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?
Paul Hyett
2005-08-10 08:04:13 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.
But if God designed man, that doesn't say much for his creative
abilities...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 11:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hyett
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.
But if God designed man, that doesn't say much for his creative
abilities...
Man had free will

man wanted to substitute God's objective truth (definitions of good and
evil) and have autonomy from God.
The fall was substitution of objective truth for subjective (man's)
truth
the number of the beast 666 is the number of a man
man becomes god -
man becomes the definer of knowledge wisdom and understanding

all are warned against in the Bible -


1Co 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written,
He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1Ti 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane
and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
a
20. a. science: Gr. knowledge

Pr 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own
understanding.



Man wanted free will and got it. We live in the result.

If you were willing to be a servant if it guaranteed perfection and
freedom you would refuse it because the offer is there, and has been and
you still refuse it.


Mt 24:45
Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler
over his household, to give them meat in due season?

Mr 9:35
And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man
desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.



Lu 16:13
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and
love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Paul was a servant
Ro 1:1
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto
the gospel of God,

Phebe was a servant

To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. Written
to the Romans from Corinthus, and sent by Phebe servant of the church at
Cenchrea.

Ga 1:10
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I
yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

2Ti 2:24
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men,
apt to teach, patient,b
24. b. patient: or, forbearing

Philemon was a servant
Phm 1:25
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. Written
from Rome to Philemon, by Onesimus a servant.

Heb 3:5
And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a
testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

James was a servant
Jas 1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve
tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Peter was a servant
2Pe 1:1
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have
obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God
and our Saviour Jesus Christ:c d
1. c. Simon: or, Symeon
d. God...: Gr. of our God and Saviour


Jude was a servant
Jude 1:1
Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that
are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and
called


We are either in service to the world, the flesh and the devil or to
God.

Simple.
--
Peter Watson
Anubis
2005-08-10 13:51:33 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:31:39 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Paul Hyett
But if God designed man, that doesn't say much for his creative
abilities...
Man had free will
There's an echo in here.
Post by Peter Watson
man wanted to substitute God's objective truth (definitions of good and
evil) and have autonomy from God.
The fall was substitution of objective truth for subjective (man's)
truth
the number of the beast 666 is the number of a man
man becomes god -
man becomes the definer of knowledge wisdom and understanding
all are warned against in the Bible -
If you do not want to learn about the perversion of modern Britain in
the Bible, you can read about it in the daily newspapers.
BOB
2005-08-10 16:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Paul Hyett
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.
But if God designed man, that doesn't say much for his creative
abilities...
Man had free will
The typical bs copout from the religious loons. Can't they come up with
something original that is more plausible?


<snip>
Anubis
2005-08-10 13:50:02 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:04:13 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
Man is the one fucking things up.
But if God designed man, that doesn't say much for his creative
abilities...
Man has free will.
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.
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 20:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
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
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.
Why?
Post by Ford Prefect
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.
Where did the chemicals come from?

The hydrological cycle is described in the book of Job and is as close
to science today as it gets.
Post by Ford Prefect
As far as I'm concerned the bible is no different, using a fable to
explain away ignorance of why things happen.
Whereas your deepest thought on the matter is "shit just happens".
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-09 21:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
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
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.
Why?
Post by Ford Prefect
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.
Where did the chemicals come from?
The hydrological cycle is described in the book of Job and is as close
to science today as it gets.
Post by Ford Prefect
As far as I'm concerned the bible is no different, using a fable to
explain away ignorance of why things happen.
Whereas your deepest thought on the matter is "shit just happens".
And a belief in an invisible being that lives in the sky and takes
delight in torturing the most religious man of his time is an example of
"deepest thought"? Why is that so hard to understand that "Shit
Happens"? Most things are cause and effect, action and reaction. You
stick you finger in the light socket you get a shock, stand if front a
rapidly moving bus and you get run over.
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 23:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
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
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
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.
Why?
Post by Ford Prefect
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.
Where did the chemicals come from?
The hydrological cycle is described in the book of Job and is as
close to science today as it gets.
Post by Ford Prefect
As far as I'm concerned the bible is no different, using a fable to
explain away ignorance of why things happen.
Whereas your deepest thought on the matter is "shit just happens".
And a belief in an invisible being that lives in the sky
NO a being who lives in the spirit world and who manifested his
character by appearing as a human being.
Post by Ford Prefect
and takes delight in torturing the most religious man of his time
Where did you come up with that? It is a totally ridiculous doctrine
that is false and stupid.
Post by Ford Prefect
is an example of "deepest thought"? Why is that so hard to understand
that "Shit Happens"? Most things are cause and effect, action and
reaction. You stick you finger in the light socket you get a shock,
stand if front a rapidly moving bus and you get run over.
The bus just materialised out of thin air, as did the light socket.

Get your level of thinking up man.
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-09 23:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
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
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
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.
Why?
Post by Ford Prefect
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.
Where did the chemicals come from?
The hydrological cycle is described in the book of Job and is as
close to science today as it gets.
Post by Ford Prefect
As far as I'm concerned the bible is no different, using a fable to
explain away ignorance of why things happen.
Whereas your deepest thought on the matter is "shit just happens".
And a belief in an invisible being that lives in the sky
NO a being who lives in the spirit world and who manifested his
character by appearing as a human being.
Come on, admit it in sunday school we all asked " where does god live",
"he lives up in heaven johnny" said the teacher. "Where is heaven" asked
johnny. "up in the sky" said the teacher.
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
and takes delight in torturing the most religious man of his time
Where did you come up with that? It is a totally ridiculous doctrine
that is false and stupid.
Read the book of JOB, what else can you call such cruelty but torture.
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
is an example of "deepest thought"? Why is that so hard to understand
that "Shit Happens"? Most things are cause and effect, action and
reaction. You stick you finger in the light socket you get a shock,
stand if front a rapidly moving bus and you get run over.
The bus just materialised out of thin air, as did the light socket.
Get your level of thinking up man.
You've lost it, these are creations of man, as was the bible.
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 00:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
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
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
out of people who wish, hope and pray there is a
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.
Why?
Post by Ford Prefect
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.
Where did the chemicals come from?
The hydrological cycle is described in the book of Job and is as
close to science today as it gets.
Post by Ford Prefect
As far as I'm concerned the bible is no different, using a fable
explain away ignorance of why things happen.
Whereas your deepest thought on the matter is "shit just happens".
And a belief in an invisible being that lives in the sky
NO a being who lives in the spirit world and who manifested his
character by appearing as a human being.
Come on, admit it in sunday school we all asked " where does god live",
"he lives up in heaven johnny" said the teacher. "Where is heaven"
asked johnny. "up in the sky" said the teacher.
Mine didn't. And I am not 5 any longer.
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
and takes delight in torturing the most religious man of his time
Where did you come up with that? It is a totally ridiculous
doctrine that is false and stupid.
Read the book of JOB, what else can you call such cruelty but torture.
A lesson.
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
is an example of "deepest thought"? Why is that so hard to
understand that "Shit Happens"? Most things are cause and effect,
action and reaction. You stick you finger in the light socket you get
a shock, stand if front a rapidly moving bus and you get run over.
The bus just materialised out of thin air, as did the light socket.
Get your level of thinking up man.
You've lost it, these are creations of man, as was the bible.
Then you must be happy being so wise.
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-10 02:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
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
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 out
of people who wish, hope and pray there is a
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.
Why?
Post by Ford Prefect
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.
Where did the chemicals come from?
The hydrological cycle is described in the book of Job and is as
close to science today as it gets.
Post by Ford Prefect
As far as I'm concerned the bible is no different, using a fable
explain away ignorance of why things happen.
Whereas your deepest thought on the matter is "shit just happens".
And a belief in an invisible being that lives in the sky
NO a being who lives in the spirit world and who manifested his
character by appearing as a human being.
Come on, admit it in sunday school we all asked " where does god live",
"he lives up in heaven johnny" said the teacher. "Where is heaven"
asked johnny. "up in the sky" said the teacher.
Mine didn't. And I am not 5 any longer.
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
and takes delight in torturing the most religious man of his time
Where did you come up with that? It is a totally ridiculous
doctrine that is false and stupid.
Read the book of JOB, what else can you call such cruelty but torture.
A lesson.
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
is an example of "deepest thought"? Why is that so hard to
understand that "Shit Happens"? Most things are cause and effect,
action and reaction. You stick you finger in the light socket you
get a shock, stand if front a rapidly moving bus and you get run over.
The bus just materialised out of thin air, as did the light socket.
Get your level of thinking up man.
You've lost it, these are creations of man, as was the bible.
Then you must be happy being so wise.
Thank you, yes I am. It's really quite easy, keep an open mind and look
at everything with fresh prospective.
Anubis
2005-08-10 14:12:47 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:11:49 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
It's really quite easy, keep an open mind and look
at everything with fresh prospective.
You are living proof that ignorance is bliss.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-10 15:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:11:49 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
It's really quite easy, keep an open mind and look
at everything with fresh prospective.
You are living proof that ignorance is bliss.
I suggest you learn what the term "ignorance" means before using it. I
also suggest you look up the meaning of "Willful ignorance" , you'll
find it under your picture in the dictionary.
Anubis
2005-08-10 16:36:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:53:47 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
I suggest you learn what the term "ignorance" means before using it. I
also suggest you look up the meaning of "Willful ignorance" , you'll
find it under your picture in the dictionary.
<yawn>
Anubis
2005-08-09 22:06:16 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:37:54 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Whereas your deepest thought on the matter is "shit just happens".
He ought to know - he has spent time in self reflection.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-09 22:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 21:37:54 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Whereas your deepest thought on the matter is "shit just happens".
He ought to know - he has spent time in self reflection.
In fact I've spent years studying all the major religions and what we
know of their origins before coming to that conclusion. Shit happens,
but if it make you feel better and less afraid of the dark that
Coatlicue, Wandjina, Tane, or God are looking out for you by all means
be my guest.
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_
Anubis
2005-08-09 21:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Post by Anubis
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.
Mathematics has only a tenuous connection to the real world. Therefore
using it in a metaphysical discussion is meaningless.
Post by mimus
So just because every phenomenon has a cause in the world does not in the
slightest prove that the world has or needs one.
You have just demonstrated how ignorant you are about physics.

Without causality there would be no order. Without order there would
be no physics. You can't have orderly laws if everything happens in a
random manner.

But maybe that's how you view the world - randomly.
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.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-09 20:07:18 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.
It would be easier to convince a Nazi to love Jews than to prove the
existence of God to an atheist.
I think you confuse fundies with atheists, most atheists I know don't go
about making it a mission to "spread the word". Most could care less
about the whole matter and get on with their lives, it's more about not
giving a shit about religion at all than being anti-god . What's needed
is to ditch the term "Atheist" as it does not describe the reality of
many who are branded with that term.
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"?
Lester
2005-08-09 20:18:43 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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe sits on the back
of a Turtle?
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 21:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lester
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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe sits on the back
of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
--
Peter Watson
AlanG
2005-08-09 22:03:29 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Lester
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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe sits on the back
of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
It's as good a theory as your 'creator' happening by accident
Jambon
2005-08-09 22:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Lester
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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe sits on the back
of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
It's as good a theory as your 'creator' happening by accident
Worship the cross!!!
Ford Prefect
2005-08-09 22:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jambon
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Lester
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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe sits on the back
of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
It's as good a theory as your 'creator' happening by accident
Worship the cross!!!
The cross if a relatively new symbol of worship invented by the church
300 years after the death of Christ. Seems strange to worship such a
device of torture, especially when god gave strict orders involving the
worship of images.
BOB
2005-08-09 23:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Jambon
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Lester
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
In message
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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe sits on
the back of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
It's as good a theory as your 'creator' happening by accident
Worship the cross!!!
The cross if a relatively new symbol of worship invented by the church
300 years after the death of Christ. Seems strange to worship such a
device of torture, especially when god gave strict orders involving
the worship of images.
Actually, the cross representing torture fits in perfectly with the xtian
religion and it's pedophile catholic priests, corrupt protestant ministers
and the hypocritical church hierarchy that protects and perpetuates them.
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 23:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Jambon
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Lester
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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe sits on the back
of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
It's as good a theory as your 'creator' happening by accident
Worship the cross!!!
The cross if a relatively new symbol of worship invented by the church
300 years after the death of Christ. Seems strange to worship such a
device of torture, especially when god gave strict orders involving the
worship of images.
I have not met anyone who does. It too is a silly idea and reflects your
in depth knowledge of theology.
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-09 23:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Jambon
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Lester
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
In message
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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe sits on the back
of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
It's as good a theory as your 'creator' happening by accident
Worship the cross!!!
The cross if a relatively new symbol of worship invented by the church
300 years after the death of Christ. Seems strange to worship such a
device of torture, especially when god gave strict orders involving
the worship of images.
I have not met anyone who does. It too is a silly idea and reflects your
in depth knowledge of theology.
I take it you know no Roman Catholics?
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 00:06:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Jambon
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Lester
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
In message
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
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
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
matter.
For something to be formed, ie created, the necessary cause
will a
result to make something which currently is not, and it will
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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe sits
the back
of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
It's as good a theory as your 'creator' happening by accident
Worship the cross!!!
The cross if a relatively new symbol of worship invented by the church
300 years after the death of Christ. Seems strange to worship such a
device of torture, especially when god gave strict orders involving
the worship of images.
I have not met anyone who does. It too is a silly idea and reflects
your in depth knowledge of theology.
I take it you know no Roman Catholics?
What has Roman Catholicism to do with the teachings of the Bible?

Were you brought up Catholic?
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-10 02:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Jambon
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Lester
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
In message
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
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
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
matter.
For something to be formed, ie created, the necessary cause will a
result to make something which currently is not, and it will 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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe sits
the back
of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
It's as good a theory as your 'creator' happening by accident
Worship the cross!!!
The cross if a relatively new symbol of worship invented by the church
300 years after the death of Christ. Seems strange to worship such a
device of torture, especially when god gave strict orders involving
the worship of images.
I have not met anyone who does. It too is a silly idea and reflects
your in depth knowledge of theology.
I take it you know no Roman Catholics?
What has Roman Catholicism to do with the teachings of the Bible?
Were you brought up Catholic?
No, Anglican. The bible is a creation of the early Catholic church, and
they worship "Graven Images", including the cross.
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 11:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Jambon
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Lester
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
In message
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
begin
the creation from nothing?
The Creator did not create from nothing. He created from
which He fused into matter and form. Creation ex nihilo is
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
For something to be formed, ie created, the necessary cause will a
result to make something which currently is not, and it will 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
so dense it contained within it all which we see now. They
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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe
the back
of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
It's as good a theory as your 'creator' happening by accident
Worship the cross!!!
The cross if a relatively new symbol of worship invented by the church
300 years after the death of Christ. Seems strange to worship such
device of torture, especially when god gave strict orders involving
worship of images.
I have not met anyone who does. It too is a silly idea and
reflects your in depth knowledge of theology.
I take it you know no Roman Catholics?
What has Roman Catholicism to do with the teachings of the Bible?
Were you brought up Catholic?
No, Anglican. The bible is a creation of the early Catholic church, and
they worship "Graven Images", including the cross.
Hmmm

all of which is proscribed in the Bible. I have never met a cross
worshipper in person. Perhaps they come out at Mardi Gras and Semaine
Santa.
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-10 12:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Jambon
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
In message
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 begin
the creation from nothing?
The Creator did not create from nothing. He created from
which He fused into matter and form. Creation ex nihilo is
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
For something to be formed, ie created, the necessary cause will a
result to make something which currently is not, and it will 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
so dense it contained within it all which we see now. They 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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe the
back
of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
It's as good a theory as your 'creator' happening by accident
Worship the cross!!!
The cross if a relatively new symbol of worship invented by the church
300 years after the death of Christ. Seems strange to worship such
device of torture, especially when god gave strict orders
involving worship of images.
I have not met anyone who does. It too is a silly idea and
reflects your in depth knowledge of theology.
I take it you know no Roman Catholics?
What has Roman Catholicism to do with the teachings of the Bible?
Were you brought up Catholic?
No, Anglican. The bible is a creation of the early Catholic church,
and they worship "Graven Images", including the cross.
Hmmm
all of which is proscribed in the Bible. I have never met a cross
worshipper in person. Perhaps they come out at Mardi Gras and Semaine
Santa.
Then you must be blind, the Catholic church is full of "Graven images",
including the cross.
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 15:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Jambon
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Lester
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
In message
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 begin
the creation from nothing?
The Creator did not create from nothing. He created from
which He fused into matter and form. Creation ex nihilo is
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
For something to be formed, ie created, the necessary cause will a
result to make something which currently is not, and it
from
matter which currently is.
The faith of those who deny creation is staggering as they
form and matter came from either nothing or a pea sized blob
so dense it contained within it all which we see now. They are
unable to determine from whence such matter came but they
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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe
back
of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
It's as good a theory as your 'creator' happening by accident
Worship the cross!!!
The cross if a relatively new symbol of worship invented by the
300 years after the death of Christ. Seems strange to worship
device of torture, especially when god gave strict orders
involving worship of images.
I have not met anyone who does. It too is a silly idea and
reflects your in depth knowledge of theology.
I take it you know no Roman Catholics?
What has Roman Catholicism to do with the teachings of the Bible?
Were you brought up Catholic?
No, Anglican. The bible is a creation of the early Catholic church,
and they worship "Graven Images", including the cross.
Hmmm
all of which is proscribed in the Bible. I have never met a cross
worshipper in person. Perhaps they come out at Mardi Gras and Semaine
Santa.
Then you must be blind, the Catholic church is full of "Graven images",
including the cross.
Then it can't be Biblical can it?
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-10 16:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Jambon
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
In message
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 begin
the creation from nothing?
The Creator did not create from nothing. He created from
which He fused into matter and form. Creation ex nihilo is
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
For something to be formed, ie created, the necessary cause will a
result to make something which currently is not, and it from
matter which currently is.
The faith of those who deny creation is staggering as they
form and matter came from either nothing or a pea sized blob
so dense it contained within it all which we see now. They are
unable to determine from whence such matter came but they
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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe back
of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
It's as good a theory as your 'creator' happening by accident
Worship the cross!!!
The cross if a relatively new symbol of worship invented by the
300 years after the death of Christ. Seems strange to worship
device of torture, especially when god gave strict orders
involving worship of images.
I have not met anyone who does. It too is a silly idea and
reflects your in depth knowledge of theology.
I take it you know no Roman Catholics?
What has Roman Catholicism to do with the teachings of the Bible?
Were you brought up Catholic?
No, Anglican. The bible is a creation of the early Catholic church,
and they worship "Graven Images", including the cross.
Hmmm
all of which is proscribed in the Bible. I have never met a cross
worshipper in person. Perhaps they come out at Mardi Gras and Semaine
Santa.
Then you must be blind, the Catholic church is full of "Graven
images", including the cross.
Then it can't be Biblical can it?
The bible, like the cross, is a creation of the church. The bible is
simply a collection of stories put together based on the agenda of the
early church, what they wanted in it remained, what they didn't like was
left out. For example Jesus was first condemned as heretical by the
First Council of Nicaea in 325 and again at the First Council of
Constantinople in 381. As we know now this was changed to suite the new
agenda.

Constantine started what later became a centuries long effort to
eliminate any book in the original texts that was considered heretical
to the new doctrine of the church. Up until then historians believe
there were up to 600 books which made up the full biblical story.
Through the decisions of the early Christian leadership only 80 of those
books, known as the King James Translation of 1611 remained, they were
reduced even further during the Protestant Reformation to 66 in the
"Authorized" King James Bible.
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 17:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Jambon
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
In message
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
begin
the creation from nothing?
The Creator did not create from nothing. He created from
which He fused into matter and form. Creation ex nihilo is
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
For something to be formed, ie created, the necessary
result to make something which currently is not, and it from
matter which currently is.
The faith of those who deny creation is staggering as they
form and matter came from either nothing or a pea sized blob
so dense it contained within it all which we see now.
are
unable to determine from whence such matter came but they
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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe back
of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
It's as good a theory as your 'creator' happening by accident
Worship the cross!!!
The cross if a relatively new symbol of worship invented by the
300 years after the death of Christ. Seems strange to worship
device of torture, especially when god gave strict orders
involving worship of images.
I have not met anyone who does. It too is a silly idea and
reflects your in depth knowledge of theology.
I take it you know no Roman Catholics?
What has Roman Catholicism to do with the teachings of the Bible?
Were you brought up Catholic?
No, Anglican. The bible is a creation of the early Catholic
church, and they worship "Graven Images", including the cross.
Hmmm
all of which is proscribed in the Bible. I have never met a cross
worshipper in person. Perhaps they come out at Mardi Gras and
Semaine Santa.
Then you must be blind, the Catholic church is full of "Graven
images", including the cross.
Then it can't be Biblical can it?
The bible, like the cross, is a creation of the church.
The Bible was written (in part eg the Pentateuch) thousands of years
before the Church started.

The cross was an instrument of execution designed by the Romans.

Now that your accuracy and attention to detail has been shown up for
what it is, are the rest of your presuppositions based on the same
sloppy thinking?
Post by Ford Prefect
The bible is simply a collection of stories put together based on the
agenda of the early church, what they wanted in it remained, what they
didn't like was left out. For example Jesus was first condemned as
heretical by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and again at the First
Council of Constantinople in 381. As we know now this was changed to
suite the new agenda.
Constantine started what later became a centuries long effort to
eliminate any book in the original texts that was considered heretical
to the new doctrine of the church.
If he did he failed to do so. Unless you refer to the gnostic gospels.

To cut to the chase the entire concept of Christianity is in your
opinion based on lies.

Did Jesus exist?
If so then was he
a - mad
b -a liar
c - who he claimed he was
Post by Ford Prefect
Up until then historians believe there were up to 600 books which made
up the full biblical story. Through the decisions of the early
Christian leadership only 80 of those books, known as the King James
Translation of 1611 remained,
Yes. One of my relatives Sir Henry Savile helped to translate it.
Post by Ford Prefect
they were reduced even further during the Protestant Reformation to 66
in the "Authorized" King James Bible.
Thanks for your wisdom. How many serious books on the veracity of the
message and preservation of the message of the Bible have you ever read?
--
Peter Watson
mimus
2005-08-10 17:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Through the decisions of the early
Post by Ford Prefect
Christian leadership only 80 of those books, known as the King James
Translation of 1611 remained
"Early Christian leadership" must mean something different to you.
--
If we should fight for the good old Cause
By rules of military laws,
And do only what they call just,
The Cause would quickly fall to dust.
This we among ourselves may speak;
But to the wicked or the weak
We must be cautious to declare
Perfection-truths, such as these are.

< _Hudibras_ (sl. ed.)
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 22:03:08 UTC
Permalink
No, I didn't
Post by mimus
Post by Ford Prefect
Through the decisions of the early
Post by Ford Prefect
Christian leadership only 80 of those books, known as the King James
Translation of 1611 remained
"Early Christian leadership" must mean something different to you.
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-10 17:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Jambon
Post by AlanG
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Joseph Cotton
In message
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 begin
the creation from nothing?
The Creator did not create from nothing. He created from
which He fused into matter and form. Creation ex nihilo is
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
For something to be formed, ie created, the necessary
result to make something which currently is not, and it from
matter which currently is.
The faith of those who deny creation is staggering as they
form and matter came from either nothing or a pea sized blob
so dense it contained within it all which we see now. are
unable to determine from whence such matter came but they
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.
And how does that differ from the fable where the universe back
of a Turtle?
You seriously want a reply to that?
It's as good a theory as your 'creator' happening by accident
Worship the cross!!!
The cross if a relatively new symbol of worship invented by the
300 years after the death of Christ. Seems strange to worship
device of torture, especially when god gave strict orders
involving worship of images.
I have not met anyone who does. It too is a silly idea and
reflects your in depth knowledge of theology.
I take it you know no Roman Catholics?
What has Roman Catholicism to do with the teachings of the Bible?
Were you brought up Catholic?
No, Anglican. The bible is a creation of the early Catholic
church, and they worship "Graven Images", including the cross.
Hmmm
all of which is proscribed in the Bible. I have never met a cross
worshipper in person. Perhaps they come out at Mardi Gras and
Semaine Santa.
Then you must be blind, the Catholic church is full of "Graven
images", including the cross.
Then it can't be Biblical can it?
The bible, like the cross, is a creation of the church.
The Bible was written (in part eg the Pentateuch) thousands of years
before the Church started.
The cross was an instrument of execution designed by the Romans.
Now that your accuracy and attention to detail has been shown up for
what it is, are the rest of your presuppositions based on the same
sloppy thinking?
Oh please, pull the other one, now you are bringing in the Torah to
defend the modern bible? There was no Christian church or official bible
until 300 years after the death of Christ.
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
The bible is simply a collection of stories put together based on the
agenda of the early church, what they wanted in it remained, what they
didn't like was left out. For example Jesus was first condemned as
heretical by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and again at the First
Council of Constantinople in 381. As we know now this was changed to
suite the new agenda.
Constantine started what later became a centuries long effort to
eliminate any book in the original texts that was considered heretical
to the new doctrine of the church.
If he did he failed to do so. Unless you refer to the gnostic gospels.
I suggest you do some research on the history of the bible
Post by Peter Watson
To cut to the chase the entire concept of Christianity is in your
opinion based on lies.
The entire concept has been warped over time to suit the powers that be.
The bible has not been the static document it is made out to be.
Post by Peter Watson
Did Jesus exist?
If so then was he
a - mad
b -a liar
c - who he claimed he was
Who knows? The life of Brian give good insight into the whole religious
process.
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Up until then historians believe there were up to 600 books which made
up the full biblical story. Through the decisions of the early
Christian leadership only 80 of those books, known as the King James
Translation of 1611 remained,
Yes. One of my relatives Sir Henry Savile helped to translate it.
And the translation was made to fit the agenda of the time
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
they were reduced even further during the Protestant Reformation to 66
in the "Authorized" King James Bible.
Thanks for your wisdom. How many serious books on the veracity of the
message and preservation of the message of the Bible have you ever read?
I suggest you do some research and read what was left out of "the bible"
before you make such statements. The Analects of Confucius are more true
to the original of his teachings than the bible's are to the original
stories.
r***@yahoo.co.uk
2005-08-10 19:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
The bible, like the cross, is a creation of the church. The bible is
simply a collection of stories put together based on the agenda of the
early church, what they wanted in it remained, what they didn't like was
left out.
This is not so -- sorry.
Post by Ford Prefect
For example Jesus was first condemned as heretical by the
First Council of Nicaea in 325 and again at the First Council of
Constantinople in 381. As we know now this was changed to suite the new
agenda.
I think perhaps something got omitted from this? As stated it is
hopelessly wrong.
Post by Ford Prefect
Constantine started what later became a centuries long effort to
eliminate any book in the original texts that was considered heretical
to the new doctrine of the church.
There is no trace of this in the historical record.
Post by Ford Prefect
Up until then historians believe there were up to 600 books which
made up the full biblical story.
Name them. This also is nonsense.

I know you didn't make up these stories, but they are tripe. Be more
careful -- somewhere out there are people making up these sort of crass
falsehoods to deceive people like yourself.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Anubis
2005-08-09 22:12:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:03:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
You seriously want a reply to that?
Peter-

See what I mean.

Britain is filled with leftist queer perverts. Not one person (other
than me) has taken your side on this discussion. Every other bloody
poster is a leftist queer.

When I tell my friends that 50% of the adult males in Britain are
leftist queers, they tell me that I have greatly underestimated. I am
beginning to believe they are correct. It's more like 95%.

It appears that the other Commonwealth countries are no better off.
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
m***@xtra.co.nz
2005-08-09 21:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
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.
WOW Cliff did you really think of that all by yourself? So even the
creator would have to had a creator? Hmmmmm thats pretty good coming
from you Cliff !

Remember Cliff its NOT me who says there was a creator who created the
universe, its your lot. ie The confused mystics who often say things
like, *I often tell people I am certain of nothing*, (that was you
remember) which of course is a lot like saying *the creator created
everything*.
Post by Enkidu
Such an entity can be assumed to
create time also, since time is 'something' if not material.
Time is not a creation Cliff, its just a measurement of motion.
Post by Enkidu
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.
Oh, so when you said *I often tell people I am certain of nothing* you
excluded that statement? ie you are certain that you are uncertain of
everything, so you're not really certain of *nothing* at all? so that
would be a a a contradiction, to say there was nothing you are certain
of, wouldn't it Cliff?

You're getting the hang of this now Cliff, logic is the art of
non-contradicition*


Michael Gordge
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
2005-08-09 22:12:03 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?
Of course it makes more sense if you substitute in this equation..

Information == energy == matter

It was mentioned earlier in the thread. Apparently Einstein come up with it.
On re-reading the previous passage again, inclusive of the substituted
equations, you should find that it clears up any confusion - give or take a
"b" in a marked state.

RJ.
mimus
2005-08-10 16:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
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).
Come to think of it, and I blush to think I forgot about it, a much more
complicated but also much more familiar model might involve the ordinary
mathematical equation "0 = ( a + ( -a ) )"-- which is essentially what I
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 . . . .
Which should've had the words "somehow negative" before "equivalent".

Philosophy on the wing, indeed.
--
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_
m***@xtra.co.nz
2005-08-09 22:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Matter existed. Both atheist and theist presuppose matter because it is
irrational to believe something can come from nothing.
So matter did not need a creator? So the only role of your god was to
give the matter *order*?

Have you talked this idea over with other mystics, because according to
them god made everything out of nothing? Yeah yeah I know that is
weird, but then so is most things mystics believe, eg that she was a
virgin.

So explain the creatures of *matter* no longer in existence, did god
stuff things up a bit?
Post by Peter Watson
I claim the universe was created so I don't see your point....
If the universe needs a creator, then why not the matter it was made
from?

Indeed if your god does not need a creator, then what is your reasoning
for claiming the universe does?

You still haven't defined the creator, rationally.


Michael Gordge
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 23:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Peter Watson
Matter existed. Both atheist and theist presuppose matter because it is
irrational to believe something can come from nothing.
So matter did not need a creator?
Of course it did. Information was the first quality.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
So the only role of your god was to
give the matter *order*?
One role.
The trinity in understandable terms is knowledge (the program hardware)
understanding (the program) and wisdom (the application).
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Have you talked this idea over with other mystics, because according to
them god made everything out of nothing? Yeah yeah I know that is
weird, but then so is most things mystics believe, eg that she was a
virgin.
Yes. Many years ago. I do no consider myself to be a mystic.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
So explain the creatures of *matter* no longer in existence, did god
stuff things up a bit?
You are familiar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Peter Watson
I claim the universe was created so I don't see your point....
If the universe needs a creator, then why not the matter it was made
from?
Agreed.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Indeed if your god does not need a creator, then what is your reasoning
for claiming the universe does?
Because it differentiates the creator from the creation.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
You still haven't defined the creator, rationally.
A mind outside our existence from the point of view that it exists
outside of our references of three dimensions because it does not need
to exist within our three dimensions, yet one which enters in
CO-inherently.

We exist necessarily because the creator created us. The creator simply
exists and did exist and will exist regardless of our three (or if you
include time, four)
dimensions.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Michael Gordge
--
Peter Watson
m***@xtra.co.nz
2005-08-10 09:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
So matter did not need a creator?
Of course it did. Information was the first quality.
Now come on Peter it was a fair question, you're the only mystic I've
talked to who reckons god didn't create everything. You're the only
mystic I know to claim god had *something* to work with.

*Information was the first quality* what does that mean Peter?
Post by Peter Watson
One role.
The trinity in understandable terms is knowledge (the program hardware)
understanding (the program) and wisdom (the application).
Man gains his knowledge through the process of *reason*

Reason is defined as, *the faculty which identifies and intergrates the
material of man's senses* man also can use *experiment* and
*non-contradiction* to determine, or to make the claim, of having
knowledge in a particluar field.

Do you agree?
Post by Peter Watson
.... I do no consider myself to be a mystic.
So there is *sensory evidence* (material which exists, man can see,
touch, feel, smell, hear, indenpendent of thought) for your belief of
there being a creator? If so what is it?
Post by Peter Watson
You are familiar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
In so far as it talks about *evolution*?
Post by Peter Watson
We exist necessarily because the creator created us.
So convince me that is true through the use of *reason* ie the same way
you could convince me that there is a tree in your back garden. Now no
gloating Peter.


Michael Gordge
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 11:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
So matter did not need a creator?
Of course it did. Information was the first quality.
Now come on Peter it was a fair question, you're the only mystic I've
talked to who reckons god didn't create everything.
Let me correct two points. I am not a mystic. God created everything
visible and invisible - except Himself.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
You're the only
mystic I know to claim god had *something* to work with.
I repeat. I am not a mystic. Of course He had information. Look at the
DNA code and the complexity of a single cell. Without information there
is no program; you can see this even in computers.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
*Information was the first quality* what does that mean Peter?
I should have not said quality as I meant it as a noun and not an
adjective

information is necessary for form and matter to have meaning and purpose
so I should have said information is the first pre-requisite.

I give an example

Wilder Smith taught informational Biogenesis
The human body is built and maintained on the basis of coded information
stored in one minute sperm and one ovum. One part of this information
the brain, is the organ from which all thought and planning is derived,
and it is the most complex structure in the entire universe. Yet the
finished human brain must be at least equalled by the complexity of the
genetic simulative planning information storage and retrieval system
that built it. Thus the gene may be even more complex and almost
infinitely more compact than the brain that it built. Modern material
science is completely bankrupt as to the source of the extrinsic
information which programmed our genes - and modern information
technology makes clear the impossibility of such information arising
from chance evolutionary processes.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Peter Watson
One role.
The trinity in understandable terms is knowledge (the program hardware)
understanding (the program) and wisdom (the application).
Man gains his knowledge through the process of *reason*
Yes.
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Reason is defined as, *the faculty which identifies and intergrates the
material of man's senses* man also can use *experiment* and
*non-contradiction* to determine, or to make the claim, of having
knowledge in a particluar field.
Do you agree?
To that which can be known yes. But not all that is, may be known simply
through empiricism. Or to know all that is remains an impossibility but
to know enough................
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Peter Watson
.... I do no consider myself to be a mystic.
So there is *sensory evidence* (material which exists, man can see,
touch, feel, smell, hear, indenpendent of thought) for your belief of
there being a creator? If so what is it?
Flowers, birds feathers, the design of DNA, the human eye, the bumble
bee's ability to fly, the list provided by nature alone is almost
unlimited
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Peter Watson
You are familiar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
In so far as it talks about *evolution*?
In so far as it talks about complex systems moving to simple systems
through decay and entropy
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Post by Peter Watson
We exist necessarily because the creator created us.
So convince me that is true through the use of *reason* ie the same way
you could convince me that there is a tree in your back garden. Now no
gloating Peter.
All around us is created either naturally (the universe) or by man
(tools clothes cars etc.).

Each exhibits design.

You cannot see the air you breathe but it keeps you alive. You can
establish the nature of that air through experimentation.

You cannot see God. No man has ever seen God.

But you can know Him. The only requirement is that the seeker desires
the knowledge with his whole heart and his whole being. This separates
out those who think God is a game to play and those who miss their
cosmic parent.


Heb 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to
God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek him.


You alone can know whether you are sincere or not.

You have to want to know - for the right reasons.


Joh 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and
they are they which testify of me
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Michael Gordge
--
Peter Watson
m***@xtra.co.nz
2005-08-10 21:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Let me correct two points. I am not a mystic.
Does that offend you Peter? Offence is self inflicted Peter, if its not
true then just ignore it.

So is your idea of a god, in reality, anything other than a
*feeling/idea you have about a feeling/idea*?

My point is Peter, given how below you claim you agree that, *reason*
is man's means of gaining his knowledge, that, man *knows* what he
*knows* through processing information from his *senses* (note the *s*
plural eg sometimes man has to use more than his *eyes*) also using
experiment and non-contradiction, then what senses (other than your
eyes) are you using to claim you have *knowledge* about your god idea?

ie IF god was as easy to *know* as you make out, then how come not
everyone *knows* eg I have no trouble *knowing* there's a tree across
the street, and I have no trouble *knowing* that stepping out in front
of speeding busess is a bad idea.
Post by Peter Watson
God created everything
visible and invisible - except Himself.
So what, see above re man must use more than his eyes to *know*
reality?
Post by Peter Watson
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
You're the only
mystic I know to claim god had *something* to work with.
I repeat. I am not a mystic.
The evidence is pretty over-whelming Peter that you are, eg your idea
of there being a god is faith based, ie something you cant see, hear,
feel, touch, smell (if you could Peter then there's every *reason* to
say, that *I* could too) and you cant or haven't yet, given a
non-contradicing definition of your god.
Post by Peter Watson
To that which can be known yes. But not all that is, may be known simply
through empiricism.
Thats why I added the bit about non-contradiction, the identification
and elimination of contradiction, *logic* Peter.
Post by Peter Watson
Flowers, birds feathers, the design of DNA, the human eye, the bumble
bee's ability to fly, the list provided by nature alone is almost
unlimited
So if I said I could turn 1kg of sand into an oz of gold, then all I
would have to show you, to *prove* I could, is show you the gold and
the sand?

Now come on Peter you *know* what I mean.
Post by Peter Watson
You cannot see the air you breathe but it keeps you alive.
Its NOT just my *eyes* I can use to tell me what the air I breath is.
Post by Peter Watson
But you can know Him. The only requirement is that the seeker desires
the knowledge with his whole heart and his whole being.
Um nope, there's a contradiction Peter, YOU claimed you agreed that man
gains his *knowledge* that he *knows what he knows*, through the use of
his sense/s.


Michael Gordge
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
Ford Prefect
2005-08-09 20:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
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.
Answer this then, if a person does not believe in god, but lives a good
life, helps the poor and lame, defends the weak etc.... why would they
be denied a place in your heaven, when a sinner who has spent their
entire life doing the opposite can repent and get in? Seems to me a God
that would allow that is unworthy of worship or belief.
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 21:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
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. .
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.
Answer this then, if a person does not believe in god, but lives a good
life, helps the poor and lame, defends the weak etc.... why would they
be denied a place in your heaven,
Lu 6:33
And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for
sinners also do even the same.


Jas 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit
the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself
unspotted from the world.

1Corintians 4:5
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both
will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make
manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have
praise of God
Post by Ford Prefect
when a sinner who has spent their entire life doing the opposite can
repent and get in?
All men are sinners.
Sinners who repent are saved.
The thief on the cross believed even as he died.

God is not "fooled" by fake repentance. Only God reads the heart; only
He judges.
1Co 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written,
He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Post by Ford Prefect
Seems to me a God that would allow that is unworthy of worship or
belief.
If such a God existed.
--
Peter Watson
Anubis
2005-08-09 22:04:50 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:44:51 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
How sad to consider yourself but an accident of chemistry and physics.
That's what the godless collectivist state does to people - it turns
them into leftist queers, welfare queens and bastard children - all
zombies who consider themselves worthless.

But who am I to disagree - maybe they are worthless. Can you find any
worth in a leftist queer pervert?
BOB
2005-08-09 22:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:44:51 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
How sad to consider yourself but an accident of chemistry and physics.
That's what the godless collectivist state does to people - it turns
them into leftist queers, welfare queens and bastard children - all
zombies who consider themselves worthless.
But who am I to disagree - maybe they are worthless. Can you find any
worth in a leftist queer pervert?
Try doing a little self-evaluation and find out for yourself.
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_
Robert Cohen
2005-08-09 20:28:48 UTC
Permalink
re: Evolution's status

Since this is a political hot potato here in 2005, one is duly
obligated to demagogue, joke, and distort.

Therefore, in the tradition of cynicism & H.L. Menckenism:

10. Evolution is a law, and thus may be amended, revised, discarded,
and interpreted as is the Law of Gravity.

9. Darwin is a Modified Methodist.

8. Herbie Spencer is a nice guy, and also benignly is associated in
Atlanta with
"the curbie" for the sake of sanitation and in a movie for the sake of
Buddy Hackett's memory.

7. A "missing link" may be purchased at Helzberg's or Friedman's.

6. W.J. Bryan lost at least twice, but nevertheless got John Scopes
convicted for teaching it. .

5. Clarence Barrow was allied with Bonnie Darker in the Great Affluent
1930s era, and that's not a theory either.

4.--1. May I not rot in Devolution with the Creation Intelligencia for
these mal-constructivenesses.





7.
Anubis
2005-08-09 22:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Metaphysics is pseudoscience.
Wrong again.

You guys are really quite funny. I don't think I will comment anymore
because I have been thru the atheist bullshit so many times it's
getting to be very boring.
Jambon
2005-08-09 22:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by mimus
Metaphysics is pseudoscience.
Wrong again.
You guys are really quite funny. I don't think I will comment anymore
because I have been thru the atheist bullshit so many times it's
getting to be very boring.
Faith is truth, Science is the enemy.
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 23:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jambon
Post by Anubis
Post by mimus
Metaphysics is pseudoscience.
Wrong again.
You guys are really quite funny. I don't think I will comment anymore
because I have been thru the atheist bullshit so many times it's
getting to be very boring.
Faith is truth, Science is the enemy.
True science and true theology can walk hand in hand without conflict.

Theology is the Queen of sciences.
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-09 23:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Jambon
Post by Anubis
Post by mimus
Metaphysics is pseudoscience.
Wrong again.
You guys are really quite funny. I don't think I will comment anymore
because I have been thru the atheist bullshit so many times it's
getting to be very boring.
Faith is truth, Science is the enemy.
True science and true theology can walk hand in hand without conflict.
Theology is the Queen of sciences.
Theology is the pimp of ignorance
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 00:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Jambon
Post by Anubis
Post by mimus
Metaphysics is pseudoscience.
Wrong again.
You guys are really quite funny. I don't think I will comment anymore
because I have been thru the atheist bullshit so many times it's
getting to be very boring.
Faith is truth, Science is the enemy.
True science and true theology can walk hand in hand without conflict.
Theology is the Queen of sciences.
Theology is the pimp of ignorance
Your reasoning is showing.
--
Peter Watson
Brian Fletcher
2005-08-10 01:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jambon
Post by Anubis
Post by mimus
Metaphysics is pseudoscience.
Wrong again.
You guys are really quite funny. I don't think I will comment anymore
because I have been thru the atheist bullshit so many times it's
getting to be very boring.
Faith is truth, Science is the enemy.
Then it is time for you to see your enemy as your friend.

Bearing in mind a good friend is appreciated for what he/she is, not
necessarily understood.
Paul Hyett
2005-08-10 08:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by mimus
Metaphysics is pseudoscience.
Wrong again.
Quite right - it is in fact total bullshit.
Post by Anubis
You guys are really quite funny. I don't think I will comment anymore
because I have been thru the atheist bullshit so many times it's
getting to be very boring.
Can I have that in writing? :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Anubis
2005-08-10 13:49:31 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:07:46 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
Post by mimus
Metaphysics is pseudoscience.
Wrong again.
Quite right - it is in fact total bullshit.
Then so is physics.

Metaphysics is the science of Being.

You do exist, don't you? You want to know what it means to exist,
don't you? Well, according to you, existence including yours, is
"total bullshit".

Maybe you are right - in your case. :-)
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
You guys are really quite funny. I don't think I will comment anymore
because I have been thru the atheist bullshit so many times it's
getting to be very boring.
Can I have that in writing? :)
Just watch.
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_
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 21:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.

God destroyed the world.

8 humans were saved.


What goes around comes around.

Watch Mars on August 27th., Signs in the heavens and on the earth and
all that - tsunamis, earthquakes and stellar shows.
Post by mimus
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.
I see you've read it. And the rainbow has been hijacked by all sorts of
weirdo and queer organizations.
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-09 22:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-09 23:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
**Despite overwhelming evidence, Fundies don't believe in genetics.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Ford Prefect
2005-08-09 23:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
**Despite overwhelming evidence, Fundies don't believe in genetics.
Maybe in their own case they are right, the limited genetic pool of the
original 8 has affected their ability to tell the difference between
fact and fantasy.
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-10 00:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
**Despite overwhelming evidence, Fundies don't believe in genetics.
Maybe in their own case they are right, the limited genetic pool of the
original 8 has affected their ability to tell the difference between fact
and fantasy.
**Nah. It's far more sinister than that. The Fundies are controlled by
people like the AiG group. These guys are pure evil. They've found a bunch
of (really dumb) people who are easy to control and they just extract all
the cash they can from them. Like most things in life, it's about the money.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Anubis
2005-08-10 14:16:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:34:50 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Maybe in their own case they are right, the limited genetic pool of the
original 8 has affected their ability to tell the difference between
fact and fantasy.
The same is true of atheists.

An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.

"Who made this?", asked the atheist.

"No one", replied Newton.

"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.

"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-10 16:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:34:50 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Maybe in their own case they are right, the limited genetic pool of the
original 8 has affected their ability to tell the difference between
fact and fantasy.
The same is true of atheists.
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
And this story proves what? That Newton was a liar? If Newton had not
made the machine himself and did not know who the maker was his answer
should have been "I don't know, but now you mention it let's find out"
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 17:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:34:50 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Maybe in their own case they are right, the limited genetic pool of
the original 8 has affected their ability to tell the difference
between fact and fantasy.
The same is true of atheists.
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
And this story proves what? That Newton was a liar? If Newton had not
made the machine himself and did not know who the maker was his answer
should have been "I don't know, but now you mention it let's find out"
And God puts the world and the stars in the heavens to your sight and
senses, the birds trees and sunsets and you say it just happened.

Why not let's find out?
--
Peter Watson
BOB
2005-08-10 18:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:34:50 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Maybe in their own case they are right, the limited genetic pool of
the original 8 has affected their ability to tell the difference
between fact and fantasy.
The same is true of atheists.
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
And this story proves what? That Newton was a liar? If Newton had not
made the machine himself and did not know who the maker was his answer
should have been "I don't know, but now you mention it let's find out"
And God puts the world and the stars in the heavens to your sight and
senses, the birds trees and sunsets and you say it just happened.
Why not let's find out?
Science says, "I don't know but let's find out".

Religion says, "The buy-bull says it's so so it must be so".
Ford Prefect
2005-08-10 18:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:34:50 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Maybe in their own case they are right, the limited genetic pool of
the original 8 has affected their ability to tell the difference
between fact and fantasy.
The same is true of atheists.
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
And this story proves what? That Newton was a liar? If Newton had not
made the machine himself and did not know who the maker was his answer
should have been "I don't know, but now you mention it let's find out"
And God puts the world and the stars in the heavens to your sight and
senses, the birds trees and sunsets and you say it just happened.
Why not let's find out?
That's what science does, look for answers. Religion says God did it,
ask no questions. If you believe that doctrine you might just as well
cash your chips in now and get the suffering over with.
AlanG
2005-08-10 16:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:34:50 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Maybe in their own case they are right, the limited genetic pool of the
original 8 has affected their ability to tell the difference between
fact and fantasy.
The same is true of atheists.
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
You claim to be a manufactured item like a car?
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 17:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlanG
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:34:50 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Maybe in their own case they are right, the limited genetic pool of the
original 8 has affected their ability to tell the difference between
fact and fantasy.
The same is true of atheists.
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
You claim to be a manufactured item like a car?
Designed like one



not manufactured

and by a better designer


http://www.diakrisis.org/
--
Peter Watson
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-10 19:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by AlanG
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:34:50 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Maybe in their own case they are right, the limited genetic pool of the
original 8 has affected their ability to tell the difference between
fact and fantasy.
The same is true of atheists.
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
You claim to be a manufactured item like a car?
Designed like one
not manufactured
and by a better designer
**Really? Why did this designer of yours put an appendix into your body? Why
are 99% of your genes useless? What is their purpose? Why did your designer
ensure that a proportion of the population would be born with deformities?
Why do some humans go bald? Why did your designer ensure that some children
are born with haemophilia, leading to a most unpleasant, short life? Why did
your designer make humans susceptible to cancer? Why do some humans develop
multiple sclerosis? Why do women stop producing eggs, but men continue to
produce sperm? Why do many humans develop arthritis? What kind of designer
makes these kinds of mistakes?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Anubis
2005-08-10 20:47:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:13:54 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
99% of your genes useless
**Prove it.
Anubis
2005-08-10 14:14:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:22:41 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
Despite overwhelming evidence, Fundies don't believe in genetics.
Despite overwhelming evidence, Atheists don't believe in physics.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-10 15:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:22:41 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
Despite overwhelming evidence, Fundies don't believe in genetics.
Despite overwhelming evidence, Atheists don't believe in physics.
What a mentally challenged statement. Atheists, like the rest of the
population all have their own personal beliefs, there is no doctrine
or dogma that states they must not believe in physics, eat cream cheese
or fear apple sauce.
Anubis
2005-08-10 16:42:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:58:13 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Anubis
Post by Trevor Wilson
Despite overwhelming evidence, Fundies don't believe in genetics.
Despite overwhelming evidence, Atheists don't believe in physics.
What a mentally challenged statement.
That's because you are a mentallt challenged person.
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists, like the rest of the
population all have their own personal beliefs, there is no doctrine
or dogma that states they must not believe in physics, eat cream cheese
or fear apple sauce.
Fundamentalists, like the rest of the
population all have their own personal beliefs, there is no doctrine
or dogma that states they must not believe in genetics, eat cream
cheese or fear apple sauce.

However, atheists believe that God does not exist, which means that
they do not believe in physics. No doctrine or dogma involved.
mimus
2005-08-10 17:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
However, atheists believe that God does not exist, which means that
they do not believe in physics. No doctrine or dogma involved.
I'm sure the Soviet and Chinese nuclear physicists would've been surprised
to hear that.
--
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
2005-08-10 17:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:58:13 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Anubis
Post by Trevor Wilson
Despite overwhelming evidence, Fundies don't believe in genetics.
Despite overwhelming evidence, Atheists don't believe in physics.
What a mentally challenged statement.
That's because you are a mentallt challenged person.
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists, like the rest of the
population all have their own personal beliefs, there is no doctrine
or dogma that states they must not believe in physics, eat cream cheese
or fear apple sauce.
Fundamentalists, like the rest of the
population all have their own personal beliefs, there is no doctrine
or dogma that states they must not believe in genetics, eat cream
cheese or fear apple sauce.
I did not make the statement regarding genetics and "fundies"
Post by Anubis
However, atheists believe that God does not exist, which means that
they do not believe in physics. No doctrine or dogma involved.
Wrong, Atheists do not believe in "Gods" or superstition. One can
believe that nano particles can be given magnetic properties by simply
adding table salt and heat or gravity makes things fall down without
belief in a supernatural being.
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-10 19:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:58:13 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Anubis
Post by Trevor Wilson
Despite overwhelming evidence, Fundies don't believe in genetics.
Despite overwhelming evidence, Atheists don't believe in physics.
What a mentally challenged statement.
That's because you are a mentallt challenged person.
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists, like the rest of the
population all have their own personal beliefs, there is no doctrine
or dogma that states they must not believe in physics, eat cream cheese
or fear apple sauce.
Fundamentalists, like the rest of the
population all have their own personal beliefs, there is no doctrine
or dogma that states they must not believe in genetics, eat cream
cheese or fear apple sauce.
However, atheists believe that God does not exist, which means that
they do not believe in physics.
**Really? How do you figure that? How does the notion of the existence of a
supernatural creature fit into the present knowledge of physics?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Anubis
2005-08-10 20:47:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:05:40 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
How does the notion of the existence of a
supernatural creature fit into the present knowledge of physics?
How does the notion of genetics fit into the present knowledge of
fundamentalist creation?
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-10 19:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:22:41 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
Despite overwhelming evidence, Fundies don't believe in genetics.
Despite overwhelming evidence, Atheists don't believe in physics.
**Prove it.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Anubis
2005-08-10 20:46:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:04:16 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Anubis
Post by Trevor Wilson
Despite overwhelming evidence, Fundies don't believe in genetics.
Despite overwhelming evidence, Atheists don't believe in physics.
**Prove it.
First prove that fundies do not believe in genetics.
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 23:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-09 23:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
Even more so then because they came from a small community.
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 00:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
Even more so then because they came from a small community.
Mankind came from one pair of humans.
--
Peter Watson
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-10 00:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
Even more so then because they came from a small community.
Mankind came from one pair of humans.
**Prove it.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 11:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
Even more so then because they came from a small community.
Mankind came from one pair of humans.
**Prove it.
Ge 3:20
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all
living,


and he the father -

now you prove mankind did not come from one pair of humans.
--
Peter Watson
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-10 18:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
Even more so then because they came from a small community.
Mankind came from one pair of humans.
**Prove it.
Ge 3:20
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all
living,
and he the father -
now you prove mankind did not come from one pair of humans.
**Very good. Now prove that mankind came from one pair of humans.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Wally Anglesea™
2005-08-10 21:35:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:55:18 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
Even more so then because they came from a small community.
Mankind came from one pair of humans.
**Prove it.
Ge 3:20
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all
living,
The opening verses of the Old Testament aren't a history or science
book. They are not meant to be.

Besides, Why do you discount the opening creation mythology of the
ancient Phoenicians, the ba-benzele pygmy's, or the Polynesian or
Australian Aboriginal dreamtime myths?
Post by Peter Watson
and he the father -
now you prove mankind did not come from one pair of humans.
A single mating pair would be genetically invalid. It's shown in
nature almost every day, and look at the history of European royal
families inbreeding during the 1700's to the 21st century

--

Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
Ford Prefect
2005-08-10 02:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
Even more so then because they came from a small community.
Mankind came from one pair of humans.
As far as we know modern mankind came from a african female, she was not
the only one, it's just her matriarchal line of DNA is the only one that
has survived to this day.
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-09 23:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
**Prove it. In your proof, feel free to draw upon all the available
knowledge of genetics.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 00:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
**Prove it. In your proof, feel free to draw upon all the available
knowledge of genetics.
Genetics in 2005 is different than that before the flood.
--
Peter Watson
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-10 00:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
**Prove it. In your proof, feel free to draw upon all the available
knowledge of genetics.
Genetics in 2005 is different than that before the flood.
**Prove it.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 11:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
**Prove it. In your proof, feel free to draw upon all the available
knowledge of genetics.
Genetics in 2005 is different than that before the flood.
**Prove it.
Before the flood Methusaleh lived to 965 years of age

after the flood the lifespan of man reduced to what is now an average of
70

three score years and ten

the reduction was due to alteration of the DNA of man due to solar rays
which passed directly onto the earth and were no longer filtered by the
vapor canopy.


Now you prove that did not happen.
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-10 12:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
**Prove it. In your proof, feel free to draw upon all the available
knowledge of genetics.
Genetics in 2005 is different than that before the flood.
**Prove it.
Before the flood Methusaleh lived to 965 years of age
after the flood the lifespan of man reduced to what is now an average of 70
three score years and ten
the reduction was due to alteration of the DNA of man due to solar rays
which passed directly onto the earth and were no longer filtered by the
vapor canopy.
Now you prove that did not happen.
When did this flood occur? There is no geological record of a world wide
flood happening.
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-10 18:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
**Prove it. In your proof, feel free to draw upon all the available
knowledge of genetics.
Genetics in 2005 is different than that before the flood.
**Prove it.
Before the flood Methusaleh lived to 965 years of age
**Procve it.
Post by Peter Watson
after the flood the lifespan of man reduced to what is now an average of
70
three score years and ten
the reduction was due to alteration of the DNA of man due to solar rays
which passed directly onto the earth and were no longer filtered by the
vapor canopy.
**Prove it.
Post by Peter Watson
Now you prove that did not happen.
**Human DNA has not altered significantly in 100,000 years or so. Therefore,
the maximum lifespan of a human 100,000 years ago, is about the same as it
is today.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Ford Prefect
2005-08-10 02:28:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
**Prove it. In your proof, feel free to draw upon all the available
knowledge of genetics.
Genetics in 2005 is different than that before the flood.
No, it's not. To date we can trace the same line of DNA back 200,000
years to when Noah's most distant ancestor was still a gleam in his
daddy's eye.
Peter Watson
2005-08-10 11:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by mimus
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,
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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
**Prove it. In your proof, feel free to draw upon all the available
knowledge of genetics.
Genetics in 2005 is different than that before the flood.
No, it's not. To date we can trace the same line of DNA back 200,000
years to when Noah's most distant ancestor was still a gleam in his
daddy's eye.
The Maker's mark eh?

No evolutionary punctuated equilibrium there then.
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-10 12:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Trevor Wilson
Post by Peter Watson
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Peter Watson
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, 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.
Makes perfect sense. Man went off the rails.
God destroyed the world.
8 humans were saved.
Which as we now know is not enough of gene pool to create a viable
population.
It might not be now. It was then.
**Prove it. In your proof, feel free to draw upon all the available
knowledge of genetics.
Genetics in 2005 is different than that before the flood.
No, it's not. To date we can trace the same line of DNA back 200,000
years to when Noah's most distant ancestor was still a gleam in his
daddy's eye.
The Maker's mark eh?
No evolutionary punctuated equilibrium there then.
And it proves your statement wrong, Noah's DNA was the same, unless he
was a neanderthal.
Peter Watson
2005-08-09 21:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
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.
Such as?
--
Peter Watson
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...