed as pure heresay or will be attributed to our God. . There is only
one true belief - our book actually says so.
RJ.
Keh - you believe what you read?
**************
BrentC
It's not a problem until another person comes along with a different book
that says that it purports to tell the one and only truth but espouses views
different from our book. In this case THEY are obviously misguided and we
should educate them on the "truth".
RJ..
I agree. So how can we determine which tell the truth and which do not?

Empirical evidence of the nature of men reflected in the pages of
Scripture which shows a real understanding of men how they think and how
they behave in societies. The world it describes is the world I see.

I do not see the Clears and Thetans of the Scientologists.

I do not worship elephants or monkeys.

I am not afraid of nature.

I do not worship my dead ancestors.

It is pretty straight forward really. It just takes a very long time
and hard work to think these things through.
--
Peter Watson
AlanG
2005-08-09 18:07:35 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:14:47 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by DBDriver
Post by BrentC
Post by DBDriver
** Beliefs in other gods, beings, miracles, and matters of a religious
nature that do not correspond to nor support our notion of "Belief" will not
be tolerated. These other so-called beliefs will be ridiculed as obvious
mumbo jumbo and any miracles accorded to such beliefs will either be
downplayed as pure heresay or will be attributed to our God. . There is only
one true belief - our book actually says so.
RJ.
Keh - you believe what you read?
**************
BrentC
It's not a problem until another person comes along with a different book
that says that it purports to tell the one and only truth but espouses views
different from our book. In this case THEY are obviously misguided and we
should educate them on the "truth".
RJ..
I agree. So how can we determine which tell the truth and which do not?
Empirical evidence of the nature of men reflected in the pages of
Scripture which shows a real understanding of men how they think and how
they behave in societies. The world it describes is the world I see.
I do not see the Clears and Thetans of the Scientologists.
I do not worship elephants or monkeys.
I am not afraid of nature.
I do not worship my dead ancestors.
It is pretty straight forward really. It just takes a very long time
and hard work to think these things through.
You'll get there in the end and consign these fairy tales to the
nursery where they belong.
Anubis
2005-08-09 19:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:14:47 +0100, Peter Watson
You'll get there in the end and consign these fairy tales to the
nursery where they belong.
Alan Goss is living proof that ignorance is bliss.

"A loaf of bread, a jug of wine and a few willing sheep" is all he
lives for.

He has no need to contemplate the mystery of his own existence -
probably because he is afraid it is a fairy tale.
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 19:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:14:47 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by DBDriver
Post by BrentC
Post by DBDriver
** Beliefs in other gods, beings, miracles, and matters of a religious
nature that do not correspond to nor support our notion of "Belief" will not
be tolerated. These other so-called beliefs will be ridiculed as obvious
mumbo jumbo and any miracles accorded to such beliefs will either be
downplayed as pure heresay or will be attributed to our God. . There is only
one true belief - our book actually says so.
RJ.
Keh - you believe what you read?
**************
BrentC
It's not a problem until another person comes along with a different book
that says that it purports to tell the one and only truth but espouses views
different from our book. In this case THEY are obviously misguided and we
should educate them on the "truth".
RJ..
I agree. So how can we determine which tell the truth and which do not?
Empirical evidence of the nature of men reflected in the pages of
Scripture which shows a real understanding of men how they think and how
they behave in societies. The world it describes is the world I see.
I do not see the Clears and Thetans of the Scientologists.
I do not worship elephants or monkeys.
I am not afraid of nature.
I do not worship my dead ancestors.
It is pretty straight forward really. It just takes a very long time
and hard work to think these things through.
You'll get there in the end and consign these fairy tales to the
nursery where they belong.
And when you meet the uncreated beam of light you will recall you mocked
me.

How sad to consider yourself but an accident of chemistry and physics.
--
Peter Watson
Anubis
2005-08-09 19:40:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:14:47 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by DBDriver
It's not a problem until another person comes along with a different book
that says that it purports to tell the one and only truth but espouses views
different from our book. In this case THEY are obviously misguided and we
should educate them on the "truth".
I agree. So how can we determine which tell the truth and which do not?
First you determine the Worldview of each participant. If they do not
both subscribe to Realism, then don't waste your time with them. They
live in the subjective world of their own mind, where rationality is
not imposed by external constraints.

If they have adopted the Worldview of Realism, then you can test their
claims with the scientific method. That is not limited to empirical
observation - metaphysical claims can be tested using science, since
metaphysics is built on science.

But why bother - let people believe what they want. Let God worry
about stupid people - he sure made enough of them. Enjoy what you know
and the hell with everyone else.
mimus
2005-08-09 19:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:14:47 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by DBDriver
It's not a problem until another person comes along with a different book
that says that it purports to tell the one and only truth but espouses views
different from our book. In this case THEY are obviously misguided and we
should educate them on the "truth".
I agree. So how can we determine which tell the truth and which do not?
First you determine the Worldview of each participant. If they do not
both subscribe to Realism, then don't waste your time with them. They
live in the subjective world of their own mind, where rationality is
not imposed by external constraints.
If they have adopted the Worldview of Realism, then you can test their
claims with the scientific method. That is not limited to empirical
observation - metaphysical claims can be tested using science, since
metaphysics is built on science.
Metaphysics is pseudoscience.

And the "-physics" root in the name is only there because it was included
after ("meta") physics by Aristotle's first editors-- certainly not meaning
it was any sort of superphysics, but only a grab- bag of mostly garbage
topics, like much of Aristotle.

"Miscellanea" would've been better, and kept us from having "metaphysics"
inflicted on us for millenium after millenium.
--
And now the saints began their reign,
For which th' had hankered so long in vain,
And felt such bowel-hankerings,
To see an empire, all of kings,
Delivered from th' Egyptian awe
Of justice, government and law.

< _Hudibras_
Ford Prefect
2005-08-09 19:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by DBDriver
Post by BrentC
Post by DBDriver
** Beliefs in other gods, beings, miracles, and matters of a religious
nature that do not correspond to nor support our notion of "Belief"
will
not
be tolerated. These other so-called beliefs will be ridiculed as obvious
mumbo jumbo and any miracles accorded to such beliefs will either be
downplayed as pure heresay or will be attributed to our God. . There is only
one true belief - our book actually says so.
RJ.
Keh - you believe what you read?
**************
BrentC
It's not a problem until another person comes along with a different book
that says that it purports to tell the one and only truth but espouses views
different from our book. In this case THEY are obviously misguided and we
should educate them on the "truth".
RJ..
I agree. So how can we determine which tell the truth and which do not?
Empirical evidence of the nature of men reflected in the pages of
Scripture which shows a real understanding of men how they think and how
they behave in societies. The world it describes is the world I see.
In which case the bible is just another historical fiction that
describes events of a cast of characters. Most of what's in the bible
is rehased accounts of pre-existing fables.
mimus
2005-08-09 19:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Most of what's in the bible
is rehased accounts of pre-existing fables.
And the Biblical writers totally butchered the Flood story, which made
sense in the original as originating in a conflict between the gods, but
makes no sense whatsoever in a monotheistic context involving an omniscient
and (in particular) all- foreseeing God.

Furthermore, I always like how Christians sigh ecstatically over the story
of the rainbow, as a sign that God will never drown everyone ever ever
again-- instead, as we're told in Revelations, we'll all be burned.
--
And now the saints began their reign,
For which th' had hankered so long in vain,
And felt such bowel-hankerings,
To see an empire, all of kings,
Delivered from th' Egyptian awe
Of justice, government and law.

< _Hudibras_
Alex
2005-08-09 00:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antimulticulture
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
Both.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
MI Wakefield
2005-08-09 00:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex
Post by Antimulticulture
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
Both.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Antimulticulture will have no interest in that excellent page, because he's
a fundamentalist christian. And to understand fundamentalism, you have to
know what a fundament is.

http://www.answers.com/topic/fundament
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...